Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Don't say this PROVE this from scripture!!!!!! That's the point of debating in a chat room, your opinions don't interest me, only your evidence and proof as you use scripture interests me.

You already know that the Son was begotten. You don't need me to remind you of passages such as John 3:16 that refer to God's "only begotten Son." You also know from John 1 that the logos existed in the beginning but it was only later that He became flesh and dwelt among us (was begotten). Thus, "Son" and "logos" are not interchangeable.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Prove it, you have a habit of making statements which you don't even try to prove ... so prove it. Use scripture and hey buddy Psalm 2:7 is only ever applied to the resurrection as Colossians 1:18 also is.

What part of "the Bible tells us in several places that the Son was begotten" did you not understand? You know it to be true that the Bible does say in several places that the Son was begotten and you don't need me to list those passages for you. As for the prophetic psalm (Psalm 2:7), it is being applied to the Incarnation in Hebrews 1.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

PROVE it!!!! Just stating something does not make it true as you seem to beleive. The Son is begotten at his resurrection, Psalm 2:7 is quoted three times and is only applied to his resurrection - NO EXCEPTIONS! Christ is also said to be begotten from the dead at Colossians 1:18, each of these verses are being applied to Christ's human nature, his divine nature isn't begotten at all! Therefore as God the Son is unbegotten, as a man he was begotten at his birth and then begotten agaion at his resurrection. Your using the word 'begotten' as a shoe horn to try to prove that the Son wasn't God at all, so that in yoru subordinationist theology (like the JWs and Unitarians) only god the Father is deity.

Boy, talk about making unsubstantated statements!

Yes, it's TRUE that Jesus' divine nature is NOT BEGOTTEN. It cannot have been begotten exactly because it is divine. "Begotten" is something that happens within time and necessitates a point of beginning. Thus, it is applied only to Jesus' humanity. And, contrary to what you believe, Hebrews 1 applies Psalm 2:7 to the Incarnation. Further, John applies "begotten" to the Incarnation in John 1 when he refers to "the only begotten of the Father."

Jesus is both fully God and fully man (the dyophysite nature). However, it is not as the Son that Jesus is God.

By the way, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:6, "yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist..." Notice that Paul identifies the one God as "the Father" and not as "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." And, no, I''m not saying that "only God the Father is deity," I'm saying that only GOD is deity and that HE is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Then why doesn't hebrews 1:2 read: “has in these last days spoken to us by JESUS, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” Hebrews 1:2 NKJV.

Why does the text state 'HIS SON' and what does 'HIS SON' mean?


“has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” Hebrews 1:2 NKJV.

Because the writer is referring to the Son in the present tense, to a point within time, and not to eternity. As "the Son," Jesus existed within time.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

What do the words 'HIS SON' mean at Hebrews 1:2, please explain;


“has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” Hebrews 1:2 NKJV.

huh? It refers to God's Son...duh

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Prove it, you have a habit of making statements which you don't even try to prove ... so prove it. Use scripture and hey buddy Psalm 2:7 is only ever applied to the resurrection as Colossians 1:18 also is.

Pot, meet Kettle

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Praxeas please explain the meaning of; 'HIS Son.'

“has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds.” Hebrews 1:2 NKJV.

Secondly, tell me who God in verse 1 is in the light of Hebrews 1:5;

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Hebrews 1:5, KJV).

Does the word 'Father' at Hebrews 1:5 relate to God at Hebrews 1:2, if not why not, give proof.

Secondly, do the words; 'I will be, to him a Father' refer to God the Father speaking about himself or about the Son of verse two, again please give me proof and evidence to support your position? How can the Father be referring to himself as 'to HIM.' Is the Father really saying that he's going to be a Father to himself ... the Father, or to someone else .. the Son?

It does not say "God the Father". Remember? That is your argument at Isaiah 9:6

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Jesus Christ is the Logos (John 1:1)
The logos is the Creator (John 1:2)
Conclusion Jesus Christ created as the logos.


Jesus Christ is the Son (1st John 3:8)
The Son is the creator (Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17)
Conclusion The Son is the creator.

Third Conclusion becasue Christ is only one person, the Son must be the logos.

The Logos became the Son, that does not mean that at John 1 the terms are interchangable anymore than the term President is interchangeable with George Bush

Originally Posted by Chan

Because the writer is referring to the Son in the present tense, to a point within time, and not to eternity. As "the Son," Jesus existed within time.

Yes but this Son, who's mentioned as the Son is said to have created the universe, so how can the Son be the creator and yet not exist before bethlehem? The text of hebrews 1:2 does say Son.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

The Logos became the Son, that does not mean that at John 1 the terms are interchangable anymore than the term President is interchangeable with George Bush

Then why does Hebrews 1:2 use the word Son and not logos or something else to say that the SON made time itself (at the creation)? The word Son is also used at John 17:1 to imply that at John 17:5 the Son existed together with the Father and posessed divine glory from before the creation.