Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

Originally Posted by Chan

Hebrews 1:2 does not say that Father and Son together created, it says that Jesus is the means by which the Father created. The Father did the creating, Jesus was the logos (the word, thought and power behind these) with which God spoke Creation into existence.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Chan

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

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.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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 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?

Originally Posted by Chan

No portion of the Creed says it!

Firstly you never quoted the whole creed and secondly, my faith is based on scripture and not on any creed, so I frankly don't care what it says. I've been sayign for years that the creeds are inacurate re eternal generation, all of them teach this and I reject this theory, so I don't even accept this creed as Biblically accurate. Why then are you avoiding the scriptures but in love with this erronious creed?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Firstly you never quoted the whole creed and secondly, my faith is based on scripture and not on any creed, so I frankly don't care what it says. I've been sayign for years that the creeds are inacurate re eternal generation, all of them teach this and I reject this theory, so I don't even accept this creed as Biblically accurate. Why then are you avoiding the scriptures but in love with this erronious creed?

There is nothing in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (as used in Orthodox churches, not the corrupted version used in Roman Catholic and Protestant churches) that says anything about eternal generation. Of course, Creeds are nothing more than statements of faith, statements of what one believes, and are mere interpretations of scripture (just as the oneness and trinity doctrines are merely interpretations of scripture).

Here's the entire Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 A.D. that I adhere to.

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;
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

And the life of the age to come. Amen.


^ Many Orthodox priests today would say this is the equivalent of the phrase "eternally begotten" in the Roman Catholic version of the Creed (which also contains the heretical filioque, i.e. that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son). However, there is no evdence that the phrases are equivalent. Further, in Revelation we're told Jesus is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world (the equivalent of "before all ages") but we know that this is being used in the sense that God decreed even before the Creation that He would have an only-begotten Son that would be the sacrificial Lamb for the sins of the world. So also, God decreed before all ages that He would have this only-begotten Son, Jesus. While Athanasius was opposed to those who said there was a time when the Son was not, he seemed to be referring to Jesus in general and not specifically to His status as the Son, since the Son was begotten and, thus, had a beginning.


I also adhere to the Confession of the Synod of Mar Aqaq (486 A.D.) except for the use of the phrase "copies of":

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.

The Confession simplified: those things pertaining to Jesus' divinity do not pertain to His humanity and those things pertaining to His humanity do not pertain to His divinity. This, by the way, was the doctrine that Nestorius taught.

*The Aramaic equivalent of the Greek word prosopon.

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.

No, the logos was the means by which GOD created. The logos was the word with which GOD spoke Creation into existence (and was also the thought and power behind that word).

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.

No, because the Son was begotten and, as such, had a beginning.

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

One person but two natures in hypostatic union. The human nature is the one that was begotten and, thus, is the Son. It is inappropriate to try to apply to Jesus' sonship (His humanity) that which applies only to His divinity.