Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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.

No, it doesn't say that the Son created, it says that God created BY this One who is also the Son. AS THE SON, Jesus was begotten, had a beginning, which could not be possible if Jesus AS THE SON is eternal. The notion of an eternal Son is an oxymoron, particularly since the Bible specifically says the Son is begotten.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

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.

Because NOW he is the Son. Just like we can refer to George Bush in the past tense and say "President Bush once was arrested for drunk driving" does not mean at the time he was the president

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Because NOW he is the Son. Just like we can refer to George Bush in the past tense and say "President Bush once was arrested for drunk driving" does not mean at the time he was the president

So why doesn't the Bible call him something else?Isn't God misleading according to you, he writes in secret codes and expects us to ignore what the text states on face value and to look for secret hidden meanings.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

So why doesn't the Bible call him something else?Isn't God misleading according to you, he writes in secret codes and expects us to ignore what the text states on face value and to look for secret hidden meanings.

The Bible calls Jesus a lot of things - not just "Son." Why aren't you asking whether Jesus "as the King of kings and Lord of lords" is the creator"? What about as the Lamb of God or as the Captain of our Salvation?

Originally Posted by Chan

The Bible calls Jesus a lot of things - not just "Son." Why aren't you asking whether Jesus "as the King of kings and Lord of lords" is the creator"? What about as the Lamb of God or as the Captain of our Salvation?

Becasue you only believe that the deity (God) passages like these apply to Jesus as THE FATHER! As the Son you deny that he is deity (God) and you like the JWs and Unitarians deny that the Son possesses divine attributes as the Son.


Arguing over the divine attributes and titles of God the Father, whom I call Father and you call Jesus is irrelivant, as everyone agrees that the Father is Yahweh God. Its your denial that the Son is Yahweh God which is the issue under discussion.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Becasue you only believe that the deity (God) passages like these apply to Jesus as THE FATHER! As the Son you deny that he is deity (God) and you like the JWs and Unitarians deny that the Son possesses divine attributes as the Son.


Arguing over the divine attributes and titles of God the Father, whom I call Father and you call Jesus is irrelivant, as everyone agrees that the Father is Yahweh God. Its your denial that the Son is Yahweh God which is the issue under discussion.

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/d/f/h/dfhglory.htm

Blessings,

Falla39

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Becasue you only believe that the deity (God) passages like these apply to Jesus as THE FATHER! As the Son you deny that he is deity (God) and you like the JWs and Unitarians deny that the Son possesses divine attributes as the Son.

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.

Arguing over the divine attributes and titles of God the Father, whom I call Father and you call Jesus is irrelivant, as everyone agrees that the Father is Yahweh God. Its your denial that the Son is Yahweh God which is the issue under discussion.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

So why doesn't the Bible call him something else?

You are not making any sense. What doesn't the bible call WHO something else and why would it?

Isn't God misleading according to you, he writes in secret codes and expects us to ignore what the text states on face value and to look for secret hidden meanings.

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

[Michael The Disciple]

DID LEVI PAY TITHES TO MELCHISEDEC?

9: And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10: For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Heb. 7:9-10

Indeed Paul taught that Levi who did not even exist payed tithes. How? He existed in the loins of Abraham. Now before Trins cry foul they need to consider the source.

The same one who said Levi paid tithes before he was ever born also said:

1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2: 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;
3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb. 1:1-3

In verse 3 he explains who the Son was. The brightness of his glory. The express image of his person. In other words the same one John called THE WORD.

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

DID LEVI PAY TITHES TO MELCHISEDEC?

9: And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10: For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. Heb. 7:9-10

Indeed Paul taught that Levi who did not even exist payed tithes. How? He existed in the loins of Abraham. Now before Trins cry foul they need to consider the source.

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

The same one who said Levi paid tithes before he was ever born also said:

1: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2: 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;
3: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb. 1:1-3

Well, whether Paul wrote Hebrews is subject to debate.

In verse 3 he explains who the Son was. The brightness of his glory. The express image of his person. In other words the same one John called THE WORD.

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).