Christs Two natures are what?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Incorrect. The PERSON of God is eternal and has always been deity. But this person took upon Himself the nature of humanity as well through incarnation alone. The person existed before the incarnation existed. And the incarnation involved human nature. There is no Son without human nature. And since human nature is not eternal, the Son is not eternal either. God took upon Himself the nature of humanity -- the nature of Abraham, which is human. Sonship cannot exist with fatherhood and motherhood. We cnanot change definitions of words as trinitarianism does with the term SON. There is no such thing as a Son without both a mother and father. Therefore, since the mother is not eternal, the Son never can be and never was eternal.

Since the Person of God was incarnate, then the Son is not a mere projection of God, but is God in very person. But there is only One Person.



Incorrect. The Son's PERSON, which is the same Person as the Father and Holy Ghost, is eternal. This Person of God existed at one time without ever having incarnated Himself. Therefore, the Son is not eternal, but His person is.

It's really quite simple.

OK then please explain how; John 14:23, 17:5, 17:24, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17 fit into your theology, if your right you’ll be able to explain the use of the word SON in each of these four passages (context for John 17:5 in verse 1 and for Colossians 1:16-17 at verse 13). It’s not very convincing the way you always duck these verses. You claim Mr Blume that the Son is the same person as the Father, OK well expalin these 5 passages in the light of yoru claim. How can the Son be the father when for instance the Son possesses glory WITH the Father from before the creation (John 17:5).

Originally Posted by mfblume

Whew!

Why would anyone want to deny such a beautiful truth as Oneness?

Oneness is not beautiful, as it fails the test of true Christianity which is to affirm that the Son of God possesses every divine attribute; eternity, creatorship, omnipresence, immutability, omnipotence. Most cults such as the Mormons will call Jesus …. by the name ‘GOD.’ However all cults will either redefine the term; ‘Jesus’ or ‘God.’ So Mormons blaspheme the former by claiming that millions of Mormons will also one day become Gods too. Jehovah’s Witnesses blaspheme the latter by redefining the word ‘God’ to mean a lesser deity; the mighty and not the almighty God. Oneness exists in many different forms, but most commonly, it redefines the word ‘Jesus’ when applied to Christ’s deity to mean God the Father and then strips the Son of every one of his divine attributes so that they’ll claim that the Son isn’t the creator, isn’t eternal, isn’t omnipresent etc. This comes under the condemnation of John 8:24.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

JWs do not teach the Son is God.

Yes they do, they calim that the SOn is the mighty God but not the ALmighty God, which in their theology means that the Son is really an angel (Michael) who's incarnated as a man. Obviously they're wrong, but my point is that most of the cults do call jesus ..... God in some misdefined sense.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Actually Praxeas has told me that all Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Son has existed eternally and so is an eternal Son. He has warned me that if I ever say that Oneness Pentecostals deny the fact that the Son is eternal, then he’ll boot me form this room (I guess he's afraid of me as he can't refute my claims directly which is why he ducks most of the content of my posts).

Robert that is your last lie. Your next one will earn you a boot from the room. I never once said all OPs believed the Son is an Eternal Son nor did I say all OPs believe that the Son has existed Eternally NOR did I warn you that I would boot you if you ever say that OPs deny that fact. I am sending this to you in PM to to warn you. Your next visit here better have a change of attitude or you are gone from this forum for good, again.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Yes they do, they calim that the SOn is the mighty God but not the ALmighty God, which in their theology means that the Son is really an angel (Michael) who's incarnated as a man. Obviously they're wrong, but my point is that most of the cults do call jesus ..... God in some misdefined sense.

They do NOT claim the Son is God. They claim he is a god, a divine one, an angel. Stop trying to twist and obfuscate things.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Oneness is not beautiful, as it fails the test of true Christianity which is to affirm that the Son of God possesses every divine attribute; eternity, creatorship, omnipresence, immutability, omnipotence. Most cults such as the Mormons will call Jesus …. by the name ‘GOD.’ However all cults will either redefine the term; ‘Jesus’ or ‘God.’ So Mormons blaspheme the former by claiming that millions of Mormons will also one day become Gods too. Jehovah’s Witnesses blaspheme the latter by redefining the word ‘God’ to mean a lesser deity; the mighty and not the almighty God. Oneness exists in many different forms, but most commonly, it redefines the word ‘Jesus’ when applied to Christ’s deity to mean God the Father and then strips the Son of every one of his divine attributes so that they’ll claim that the Son isn’t the creator, isn’t eternal, isn’t omnipresent etc. This comes under the condemnation of John 8:24.

The Son possesses ALL the nature of The Supreme Deity, but due to the kenosis are latent in him (Phil 2) as well as All the nature of Humanity. The source of that Deity is the Father, ironically this is what historic Trinitarianism has taught. The Divine nature of the Father is ontologically united with the Human nature of the Son so that the Son is Yahweh HIMSELF with both Divine and Human natures. The Son does NOT possess a Divine nature independent of the Father as that would be Tritheism like the Mormons and some Trinitarians believe. So if you say the Deity of the Son is NOT the same Deity of the Father, you are a Tritheist.

If you persist in saying the Son is God AS the Son, indicating a separate Divine nature called Son from Father and Holy Ghost, then you are a Tritheist

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Then how do you explain the divine nature of the Father existing with the divine nature of the Son, each possessing divine glory with the other and loving the other, from before the act of creation in which the divine nature of the Father and the divine nature of the Son were both involved: John 17:5, 17:24, Hebrews 1:2. Praxeas, you fail to critically look at your own beliefs, if you really were right in yoru theology, you'd have no fear of me and wouldn't let me so intimidate you that you end up booting me from these forums.

If you believe there is a Divine nature of the Son and a Divine nature of the Father, then you are a Polytheist. Bible, Historical Trinity and Oneness all teach there is only ONE Divine nature that is both that of the Father and in the Son united with the Human nature. The DIvine nature of the Father IS the same Divine nature of the Son ontologically united with the Human nature

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Please think very carefully about your reply Praxeas. For all people or persons have names, but as you’ve said, natures don’t have names being (forgive the pun) by their very nature Impersonal, that it an ‘it’ and not a personal ‘he’ or a ‘she.’ You’ve just admitted that because nature don’t possess names, therefore a nature isn’t God himself but is some impersonal manifestation either of God or from God. Frankly, your manifestations arn't God himself, but are like the impersonal force of the Star wars movies.

Persons have names Praxeas, please think about the dire consequences of your claims.

Now everyone can see how confused you are, even Trinitarians. Trinitarians that are intelligent and understand theology as well as oneness and anyone that knows what words mean know that Persons and Nature are NOT the same thing. Even rocks have nature. Nature simply means WHAT a thing is, what ATTRIBUTES make someone or something what they are and PERSON is WHO someone is. Natures are NOT persons.

Now, the mere fact you equated Nature with Person proves you are a Tritheist!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Actually Praxeas has told me that all Oneness Pentecostals believe that the Son has existed eternally and so is an eternal Son. He has warned me that if I ever say that Oneness Pentecostals deny the fact that the Son is eternal, then he’ll boot me form this room (I guess he's afraid of me as he can't refute my claims directly which is why he ducks most of the content of my posts).

Aside from your unethical behaviour on a forum operated in part by Praxeas, I see you have spoken a lie according to Praxeas:

Robert that is your last lie. ...I never once said all OPs believed the Son is an Eternal Son nor did I say all OPs believe that the Son has existed Eternally NOR did I warn you that I would boot you if you ever say that OPs deny that fact.

Bladder, you really should take notice of yoru behaviour, for true believers know other true believers by their fruits, and you are lying. Taht tells me a lot.

For my part I also do believe that the Son is eternal; John 17:5, 17:24, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16-17, for Yahweh God cannot exist without his divine attributes as cults such as the Unitarians and Christadelphians claim. So Mr Blume, please join Praxeas and myself in affirming Christ’s eternal Sonship.

The Son is not eternal, and had a beginning since there is no eternal mother.

I like what Adam clarke said:

Two natures must ever be distinguished in Christ: the human nature, in reference to which he is the Son of God and inferior to him, Mar_13:32; Joh_5:19; Joh_14:28, and the Divine nature which was from eternity, and equal to God, Joh_1:1; Joh_10:30; Rom_9:5; Col_1:16-18. It is true, that to Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons: -
1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.
2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.
3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.
5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to Time. Son supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.
The enemies of Christ’s Divinity have, in all ages, availed themselves of this incautious method of treating this subject, and on this ground, have ever had the advantage of the defenders of the Godhead of Christ. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ; now, if his deity be taken away, the whole Gospel scheme of redemption is ruined. On this ground, the atonement of Christ cannot have been of infinite merit, and consequently could not purchase pardon for the offenses of mankind, nor give any right to, or possession of, an eternal glory. The very use of this phrase is both absurd and dangerous; therefore let all those who value Jesus and their salvation abide by the Scriptures. This doctrine of the eternal Sonship, as it has been lately explained in many a pamphlet, and many a paper in magazines, I must and do consider as an awful heresy, and mere sheer Arianism; which, in many cases, has terminated in Socinianism, and that in Deism. From such heterodoxies, and their abetters, may God save his Church! Amen!

I tried to start a new post titled; Is the Son an Eternal Son, but I'm restricted and so wasn't able to do this. What I was hoping to do was to take 3 divine attributes: Creatorship, Eternity and Omnipresence and see how the Oneness and Trinitarians in this room defined both the father and the Son according to these three divine attributes. For my part I apply all three attributes to the Father and then both affirm and deny all three attributes for the Son

Your mother of errors is that you do not extrapoliate back further and realize there is a PERSON behind the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and this SINGLE PERSON holds all these attrobutes.

But until you realize there are not three persons, you will never see it.

Take care.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

OK then please explain how; John 14:23

Joh 14:23 KJV Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

"Son" is not even mentioned here, bladder. THis is not referring to the flesh and body entering into our lives. But it is not speaking of TWO SPIRITS entering intou our hearts as well. Eph 4:4 says there is ONE SPIRIT. This verse is referring to a UNION of will and mind and purpose with Christ. Jesus meant the same thing when he prayed we all be One as He and His Father are one. Since we come into union with the Son in order to appraoch the Living God, plurality is involved in Christ's words. We become one with Christ who is God manifested in flesh in order ot be saved, which in turn makes us One with God! That is why we read of one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. Since the person of the Son is the persoin of the Father, then the role of Son with whom we become one causes us to be one with the Father in both personal and soteriological manner.

We have both roles' qualities in salvation. Son and Father. That does not make them two persons, again, though. If the Holy GHost is a different SPIRIT than the Spirit of the Father, and yet we also have the Spirit of Christ, are they three SPIRITS? Of course not. Your doctrine demands they be three spirits, though, in contradiciton of Ep 4:4.

, 17:5

Joh 17:5 KJV And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

That is easy. The GLORY Jesus was speaking about was the work of the cross. Jesus had been speaking of the cross around this verse. And it refers to this verse as well:

Joh 7:39 KJV (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The glory He had with the Father is the work of the cross the Father had all ordained before the foundation of the world. The lamb was slain from the foundation of the world because God sees those things that are not as though they are. Romans 4:17.

, 17:24

Joh 17:24 KJV Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Notice Jesus said, "Be with me where I am." The disciples were standing RIGHT THERE when He said that! This is referring to Christ's status of being in the Kingdom, and not a physical location. If they were in the kingdom, they could see His glory. And loving Christ before the foundation of the world is no more indicative that Christ actually existed then than is the idea that Jesus was actually crucified before the world began. Trinitarians as yourself waffle terribly here since if they are going to say that everytime we read of a reference to a time before the foundation of the world as being indicative of the element actually in existence at that time, then they destroy the whole thought of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. And they're not wiling to do that.

Hebrews 1:2

Heb 1:2 KJV 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;


Same as above. Adam was distinctly said to be created after the figure of Him that WAS TO COME. If Christ existed at that time, then Adam would have been created after the figure OF HIM WHO ALREADY WAS. But it does not say that:

Rom 5:14 KJV Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Romans 5:14 explains Heb 1:2. If creation of Adam was made in the manner of the Son not having come into existence yet since GHod had not yet manifested in flesh as Son, then this explains how Heb 1:2 says Ghod made creation by the Son. We do not read the SON CREATED ALL THINGS, but rather GOD CREATED BY THE SON. If the Son created things as trinitarians claim he did, then we would not read that GOD DID IT "BY THE SON."

Colossians 1:16-17

Col 1:16-17 KJV For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

To say the above proves eternal Sonship shows trinitarianism's lack of scholarly understanding. We already noted that Heb 1:2 said GOD created BY THE SON. We do not read the SON CREATED. Col preserves this same language and says BY HIM. Being BEFORE all things means He is HEAD over it all. Christ is also stated to be the FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD.

Col 1:18 KJV And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Was everything DEAD before the world existed, and Christ was born FIRST FROM THAT DEADNESS? Of course not. This is referring to the resurrection on the third day, in which Christ was made HEAD of the new creation church who is comprised of believers alive from the dead (Ro 6:13).

This is speaking of HEADSHIP. Just as God created Adam after the figure of HIM THAT WAS TO COME, meaning the Sonship did not exist yet, so were all things made BY HIM. God made all things BY THE SON. This ties in with the thought that GOD SPOKE THE WORD in creation. Likewise, the Johanine Comma does not say the SON existed as witness, but THE WORD.

fit into your theology, if your right you’ll be able to explain the use of the word SON in each of these four passages (context for John 17:5 in verse 1 and for Colossians 1:16-17 at verse 13). It’s not very convincing the way you always duck these verses.

Who said I ducked any verses????? This is the first time you presented them to ME. I ducked nothing! LOL

And when you say, "If you're right." You mean to say that my claim that an apple has a nature to be red, and therefore we cannot say RED is an apple, is not correct????????

You claim Mr Blume that the Son is the same person as the Father, OK well expalin these 5 passages in the light of yoru claim.

I did.

How can the Son be the father when for instance the Son possesses glory WITH the Father from before the creation (John 17:5).

You think far too fleshly. The scriptures teach oneness of purpose and mind, along with person. You are not allowing ALL SCRIPTURE to explain these verses, such as Rom 5:14.

Now, please stop avoiding MY point and tell me how RED IS AN APPLE, since red is part of the nature of an apple.