Is the Son eternal?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

You misunderstand the Trinitarian creeds, which state that Christ (Son) took on flesh, to my knowledge, no Trinitarian creed or scholar claims that he became flesh for if he did then he changed which is why we don't bevlei that. His deity always remained completely unchanged when he took on flesh, amd as god is not flesh, taking on a blody of flesh in the hypostatic union didn't affect his deity.

You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!

You misunderstand Oneness. WE don't teach God changed. HE remains the same. He only TOOK on flesh.

Let me ask you...has Christ been the Great High Priest eternally? Or did he become that?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!

You misunderstand Oneness. WE don't teach God changed. HE remains the same. He only TOOK on flesh.

Let me ask you...has Christ been the Great High Priest eternally? Or did he become that?

1. Adding humanity isn't change or an addition to God, for being infinite God (in his deity) is separate from humanity and that despite the hypostatic union between the Son's two natures. Furthermore, you can't add to an infinite being, so God taking on flesh, doesn't affect or alter his deity.

2. Yes you do teach that God changed, for you believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit arn't God but are mere manifestations of God, some Oneness folk though not the majority would make these manifestations impersonal. Malachi 3:6 teaches; 'For I am God I change NOT.' But you claim that God changes into various manifestions and that as the Son, this manifestation of God is without any divine attributes. So the Son in Oneness is created at his birth, therefore he isn't immutible, Omnipresent or Omnipotent etc in Oneness being mutible and a part of the creation as in Unitarianism, Mormonism and the Watchtower cults.

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

1. Adding humanity isn't change or an addition to God, for being infinite God (in his deity) is separate from humanity and that despite the hypostatic union between the Son's two natures. Furthermore, you can't add to an infinite being, so God taking on flesh, doesn't affect or alter his deity.

Look Robert, that is exactly what WE believe. We believe God's Infinite being did NOT change. His deity was not altered, therefore your argument is a false argument. it is a strawman argument which you so typically resort to

2. Yes you do teach that God changed, for you believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit arn't God but are mere manifestations of God, some Oneness folk though not the majority would make these manifestations impersonal.

If you keep telling me I don't believe something I do believe or I believe something I do not believe, i am going to boot your ironbladder right out of here. If you do that with others I am going to boot you out of here. This is not your forum. You can get your own forum and lie about what others say all you want, but you will not do it here like you did on NFCF.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE God. God IS Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God DID not change when He was hypostatically united with the Human nature. You are equivocating. You say God did not change when you believe there was a hypostatic union, but when a Oneness person says the same thing you lie about what they believe.

Malachi 3:6 teaches; 'For I am God I change NOT.' But you claim that God changes into various manifestions and that as the Son, this manifestation of God is without any divine attributes. So the Son in Oneness is created at his birth, therefore he isn't immutible, Omnipresent or Omnipotent etc in Oneness being mutible and a part of the creation as in Unitarianism, Mormonism and the Watchtower cults.

First of all, God being manifested does not mean he changes. When a Onenes person says manifested he or she very well refers to what you said in the first sentence about the hypostatic untion. When a Oneness person speaks of manifestations he or she does NOT mean God's Deity was altered in any way.

Second, you once again totally ignored my argument AND the context of Mal 3. What you are doing is isolating Mal 3:6 from the context. The verse refers to his promises to israel and is reinterated in hebrews where the author declares the immutabilty of God's counsel

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

3. Christ beasme the High Priest.

Exactly! yet you don't say God changed. You do believe Christ is God right?

We believe God became the Son....God did NOT change He only ADDED a human nature. He was hypostatically united with a Human nature.

Robert, did God become a man? Is the Son a man? Did the Son become a man?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are still in denial. ADDING something to something is a change!

In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh. As for you, your position is classic subordinationism, for you belevie that Christ is the flesh! This is why Oneness folk refer to God as the 'Almighty God IN Christ' you see Oneness denies the truth that Christ IS the ALmighty God and instead makes him the spirit/deity inside the flesh/Christ/humanity. This is classic subordinationism.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh. As for you, your position is classic subordinationism, for you belevie that Christ is the flesh! This is why Oneness folk refer to God as the 'Almighty God IN Christ' you see Oneness denies the truth that Christ IS the ALmighty God and instead makes him the spirit/deity inside the flesh/Christ/humanity. This is classic subordinationism.

Nestorius accused Cyril (that spawn of Satan) and the Church of mixing, commingling, etc. the two natures. The Church was referring to Mary as the mother of God (theotokos) and Nestorius objected, saying that Mary was the mother of Christ (christokos) but not the mother of God, since Jesus did not derive any of His divinity from Mary.

While there is, indeed, hypostatic union between Jesus' two natures, the Church's position was one of error because it intermixed, commingled, etc. the two natures (thus, they had God dying on the cross, God suffering, etc.). Cyril, after being challenged on this by Nestorius, falsely accused him of saying Jesus was two persons (hypostases), which Nestorius denied. As for oneness folks referring to "Almighty God IN Christ," the Bible refers to God in Christ on more than one occasion and even says that all the fullness of deity dwelled bodily in Christ.

A more correct view is expressed in the following Christological statement:

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. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486).

*I don't agree with the use of "copies" here and it is not clear what is meant by it.

^Aramaic for the Greek word prosopa, which is the plural of prosopon - the word used by the Church for Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually until Cyril (that spawn of Satan) insisted that the Church must use the term "hypostasis" individually for Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Cyril claimed that using prosopon was too close to Sabellianism). The English equivalent of prosopon is "persona" (which is the same as the Latin equivalent of the Greek prosopon) while one English equivalent of hypostasis is "person." (Note that Hebrews 1:3 uses for God's "person").

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

In hypostatic union, the two natures rremaibn unmixed, therefore the deity did remain unchanged when Christ took on flesh.

Right and that is what OPs believe happened with God HIMSELF was Hypostatically united with a Human nature. HE and HIS Deity were unchanged. All that happened is the Human nature was united to His Person. He was genuinely a man, while His deity remained the same.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I've explained this to you dozens and dozens of times and you either don't get it or just don't WANT to get it. You don't have to agree with me, but at least be honest about what we believe.

So let me ask you here a rhetorical question in order to address this issue...
Has George Bush ALWAYS been the President of the United States? The honest intelligent answer is no. Does that mean the PERSON George Bush did not exist until he became president? Of course not. That is a logical impossibility. The PERSON George Bush must exist in order to become the President

So to, in Oneness, Yahweh the God that created everything has always existed. HE became the Son at the incarnation when He united a Human nature to His own Person. Thus the Son is Yahweh HIMSELF (person) who has the Divine nature, hypostatically united with a Human nature. The Son then is not a mere man, someone other than God, in whom God was.

The Son is Yahweh Himself taking on a human form, adding a human nature. The Son therefore is not another person from God


You have a logical problem here....you claim in absolute terms God can't change by becoming the Son...therefore you MUST logically and honestly conclude God also could not become that Man, Christ Jesus. Yet you would not deny the Trinitarian doctrine that God was incarnate.

God HIMSELF did not change by becoming the Son. He remained the same. His person and Divine nature was unchanged. Additionally you are misusing this verse, which you know full well already because you have agreed with me before. This verse is about changing His word or promises. Read the context and you will see His not changing has to do with his Promises to Israel. God can not lie....that is what this is about. It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with taking on a different form, or nature.

Otherwise this was violated with all the theophanies

Some of your criticism of my use of Malachi 3:6 are valid. I revised my Malachi 3:6 post last night, however for some strange reason i can't find it on my memory stick! I agree that the primary meaning of this verse is that God's promises to Israel (sons of Judah) are permanent. I would still see this imutibility as reflecting his own divine immutuibility, but I'll try to post my revised post as asap.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Some of your criticism of my use of Malachi 3:6 are valid. I revised my Malachi 3:6 post last night, however for some strange reason i can't find it on my memory stick! I agree that the primary meaning of this verse is that God's promises to Israel (sons of Judah) are permanent. I would still see this imutibility as reflecting his own divine immutuibility, but I'll try to post my revised post as asap.

That's still beside the point. In Oneness we do not see His Deity having made a change. We ONLY see Humanity being added to Him. He, as the Son, has two natures now. He in His Deity did not change

Originally Posted by Praxeas

L
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost ARE God. God IS Father, Son and Holy Ghost. God DID not change when He was hypostatically united with the Human nature. You are equivocating. You say God did not change when you believe there was a hypostatic union, but when a Oneness person says the same thing you lie about what they believe.

You use the word 'God' in a duplicitious manner just as a JW, Mormon or Christadelphian uses the word. So you say that the Son is God, but then you deny that he's an eternal Son, you deny that the Son is imutible but beleive that he becasme the Son, and also deny that the Son is creator, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The above mentioned three cults do much the same thing, in that like you they'll call the Son God, but then deny that as the Son he possesses divine attributes and apply these divine attributes to the only God they (like you believe in) namely God the Father.

So a Mormon will say that Jesus is God, but then admit if cornered that jesus is a created man whose not become a God. JW's will admit that Jesus is the 'mighty God' but this is a meaningless term, as it's really the Almighty God (Jehovah) who possesses divine attributes in JW theology.

For you Praxeas, the only real God who possesses divine attributes is the Father who indwells the flesh or Son, therfore the term; the Almighty God in Christ. You see you do call the Son .... God, but he isn't deity at all in yoru theology, I can prove this as you deny that the Son is an eternal Son, creator, omnipresent and omnipotent (as the Son). It's the Father whom you call 'Jesus' or 'Holy Spirit' who is the real God and who possesses divine attributes in your theology.

One day you'll answer for this denial of the Son's deity, at your judgement.