Did God become his own son?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

En huioi means “in son” or “in the son”. He is the one through whom the worlds were made.

“Through whom also He made the worlds” – Hebrews 1:2 “Through” is “dia”, meaning, “by means of”.

John 1:1-3;14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”

The Word is not separate from God, therefore, Jesus is not separate from God.

Conclusion: God became his own son. Or rather, God became a son - "(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth..." John 1:14

And if Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am the Lord; that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another.....", it is NOT possible that God is NOT the son if we can behold that "glory" in Jesus Christ.

Great Post PO!!

[BrotherEastman]

through His own flesh He did. God created His own sonship that He may dwell in flesh and become our kinsmen redeemer.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If the Word WAS God, how is there any sort of separation? Is it separate because it is visible? No. We "beheld" His glory.

It is separate (maybe) because the Word was WITH God. You can't explain it away by quoting the next phrase - that doesn't answer the question. Trinitarians have tried to explain this with the Trinity - do you have have a different way of reconciling the Word being WITH God? What does that mean?

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by Timmy

When he sees you quarreling over this kind of thing, God must be beside himself.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Enough "sense" to guarantee the unstable a place in hell.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You're going to be "beside yourself" when "every knee shall bow". Just sayin'...

Nothing like being told you're going to hell twice in one thread to stifle discussion.

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

You're going to be "beside yourself" when "every knee shall bow". Just sayin'...

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Nothing like being told you're going to hell twice in one thread to stifle discussion.

Oh, ya get kinda used to it after a while.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

It is separate (maybe) because the Word was WITH God. You can't explain it away by quoting the next phrase - that doesn't answer the question. Trinitarians have tried to explain this with the Trinity - do you have have a different way of reconciling the Word being WITH God? What does that mean?

So, we are not allowed to complete the thought by quoting the next phrase? How is that going to work for context?

"And the Word was with God, and the Word was....." Scrap that thought. lol

And why would I care what a Trinitarian says when Isaiah 9:6 is plain as day?

The first time that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1

"For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder. And His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (KJV)

"For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition - DRA)

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Timmy

You opened the gate.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Nothing like being told you're going to hell twice in one thread to stifle discussion.

I didn't say Timmy was going to hell. I think that if he is sincere with his questioning, he will be surprised when every knee shall bow. A lot of truth will be staring at all of us, in the face, on judgement day.

If he is asking the question, mocking God, which I don't think he is, that would be a different story.