Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 127101)

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?

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder (Post 143265)

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.

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 109752)

Divine and human!

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 106398)

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").

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder (Post 148006)

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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder (Post 148002)

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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder (Post 143265)

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

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson (Post 150123)

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.

Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 150196)

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.