Is the Son eternal?

[Iron_Bladder]

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.

[Digging4Truth]

God has dealt with and spoken to His people over the centuries via many vessels & manifestations.

He was manifest in the burning bush.
He was manifest in the cloud by day.
He was manifest in the fire by night.
He was manifest in the flesh by the begotten man Jesus Christ.

None of these manifestations are eternal yet all of them are manifestations of the eternal God.

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God (the eternal one) was in Christ (the vessel which had beginning and ending), reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

God... the eternal, invisible God... was IN Christ... the begotten vessel who was born (had a beginning) and experienced death (Had an end)...

The vessel was not eternal but the eternal was in the vessel.

[Chan]

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.But is it as the Son that Jesus is divine or is it as the logos (memra, word, divine expression) that Jesus is divine. The Son was begotten and that, in itself, necessitates that there was a beginning. Let us not do what so many of the Nicene fathers and subsequent church fathers did: confuse Jesus' humanity with His being God. What I mean by this is their kind of argument where since Jesus is divine and being divine necessitates being eternal, then he must be eternally begotten since Jesus is divine.

[Praxeas]

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?
I've explained this to you dozens and dozens of times and you either don't get it or just don't WANT to get it. You don't have to agree with me, but at least be honest about what we believe.

So let me ask you here a rhetorical question in order to address this issue...
Has George Bush ALWAYS been the President of the United States? The honest intelligent answer is no. Does that mean the PERSON George Bush did not exist until he became president? Of course not. That is a logical impossibility. The PERSON George Bush must exist in order to become the President

So to, in Oneness, Yahweh the God that created everything has always existed. HE became the Son at the incarnation when He united a Human nature to His own Person. Thus the Son is Yahweh HIMSELF (person) who has the Divine nature, hypostatically united with a Human nature. The Son then is not a mere man, someone other than God, in whom God was.

The Son is Yahweh Himself taking on a human form, adding a human nature. The Son therefore is not another person from God


For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.
You have a logical problem here....you claim in absolute terms God can't change by becoming the Son...therefore you MUST logically and honestly conclude God also could not become that Man, Christ Jesus. Yet you would not deny the Trinitarian doctrine that God was incarnate.

God HIMSELF did not change by becoming the Son. He remained the same. His person and Divine nature was unchanged. Additionally you are misusing this verse, which you know full well already because you have agreed with me before. This verse is about changing His word or promises. Read the context and you will see His not changing has to do with his Promises to Israel. God can not lie....that is what this is about. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with taking on a different form, or nature.

Otherwise this was violated with all the theophanies

[Iron_Bladder]

God has dealt with and spoken to His people over the centuries via many vessels & manifestations.

He was manifest in the burning bush.
He was manifest in the cloud by day.
He was manifest in the fire by night.
He was manifest in the flesh by the begotten man Jesus Christ.

None of these manifestations are eternal yet all of them are manifestations of the eternal God.



God... the eternal, invisible God... was IN Christ... the begotten vessel who was born (had a beginning) and experienced death (Had an end)...

The vessel was not eternal but the eternal was in the vessel.



Digging thanks for yoru reply, but you've avoided my question which was specifically this - IS THE SON ETERNAL? I'd be grateful if you've tell me if you affirm that the Son is etenral and that as the Son he had no beginning, or do you claim that either God became the Son or that God indwelt a man who was created at Bethlehem or some other viewpoint.

My question is speecificaly focused upon the SON and not upon the Father. So if you should believe that Jesus is God the Father, then telling me that Jesus (by which you mean God the Father) is eternal, then that would really be an avoidance of my question.

[Iron_Bladder]

God has dealt with and spoken to His people over the centuries via many vessels & manifestations.

He was manifest in the burning bush.
He was manifest in the cloud by day.
He was manifest in the fire by night.
He was manifest in the flesh by the begotten man Jesus Christ.

None of these manifestations are eternal yet all of them are manifestations of the eternal God.



God... the eternal, invisible God... was IN Christ... the begotten vessel who was born (had a beginning) and experienced death (Had an end)...

The vessel was not eternal but the eternal was in the vessel.




Digging has quoted 2nd Corinthians 5:19, I'd like to reply to this specific verse if I might please.

Concerning 2nd Corinthians 5:19, the KJV translation is inaccurate here and the actual Greek text reads completely differently namely; “That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sin against them” 2nd Corinthians 5:19, NIV. So this verse is simply stating, that the Father has reconciled us to himself, through Christ’s redemptive work upon the cross. So the Son is certainly the propitiation for our sins, and he is also our advocate to God the Father (1st John 2:1-2). But this verse does not make the Father the propitiation for sin, together with the Son. So Jesus Christ, who is the Son (2nd John 3), is alone the propitiation for sin (see also Galatians 2:20). Now because the Son and not the Father died for sins, the Son now intercedes to the Father, on our behalf (Hebrews 7:25).

I don't think that it is wise to base an entire doctrine upon one faulty KJV rendering, as some have done with 2nd Corinthians 5:19. Our doctrine should be based upon clear and obvious translations, please consider 2nd Corinthians 5:19 in the following other translations:

“That God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,” NIV.
“Our message is that God was making friends of all men through Christ.” TEV.
“That is in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.” RSV.
“All this is God's doing, for he has reconciled himself to us through Christ.” Phillips.
“To whit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” KJV.

So my point to digging for truth would be that we should never base any doctrine upon one verse, and certainly never upon one single verse, which is dubiously translated in a single version such as the King James Version. I certainly do concede that the Father does indeed indwell the Son, from passages such as Hebrews 1:3, John 14:9 and 10. But to argue that God’s indwelling of Christ logically implies that Christ is other than the one who indwells him, namely God is fallacious. So the argument that “God was in Christ,” makes Christ out to be non-deity, in whom deity then chooses to indwell is false. Possibly digging coukld address this accusation of mine.

If he or anyone else here in thsi forum should beleive this, and I don't know yet, which is why I'm asking this qquestion, then that would be an outright denial of Christ’s (the Son’s deity). However, it is an extremely popular argument, often used by some Oneness people, who would claim that the “Sonship” is the flesh of Jesus, and that the Father is the deity of Jesus. I would argue in response to this claim, that the Father does indeed indwell Jesus (Son), but I would not say that “God” indwells Jesus, because this claim consequently implies that because God cannot indwell himself, therefore the Son has to be someone or something other than God in whom God then chooses to reside.

[Iron_Bladder]

You have a logical problem here....you claim in absolute terms God can't change by becoming the Son...therefore you MUST logically and honestly conclude God also could not become that Man, Christ Jesus. Yet you would not deny the Trinitarian doctrine that God was incarnate.




You misunderstand the Trinitarian creeds, which state that Christ (Son) took on flesh, to my knowledge, no Trinitarian creed or scholar claims that he became flesh for if he did then he changed which is why we don't bevlei that. His deity always remained completely unchanged when he took on flesh, amd as god is not flesh, taking on a blody of flesh in the hypostatic union didn't affect his deity.

[Digging4Truth]

Digging thanks for yoru reply, but you've avoided my question which was specifically this - IS THE SON ETERNAL? I'd be grateful if you've tell me if you affirm that the Son is etenral and that as the Son he had no beginning, or do you claim that either God became the Son or that God indwelt a man who was created at Bethlehem or some other viewpoint.

My question is speecificaly focused upon the SON and not upon the Father. So if you should believe that Jesus is God the Father, then telling me that Jesus (by which you mean God the Father) is eternal, then that would really be an avoidance of my question.

The son was not eternal.

The eternal was IN the Son. (To wit, God was IN Christ...)

I do not believe that Jesus was God the Father.

I believe that God the Father was IN Christ.

God was in the vessel.

The vessel was not God.

God indwelt a man who was begotten of a woman.

There was no attempt to avoid your question. I was answering what I saw your post to be asking whether than answer the subject line.

I hope this answers your questions as to where I stand.

[Chan]

Digging thanks for yoru reply, but you've avoided my question which was specifically this - IS THE SON ETERNAL? I'd be grateful if you've tell me if you affirm that the Son is etenral and that as the Son he had no beginning, or do you claim that either God became the Son or that God indwelt a man who was created at Bethlehem or some other viewpoint.

My question is speecificaly focused upon the SON and not upon the Father. So if you should believe that Jesus is God the Father, then telling me that Jesus (by which you mean God the Father) is eternal, then that would really be an avoidance of my question.But what do you mean by "the Son"? Do you mean some sort of divine entity that is someone other than the one God, the Father that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan says we believe in? Do you mean the man Christ Jesus? Do you mean the logos of John 1 (the memra or divine expression)?

[Chan]

You misunderstand the Trinitarian creeds, which state that Christ (Son) took on flesh, to my knowledge, no Trinitarian creed or scholar claims that he became flesh for if he did then he changed which is why we don't bevlei that. His deity always remained completely unchanged when he took on flesh, amd as god is not flesh, taking on a blody of flesh in the hypostatic union didn't affect his deity.Consider the following excerpt from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man

[Praxeas]

You misunderstand the Trinitarian creeds, which state that Christ (Son) took on flesh, to my knowledge, no Trinitarian creed or scholar claims that he became flesh for if he did then he changed which is why we don't bevlei that. His deity always remained completely unchanged when he took on flesh, amd as god is not flesh, taking on a blody of flesh in the hypostatic union didn't affect his deity.
You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!

You misunderstand Oneness. WE don't teach God changed. HE remains the same. He only TOOK on flesh.

Let me ask you...has Christ been the Great High Priest eternally? Or did he become that?

[Iron_Bladder]

You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!

You misunderstand Oneness. WE don't teach God changed. HE remains the same. He only TOOK on flesh.

Let me ask you...has Christ been the Great High Priest eternally? Or did he become that?




1. Adding humanity isn't change or an addition to God, for being infinite God (in his deity) is separate from humanity and that despite the hypostatic union between the Son's two natures. Furthermore, you can't add to an infinite being, so God taking on flesh, doesn't affect or alter his deity.

2. Yes you do teach that God changed, for you believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit arn't God but are mere manifestations of God, some Oneness folk though not the majority would make these manifestations impersonal. Malachi 3:6 teaches; 'For I am God I change NOT.' But you claim that God changes into various manifestions and that as the Son, this manifestation of God is without any divine attributes. So the Son in Oneness is created at his birth, therefore he isn't immutible, Omnipresent or Omnipotent etc in Oneness being mutible and a part of the creation as in Unitarianism, Mormonism and the Watchtower cults.

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

[Praxeas]

1. Adding humanity isn't change or an addition to God, for being infinite God (in his deity) is separate from humanity and that despite the hypostatic union between the Son's two natures. Furthermore, you can't add to an infinite being, so God taking on flesh, doesn't affect or alter his deity.

Look Robert, that is exactly what WE believe. We believe God's Infinite being did NOT change. His deity was not altered, therefore your argument is a false argument. it is a strawman argument which you so typically resort to

2. Yes you do teach that God changed, for you believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit arn't God but are mere manifestations of God, some Oneness folk though not the majority would make these manifestations impersonal.
If you keep telling me I don't believe something I do believe or I believe something I do not believe, i am going to boot your ironbladder right out of here. If you do that with others I am going to boot you out of here. This is not your forum. You can get your own forum and lie about what others say all you want, but you will not do it here like you did on NFCF.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE God. God IS Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God DID not change when He was hypostatically united with the Human nature. You are equivocating. You say God did not change when you believe there was a hypostatic union, but when a Oneness person says the same thing you lie about what they believe.

Malachi 3:6 teaches; 'For I am God I change NOT.' But you claim that God changes into various manifestions and that as the Son, this manifestation of God is without any divine attributes. So the Son in Oneness is created at his birth, therefore he isn't immutible, Omnipresent or Omnipotent etc in Oneness being mutible and a part of the creation as in Unitarianism, Mormonism and the Watchtower cults.
First of all, God being manifested does not mean he changes. When a Onenes person says manifested he or she very well refers to what you said in the first sentence about the hypostatic untion. When a Oneness person speaks of manifestations he or she does NOT mean God's Deity was altered in any way.

Second, you once again totally ignored my argument AND the context of Mal 3. What you are doing is isolating Mal 3:6 from the context. The verse refers to his promises to israel and is reinterated in hebrews where the author declares the immutabilty of God's counsel

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

[Praxeas]

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.
Exactly! yet you don't say God changed. You do believe Christ is God right?

We believe God became the Son....God did NOT change He only ADDED a human nature. He was hypostatically united with a Human nature.

Robert, did God become a man? Is the Son a man? Did the Son become a man?

[Iron_Bladder]

You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!



In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh. As for you, your position is classic subordinationism, for you belevie that Christ is the flesh! This is why Oneness folk refer to God as the 'Almighty God IN Christ' you see Oneness denies the truth that Christ IS the ALmighty God and instead makes him the spirit/deity inside the flesh/Christ/humanity. This is classic subordinationism.

[Chan]

In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh. As for you, your position is classic subordinationism, for you belevie that Christ is the flesh! This is why Oneness folk refer to God as the 'Almighty God IN Christ' you see Oneness denies the truth that Christ IS the ALmighty God and instead makes him the spirit/deity inside the flesh/Christ/humanity. This is classic subordinationism.
Nestorius accused Cyril (that spawn of Satan) and the Church of mixing, commingling, etc. the two natures. The Church was referring to Mary as the mother of God (theotokos) and Nestorius objected, saying that Mary was the mother of Christ (christokos) but not the mother of God, since Jesus did not derive any of His divinity from Mary.

While there is, indeed, hypostatic union between Jesus' two natures, the Church's position was one of error because it intermixed, commingled, etc. the two natures (thus, they had God dying on the cross, God suffering, etc.). Cyril, after being challenged on this by Nestorius, falsely accused him of saying Jesus was two persons (hypostases), which Nestorius denied. As for oneness folks referring to "Almighty God IN Christ," the Bible refers to God in Christ on more than one occasion and even says that all the fullness of deity dwelled bodily in Christ.

A more correct view is expressed in the following Christological statement:

But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies* of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving - in regard to the union of the parsopa^ of our Savior - the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486).

*I don't agree with the use of "copies" here and it is not clear what is meant by it.

^Aramaic for the Greek word prosopa, which is the plural of prosopon - the word used by the Church for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually until Cyril (that spawn of Satan) insisted that the Church must use the term "hypostasis" individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Cyril claimed that using prosopon was too close to Sabellianism). The English equivalent of prosopon is "persona" (which is the same as the Latin equivalent of the Greek prosopon) while one English equivalent of hypostasis is "person." (Note that Hebrews 1:3 uses for God's "person").

[Praxeas]

In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh.
Right and that is what OPs believe happened with God HIMSELF was Hypostatically united with a Human nature. HE and HIS Deity were unchanged. All that happened is the Human nature was united to His Person. He was genuinely a man, while His deity remained the same.

[Iron_Bladder]

I've explained this to you dozens and dozens of times and you either don't get it or just don't WANT to get it. You don't have to agree with me, but at least be honest about what we believe.

So let me ask you here a rhetorical question in order to address this issue...
Has George Bush ALWAYS been the President of the United States? The honest intelligent answer is no. Does that mean the PERSON George Bush did not exist until he became president? Of course not. That is a logical impossibility. The PERSON George Bush must exist in order to become the President

So to, in Oneness, Yahweh the God that created everything has always existed. HE became the Son at the incarnation when He united a Human nature to His own Person. Thus the Son is Yahweh HIMSELF (person) who has the Divine nature, hypostatically united with a Human nature. The Son then is not a mere man, someone other than God, in whom God was.

The Son is Yahweh Himself taking on a human form, adding a human nature. The Son therefore is not another person from God


You have a logical problem here....you claim in absolute terms God can't change by becoming the Son...therefore you MUST logically and honestly conclude God also could not become that Man, Christ Jesus. Yet you would not deny the Trinitarian doctrine that God was incarnate.

God HIMSELF did not change by becoming the Son. He remained the same. His person and Divine nature was unchanged. Additionally you are misusing this verse, which you know full well already because you have agreed with me before. This verse is about changing His word or promises. Read the context and you will see His not changing has to do with his Promises to Israel. God can not lie....that is what this is about. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with taking on a different form, or nature.

Otherwise this was violated with all the theophanies




Some of your criticism of my use of Malachi 3:6 are valid. I revised my Malachi 3:6 post last night, however for some strange reason i can't find it on my memory stick! I agree that the primary meaning of this verse is that God's promises to Israel (sons of Judah) are permanent. I would still see this imutibility as reflecting his own divine immutuibility, but I'll try to post my revised post as asap.

[Praxeas]

Some of your criticism of my use of Malachi 3:6 are valid. I revised my Malachi 3:6 post last night, however for some strange reason i can't find it on my memory stick! I agree that the primary meaning of this verse is that God's promises to Israel (sons of Judah) are permanent. I would still see this imutibility as reflecting his own divine immutuibility, but I'll try to post my revised post as asap.
That's still beside the point. In Oneness we do not see His Deity having made a change. We ONLY see Humanity being added to Him. He, as the Son, has two natures now. He in His Deity did not change

[Iron_Bladder]

L
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE God. God IS Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God DID not change when He was hypostatically united with the Human nature. You are equivocating. You say God did not change when you believe there was a hypostatic union, but when a Oneness person says the same thing you lie about what they believe.




You use the word 'God' in a duplicitious manner just as a JW, Mormon or Christadelphian uses the word. So you say that the Son is God, but then you deny that he's an eternal Son, you deny that the Son is imutible but beleive that he becasme the Son, and also deny that the Son is creator, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The above mentioned three cults do much the same thing, in that like you they'll call the Son God, but then deny that as the Son he possesses divine attributes and apply these divine attributes to the only God they (like you believe in) namely God the Father.

So a Mormon will say that Jesus is God, but then admit if cornered that jesus is a created man whose not become a God. JW's will admit that Jesus is the 'mighty God' but this is a meaningless term, as it's really the Almighty God (Jehovah) who possesses divine attributes in JW theology.

For you Praxeas, the only real God who possesses divine attributes is the Father who indwells the flesh or Son, therfore the term; the Almighty God in Christ. You see you do call the Son .... God, but he isn't deity at all in yoru theology, I can prove this as you deny that the Son is an eternal Son, creator, omnipresent and omnipotent (as the Son). It's the Father whom you call 'Jesus' or 'Holy Spirit' who is the real God and who possesses divine attributes in your theology.

One day you'll answer for this denial of the Son's deity, at your judgement.

[Iron_Bladder]

That's still beside the point. In Oneness we do not see His Deity having made a change. We ONLY see Humanity being added to Him. He, as the Son, has two natures now. He in His Deity did not change




What are these two natures of the Son and what are they called?

1) Is it Father and Son

2) Son and Son

3) Father and Father?

if you reply (1), hthen ow can the nature of the Son be called the Father? As that woul;d make the Son the father, something which is contrary to both Oneness and also to Trinitarian theologies.

[Chan]

What are these two natures of the Son and what are they called?

1) Is it Father and Son

2) Son and Son

3) Father and Father?

if you reply (1), hthen ow can the nature of the Son be called the Father? As that woul;d make the Son the father, something which is contrary to both Oneness and also to Trinitarian theologies.Divine and human!

[Iron_Bladder]

Divine and human!



OK, so what do you call jesus' divine side and what do you call his human side?

[Iron_Bladder]

Here is that revised post on Malachi 3:6, which I changed after Praxeas pointed out a mistake.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6, KJV).

This chapter deals from verse one, with God's specific prophecy concerning the messenger (John the Baptist) who will precede himself; the Messiah. It’s a message to Israel which is why verse six is addressed to the ‘Sons of Jacob.’ He then goes onto explain his future judgements upon the wicked in verses two to five. Nevertheless, this statement about his not changing in verse six, must to some extent refer to his own essential being and not just specifically to his covenantal promises with Israel. For although these covenantal promises with Israel are certainly the main focus of the unchangeableness of Malachi 3:6, this steadfastness of his promises comes from the immutability of his own nature.

So God’s assurance to us at Malachi 3:5 is that because he is an immutable being, who cannot change, learn or grow in wisdom and understanding just as we do. Therefore his promise of a Messiah (verse 1), and future punishment of the wicked (verses 2-5), is absolutely assured, because the actions and prophecies of such an immutable being would always be completely secure and trustworthy. So God is telling us at Malachi 3:6, that we can trust him and rely upon his promises, because an unchanging God’s words and prophecies (re verses 1-5), will always come to pass exactly as he states them. So God’s word, which in this case is his covenantal promises with Israel are unchanging, because he himself is an immutable God.

[Praxeas]

What are these two natures of the Son and what are they called?

1) Is it Father and Son

2) Son and Son

3) Father and Father?

if you reply (1), hthen ow can the nature of the Son be called the Father? As that woul;d make the Son the father, something which is contrary to both Oneness and also to Trinitarian theologies.
Humanity and Deity.

[Chan]

OK, so what do you call jesus' divine side and what do you call his human side?Jesus' divinity is divinity and His humanity is humanity. Since I believe in hypostatic union, I call the One in whom the two natures are in union "Jesus."

[Praxeas]

Jesus' divinity is divinity and His humanity is humanity. Since I believe in hypostatic union, I call the One in whom the two natures are in union "Jesus."
Trust me Chancellor, this does not get any better. He will be like this all the way through to the end of the story

[Iron_Bladder]

Humanity and Deity.

OK what do you call the Humanity and what do you call the deity? Is one the Father and the other the Son or are they both the Father or are neither of them the Father and the Son.

[mfblume]

OK what do you call the Humanity and what do you call the deity?

You are still missing the point we are making as evidenced by the way you are asking this question.

Is one the Father and the other the Son or are they both the Father or are neither of them the Father and the Son.

Deity is part and parcel with the PERSON for eternity. But the person did not take to Himself humanity until the incarnation. Deity was not taken upon the Person of God since His person always possessed deity. But He did take upon Himself humanity when He BECAME SON in the incarnation, indicating the Son is not eternal. We do not CALL the humanity the Son, but the humanity is something the SON possesses.

Like I said, an apple has the nature of being red. Do we call "red" an apple?

We call the humanity the quality that God took upon Himself in incarnation. One cannot call the humanity anything such as "Son" or "Father" because the issue of natures does not relate at all to such a thought in that manner at all. Your error in thinking is found in a comparison, so you get my point, in saying something absurd such as "My dog has the nature of Rover." That makes no sense. Similarly it makes no sense to ask whether we call the deity or the humanity by either Son or Father. We do not call natures by ttiels. The person with the title POSSESSES a certain nature in the confines of that title. That nature which one possesses is not something that can be CALLED by the title.

Since humanity is a nature that both you and I both possess, to say that we call the humanity either Son or Father is ridiculous, since you and I are not "the Son" nor "the Father". As I said elsewhere, only One possesses the nature of deity -- God -- , but MANY, including the person of God only since the incarnation, possesses the nature of humanity. And here is where some people go into another error and think that HUMAN NATURE implies weakness and imperfection, when in actuality only FALLEN human nature possesses that. Christ now possesses PERFECT humanity since He is glorified as per His humanity. He still possesses the nature of humanity! And we will also possess that in the resurrection. Imperfect Human nature is only a result of the fall. What would humanity have been like had the fall never occurred?

[Chan]

OK what do you call the Humanity and what do you call the deity? Is one the Father and the other the Son or are they both the Father or are neither of them the Father and the Son.They're both called "Jesus."

[Iron_Bladder]

You are still missing the point we are making as evidenced by the way you are asking this question.



Deity is part and parcel with the PERSON for eternity. But the person did not take to Himself humanity until the incarnation. Deity was not taken upon the Person of God since His person always possessed deity. But He did take upon Himself humanity when He BECAME SON in the incarnation, indicating the Son is not eternal. We do not CALL the humanity the Son, but the humanity is something the SON possesses.

Like I said, an apple has the nature of being red. Do we call "red" an apple?

We call the humanity the quality that God took upon Himself in incarnation. One cannot call the humanity anything such as "Son" or "Father" because the issue of natures does not relate at all to such a thought in that manner at all. Your error in thinking is found in a comparison, so you get my point, in saying something absurd such as "My dog has the nature of Rover." That makes no sense. Similarly it makes no sense to ask whether we call the deity or the humanity by either Son or Father. We do not call natures by ttiels. The person with the title POSSESSES a certain nature in the confines of that title. That nature which one possesses is not something that can be CALLED by the title.

Since humanity is a nature that both you and I both possess, to say that we call the humanity either Son or Father is ridiculous, since you and I are not "the Son" nor "the Father". As I said elsewhere, only One possesses the nature of deity -- God -- , but MANY, including the person of God only since the incarnation, possesses the nature of humanity. And here is where some people go into another error and think that HUMAN NATURE implies weakness and imperfection, when in actuality only FALLEN human nature possesses that. Christ now possesses PERFECT humanity since He is glorified as per His humanity. He still possesses the nature of humanity! And we will also possess that in the resurrection. Imperfect Human nature is only a result of the fall. What would humanity have been like had the fall never occurred?




My point is that you Oneness types (as I used to be) deny that the Son is truly divine, by denying his divine attributes as the Son. Like most cults you do claim that 'Jesus is God,' Mormons do claim this but imply that he's just a man who'se been elevated to Godhood. JW's a more subtle now and will claim that Jesus is the might God, however they still deny that he's the Almighty God. Oneness is really just another form of subordinationism, for only the father who indwlls the Son is truly God in Oneness, the Son is eternal, isn't creator, isn't omnipresent and so isn't truly Yahweh God, which is why you need ot discover to be saved.

[Praxeas]

My point is that you Oneness types (as I used to be) deny that the Son is truly divine, by denying his divine attributes as the Son. Like most cults you do claim that 'Jesus is God,' Mormons do claim this but imply that he's just a man who'se been elevated to Godhood. JW's a more subtle now and will claim that Jesus is the might God, however they still deny that he's the Almighty God. Oneness is really just another form of subordinationism, for only the father who indwlls the Son is truly God in Oneness, the Son is eternal, isn't creator, isn't omnipresent and so isn't truly Yahweh God, which is why you need ot discover to be saved.
You are just saying the same thing over and over Robert. You are not saying anything new and obviously you are NOT really reading or understanding what others are posting...as evidenced by the fact that you just repeat yourself over and over

[Iron_Bladder]

Divine and human!


OK, I agree Chan, the Son is both divine and human. As a man the Son is created, begotten, not eternal, not omnipotent and not the creator, but as God the Son is created, eternal, omnipotent and the creator. So you've agreed with me, I've proven that as YHWH God the Son (as the Son) is eternal.

[Iron_Bladder]

Nestorius accused Cyril (that spawn of Satan) and the Church of mixing, commingling, etc. the two natures. The Church was referring to Mary as the mother of God (theotokos) and Nestorius objected, saying that Mary was the mother of Christ (christokos) but not the mother of God, since Jesus did not derive any of His divinity from Mary.

While there is, indeed, hypostatic union between Jesus' two natures, the Church's position was one of error because it intermixed, commingled, etc. the two natures (thus, they had God dying on the cross, God suffering, etc.). Cyril, after being challenged on this by Nestorius, falsely accused him of saying Jesus was two persons (hypostases), which Nestorius denied. As for oneness folks referring to "Almighty God IN Christ," the Bible refers to God in Christ on more than one occasion and even says that all the fullness of deity dwelled bodily in Christ.

A more correct view is expressed in the following Christological statement:

But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies* of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving - in regard to the union of the parsopa^ of our Savior - the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486).

*I don't agree with the use of "copies" here and it is not clear what is meant by it.

^Aramaic for the Greek word prosopa, which is the plural of prosopon - the word used by the Church for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually until Cyril (that spawn of Satan) insisted that the Church must use the term "hypostasis" individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Cyril claimed that using prosopon was too close to Sabellianism). The English equivalent of prosopon is "persona" (which is the same as the Latin equivalent of the Greek prosopon) while one English equivalent of hypostasis is "person." (Note that Hebrews 1:3 uses for God's "person").





Look Chan, your post has concluded with Hebrews 1:3 which in my opinion states that the Son (in his deity) is composed of the very same substance as that which the Father is made of. So would you agree with me that on the basis of this verse the Son is therefore eternal - an eternal Son.

[Chan]

Look Chan, your post has concluded with Hebrews 1:3 which in my opinion states that the Son (in his deity) is composed of the very same substance as that which the Father is made of. So would you agree with me that on the basis of this verse the Son is therefore eternal - an eternal Son.No, I don't agree because Jesus' status as the Son doesn't apply to His divinity. The SON was begotten; divinity cannot be begotten because it is, by its very nature eternal. As the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed indicates, Jesus (in terms of His divinity) is the same substance as the Father.

[Chan]

OK, I agree Chan, the Son is both divine and human. As a man the Son is created, begotten, not eternal, not omnipotent and not the creator, but as God the Son is created, eternal, omnipotent and the creator. So you've agreed with me, I've proven that as YHWH God the Son (as the Son) is eternal.That's not what we're saying and you know it! You seem to be so focused on this phrase "as the Son" that you can't move beyond it to see the rest of Jesus. Jesus is not only "the Son." Jesus' divinity was not created (the Arian heresy said it was created). Jesus' divinity was not begotten (because it is divinity and, in fact, the same substance as the Father).

[mfblume]

My point is that you Oneness types (as I used to be)

If you used to be onenesss, then according to the things you are saying about oneness, you NEVER UNDERSTOOD ONENESS properly at all. You were not alone. MANY oneness people do not understand oneness properly.

...deny that the Son is truly divine, by denying his divine attributes as the Son.

I already addressed this and I do NOT deny the Son is divine. The person of the Son ius the same person of the Father. AS FATHER he created all things. So since He is the same person as SON, then the Son is divine. If that messes up your accusations, then admit it, but do not be so proud that you continue claiming you are correct when you have this thing totally upsidedown. That is the same thing as lying.

Like most cults you do claim that 'Jesus is God,' Mormons do claim this but imply that he's just a man who'se been elevated to Godhood. JW's a more subtle now and will claim that Jesus is the might God, however they still deny that he's the Almighty God. Oneness is really just another form of subordinationism, for only the father who indwlls the Son is truly God in Oneness, the Son is eternal, isn't creator, isn't omnipresent and so isn't truly Yahweh God, which is why you need ot discover to be saved.

Anyone who says our belief makes the Son not divine while we claim the PERSON of the Son is the same person of the Father, and is the ONLY divinity that exists, and who created all things, is completely off their bean. :(

Now, why will you not answer me??? Is RED an apple?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Apparently Mary didn't believe in the eternal sonship doctrine.
And the angel answered and said to her ,The Holy Spirit will come upon you ,and the power of the Highest will overshadow you ;therefore also ,that Holy One who is to borned will be called the Son Of God. LUKE 1:35 NKJV
Notice the verse says The Holy One who is to be borned ,not eternally existant will be called The Son Of God. Prior to the virgin birth ,the Son only existed in the mind or foreknowledge of God.

[mfblume]

Apparently Mary didn't believe in the eternal sonship doctrine.
And the angel answered and said to her ,The Holy Spirit will come upon you ,and the power of the Highest will overshadow you ;therefore also ,that Holy One who is to borned will be called the Son Of God. LUKE 1:35 NKJV
Notice the verse says The Holy One who is to be borned ,not eternally existant will be called The Son Of God. Prior to the virgin birth ,the Son only existed in the mind or foreknowledge of God.

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.

[Iron_Bladder]

No, I don't agree because Jesus' status as the Son doesn't apply to His divinity. The SON was begotten; divinity cannot be begotten because it is, by its very nature eternal. As the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed indicates, Jesus (in terms of His divinity) is the same substance as the Father.




The Son is only begotten in only two ways: firstly as a man his flesh was begotten in the virgin's womb. Secondly, through the resurrection he was begotten from the dead as Psalm 2:7 quoted at Acts 13, Hebrews 1:1 and 5:5 confirm also Colossians 1:18. However these scriptures refer only to the Son's humanity (human nature), the Son has two natures and is also God (YHWH) so as YHWH God the Son is unbegotten and thus is eternal (John 17:5, 17:24), also creator (Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17 re 'son' at verse 13) and omnipresent (John 14:23). The Son is begotten in his flesh but unbegotten in his deity.

Chan I therefore challenge you to show me any verse which states that the Son is begotten, I certainly do accept that the Son's human nature was begotten, but the above verses (Psalm 2:7, Acts 13, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Col 1:18) are completely irrelivent to the obvious fact that as God the SON (as the SON) is unbegotten, for you can't have a begotten God and the Son is certainly God (Hebrews 1:8), so the Son is YHWH (Hebrews 1:10).

I have been remembering you in my prayers of late as I believe that you need to come to see that the Son is also YHWH God (as well as flesh) in order to know the true God revealed in Scripture. As you believe that the Son is begotten, then what you're saying essentially something similar to what the Unitarians and JWs claim; namely that the Son is a created being, although you do correctly claim that the Father indwells the Son (which JWs deny) but then you then refuse to admit that the Father also indwells the Son (John 14:9-10) which Trinitarianism affirms. You need to see that the Son is two things as the Son he's the eternal, YHWH God the creator who's unbegotten and at the very same time hes a man, created, begotten, not eternal and not the creator.

The main difference between most forms of Oneness and the Watchtower (JW) religion is that JWs call God the Father ..... Jehovah, whilst Oneness types call him ..... Jesus. However, implying that the Father is YHWH, eternal, creator and unbegotten won't save anyone, for in order to be saved we have to 'honour the SON EVEN as we honour the Father '(John 5:22-23) and so Oneness like the Unitarians and JWs won't do this because it like them also states that the Son doesn't possess any divine attributes (as the Son). Only the Father who indwells the Son and yet is confusing called 'Jesus' is honoured as YHWH God in Oneness. Oneness calls the Father 'Jesus' and the JWs call the Father Johovah, but both of them see the Son incorrectly as a begotten, mutible being who lacks divine attributes.

I'm praying for you.

[Iron_Bladder]

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.



Scott referred to:

“God sent forth his Son born of a woman,” (Galatians 4:4).

The Son of God Jesus Christ has always existed, eternally, with the Father Scott: ‘that ETERNAL life which was WITH the Father.’ (1st John 1:2). John in verse 3 then goes onto tell us that this ‘life’ who was ‘with the Father,’ was the Son! Besides which, the Father cannot logically exist with out the Son, for although these two terms reveal a spiritual and not a physical truth, nevertheless, a Father becomes a Father at the very same moment in time that a Son becomes a Son, so the idea of an eternal Father, existing all alone and eternally without a Son, is logically impossible.

So the Son (in his deity) has existed eternally, together with the Father (Hebrews 1:2, John 17:5, 24 etc). However, before his birth, he (the Son), was sent into this world by God the Father (John 17:28-29, 1st John 4:9-14). So to answer Scott's question; ‘was the Son created or eternal,’ in the light of (Galatians 4:4), this clearly describes the Son as being born (i.e. created). So the answer is both Scott, as the Son was both sent (as God) and he was also made of a woman (as man). So in his deity, he was sent into the world by God the Father (John 16:28, 1st John 3:8, 4:9-14) having preexisted eternally with the Father. But his humanity was created (begotten) in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35, Galatians 4:4).

Scott I'll await your reply with interest.

[Iron_Bladder]

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.



Hello MF, well in response I would suggest, that the text of Luke 1:35 does not state that God becomes (or is made) ‘son of God’ at Bethlehem. It rather merely states that from the time of the birth of the baby Jesus, ‘Jesus Christ’ is now declared and known to the world as the ‘Son of God.’ The Greek word which is used in this verse and is translated as ‘called’ is the word ‘Kal-eo,’ which is numbered 2564 in Strong’s concordance. It simply means ‘to call’ or to ‘make something known’. Then in the next section, I have quoted every occurrence of ‘kal-eo’ (numbered 2564 in Strong’s), as found in the Gospel of Luke’s Gospel from Chapters 1-2. One of the most basic principles of Biblical interpretation, is that we translated the same word in a similar way within passages that have a similar context. So by examining the other uses of this word ‘kaleo,’ we can discover that it does not mean to create or to make, it just means to reveal or to make known.


Luke 1:32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

Luke 1:35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:59: And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.

Luke 1:60: And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.

Luke 1:61: And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

Luke 1:62: And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.

Luke 1:76: And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;

Luke 2:4: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

Luke 2:21: And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

Luke 2:23: (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

So I have a problem with your insistence that the word ‘called’ (kaleo), in some way proves that the Son is ‘made’ or was ‘created’ at Bethlehem, when this term is really a declarational term. And so if what you say were really true, why then does the Bible not say either that the Father becomes the Son at Bethlehem, or that the Son was created (or made) at Bethlehem? Also why do none of the 11 quotations of ‘kaleo’ from Luke chapters 1 and 2 support your interpretation? I believe that you have read ‘kaleo’ ‘ (Luke 1:35) completely out of its context?

Also at Luke 1:59 this same Greek word is used: ‘And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.’ Now, the Child (John the Baptist) existed before being named as Zacharius, on the eighth day of his life. He did not come into existence at that very moment when he was named by his father. In a similar manner, I suggest that the ‘Son of God’ existed (as deity) before his birth at Bethlehem, but that he was then declared to the world as the ‘Son,’ by his birth.

M.F. Blume, I really do hope that you'll address these points! As a Trinitarian I believe that the Son possesses two natures of deity and humanity, so yes the humanity of Christ (called the Son) is begotten, made, mutible and so isn't eternal. However the Son is also God (Hebrews 1:8), YHWH (Hebrews 1:10)
and as such is eternal (John 17:5, 17:24), omnipresent (John 17:23) and the creator (John 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17) again as the Son. No amount of proof-testing that the Son is begotten will somehow refute Trinitarian theology as we believe that! The Son (in his humanity) is indeed begotten-created-not God- not eternal etc. However, you need to engage with the obvious fact that the Son is also presented as YHWH God and that he also possesses every divine attribute as the Son. So in order to be Christians we need to; 'honour the Son JUST AS we honour the Father.' (John 5:23). If we don't and instead only honour the Father then we're doing essentially what subordinationists like JWs and Unitarians do.

[Chan]

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.Then, of course, there's the prophetic psalm where God said of the Son "this day have I begotten thee."

[mfblume]

Then, of course, there's the prophetic psalm where God said of the Son "this day have I begotten thee."

...Which was speaking of the resurrection, long after the incarnation.

Act 13:33 KJV God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

[Chan]

...Which was speaking of the resurrection, long after the incarnation.

Act 13:33 KJV God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.Some scriptures interpret it as referring to the resurrection while others interpret it as referring to the Incarnation.

[Neck]

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.



He is now...

[Iron_Bladder]

He is now...



It's impossible for someody to become eternal or to as you put it; 'be eternal now.' Possibly yoru confusing the terms immortal with eternal, a mortal being can become immortal, but nobody can become eternal as eternity implies both no beginning and no ending, whilst immotal implies no ending.

[Iron_Bladder]

Then, of course, there's the prophetic psalm where God said of the Son "this day have I begotten thee."




“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalm 2:7b).

With regard to Psalm 2:7 Chan, I believe that the ‘day’ refers to a point in time. We must use the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, and this verse is quoted three times in the New Testament. Acts 13:33 and 34 clearly apply this quotation to the resurrection, Hebrews 5:5 quotes Psalm 2:7 with reference to his becoming a high Priest. This word ‘becoming’ proves that he was not born a high priest, Christ’s being of the wrong tribe (Judah) when only those of the tribe of Levi could hold the Levitical priesthood. Thus I believe that he became high Priest on the cross, and through his atonement for sin, effective by his resurrection from the dead, he then became high priest forever after the typology of Melchizedek’s order (verse 6).

So Hebrews 1:3-4 gives us the context for Hebrews 1:5 where Psalm 2:7 is here quoted. These verses speak of the Son ascending to heaven (Verse 3), to sit on the right hand of God (a figurative description of a position of authority and power). Verse 4 speaks of the Son becoming better than the angels, whilst verse 8 calls him God and Hebrews 2:6-7 states that Jesus was not only made but that he was made lower in position, rank and nature than the angels. This is difficult but only reconcilable if we understand that the Son of God has two natures. The Son has a divine nature (Hebrews 1:8) which is eternal (Hebrews 1:2) and is identical to that of the Father. Secondly he also has a human nature, which was created (Hebrews 2:6-7).

This human nature was resurrected from the dead, and so it was only as a human being, that he was exalted above the angels, and so as a (glorified) man, Christ then became on the day of his resurrection so much better than they. So Hebrews 1:4 applies to the resurrection, and consequently gives us the context for that ‘day’ which is mentioned at verse 5, specifically this has to be the day of the resurrection. Romans 1:4 and Colossians 1:18 each confirm this by indicating that the ‘begetting of the Son’ which at this instance is from the dead, and therefore cannot be from his birth at Bethlehem, which once again points us to the resurrection, when Christ arose from the dead with power and in his majesty and might.

So in conclusion Chan, I'd say that Christ is indeed begotten at his resurrection ‘from the dead’ (Colossians 1:18) according to Psalm 2:7, Acts 13, Heb 1:5, 5:5. Now seeing that his divinity (divine Omnipresent Spirit) doesn't possess a human Spirit to separate from his human body, therefore God (Yahweh) cannot die and so the context for these quotations of Psalm 2:7 must be to his humanity and not to his deity. So as a man Christ was begotten at his resurrection (Colossians 1:18)! AWhilst at the very same time, as God Christ is unbegotten, although some Trinitarians I will admit do claim that he's eternally begotten in his deity.

[Iron_Bladder]

They're both called "Jesus."




OK so are you saying that Jesus is NOT the Son and NOT the Father? If he is the Son and he is the Father, then what do these two terms mean and how do they relate to Jesus? This question is perfectly honestly and no genuine Christian would ever be ashamed of answering it.

[Iron_Bladder]

No, I don't agree because Jesus' status as the Son doesn't apply to His divinity. The SON was begotten; divinity cannot be begotten because it is, by its very nature eternal. As the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed indicates, Jesus (in terms of His divinity) is the same substance as the Father.




Firstly Chan, I'd cetainly agree with you that deity (GOD / YHWH) is unbegotten. However, if he Son possesses two natures of deity and flesh which are distinct and unmixed (unfused) then, the Son can therefore be begotten (in his flesh) and unbegotten (in his deity) at the very same time. So the term Son can refer to both natures (deity and humanity) and refer to his being as the Son both begotten and not begotten as well as his possessing every divine attribute (as the SON whio is God) and not possessing any divine attributes as the Son who is a mere man.

Secondly, you’ve really only claimed that like any Unitarian, JW or Christadelphian, you only ascribe deity to the Father, who alone is YHWH God and the possessor of divine attributes in your theology. The Son according to you isn’t an eternal Son (John 17:5), isn’t the creator of the universe (Hebrews 1:2), isn’t omnipresent (John 14:23) but is a creature made by the Father who’s just as much a part of the creation as you or I. You thus fail to honour the Son equally as the Father and so are rebuked at John 5:23; ‘That all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.’

[Iron_Bladder]

That's not what we're saying and you know it! You seem to be so focused on this phrase "as the Son" that you can't move beyond it to see the rest of Jesus. Jesus is not only "the Son." Jesus' divinity was not created (the Arian heresy said it was created). Jesus' divinity was not begotten (because it is divinity and, in fact, the same substance as the Father).



I understand perfectly well what you’re saying, which is that the deity of Jesus is the Father and the humanity of Jesus is the Son. Yes I know that you’re not saying the exact same thing as a JW or Unitarian, but my point is that your position is extremely close to these heretical views as you are rebuked at John 5:23; ‘That all should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.’ You don’t do this, you honour Jesus the Father equal to the Father, but you reject completely to see the Son as Yahweh God himself.

[Iron_Bladder]

I already addressed this and I do NOT deny the Son is divine.



Yahweh God is eternal, creator, omnipresent etc and he cannot exist without possessing his own divine attributes. So when you say that the Son is divine, are you affirming that the SON is an eternal Son (John 17:5), is the Son the creator (Hebrews 1:2) and is the Son omnipresent (John 14:23)? I don’t think that you are, as you really claim that Jesus as the Father possesses divine attributes but that Jesus as the Son doesn’t. Like the Mormons and JWs you claim that Jesus is divine, but like them, you also use words to hide your true subordinationism.

So to a Mormon, Jesus (the Son) is divine, but all this means is that he is just a man who has now become a god. To a JW Jesus (the Son) is divine and JWs will openly admit to this if you quote Colossians 2:9 at them, but they redefine the word divine to mean that Jesus (the Son) is the mighty God but Not the almighty God – do you see how they deceive with their false definition of the term ‘divine’ which is less than a higher grade of Jehovah’s deity.

Finally, Oneness Pentecostals also claim that Jesus is divine, but to them it’s the Father part of Jesus which is divine and which possesses divine attributes (as the Father). Jesus the Father indwells Jesus the Son, you can genuinely say and genuinely believe say Jesus is divine, but this only ascribes divinity to the Father part of Jesus which indwells the Son. For like your subordinationists buddies you also claim that the Son isn’t eternal, isn’t omnipresent and isn’t YHWH …. He’s just a man in whom Yahweh (who is the Father) comes to indwell.

I can prove this, M F Blume has said (quote): 'I already addressed this and I do NOT deny the Son is divine.' If he truly believes this then he won't deny that the Son being divine possessess Yahweh's divine attributes. So Mr Blume tell me please is the Son eternal (eternal Son - John 17:5 & 24), is the Son omnipresent (an omnipresent Son - John 14:23), is the Son creator (Hebrews 1:2). In your theology no, for you don't 'honour the Son equally to the Father' as John 5:23 commands you becasue to you the Son isn't Yahweh - your really just a subordinationst who only honours the Father alone as Yahweh God and so is the only possessor of divine attributes in your theology.

[Iron_Bladder]

Amen. The verse you cited is the ONLY VERSE in the bible that gives the ONLY REASON He was called Son of God. The word "THEREFORE" in that verse shows us that the statements made previous to the wordfs following it are the reasons for the words following it. In other words, the REASON He is called SON OF GOD is due to the presence of a Father and mother, namely, God and Mary.



Oneness Pentecostals such as Mr Blume claim that God assumes the three roles (or manifestations) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in time from Jesus’ birth. But I would state here that both of these positions are problematic for the Oneness view, because before Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb, Luke states that; ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ (Luke 1:35), indicating that God already existed as the Holy Spirit, before Jesus’ birth and even before his conception; (Mr Blume alludes to this in paraphrase in his post). But you can’t have a ‘Holy Ghost’ existing before the Father and Son in Oneness theology can you! Going back into the Old Testament we read of King David crying at Psalm 51:11 ‘take not thy Holy Spirit from me,’ which doesn’t make any sense when read in the light of the Oneness claim, that God hadn’t at that time yet become the Holy Spirit. Also consider Isaiah 63:10; ‘but they vexed his Holy Spirit,’ which again states that the Holy Spirit before Christ’s birth.

[Iron_Bladder]

GAL.4:4 knocks that eternal sonship theory down as well.




Please explain how Galatians 4:4 does this. The Son is both deity (YHWH) and humanity, and 1,000 verses such as Galatians 4:4 which refer to his humanity, don’t in any way disprove the Son’s deity. So as a man the Son is created as Galatians 4:4 states, but as God (Hebrews 1:8) the Son is eternal (John 17:5, 17:24), creator (Hebrews 1:2) and Yahweh (Hebrews 1:10). So both statements are true, he (the Son) is both God and man, he’s both eternal and created, he’s both the creator and a part of the creation, he’s both omnipresent and not omnipresent and he’s both multiple and immutable. So we’re not to pick up one of Christ’s attributes and exclude the other simply because it disagrees with our theology.



((Note: I'm now saving threads to my memory stick and writing replies at home, where I have more time, then posting them from my memory stick into the forum. So hopefully my replies won't be so rushed now as they were previously).

[Chan]

It's impossible for someody to become eternal or to as you put it; 'be eternal now.' Possibly yoru confusing the terms immortal with eternal, a mortal being can become immortal, but nobody can become eternal as eternity implies both no beginning and no ending, whilst immotal implies no ending.But the SON - AS THE SON - had a beginning. That beginning occurred when He was begotten. So, your notion of an eternal Son is not only heretical but an oxymoron.

[mfblume]

Some scriptures interpret it as referring to the resurrection while others interpret it as referring to the Incarnation.

So we have to accept both.

[Chan]

So we have to accept both.I do accept both.

For further reading...

http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What-Examination-Doctrine/dp/1424143713/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-2095856-4324650?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181919509&sr=8-1

[mfblume]

I thought you were coming from the perspective that the Son is eternal. But I saw you contradicted that earlier.

[Chan]

I thought you were coming from the perspective that the Son is eternal. But I saw you contradicted that earlier."Eternal Son" is an oxymoron! :) I encourage you to read the book (no, I'm not interested in getting you to change your doctrine).

[mfblume]

"Eternal Son" is an oxymoron! :) I encourage you to read the book (no, I'm not interested in getting you to change your doctrine).

I do not believe the Son is eternal. But I do not beleive trinity either. Sorry.

[sola gratia]

I do not believe the Son is eternal. But I do not beleive trinity either. Sorry.

me too.... I'm sorry for you

[mfblume]

me too.... I'm sorry for you

Well, if that is not the most scholarly and mature response I've read yet... not. ;) Are all trinitarians this deep?

[sola gratia]

Well, if that is not the most scholarly and mature response I've read yet... not. ;) Are all trinitarians this deep?

Not all of them Bro... only the ones who where oneness first!! Besides I was just playing :killinme

[mfblume]

Not all of them Bro... only the ones who where oneness first!! Besides I was just playing :killinme

:D oh no... lol

[sola gratia]

:D oh no... lol

BTW - I read the debates you sent - thanks

[mfblume]

BTW - I read the debates you sent - thanks

Oh, right! You're quite welcome.

Now you know oneness people do not skim the issue but deal quite indepthly about it and know what trinitarians actually believe. :)

[Praxeas]

Oneness Pentecostals such as Mr Blume claim that God assumes the three roles (or manifestations) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in time from Jesus’ birth. But I would state here that both of these positions are problematic for the Oneness view, because before Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb, Luke states that; ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ (Luke 1:35), indicating that God already existed as the Holy Spirit, before Jesus’ birth and even before his conception; (Mr Blume alludes to this in paraphrase in his post).
Where did Mr Blume claim the HOly Ghost did not already exist?

[mfblume]

Oneness Pentecostals such as Mr Blume claim that God assumes the three roles (or manifestations) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in time from Jesus’ birth. But I would state here that both of these positions are problematic for the Oneness view, because before Jesus’ conception in Mary’s womb, Luke states that; ‘The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,’ (Luke 1:35), indicating that God already existed as the Holy Spirit, before Jesus’ birth and even before his conception; (Mr Blume alludes to this in paraphrase in his post).

Where did Mr Blume claim the HOly Ghost did not already exist?

I missed IB's quote here.

Right, Praxeas! Now I know what you mean by Iron Bladder twisting what we say and misrepresenting us! I NEVER SAID THE HOLY GHOST MANIFESTATION DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE INCARNATION. Neither do I believe it. The Holy Ghost is a manifestation that existed long before incarnation!

Seems to me that Iron Bladder never really properly understood oneness. So he cannot say he was once oneness.

[Praxeas]

I missed IB's quote here.

Right, Praxeas! Now I know what you mean by Iron Bladder twisting what we say and misrepresenting us! I NEVER SAID THE HOLY GHOST MANIFESTATION DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE INCARNATION. Neither do I believe it. The Holy Ghost is a manifestation that existed long before incarnation!

Seems to me that Iron Bladder never really properly understood oneness. So he cannot say he was once oneness.
That is what I believe. Maybe he went to a OP church for that short 6 months or so, maybe less, and that church taught him wrong and he refuses to listen to any one else.

[Neck]

It's impossible for someody to become eternal or to as you put it; 'be eternal now.' Possibly yoru confusing the terms immortal with eternal, a mortal being can become immortal, but nobody can become eternal as eternity implies both no beginning and no ending, whilst immotal implies no ending.

I know that better than most. but why argu the point, if Jesus is or was an eternal being. He is not going to go away anytime soon.

[Neck]

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.

Question for you. If you enter Eternity will you be Eternal or remember a beginning? Once you enter Eternity will you not then take on Eternity. Thus in Eternity having no beginning and no end?

So did Jesus take on Eternity or was he from Eternity?

Would it not make sense that Eternity met time at the Birth of Jesus Christ.

Being both born of a woman and begotten and her being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit.

Thus Christ being God with us...

Just a question not my personal belief.

[Chan]

I do not believe the Son is eternal. But I do not beleive trinity either. Sorry.Why do you feel the need to apologize for what you don't believe?

[mfblume]

Why do you feel the need to apologize for what you don't believe?

I do not apologize for what I do not believe. I apologize to you because I simply disagree with you and what you might think of me as a resuilt. IOW, sorry, but I cannot agree with you. :)

[mfblume]

Iron Bladder, when you are you going to answer about your thoughts concerning the question if "red" is an apple? Come on, man. Say something.

[Chan]

I do not apologize for what I do not believe. I apologize to you because I simply disagree with you and what you might think of me as a resuilt. IOW, sorry, but I cannot agree with you. :)I don't expect you to agree with me and have no interest in trying to get you to agree with me.

I have no opinion of you as a person since I don't know you. I may find your partial preterism and your spiritualizing of scripture after the likes of Origen and Clement of Alexandria to be damnable heresies but I have no basis on which to form an opinion of you.

[Iron_Bladder]

I do not believe the Son is eternal. But I do not beleive trinity either. Sorry.



In that case how would you answer John 17:5 and 24 (re 'Son' at verse 1), Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13-18 all of which use the word 'SON' and states that the Son existed and did things as the Son (thoughts can't do things) from before the creation?

[Iron_Bladder]

I know that better than most. but why argu the point, if Jesus is or was an eternal being. He is not going to go away anytime soon.



The point is that Jesus is the Son: ‘Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.’ (2nd John 3, KJV). And if he's eternal then being the Son he's eternally the Son. Pleasre explain John 17:5 and 24 re the word 'Son' at verse 1 as well as Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13-18, all of which state that the Son as the Son, did things as the Son from before the creation of the universe. May I also point out that thoughts or plans can't do things!

[KwaiQ]

Thoughts can do things if God is in it.

[Iron_Bladder]

I NEVER SAID THE HOLY GHOST MANIFESTATION DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THE INCARNATION. Neither do I believe it. The Holy Ghost is a manifestation that existed long before incarnation!



OK Mr Blume, but what do you mean by this? Are you saying that God existed together with a manifestation of himself as Holy Spirit from before the incarnation? If so then take Psalm 51:11 by way of example: ‘And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.’ (Psalm 51:11, NKJV). David here prays to God and yet mentions somebody else namely the Holy Spirit, existing at the very same time, how would you explain this without seeing God as extant as both the one to whom David prays and also as the one indwelling David? The pronoun ‘Your’ at Psalm 51:11 can’t imply one person.

Secondly, if you agree with me that God exists as both Father and Holy Spirit from long before the incarnation, then why is it such a problem for you to also accept that God can also exist as both the Father and the Son from before the incarnation? How would you explain verses such as Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17 re ‘Son’ at verse 13 and John 17:5 and 17:24 re the words ‘Father and Son’ at verse 1? For at each of these verses the Son is said to do something as the Son from before the creation of the universe. Nobody in this forum has at yet explained these verses to me.

[Iron_Bladder]

I know that better than most. but why argu the point, if Jesus is or was an eternal being. He is not going to go away anytime soon.



You need to understand the meaning of the terms ‘immortal’ and ‘eternal’ Neckstadt, as they certainly don’t mean the same thing and so until you do understand them, I can’t discuss this further with you as your simply confusing these two different terms.

[Iron_Bladder]

Iron Bladder, when you are you going to answer about your thoughts concerning the question if "red" is an apple? Come on, man. Say something.




I prefer to stick to expositions of the Biblical text rather than to philosophical or historical speculations, so I’ve just about as much interest in your philosophical reasoning’s as you would have in a Trinitarian who argues for hours on end that God is a Trinity because water exists in three states as ice, water and steam. Please will you instead address the text of scripture as that’s the only reason why I’m in this chat room, absolutely nothing else interests me.

Secondly, you claim that the Son is not eternal. OK in that case please address four texts for me, each of which state that the Son exists as the Son and also does things as the Son from before the creation; John 17:5 and 24 re the words ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ at verse 1, also Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13 re the word ‘Son’ at verse 13. How can the Son not be eternal, when he possesses glory (John 17:5) and is loved by the Father (John 17:24) from before the creation, the Son is also the creator (as the Son) according to Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17, so please explain your denial of eternal Sonship in the light of these four verses.

[Praxeas]

I prefer to stick to expositions of the Biblical text rather than to philosophical or historical speculations, so I’ve just about as much interest in your philosophical reasoning’s as you would have in a Trinitarian who argues for hours on end that God is a Trinity because water exists in three states as ice, water and steam. Please will you instead address the text of scripture as that’s the only reason why I’m in this chat room, absolutely nothing else interests me.

Secondly, you claim that the Son is not eternal. OK in that case please address four texts for me, each of which state that the Son exists as the Son and also does things as the Son from before the creation; John 17:5 and 24 re the words ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ at verse 1, also Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13 re the word ‘Son’ at verse 13. How can the Son not be eternal, when he possesses glory (John 17:5) and is loved by the Father (John 17:24) from before the creation, the Son is also the creator (as the Son) according to Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17, so please explain your denial of eternal Sonship in the light of these four verses.
MFblume's question is legitimate to explore grammar and in particular to show your flaw in understanding grammar and to make logical arguments....you ask the same sort of questions or make the same sort of points, yet here you are dismissing his question with an answer that just does not fit your MO up until this point

[ManOfWord]

I haven't taken time to read all these posts, however, I've dealt with this issue before as well.

The Son, is indeed eternal as the logos/plan/idea or whatever else you want to label it from the beginning. God had a plan in the beginning. The Son existed in the plan. In that respect, the Son IS eternal.

However, the Son, as the fulfillment of the plan did not come into literal existence until Mary was with child.

Anyway, that's my simple answer to the question. :D

[Chan]

I haven't taken time to read all these posts, however, I've dealt with this issue before as well.

The Son, is indeed eternal as the logos/plan/idea or whatever else you want to label it from the beginning. God had a plan in the beginning. The Son existed in the plan. In that respect, the Son IS eternal.

However, the Son, as the fulfillment of the plan did not come into literal existence until Mary was with child.

Anyway, that's my simple answer to the question. :DIs it actually "as the Son" (as Iron Bladder likes to say) that Jesus is the "logos/plan/idea"? Is it Jesus' status as the Son that makes Him the logos/plan/idea?

[Iron_Bladder]

Is it actually "as the Son" (as Iron Bladder likes to say) that Jesus is the "logos/plan/idea"? Is it Jesus' status as the Son that makes Him the logos/plan/idea?




Firstly, Jesus (the Son) is not an idea or a plan, you need to prove this claim if your going to make it by the way.

Secondly, 'plans' or 'ideas' as you've mistakenly defined the logos cannot be Yahweh God who is a single omnipresent personal and divine Spirit. The Son or logos (both terms are interchangeable) is Yahweh God, not a thought or an idea in Yahweh's mind, I can prove this. At John 1:2-3 the logos is said to have created all things, yet at Isaiah 44:24 Yahweh God creates 'all alone' and 'by myself,' so the Logos as he's the creator must in the light of Isaiah 44:24 be Yahweh God himself, not a mere impersonal thought or idea as ideas can't create the universe.

Thirdly, to answer your question, only God's Son can be his logos, as this term means the one who expresses Yahweh God to us. I've already disproven the error that logos means a thought or idea. So only the one who himself is Yahweh God (God's Son means to share God's very nature re Hebrews 1:3) is the logos or the expression of God to us.

Fourthly, the Son is said to have existed as the Son from before the creation of the universe; John 17:5: 'glory with you ((Father of verse 1)) before the world was' see also John 17:24, Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17, in these latter two verses the Son is said (as the Son) to be the creator of the universe. Hey how about your addressing these 4 verses each of which disprove the Oneness position that the Son didn't exist as the Son from before the incarnation.

[mfblume]

I prefer to stick to expositions of the Biblical text rather than to philosophical or historical speculations, so I’ve just about as much interest in your philosophical reasoning’s as you would have in a Trinitarian who argues for hours on end that God is a Trinity because water exists in three states as ice, water and steam. Please will you instead address the text of scripture as that’s the only reason why I’m in this chat room, absolutely nothing else interests me.

Sorry, not good enough. I am asking you this because you claim a NATURE is a PERSON. And I showed you how YOU have an incorrect philosophy since that would be as silly as saying "red is an apple". You see, RED is part of the nature of an apple. But no one would say RED is an apple.

You must give a well-rounded involvement in a discussion, and not state zingers of statements and then refuse to 'fess up with them.

[sola gratia]

person is given to each member of the Godhead because this most well represents the interaction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I agree the distinction is more the nature

[Chan]

person is given to each member of the Godhead because this most well represents the interaction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I agree the distinction is more the natureBut the English word "person" is synonymous with "being" and, so, in using "person" you'd have to say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are individual divine beings. As for this interaction among Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I have yet to see any Biblical evidence of such interaction. All I've seen is God and His "only begotten Son" speaking to each other.

Based on terms the Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers used, I'm inclined to use the term "persona" to describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually.

[KwaiQ]

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.
Simple. God's Spirit was in Christ so therefore we say Jesus was God. The man Christ Jesus had a beginning when the Spirit overshadowed Mavy and He was born of a virgin.

[mfblume]

Simple. God's Spirit was in Christ so therefore we say Jesus was God. The man Christ Jesus had a beginning when the Spirit overshadowed Mavy and He was born of a virgin.

Exactly.

[Praxeas]

person is given to each member of the Godhead because this most well represents the interaction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I agree the distinction is more the nature
Please start a thread where the intereaction exists between Father and Spirit, Spirit and Father, Son and Spirit, Spirit and Son....this should be good

As for the interaction between Father and Son, since none exists prior to the incarnation then would you say such interaction of person is as a human person to a Divine person?

[Iron_Bladder]

As for the interaction between Father and Son, since none exists prior to the incarnation then would you say such interaction of person is as a human person to a Divine person?



John 17:5: 'The glory which I had WITH YOU BEFORE the world was.' (Context in verse 1 is the Son praying to the Father, notice 'Father' at John 17:1).

Also John 17:24: 'Thou lovesth me from BEFORE the foundation of the world.'

Please answer these verses.

[Chan]

John 17:5: 'The glory which I had WITH YOU BEFORE the world was.' (Context in verse 1 is the Son praying to the Father, notice 'Father' at John 17:1).

Also John 17:24: 'Thou lovesth me from BEFORE the foundation of the world.'

Please answer these verses.
John 17:5 is discussed in detail in the book linked here: http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What-Examination-Doctrine/dp/1424143713/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6413538-9463906?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184169541&sr=8-1

As for John 17:24, do you remember in Revelation where it said that Jesus was slain from before the foundation of the world? Do you believe that Jesus was literally slain at some point in time before the Creation?

[Praxeas]

John 17:5: 'The glory which I had WITH YOU BEFORE the world was.' (Context in verse 1 is the Son praying to the Father, notice 'Father' at John 17:1).

Also John 17:24: 'Thou lovesth me from BEFORE the foundation of the world.'

Please answer these verses.
I have no reason to answer anything you post since you don't kindly do the same. I was referring to Old Testament scriptures

[Praxeas]

John 17:5 is discussed in detail in the book linked here: http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-What-Examination-Doctrine/dp/1424143713/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-6413538-9463906?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184169541&sr=8-1

As for John 17:24, do you remember in Revelation where it said that Jesus was slain from before the foundation of the world? Do you believe that Jesus was literally slain at some point in time before the Creation?
and that he predestined us in Christ. How can God do that if we don't exist, unless IB is a Mormon??!

[SDG]

Is the Son, God?
Is God eternal?

[Praxeas]

Is the Son man?
Is man eternal?

[Chan]

Is the Son man?
Is man eternal?
What is it about God that makes Him the Son.

[sola gratia]

eternal sonship is simply a designation of Jesus being eternal... much ado about nothing

[Chan]

eternal sonship is simply a designation of Jesus being eternal... much ado about nothingBut it makes no sense! Since sonship necessitates a beginning, sonship cannot be eternal.

[Praxeas]

eternal sonship is simply a designation of Jesus being eternal... much ado about nothing
Then why not just say "Eternal"? Why say "Eternal Sonship"? Or for that matter and even worse why say "Eternally begotten"?

[Iron_Bladder]

Please start a thread where the intereaction exists between Father and Spirit, Spirit and Father, Son and Spirit, Spirit and Son....this should be good

As for the interaction between Father and Son, since none exists prior to the incarnation then would you say such interaction of person is as a human person to a Divine person?


Praxeas, this post of yours is a response to a post where someone has said that God becomes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the incarnation. Do you approve of this and agree that that was when God became F, S, HS?