Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If God changed for me, then he changed for Trinitarians to when they say God was incarnate or the Son became a man

Exactly! Good point. Incarnation does not mean God changed, since God is the only Deity. And Deity never changes. It is eternal. And trinitarians must confess God changed, moreso than oneness could ever confess it, if they say oneness requires a change in God due to incarnation. This is because they refer to Jesus as "GOD THE SON". And if GOD THE SON was incarnated in flesh, that means there was a time when "GOD the Son" was not enfleshed. That means GOD CHANGED.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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).

You keep asking us to answer you but you have not yet answered my question that said that if an apple has the nature to be red, then is "red" an apple?

I made the claim I did in showing your logic to be faulty when you said Oneness does not allow for the Son to be divine since the Son did not exist when creation occurs, and creativity is what makes God deity. I showed you that your reasoning is way offkey, because oneness teaches the person of the Son is the same person as the Father, so the Son HAS TO possess creativity. If the person of the Father created all things, and that is the same person of the Son, then the Son is divine. In other words, when I prove your conclusions about our beliefs to be in error, you are only sidetracking the issue by changing topics and asking me to provide scripture to show you my claims that were only responses to show your misrepresentation of our beliefs.

Which do you want to deal with? (1) The fact that your claims about our beliefs are wrong, or (2) where in scripture do we base our claims? You are avoiding the fact that your summary of our beliefs is entirely wrong. That is what I was dealing with since that is what you did. That is what this topic is about. In fact, you started this topic of Oneness and the Son's divinity. Why change the entire topic issue now?

Admit you are wrong in saying Oneness cannot allow the Son to be divine, since the person is the real issue, and oneness teaches the person of the Son is the person of the Father. And then we can go on and show scripture to prove the person of the Son is the Person of the Father. But do not accuse us of something we do not believe, and when I correct you, divert the discussion to whether or not our claims are in scripture. Please be ethical and honest. The issue at hand is whether or not your claims about oneness are correct.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Exactly! Good point. Incarnation does not mean God changed, since God is the only Deity. And Deity never changes. It is eternal. And trinitarians must confess God changed, moreso than oneness could ever confess it, if they say oneness requires a change in God due to incarnation. This is because they refer to Jesus as "GOD THE SON". And if GOD THE SON was incarnated in flesh, that means there was a time when "GOD the Son" was not enfleshed. That means GOD CHANGED.

Look both Oneness and The Trinity believe that God incarnated as a man, so if God changed by incarnating as a man, then they both theologies believe exactly the same and both would consequently deny God's immutibility. The only difference is that Trinitarianism teaches that the Son incarnated and Oneness that the Father incarnated (as the Son). God's immutibility refers only to his deity, tso aking on a body of flesh doesn't constitute mutibility as the deity remains completely unchanged in Trinitarianism. This is why the Trinitarian creeds avoid claiming that God BECAME flesh, he instead TOOK ON flesh as BECOMING flesh implies a change in the deity whilst taking on flesh doesn't affect his divinity in any way. Let me illuistrate it this way, if I put on a jumper, do i change my essential nature as a man? NO, but if I BECAME a jumper then yes, my ontological nature as a man would ahve changed. May I say how brilliantly insightful I've found some of your most recent posts, I'm having to really think about some of your posts and how to answer them, so thank you.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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)

I agree that JESUS is both fully God and fully man. But the SON OF GOD was begotten and, because He was begotten, that sonship cannot be applied to divinity. GOD was not begotten, His Son was.

, 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.

I am not denying the Creed. I agree that Jesus as the Son differentiated Himself from His Father and the Holy Spirit but I disagree with your claim that He did not differentiate Himself from God. He did, after all, say that He was going (to quote Jesus) "to my God and to your God." Jesus' status as the Son is restricted to His humanity.

If your going to quote scripture then please reference it

I expect you to know scripture well enough to know the scriptures to which I'm referring.

, 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.

I didn't paraphrase. I QUOTED from it! I expect you to know the difference between a quote and a paraphrase! The word used in John 14:28 means: greater, larger, elder, stronger and is translated "greater" 34 times in the King James Version of the New Testament.

The word ‘pleion’ used at Matthew 12:41 means better than; ‘behold a greater than Jonas is here.’

Since I wasn't referring to Matthew 12:41, this is irrelevant. In any event, the Greek word in that passage has the following meanings:

1. greater in quantity
   1. the more part, very many
2. greater in quality, superior, more excellent

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.

No, the proper translation of monogenes is "only born" since "son" is not contained in that Greek word. It comes from two Greek words: monos (only) and ginomai (meaning, in this context, to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being). When used of Christ, monogenes denotes the only begotten son of God. The Greek word translated "Son" in that passage (John 3:16) is huios.

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.

I define it as the Bible defines it. And, by the way, the notion of eternal generation was largely a development in the Roman Church as opposed to the Eastern Church. For me, the phrase "eternally begotten" (in the corrupted forms of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed used by Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) is an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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.

The Creed does NOT say that the SON is Yaweh. It says that we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ and that this one Lord Jesus Christ is, "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." All of these apply to the Lord Jesus Christ and not merely to His status as "the Son." Jesus' status as "the Son" or as "the only-begotten" do not apply to His divinity since His divinity is "of one essence with the Father." To say that Jesus' divinity was begotten is to say the Father's divinity was begotten. If you say that divinity was begotten then the divinity ceases to be divinity.

[mfblume]

Chan,

What is your view on why Heb 1:8 calls the Son God in very explicit terms?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Chan,

What is your view on why Heb 1:8 calls the Son God in very explicit terms?

I think that the reference specifically to "the Son" is a continuation of the reference to the Son in earlier verses. In other words, grammatical consistency.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Look both Oneness and The Trinity believe that God incarnated as a man, so if God changed by incarnating as a man, then they both theologies believe exactly the same and both would consequently deny God's immutibility. The only difference is that Trinitarianism teaches that the Son incarnated and Oneness that the Father incarnated (as the Son).

Oneness teaches that God remained the same God in Deity even AFTER being incarnate. We do not teach the Father stopped being the Father and Deity and changed into a man, thus no longer being God. Your arguments are fallacious

God's immutibility refers only to his deity, tso aking on a body of flesh doesn't constitute mutibility as the deity remains completely unchanged in Trinitarianism.

Then you need to drop this argument once and for all, for we do NOT believe there was ANY change in His deity. His Deity remained UNCHANAGED in any way whatsoever even after He became the Son

This is why the Trinitarian creeds avoid claiming that God BECAME flesh, he instead TOOK ON flesh as BECOMING flesh implies a change in the deity whilst taking on flesh doesn't affect his divinity in any way.

Please show me the creed that says "took on flesh". Becoming or became flesh ONLY means that God ADDED a Human nature to Himself. Was the Son or was the Son not a man? IF he was a man then how can you deny He became a man? See what you are doing is playing a semantical game.

Let me illuistrate it this way, if I put on a jumper, do i change my essential nature as a man? NO, but if I BECAME a jumper then yes, my ontological nature as a man would ahve changed.

Then what you are saying is is that the Son was NOT really a man. You are in fact denying the incarnation. You are making His humanity nothing more than a pair of pants someone puts on. That the Trinitarians do not even believe. He is THE MAN Christ Jesus. Your doctrine is heretical even by Trinitarian standards

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Look both Oneness and The Trinity believe that God incarnated as a man, so if God changed by incarnating as a man, then they both theologies believe exactly the same and both would consequently deny God's immutibility.

Exactly my point.

The only difference is that Trinitarianism teaches that the Son incarnated and Oneness that the Father incarnated (as the Son). God's immutibility refers only to his deity, tso aking on a body of flesh doesn't constitute mutibility as the deity remains completely unchanged in Trinitarianism. This is why the Trinitarian creeds avoid claiming that God BECAME flesh, he instead TOOK ON flesh as BECOMING flesh implies a change in the deity whilst taking on flesh doesn't affect his divinity in any way. Let me illuistrate it this way, if I put on a jumper, do i change my essential nature as a man? NO, but if I BECAME a jumper then yes, my ontological nature as a man would ahve changed. May I say how brilliantly insightful I've found some of your most recent posts, I'm having to really think about some of your posts and how to answer them, so thank you.

You are welcome. But once again, your analogy about the jumper fits oneness as well. Since Oneness teaches the PERSON of the Father who created all things is the same person of the Son, then you cannot say Oneness does not allow for the Son of God to have creative abilities, due to His Person.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Please show me the creed that says "took on flesh". Becoming or became flesh ONLY means that God ADDED a Human nature to Himself. Was the Son or was the Son not a man? IF he was a man then how can you deny He became a man? See what you are doing is playing a semantical game.s

God becoming a man means something completely different from God taking on flesh, the latter is the term favoured by Trinitarians by the way. I don't ahve my theology books to hand, as they are in storage. However, to become something implies a change, so God, being immutible couldn't ontologically have become a man. Instead he took on a completely new nature, a nature of humanity (flesh and human spirit - not just flesh alone which is Apollinarianism), he didn't become flesh but simply took this on. The human nature wasn't fused or mixed with his divine nature, if it was then it would have constituted a change in his divine nature.

Praxeas i really think that you're wasting yoru time on such questioning, as Bernard and Dulle essentially beleive the same as Trinitarianism here, they too seek to avoid the error of Apollinarianism, the only real difference is that they beleive that the Father incarnated in the flesh and Trinitarians believe that the Son incarnated. Secondly, Oneness teaches that God did change by becoming F-S-HS at about the time of the incarnation (of the Father), Trinitarianism denies this by claiming that God is eternally F-S-HS and that he didn't become so, but always was so.