Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

Originally Posted by Chan

The Bible never says that the Son is the Creator but, instead that it is by Him that GOD created .

OK so for God to create by the Son (as youv'e claimed) the Son had to be there together with God (Father) from before the creation! That's just my point, in order to be creator, the Sonhad to have existed as the Son form before the creation of the universe, thus proving an eternal Son.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

OK so for God to create by the Son (as youv'e claimed) the Son had to be there together with God (Father) from before the creation! That's just my point, in order to be creator, the Sonhad to have existed as the Son form before the creation of the universe, thus proving an eternal Son.

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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

The Bible states that the Father and the SOn together created; Hebrews 1:2 and that the Holy Spirit also created; Genesis 1:2, so the One God who creates 'all alone' and 'by myself' is Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

If God BECAME the SON, then you belevie God changed, this is why the Trinitarian creeds state that God took on flesh, and they reject as heresy the claim that GOD BECAME flesh. Secondly, how would you explain the Son being said to exist as the Son form before the creation at Hebrews 1:2, John 17:5, 17:24 etc.

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.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

So are you saying that the SON existed together with the father at the creation of the universe, and that they then both created as Hebrews 1:2 states: Yes or NO? Secondly, what do you mean by 'God's power?' Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Holy Spirit is God's power, i.e. an impersonal immaterial force, so are you saying something like this about the Son? Please explain your definition of the logos as a force. thanks

I'm not saying the Son existed, I'm saying the logos (divine expression, see John 1) existed. I'm also saying that Jesus' sonship, His status as the Son, had a beginning because it was begotten, according to the prophetic psalm, on "this day." 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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

If God BECAME the SON, then you belevie God changed, this is why the Trinitarian creeds state that God took on flesh, and they reject as heresy the claim that GOD BECAME flesh. Secondly, how would you explain the Son being said to exist as the Son form before the creation at Hebrews 1:2, John 17:5, 17:24 etc.

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

[TheLayman]

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

This portion of the creed doesn't state that.