Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Chan

This is true. In the same way, all humans sinned in Adam.

Well, whether Paul wrote Hebrews is subject to debate.

Yes, the brightness of GOD'S glory and the express image of GOD'S person. This is consistent with Paul's saying Jesus was the image of the invisible God. As for John's reference to Jesus as the Word (logos), you can only connect that to the passage in Hebrews if you translate logos as "divine expression" or God as He expresses Himself (the equivalent of the Aramaic concept of the memra).

Yes it was Paul. No one else carried such authority they would be persuading the Jews to move on from the Sinai Covenant.

And yes WORD, Image of invisible God, and Mamra are all basically the same concept.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Chan

No, you're confusing me with someone else. I adhere to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Jesus is not "the Father." Yes, I do deny that Jesus possesses divine attributes as the Son but I deny it because the Son was begotten and, thus, this state of being begotten applies only to Jesus' humanity.

WARNING TO IRON BLADDER: Robert, you need to STOP putting words into people's mouths and accept what they believe AS they say it and stop rewording and reinterpreting everything they say. You will be banned. I promise. If you can not attempt to understand what others believe and say and stop inserting your own version into what others are saying, then this is not the forum for you. Go back to CARM where the purpose there is to attack Oneness. This is an Oneness Pentecostal board and your anti-oneness polemics are not welcome

[Michael The Disciple]

So is Iron Bladder gone? I was hoping to hear his reply to what I said about Levi paying tithes to Melchesedec.

[Praxeas]

He is here, but unable to start new threads. He can reply to you though

[mfblume]

The PERSON of the Son is the Person of the Father, so the Son is Creator AS PER HIS PERSON, but not creator as per His manifestation as Son.

SO SIMPLE!!!!!!

Originally Posted by mfblume

The PERSON of the Son is the Person of the Father, so the Son is Creator AS PER HIS PERSON, but not creator as per His manifestation as Son.

SO SIMPLE!!!!!!

Please would you give three scriptures to prove this, just three scriptures and if you start a new thread, I'll reply to each of your 3 verses with 3 new replies, one to each. You need to realise that making a claim doesn't constitute proof. If you do this and I reply, will you then reply to thre of my verses which prove that the Father is not the Son or that the Holy Spirit is not the Father? (n.b I can't start new threads so I'll ask you to start it for me and then I'll reply to your three verses).

Originally Posted by Chan

I adhere to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Jesus is not "the Father." Yes, I do deny that Jesus possesses divine attributes as the Son but I deny it because the Son was begotten and, thus, this state of being begotten applies only to Jesus' humanity.

.

If you claim that the Son doesn’t possess divine attributes, then you don’t adhere to the Trinitarian Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed at all, but you deny it as this creed states that Christ the Son of God is Yahweh and being Yahweh he’s the possessor of every divine attribute.

Originally Posted by Chan

Even Jesus never said that He, as the Son, was Yaweh God. As the Son, Jesus said things like "the Father is greater than I" and said that He was going "to My God and to your God." As the Son, Jesus differentiated Himself from God. Why? Because as the Son Jesus was God's only begotten Son.

You sound like exactly like an Arian, and so your wrong as Christ the Son of God is fully and completely Yahweh God (John 1:1, 20:28, Hebrews 1:3, 8, 10 etc), your completely denying the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed which you claim to adhere to. Jesus differentiated himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit, but not from Yahweh God, because he is fully and completely Yahweh God. If your going to quote scripture then please reference it, you paraphrase John 14:28 a verse beloved by JW’s which doesn’t state that Jesus is less than the Father, as the word ‘mezion’ used here for ‘greater’ doesn’t mean that. The word ‘pleion’ used at Matthew 12:41 means better than; ‘behold a greater than Jonas is here.’ Finally, ‘only begotten’ is a complete mistranslation of ‘monogenese’ it should be translated as ‘only Son’ or ‘one and only Son’ as in the NIV. However, if your going to refer to this term, which is a Trinitarian term implying the classical doctrine of Christ eternal generation, i.e. that he’s ‘eternally being begotten by the Father,’ something which I don’t accept by the way, then you need to define your terminology before you use it.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I never said anything about misleading or secret codes or hidden meanings. We were discussing the fact that NOW that HE is the Son He can be referrered to as the Son....duh

So are you claiming that there was a time when he wasn’t the SON? Doesn’t that mean that to you God has changed?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

So are you claiming that there was a time when he wasn’t the SON? Doesn’t that mean that to you God has changed?

I am and have always been claiming that there was a time when God was NOT the Son in that God was NOT incarnate yet with a human nature. No that does not mean God changed because He is the same God, same person with the same unchanged Divine nature/essence he was before the incarnation as he is now. And I am getting tired of repeating that to you here. YOu have brought up this issue of God changing and we have already dragged it out. If God changed for me, then he changed for Trinitarians to when they say God was incarnate or the Son became a man