God's only Son??!?

MG: Furthermore Jesus is called the Son of God meaning HUIS. This greek word emphasize CHARACTER relation. Jesus being called the SON of God means more or less His character is EXACTLY like that of God.

Me: thinks of "huis" as the law of biogenesis...like species create like species. The word means literally, offspring or son AS WELL AS having the exact nature of that which bore you. I have the nature of humans, as I came from a human. Jeus has the nature (invisible nature) of that which bore Him (God's nature). Further, because his is an offspring (according to the flesh as by your own admission, only the flesh was "made or created") His Spirit was EXACTLY the same as God's. That is why BY HIS SPIRIT HE ALONE *IS GOD*. PERIOD.

MG: Incidently don't get me started about what is CLEARLY and EXPLICTEDLY stated in the scriptures. If you truly believed that then you wouldn't have a problem accepting the FACT that the SON sits at the right hand of the Father, this is CLEARLY and EXPLICTEDLY stated in the scriptures (see Heb 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; 1 Peter 3:22; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Mk 14:62; Rev 3:21).

me: Ah, but the rule of proper exegesis (which you constantly forget) is THAT WE DON'T IGNORE OTHER SCRIPTURES THAT CONFLICT WITH OUR INTERPRETATION, THEY MUST HARMONIZE! The bible states clearly that the nature of the Father is such that HE HAS NO HANDS, HE IS A SPIRIT, EVERYWHERE, W/OUT A BODY! IT IS ANTHROMOPHORIC LANGUAGE AND A RECOGNIZED IDIOM BY JEWISH PEOPLE EXPRESSING POWER, AND AUTHORITY! We have already covered this when I showed all the other examples of the bible's use of "the right hand" which clearly showed "power and authority" not a literal big, giant hand coming out and doing "thus and thus". See, you ignore the verses showing the "fatherhood" of Jesus and can't harmonize them, so you say, "but look at these allusions to the trinity". Whereas I say, "I believe and adore the scriptures you refer to (Mathew 28:19, John 1:1, Rev, John 3:16, etc. etc. and forever) but believe they HARMONIZE other oneness verses as opposed to somehow "destroying them, or rendering them invisible."

Rooster,

You're breaking the rule of "proper exegesis" which is MAKING the scriptures harmonize. You or anyone else for that matter doesn't MAKE the scriptures do anything. Proper interpretation lies in "reading" and "interpreting" the scriptures AS INTENDED by the author of the scriptures. In other words proper interpretation is finding out exactly what the author intended to say when they wrote the particular verse.

Proper exegesis is NOT to make the scriptures harmonize. In fact if you MAKE or try to MAKE the scriptures harmonize you are essentially MAKE it say something that it may not really say. Taking a scripture and making it FIT or HARMONIZE with another scripture is wrong. Each scripture has something of its own to say and proper exegesis is to FIND out exact what that particular verse is saying. So in other words you shouldn't try to HARMONIZE the scriptures.

You are diluting the meaning of all the scriptures I mentioned concerning where Christ is in relation to the Father because they don't "harmonize" with your already preconceived view point. Thus you are not take what is stated in those scriptures as CLEAR and EXPLICTED. If you did then you wouldn't have a problem as to what point and message they are exactly conveying. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father as CLEARLY stated in those verses. Proper exegesis of those verse would yield that this it the point they are trying to convey THE SON SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.

Furthermore since these verses are as clear and explicted as can be perhaps you shouldn't try to harmonize them to you own thought process but rather harmonize your thought process to them.

mg: You're breaking the rule of "proper exegesis" which is MAKING the scriptures harmonize. You or anyone else for that matter doesn't MAKE the scriptures do anything. Proper interpretation lies in "reading" and "interpreting" the scriptures AS INTENDED by the author of the scriptures. In other words proper interpretation is finding out exactly what the author intended to say when they wrote the particular verse.

me: yes...that is "making" them harmonize. Take the authors words, study the context and understand the audience. Then, make sure that you are not stating a principle or doctrine that completely conflicts with another verses which in context teach explicitely or in principle something else. Let's not play word games. You know what I mean. Verses DO NOT CONTRADICT. They require more context and/or more verses to properly understand BOTH verses. Your problem is you IGNORE verses that disagree with your theology. That's why you ignore answering how they "fit" together.

mg: Proper exegesis is NOT to make the scriptures harmonize. In fact if you MAKE or try to MAKE the scriptures harmonize you are essentially MAKE it say something that it may not really say. Taking a scripture and making it FIT or HARMONIZE with another scripture is wrong. Each scripture has something of its own to say and proper exegesis is to FIND out exact what that particular verse is saying. So in other words you shouldn't try to HARMONIZE the scriptures.

me: You are wrong. If you cannot support your doctrine by scriptural verses that do not conflict with other verses you are wrong. All scripture harmonize because God is not a "God of confusion" and the word is His Word...as such, it does not conflict. You are looking for a "way out".

MG: You are diluting the meaning of all the scriptures I mentioned concerning where Christ is in relation to the Father because they don't "harmonize" with your already preconceived view point. Thus you are not take what is stated in those scriptures as CLEAR and EXPLICTED. If you did then you wouldn't have a problem as to what point and message they are exactly conveying. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father as CLEARLY stated in those verses. Proper exegesis of those verse would yield that this it the point they are trying to convey THE SON SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.

me: LOL...hahahah...you just conflicted your own statements above. The author, context etc drive the understanding of the stmt "right hand of the father."
1) it's a Jewish idiom which means "authority and power"
2) Other verses teach God has no body, or hand
3) It is used in many other verses and isn't a literal hand
4) The bible teaches God is one (numerically). Thus it would imply polytheism by having one 'god' sitting next to another 'god'.

YOU ARE TRYING TO IGNORE OTHER SCRIPTURES TO MAINTAIN YOUR THEOLOGY?!?!?

Literal?

Psa 48:10 According to thy name, O God, so [is] thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness.

(Does God literally hold some tangible "righteousness" in his "right hand" or does He govern with righteousness?)

Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

(I thought he was sitting? Is he literally "standing" on the right hand of God? Is God's hand really big?)

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?
(Just an arm that is seen by people?)

2Ki 17:36 But the LORD, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt with great power and a stretched out arm, him shall ye fear, and him shall ye worship, and to him shall ye do sacrifice.

(Did God stretch out this long arm or was it by His power and authority)?

Pro 21:1 The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

(Literally?!?!? God held the kings heart?!?! or, did the Lord govern the heart of the king with his power and authority?)

Look man, I could go on and on. It's anthromophoric language. It's NOT A REAL HAND MG. Two other principles the bible teaches is that God is a Spirit and God is everywhere...HE DOESN'T HAVE A PHYSICAL, FLESH BODY WITH HANDS AND FEET.


MG: Before Jesus was crucified for our sins He was the Lamb of God. This title wasn't given to Him after He accomplished His work. He was the Lamb of God before the very foundation of the world.

Me: By the way, I'm having a son in 4 months. He has existed in the mind(logos) of God. He has been "planned" since before time. However, he will only be literally "begotten" here in about 4 months. Although he has been my "son" in the mind of God he is not actually my son UNTIL HE IS begotten.

You are stubborn. Please see the "trinity" thread for about 8 unanswered questions.

Rooster,

My friend I'm sorry but it is you who are wrong. Once again it isn't about trying to MAKING the scriptures say something or MAKING the scriptures support a particular doctrine or point of view. The scripture says what it says.

Proper exegesis is simply taking what the author of the verses stated and finding the meaning as the author intended. Taking the scriptures and trying to FIT them into a particular doctrine is wrong. The scripture is was gives me the clues as to what to think in terms of what the author is trying to say NOT the other way around. The only way scripture would contradict each other is if I misinterpret the meaning another scripture.

You say that I ignore certain scripture that contrdict certain theological beliefs I have. This just isn't true. Example the Scriptures EXPLICTEDLY state that Christ sit at the Right Hand of the Father. The idea conveyed is that the Son is NEXT to the Father. This very PRINCIPLE (that the Son is next to the Father) is also conveyed EXPLICTEDLY in John 1:1. "The Word was God and the Word was WITH God." As I told you before the Greek word for WITH is PROS which is USED in the ACCUSATIVE CASE indicating BEING ALONG SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. Jesus explictedly stating He is at the Right Hand of the Father AGREES (note doesn't contradict) with John 1:1.

The idea that the verse is conveying it quite clear. It express a relationship of the Father has with the Son. Since the eternity the Son has been next to the Father. Together the Father, the Son along with the Holy Spirit have been united, one in essence and substance since eternity. There is a distinction in identity. Enough of a distinction to say the Father isn't the Son, the isn't the Father and neither are the Holy Spirit. However this distinction doesn't mean separation. The Father is not separate from the Son nor is the Son separate from the Father and neither are separate from the Holy Spirit. They all are ONE. And in this unity speak as one in the plural (which simultaneously speaks to the unity of the Godhead and the tri-identity thus TRIUNE or TRINITY). "Let US make...in OUR image" (Gen 1:26), "...will become as one of US" (Gen 3:22), "...let US go down" (Gen 11:7) "...who will go for US?" (Is 6:8).

Finally let me remind you as stubborn as you may think I am keep in mind that Trinitarianism is STILL the predominant view in Christianity. So it is more than just about me. Believe me there are far more adherents to the doctrine of the trinity who are more "stubborn" in their defense of this doctrine then I am.

Also this debate isn't about me. It isn't about what questions I answer or don't answer as if the truth of the doctrine depends on it. However I answer you questions, whether to your satisfaction or not the Doctrine of the Trinity will remain true. It is not about me making it true or proving it is true. So if I continually disappoint you because I haven't answered your question to your satistifaction I'm sorry. I'm not here to try to "convince" you BUT rather is present biblical evidence and let you or whoever happens to read these post decide for themselves. I believe God is far more capable of "convincing" people then I'll ever be.

MG: My friend I'm sorry but it is you who are wrong. Once again it isn't about trying to MAKING the scriptures say something or MAKING the scriptures support a particular doctrine or point of view. The scripture says what it says.

me: It's funny how you accuse me of what you do. You "make" every scripture distinguishing the office and work of God as an allusion to the trinity to make it fit your doctrine. I only request that your interpretation does not conflict or contradict with another verse or ask for a plain verse stating your beliefs.

mg: Proper exegesis is simply taking what the author of the verses stated and finding the meaning as the author intended.

me: Not completely. It also means taking the progressive revelation of other books and interpreting based on those stated doctrines and principles revealed. To read John the Baptists declaration that Jesus is "the Lamb of God" makes little sense no matter how much you try to understand that verse independently. It requires an understanding of oblations, Passover, the temple, etc. You NEED the other verses to properly understand that verse.

MG: Taking the scriptures and trying to FIT them into a particular doctrine is wrong.

Me: Only if THE PARTICULAR DOCTRINE IS UNREVEALED OR AN UNINSPIRED WRONG OPINION. To interpret a verse remembering the omnipotence or omniscience of God is not trying to make it "fit". It's keeping in mind the foundation already laid. That's why the bible has an Old Testament. The foundation for Jesus is The Law and the Prophets, Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone.

MG: The scripture is was gives me the clues as to what to think in terms of what the author is trying to say NOT the other way around. The only way scripture would contradict each other is if I misinterpret the meaning another scripture.

Me: exactly my point. That is what you do.

MG: You say that I ignore certain scripture that contrdict certain theological beliefs I have. This just isn't true.

Me: This is true, you have never responded to Revelations calling Jesus the Father of Overcomers, Isaiah 9:6, Corinthians (Paul) defining God and Lord etc.

MG: Example the Scriptures EXPLICTEDLY state that Christ sit at the Right Hand of the Father. The idea conveyed...

Me: Whoa right there..."the idea conveyed..." you are admitting that there is some further explanation then just the literal meaning! You have to because you surely don't believe Jesus either sits or stands on "God's hand"...

MG: ...is that the Son is NEXT to the Father.

Me: No, this is you MAKING SCRIPTURE fit your theology. 1) you stated that the verse taught explicitely Jesus' position to God the Father (not positional authority but a PHYSICAL POSITION) 2) you ignored the verses that showed that the bible uses this term ANTHROMOPHORICALLY 3) you are now reinterpreting to mean "physically next to" which is POLYTHEISTIC!

mg:...This very PRINCIPLE (that the Son is next to the Father) is also conveyed EXPLICTEDLY in John 1:1. "The Word was God and the Word was WITH God." As I told you before the Greek word for WITH is PROS which is USED in the ACCUSATIVE CASE indicating BEING ALONG SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. J

ME: LOL! The key word here is NOT 'PROS' BUT LOGOS! WHAT WAS 'NEXT TO' THE FATHER? Not another being but the Plan or Nature of God was not only a part of God but this plan was "near and dear" to him because it would provide salvation! Further, again you ignore that John 1:1 teaches Jesus CREATED ALL THINGS...He is the Father of creation, the Father of the overcomer, the Father of the believer, the FATHER OF HIS OWN BODY according to John 1:1


MG: Jesus explictedly stating He is at the Right Hand of the Father AGREES (note doesn't contradict) with John 1:1.

me: umm...does he sit, stand, is nearby etc??? What a clear example of your polytheistic philosophy. Not only does your interpretation contradict the monotheism of the bible but John 1:1 states that Jesus is the creator OF ALL THINGS (INCLUDING HIS OWN BODY) and as such HE IS THE FATHER.

mg: The idea that the verse is conveying it quite clear. It express a relationship of the Father has with the Son. Since the eternity the Son has been next to the Father.

Me: No, it is not quite clear or there would not have been a 2000 year fight (well, your belief system killing mine for disagreeing). How can one be a Son since for eternity. When was he begotten and what was begotten***** (you'll ignore).

MG: Together the Father, the Son along with the Holy Spirit have been united, one in essence and substance since eternity. There is a distinction in identity. Enough of a distinction to say the Father isn't the Son, the isn't the Father and neither are the Holy Spirit. However this distinction doesn't mean separation. The Father is not separate from the Son nor is the Son separate from the Father and neither are separate from the Holy Spirit. They all are ONE

Me: Yes, 3 in one. I know. Yet never clearly stated in the bible.

1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

MG, there is the opportunity for Paul to state who the ONE (Numerically) God is...a Trinity? a 3 in One??? Nope. Paul says the One God is Father, and the One Lord is Jesus! Do you realize what he has done? He's defined God. When Thomas says, "my Lord and My God" when he sees Jesus, Paul clarifies that...my Jesus my Father!


MG: And in this unity speak as one in the plural (which simultaneously speaks to the unity of the Godhead and the tri-identity thus TRIUNE or TRINITY). "Let US make...in OUR image" (Gen 1:26), "...will become as one of US" (Gen 3:22), "...let US go down" (Gen 11:7) "...who will go for US?" (Is 6:8).

Me: All with monotheistic interpretation THAT DO NOT DILUTE (TO USE YOUR WORD) NOR DO ANY DAMAGE TO THE CONCEPT OF MONOTHEISM.

MG: Finally let me remind you as stubborn as you may think I am keep in mind that Trinitarianism is STILL the predominant view in Christianity. So it is more than just about me. Believe me there are far more adherents to the doctrine of the trinity who are more "stubborn" in their defense of this doctrine then I am.

Me: Oh I know. I'm working on them as well my friend.

mg: Also this debate isn't about me. It isn't about what questions I answer or don't answer as if the truth of the doctrine depends on it. However I answer you questions, whether to your satisfaction or not the Doctrine of the Trinity will remain true. It is not about me making it true or proving it is true. So if I continually disappoint you because I haven't answered your question to your satistifaction I'm sorry. I'm not here to try to "convince" you BUT rather is present biblical evidence and let you or whoever happens to read these post decide for themselves. I believe God is far more capable of "convincing" people then I'll ever be.

me: no this debate is about me directly challenging the scriptural(ness) of the Trinity and directly and unapologetically declaring it false doctrine. You are trying to challenge my assertions YET IGNORE WHOLESALE QUESTIONS I ASK. You are providing a witness to that particular theology. I have 8 questions I asked on the Trinity thread. Please respond...thanks!

Rooster: This is all too technical for me. But heres a question for you: Is it your belief that while Jesus walked the Earth there was no God in heaven? The issue is very complex to me. The blatant references by Jesus to "The Father" makes it very hard for me to think that he is "The Father"

Rooster,

Like I stated the scripture speaks for itself. All I try to do is just stay in line with the message the scripture is trying to convey.

Like poster HELWIG has stated the "blatant reference by Jesus to the Father in the scriptures makes it very hard to say that Jesus is "the Father". The scripture itself makes it CLEAR that Jesus is NOT the Father. Jesus is making the distinction between Himself as the SON and Father to whom Jesus say sent Him and to whom Jesus says He returned to.

Now to say that the Son and the Father are "just" office is going beyond what the scripture itself states and conveys.

My claim is let the scriptures speak for itself. Don't try to harmonize them or the like. Let whatever message that is in the scripture come forth. I guarantee that most people who read the bible and are guided by the Holy Spirit will conclude that Doctrine of Trinity is true.

Like I said I don't have to convince people of the Doctrine of the trinity. People will "naturally" find it through proper exegesis and guidance from above. This is way I avoid elaborate explanation like the ones you give to justify my belief.

I'll let rooster answer Helwig's question since it was basically addressed to him. But I will offer this just to make a point. Jesus said:

--Mark 13:32 But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels in Heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.--

If Jesus is God, how can He not know things? God knows everything right?

--John 5:19 Truly, truly, I say to you, The Son can do nothing of Himself but what He sees the Father do. For whatever things He does, these also the Son does likewise.--

If Jesus is God, why can't He do anything. It seems here that He is relying upon God, not actually being God.

--John 20:17 I ascend to My Father and Your Father, and to My God and your God. --Matthew 27:46 My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?--

If Jesus is God and there is only one God, then obviously Jesus can't be God and have a God. From these scriptures it's obvious Jesus isn't God.

--John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.--

If Jesus said that no one has seen God, and they were looking at Christ, then obviously Christ is not God. Right?

--John 8:42 Jesus said to them, If God were your father, you would love Me, for I went forth and came from God; for I did not come of Myself, but He sent Me.--


Again, Jesus is distinguishing Himself from God, so yeah He's the son of God, but not God Himself. Unless scripture doesn't speak plainly.



(imagine very large font) OR (end imaginary large font)

Perhaps, despite the verses which seem to distinguish Christ and God are not meant to teach that Jesus is not God but something else entirely. I posted those verses to show that unless all of scripture is viewed in it's entirity (sp?) many doctrines and beliefs can be supported using scripture.




Anyway...


I'm still Puzzled

Love ya guys...








Hmmm..

I think that there is a difference when looking at Jesus the man who walked the Earth and "The Son"/"The Word" But I would disagree with someone who thinks that Jesus is "The Father" and God of the Old Testament.


That "difference" that you realize between Christ's humanity and divinity is spot on. The only difference is that typically oneness brothers don't distinguish between Christ's divinity and the divinity of the Father. So that oneness don't actually see 2 distinct divinities, we see one divinity (God) joined with one humanity. And the only distinction is between the human/divinity. Not between 2 divinities. So that's why Christ could say the things He said. Such as "Abraham rejoiced to see my day" and of course the Jews said, you're not even 50 years old and you've seen Abraham so Christ said"before Abraham was I Am." Essentially calling Himself the I Am. Anyway... enough of my hijacking... Carry on brothers, but do it in love. And resist any roots of bitterness or unnecessary divisions among you.



Puzzled

Helwig: Rooster: This is all too technical for me. But heres a question for you: Is it your belief that while Jesus walked the Earth there was no God in heaven?

Me: Hi Helwig. Absolutely not. While Jesus walked the earth, God (in Christ) never lost his omniscience. So while "to whit God was in Christ" He was also in heaven, on earth, in the oceans, in outer space, on the mountain etc etc.

Helwig: The issue is very complex to me. The blatant references by Jesus to "The Father" makes it very hard for me to think that he is "The Father"

me: It is important to distinguish that Jesus had 2 natures. The nature of God and the nature of a man. As man he slept, hungered, was birthed, grew weary etc. All things God, by nature cannot do. However, as God, he calmed the Seas, he forgave sins, he healed leprosy etc. At times he did things as a man (slept, ate, etc.) including talked like a man (calling the Spirit that made His flesh, His humanity...Father) at times He spoke as God (Before Abraham was, I Am). When He did such, He was revealing His divinity. This divinity is not "another" divinity. It is the same Spirit that made all things and as such is...father. (see Isaiah 9:6). FAther is a title that refers to a particular aspect, work or nature of God but is not exclusive to revealing God.

mg: Like I stated the scripture speaks for itself. All I try to do is just stay in line with the message the scripture is trying to convey.

me: except you ignore other scriptures to retain your philosophy...

mg: Like poster HELWIG has stated the "blatant reference by Jesus to the Father in the scriptures makes it very hard to say that Jesus is "the Father".

Me: except you MUST HARMONIZE the blatan reference TO THE FATHERHOOD OF JESUS and the fact that the bible says we HAVE ONE FATHER.

MG: he scripture itself makes it CLEAR that Jesus is NOT the Father.

ME: No, the scriptures make it clear that THE SON and the Father are distinct aspects of ONE GOD. When Jesus created all things (John 1:1) He was acting as Father. When Isaiah calls him a Father or when Jesus says those who overcome are HIS SONS, or that it is the Father that dwells in Him that does His works HE IS REVEALING THE NATURE OF THE DIVINE SPIRIT WITHIN HIM!

MG: Jesus is making the distinction between Himself as the SON and Father to whom Jesus say sent Him and to whom Jesus says He returned to.

ME: Because to you, God one sent God two to die for your sins. To me, God took on flesh and the Spirit sent lead the man Christ to fufil his office as sacrificial lamb and high priest (one person executing multiple offices...lamb is not "one person" and high priest "another person". )

mg: Now to say that the Son and the Father are "just" office is going beyond what the scripture itself states and conveys.

me: absolutely not. The scriptures emphatically declare all of the major revelations of the nature of Jesus by title and by work. He is the Son of Man. He is the Lamb of God. He is the root and branch of David. He is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. He is our High Priest. He is our Temple. He is our City of Refuge. He is our Rock. He is our Messiah, our deliverer. He is the First and the Last. He is God. He is the Son of the Living God. He is Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), he is our Kinsmen Redeemer, He is our scapegoat, he is our blook offering, He is our River of Living Water, He is our Lawgiver, He is our Prophet like Moses, He is our Friend, man...I could go on forever MG. These all describe His positional relationship to us and to God. Some describe his office as to deity, some as to humanity.

mg: My claim is let the scriptures speak for itself. Don't try to harmonize them or the like. Let whatever message that is in the scripture come forth. I guarantee that most people who read the bible and are guided by the Holy Spirit will conclude that Doctrine of Trinity is true.

Me: this is laughable. The scriptures are of NO PRIVATE INTERPRETATION. The scriptures MUST harmonize. You have to interpret Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 TO HARMONIZE not to stand alone as two distinct and conflicting message.

Like I said I don't have to convince people of the Doctrine of the trinity. People will "naturally" find it through proper exegesis and guidance from above.

me: No, people are raised to believe the trinity from sunday schools, church preaching and the foundational work of 1900 years of philosophical ramblings and evolved theology.

mg: This is way I avoid elaborate explanation like the ones you give to justify my belief.

me: How do you avoid it? You have used such terms as "persons" (undefinable by you), eternal son (a grammatical paradox), 3 in One and Trinity (never found in the scriptures), co equal, co eternal, (never found in the scriptures) etc. ad nauseum? In fact, Paul defines who God and Lord is in Corinithians and HE DOES NOT STATE NOR DEFINE THE TRINITY. WHY NOT?

Helwig: I think that there is a difference when looking at Jesus the man who walked the Earth and "The Son"/"The Word" But I would disagree with someone who thinks that Jesus is "The Father" and God of the Old Testament.

me: Hi Helwig. MG and I get pretty heated sometimes and I always enjoy your spirit so please don't take me as trying to biblically beat up on you.

Jesus is the personal name of God that has been revealed. Jesus can refer to God as divinity only (although he hid that name and revealed himself through His work-Jah Rapha, Jah Tsidkenu, Jah Shalom, Jah Jireh etc. ) Jah Shuah is the final revealed name of God.

Jesus also refers to the incarnation or "theo-carnation". God clothing his divinity in flesh and walking amongst his creation. The divinity w/in Christ was not another being or person but the self same God.

"The Son" is a title that refers to the incarnation which was begotten at a specific time and place and was the joining of God (one God) and man.

Just a question to consider...When we talk about the "only Begotten" WHAT was begotten and WHEN? Thanks Helwig.

Rooster,

Jesus had two nature human and divine BUT was only one person. Therefore His divine nature DID NOT talk to or had conversations with His human nature.

The book of Hebrews as well as John 1:1 explains who the Son is in relation to the Father. Both the Son and the Father are of the same essence or substance therefore they are ONE. BUT they are distinct in identity and personality. Thus the Father IS NOT the Son and the SON is not the Father.

The Son is ETERNAL he had no beginning and has no end. The high priest Melchizedek was a foreshadow or example of who Christ was. Melchizedek was a priest of the living God who was the example or foreshadow of who Christ was and what work Christ would do for the people. The quality that Melchizedek had which bore witness to the very quality Christ had was: "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually (Hebrew 7:3).

If Christ, the Son of God, had a beginning and an end then He couldn't be a priest on our behalf in the order of Melchizedek who one time made a sacrifice for the sins of the people and CONTINUALLY makes intercessions for them before the Father. In order for Jesus to CONTINUALLY make intercession for the people whom He died for like a High priest in the Order of Melchizedek Christ could NOT have an end. That is, Christ continues FOREVER.

Read Hebrews 7:1-28.


Incidently good exegesis is reading the entire book (or at least the surrounding chapters) in which a given verse is in. The entire book isn't the entire bible BUT rather the book which is in the bible. In other words, proper exegesis would be, for example, to read the entire book of Hebrews and then see how each verse of that book fits in the context of that book BEFORE comparing them to other verses in other books of the bible. The meaning of any one verse found in a single book of the Bible is most likely explain by the verses and context in THAT book.

So IMHO reading the entire book of Hebrews gives one insight as to who the Son is, and who He is in relation to the Father. The book clearly shows the Son is not the Father but the Son is God.

MG: Jesus had two nature human and divine BUT was only one person. Therefore His divine nature DID NOT talk to or had conversations with His human nature.

Me: right. And we don't ever see God the Father conversating with the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit conversating with the Father or either directing and conversing with the Son as 2 people speak. You see Jesus as a man PRAYING and referring to the Spirit as Father. Why? 1) He had to. He was flesh as well as divine and so he followed the natural laws of man. Men HAVE TO PRAY. 2) to reveal his shared humanity. He truly was our kinsmen redeemer. 3) to reveal the intimate relationship between the creator and man. 4) to teach us to pray and to be intimate with God.

This does not suggest a team of deities in group huddle.

MG: The book of Hebrews as well as John 1:1 explains who the Son is in relation to the Father. Both the Son and the Father are of the same essence or substance therefore they are ONE. BUT they are distinct in identity and personality. Thus the Father IS NOT the Son and the SON is not the Father.

Me: Yes, Hebrews and John 1:1 (including verse 3) do explain who Jesus is. If, MG, Jesus is of the same essence as God, then HE IS GOD. However, you stated that the Son is of the same essence of the Father. Sort of. As to deity, yes. However, as to humanity, Jesus WAS NOT OF THE SAME ESSENCE AS THE FATHER BUT WAS OF THE SAME ESSENCE OF MAN.

Guess what else, Paul also defined God:

1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

Paul tells us EXACTLY WHO GOD IS. He is Father. Not "trinity", not "3 in one persons", not "groups of divine beings" etc. God is Father. God and Lord are not distinct beings. They are titles for the same being. So, he further defines God as Lord Jesus Christ BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS.

MG: The Son is ETERNAL he had no beginning and has no end. The high priest Melchizedek was a foreshadow or example of who Christ was. Melchizedek was a priest of the living God who was the example or foreshadow of who Christ was and what work Christ would do for the people. The quality that Melchizedek had which bore witness to the very quality Christ had was: "without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually (Hebrew 7:3).

me: you are funny. You assume the dual nature of Christ and then discard it. The Son is only eternal as the Logos (plan) of God. The Son (that Holy thing that was born of Mary) most certainly had a beginning (Jerusalem) and had a father and mother (Joseph by adoption,God as creator, originator, begettor and then Mary) was with descent (David, Abraham, Adam) had a beginning of days (Jerusalem) and an end of days (33 or 34 years later). The Son, as scripture defines in other places, represents God in Humanity. The humanity exhibited all of the above.

It is the Spirit and the office that is W/OUT BEGINNING OR END, W/ NO FATHER OR MOTHER ETC. IT IS THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST WHICH IS THE SPIRIT OF GOD, WHICH MADE ALL THINGS AND AS SUCH IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD. THAT GOD IS AT TIMES REFERRED TO AS FATHER.

MG: If Christ, the Son of God, had a beginning and an end then He couldn't be a priest on our behalf in the order of Melchizedek who one time made a sacrifice for the sins of the people and CONTINUALLY makes intercessions for them before the Father. In order for Jesus to CONTINUALLY make intercession for the people whom He died for like a High priest in the Order of Melchizedek Christ could NOT have an end. That is, Christ continues FOREVER.

Me: The sacrifice is the pivotal moment in and out of time in which all of creation is judged by. As such, the sacrifice, which existed in the mind of God before the creation (the logos) and will forever be before God who is outside of time, is eternal. The man, Christ, was not. He was born. It is the Spirit w/in Him (which he claimed was the Spirit OF THE FATHER) that was eternal.

mg: Read Hebrews 7:1-28.

me: Um...this is Jesus in HIS OFFICE AS HIGH PRIEST. What does this have to do with distinct and separate beings?!?!

mg: Incidently good exegesis is reading the entire book (or at least the surrounding chapters) in which a given verse is in. The entire book isn't the entire bible BUT rather the book which is in the bible. In other words, proper exegesis would be, for example, to read the entire book of Hebrews and then see how each verse of that book fits in the context of that book BEFORE comparing them to other verses in other books of the bible. The meaning of any one verse found in a single book of the Bible is most likely explain by the verses and context in THAT book.

me: thanks (sacrcasm). Then I suggest you start doing that.

MG: So IMHO reading the entire book of Hebrews gives one insight as to who the Son is, and who He is in relation to the Father. The book clearly shows the Son is not the Father but the Son is God.

Me: LOL. the Son is God...and the Father is...(ahem)...God. If there is only ONE GOD and the Son is God, and the Father is God...ahem...um..then the Spirit in Christ IS THE SAME SPIRIT WE CALL FATHER!

By the way, the messianic term "The Son" is more properly referring to God and man. The Son refers to God is a specific role (in man) not just "as God). To say the Son is God is leaving out an essential component of the incarnation...that is, the authentic humanity of Christ.