Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Did the Son change when the Son became High Priest? OF course not.
That is how dishonest you are with the Oneness view.

God did NOT change when He became the Son for HIS Deity remained the Same. ALL that occured was the Human nature was united to His Person

When we say God became flesh we are NOT saying God changed into something. We are saying God became that Man Christ Jesus BY Uniting TO HIMSELF a HUMAN NATURE

I've had some second thoughts on Malachi 3:6, yes my comments were possibly mistaken. The context fo this verse as I'd now see it refers to God's promises being unchanging, but, and it's a BIG BUT, his promises are unchanging because like him they reflect his immutible nature. However, you were right the primary meaning is God's promises, I can now see that.

Originally Posted by TheLayman

You are quite clearly wrong and claiming the text does not say exactly and explicity what it does say. Keep in mind that you are the one making a clear distinction in the meanings of the words "Word" and "Son," denying the Son was the agent in creation and asserting it was the Word. In fact you have gone so far as to assert that this passage does not say that God created the universe by His Son. Well, Heb. 1:2 states quite explicitly:

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The antecedent of "WHOM" in this passage is the SON by whom God has spoken to us in these last days. Put another way, God's SON by whom he spoke to us is the same SON whom He appointed heir of all things, who is the same SON by whom He made the universe. The word "Logos" is nowhere to be found in the verse and the passage is quite explicit. So the person denying what the passage explicitly states is you, it is the Trinitarian who is affirming what the passage says. Simple grammar.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Yes, I'm making a clear distinction between the logos and the Son because the Bible tells us in SEVERAL PLACES that the SON WAS BEGOTTEN. Is it true that the logos later became the Son, yes. But that doesn't mean it was as the Son that the logos was the means by which God spoke Creation into existence.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Please prove this from the Bible, I'd see the terms Son / Logos as being fully interchangeable, so the logos is creator at John 1:2-3, but the Son is creator at Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17. Therefore the Logos is the Son as this term refers to the same one person of God!

Son and logos cannot be interchangeable because the Son was begotten and, thus, had a beginning.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Firstly, Hebrews 1:2 uses the word Son, so God (Father) together with the Son are the creator at this verse. Secondly, Colossians 1:16-17 backs up the Son as the creator. Thirdly, I never said that the Father and Son are the creator at Genesis 1:2, you've misunderstood me, what i said was that the Holy Spirit is the creator at this verse.

thanks

No, the Son (as the logos of John 1) was the means by which God (the Father) created. It doesn't say that Father and Son created together. Also, there is no mention at all of the Holy Spirit. In Genesis it tells us that God spoke Creation into existence. John said that in the beginning the logos (word, thought, power behind these, God's expression of Himself) was that by which the Creation was created. Jesus' sonship is restricted to His humanity because the Son was begotten.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

This portion of the creed doesn't state that.

No portion of the Creed says it!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Firstly, Hebrews 1:2 uses the word Son, so God (Father) together with the Son are the creator at this verse. Secondly, Colossians 1:16-17 backs up the Son as the creator. Thirdly, I never said that the Father and Son are the creator at Genesis 1:2, you've misunderstood me, what i said was that the Holy Spirit is the creator at this verse.

thanks

Hebrews says God (here Trinitarians like yourself add God the Father lol) created through or by the Son. God did the making, and God did it through or by the Son. That can be interpreted in many ways but does not explicitly state that both created.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Please prove this from the Bible, I'd see the terms Son / Logos as being fully interchangeable, so the logos is creator at John 1:2-3, but the Son is creator at Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17. Therefore the Logos is the Son as this term refers to the same one person of God!

Please show that the terms are fully interchangable hehe. Why, in John's theology is he not the Son with God and instead the Logos with God and then why does John not call the logos "son" until only after the Logos is made flesh?

Originally Posted by Chan

No, I didn't say that He existed AS THE SON. He did, however, exist as the logos (see John 1). It was by the logos (the word, thought and power behind these) that God created when He spoke Creation into existence.

Actually John 1:2-3 states that the logos created the universe, whilst Colossians 1:16-17 and Hebrews 1:2 use the word Son to state that the Son created the universe, so Son / Logos are interchangeable and both statements are true. if both a true then why do you deny the eternal Sonship of the SON? Who existed as the Son together with the Father from before the creation (John 17:5, 17:24 note use of the words 'Son' and 'Father' at verse 1), and then as the Son / Logos created together with the Father (Hebrews 1:2)> Please would you kindly address the use of the word 'Son' at hebrews 1:2 and John 17:1 re verse 5 and 24.

Originally Posted by Chan

No, it doesn't say that Father and Son created together, it says, "by whom also he made the worlds." In other words, the Jesus (the logos) was the means by which GOD created. GOD spoke creation into existence and the logos was not only what God spoke but also the thought and power behind that word. As for Genesis 1:2, you are reading "Father and Son and Holy Spirit" into the text.

The text says 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.

Please address the use of the word His Son in this verse. The word 'his' is a possessive pronoun, which implies somebody other than the Son, i.e. God the Father re the word 'God' at verse 1 and 'Father' at verse 5. So the Father created the universe by his Son.

Originally Posted by Chan

Show me where the following portion of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says He took on flesh:

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.

I have no interest in creeds, it's the text of Scripture which I base my faith on, please learn to address the text and start with Hebrews 1:2;

“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.

What does 'His Son' imply? I belvei that this is saying that from before the creation the Father and Son existed as the Father and Son and then created as the Father and Son.