The Son of God is God the Son?

[GraceSaves]

Kelly,

You have selectively avoided many valid questions. Please elaborate on your stance on the verses presented where Jesus says that He and the Father are one, as well as the verse where the Jews realize that He is claiming to be equal with God.

You have failed to address these, although they have been presented two, maybe three times.

God bless,

Grant

 

[bishopnl]

Wygal,

Quite correct. Nowhere in the Bible was anyone ever baptized in the titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jesus name was the only name ever pronounced in baptism, unless you count John's baptism, but John's baptism was a baptism unto repentance. The New Testament church baptism was for the remission of sins.

Kelly,

You have some different ideas about God. Some I've never heard of. For the record, Jesus was the only begotten of the Father. that means he was born of the Father. God created a body for himself...

1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John makes it clear that the Word was God. God manifested himself in flesh, and came to die for our sins. The man Jesus Christ hasn't existed for all of eternity. He didn't get burped out or however it is that you say he was born. Jesus is YHWH of the Old Testament. He is the God who created the heavens and the earth, just wrapped in flesh.

1Tim 3

16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Wygal]

Kelly said: "Actually there are some Jews who are saved and they don't believe that God is a trinity. They also don't believe that Jesus is God. (Messianic)

There is an ENTIRE denomination, of protestant Christians that don't profess a trinity.

They believe just as I do, that there is One God, and One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, who he (the ONE GOD) sent.

Are they all going to hell too?

God Bless,
Kelly"

Actually, trying to be gentle here, but the Jesus that saves, is God. The Jesus that is not God, is a 'different Jesus', IMHO.

Acts 4:
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
[QB] </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Are we LITERLLY born again, when we are Born of God? NO!

But we are new creations. </font>[/QUOTE]And that makes perfect sense in light of the fact that we were ALREADY a creation! We can't be a 'new' creature unless we were already a creature! Jesus wasn't physically born of God. He was Spirit before He was a man. He was spiritually born of God, just as we are spiritually born of God at salvation.

Do you mind telling me how Jesus and the Father are one, as you understand it?

They are one in Spirit, in that they share in the same Spirit. The 'Spirit of God' that hovered on the face of the waters in Genesis is GOD, literally, it is not a 'third person' of a trinity, but literally God, because God is a Spirit. It is by that same Spirit that WE are 'ONE' with God, through Christ, because He is one with God, through Spirit.

Also, will you at least acknowledge what was going on in John 5, that the Jews knew that Jesus claimed that He was equal to God?

What exactly would you like for me to acknowledge? In John 5 He makes a statement that according to THEIR judgment was making Himself 'equal' to God, but in the crux of the passage He clarifies for them, and us, that He is NOT equal to God, but rather totally dependent upon God for all that He is, even HIS LIFE.

And what of John 1:1? The Word was Who? God. Seems to equate the Word to God, at least to me.

I think I have gone over that already, but for your sake, I believe that Jesus was in God, prior to coming out of God, in the form of the Word of God, and while still in God, He was God, because He was part of God. Now that He has come out of God, and is the Son of God, He is no longer just a part of God, but His own person, the Son of God.

Here is something else to show you that the Jews knew exactly what Jesus was claiming:

"'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God (lit. "make yourself God").'" John 10:33, NIV

John 10 is similar to John 5 in that it is the judgment of the Jews which state He is making Himself equal to God. And what of His response? Is it not important to you? They accuse Him of claiming to be God, and His response DOES NOT CONFIRM that THAT is what He was doing:
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Do you know what He is talking about? In the OT, God called the Kings, and Princes, and 'Majestrates' of the Nation of Israel 'gods'. THEOS. Same word used EVERY TIME God is called God. And Jesus STILL does not claim to be GOD!! He said, you didn't have a problem with your fathers being called 'gods' but yet you want to stone me because I said I AM THE SON OF GOD!!!

He didn't claim to be God by saying God was His Father.

The rose colored glasses of tradition make it appear that way to many, but if you read the whole passage, in it's context and in light of the history of the Jewish people, provided by the OT, not only did He NOT say He was equal to God, but He made sure that they understood that He wasn't saying that!

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Wygal:
Actually, trying to be gentle here, but the Jesus that saves, is God. The Jesus that is not God, is a 'different Jesus', IMHO.

Acts 4:
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

There is no gentle way of putting that.

You cannot 'nicely' say that the faith of MILLIONS is invalid, just becuase YOUR interpretaion of Scripture doesn't match theirs.

Their Salvation is in Jesus, the Son of God, the promised Messiah.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[Wygal]

"There is no gentle way of putting that.

You cannot 'nicely' say that the faith of MILLIONS is invalid, just becuase YOUR interpretaion of Scripture doesn't match theirs.

Their Salvation is in Jesus, the Son of God, the promised Messiah."

Kelly, maybe I don't understand what you're saying. But, as far as I can tell, from my beliefs, a Jesus that is not God, is a different Jesus from the Bible.

Are your beliefs close to the semi-Arian belief? I notice that you have said some very similar things. Arius, a 4th Century priest in Alexandria said of the Son, "there was a time when he was not." And, that sounds like what you've said here, also.

 

[Wygal]

Well, I read some of the other threads here, and see where you (Kelly) say you are not an Arian. So, nevermind the question.
Apparently, I just have not understood exactly what you have been saying. I guess the question would be, can you be saved if you don't believe that Jesus was/is God, but that's a whole 'nuther topic to tackle, and not what was started here.

 

[Ricky_Lee]

Greetings to all.

This is a great discussion. Is the Son of God, God the Son? The answer is absolutely no way! You will find the phrase "God the Father" 13 times in the New Testament but never, not even one time will you find the phrase "God the Son" or "God the Spirit". Why is that? The answer is very simple. Because the Bible tells us explicitly that there is but ONE GOD, the Father OF WHOM are all things - 1 Corinthians 8:6. There is one God Almighty who is the great Source of all life and creation. And He is differentiated in that same verse from the ONE LORD Jesus Christ BY WHOM are all things. See the difference? God the Father is the SOURCE. His Son is the agent through which He ordained His creation to be accomplished. To have a "God the Son" and a "God the Spirit" in addition to God the Father would make for THREE gods, which is tritheism, a form of polytheism, which is paganism.

The Bible informs us that Christ is the only begotten Son of God. He is the only born Son of God. Born before all ages. Yes, there was a point in eternity past in which the Son of God had a beginning of existence. Proverbs 8:22-31 tells the story. The Bible tells us that God's Son is the "express image" of the person of God - Hebrews 1:3. Express image means "precise reproduction in every respect". Jesus Himself noted His own origin when He stated that He "proceeded forth and came from God" - John 8:42. In John 16:27, Jesus states that He "came out from God". The Son of God had His origin from God. God the Father and His Son are literally Father and Son. How God begot His Son we are not told and neither is it necessary for us to know. The Bible declares it. That's good enough for me. If trinitarians can easily accept an inexplicable mystery that is not substantiated by the Bible, how much easier is it to accept what's explicitly stated in the Scriptures? I personally find it much easier to accept the Biblical testimony on who God and His Son are rather than that which has been formulated in church councils in the fourth century and decreed as orthodox by a pagan emperor.

Christ, being the literally begotten Son of God, has "by inheritance" (Hebrews 1:4) the excellent name of God. As God's Son, He inherits all of the divine attributes of Almighty God, His Father. He is worthy of worship because God the Father COMMANDS it - Hebrews 1:6. To render honour and worship to God's Son is an act of honour and worship to His Father who begot and sent Him into this world - John 5:23. The Son of God is divine and is rightly called "God". Even God the Father refers to His Son as "God" - Hebrews 1:8 - But He is NOT the LORD God Almighty. He is the SON of the LORD God Almighty. God the Father is the God of His Son. The Bible explicitly says so several times. But the Son of God is NOT the God of His Father. The Bible never teaches that - not even once. The Son of God has a God - the Father. The Father has no God - HE IS GOD - as Jesus explicitly tells us in John 17:3, God the Father is the "only true God". There is no other. So, being that the Son of God literally was born from God, He inherited all of the attributes of divinity from God, His Father - from His name to His nature.

Contrary to the human logic expressed by many who refuse to acknowledge the Biblical testimony of the literal Sonship of Christ to God, Christ, being born from His Father is NOT a creation. He was born from the very substance of God. A creation is something that is brought into existence out of nothing and is a separate substance or matter - new creation. The Son of God was born from God His Father. The Father did NOT create His Son. He birthed, or reproduced His Son. There is a difference. We are all born from our earthly parents. They did NOT create us. We are a creation of God and God gave us the power to reproduce ourselves. Certainly if God is smart and wise enough to devise the means for humans and other life forms to reproduce themselves, He would have no problem in reproducing His Son. Again, how this happened, we are not told and we probably wouldn't have the capacity to comprehend it even if God tried to explain how He reproduced a Son. The bottom line is that the Bible is very explicit that God begot a Son in His "express image".

Today, in order to gain membership in whatever christian denominations are out there, there are a list of fundamentals or a creed which the prospective member must vow to accept. This is much different from the Biblical model. In the early church, there was just ONE pre-requisite for baptism and membership in God's church and that was simply to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - Acts 8:37. The Ethiopian eunuch didn't have to subscribe to a litany of vows in order to be baptized and accepted into the church of Jesus Christ. He only had to confess and believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Amen! For He is - the Son of the Living God. Not "God the Son".

God Bless.

 

[Eladar]

Looks like we got another one.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ricky,

Did Kelly invite you over here to defend the 1,700 year old Arian heresy?

I might suggest that those who are reading this thread read What Saint Paul Really Said by N.T. Wright (Eerdmans 1997), pgs 65 and following. In this text, Wright - one of the top evangelical Biblical scholars of our day - makes some striking observations, esp. with regard to Paul's monotheism in the light of Paul's Christology.

One of these observations Wright shows is how Paul alludes to the great Shema (Dt 6:4) when presenting the Lordship of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 8:6):

Thr Lord our God
The Lord is One
(Deuteronomy 6:4)

One God - the Father...
One Lord - Jesus Christ...
(1 Corinthians 8:6)

Of course, I don't mean expound upon Wright's thesis here, on this board, right now. I mean to give it as a reference for those who are interested in seeing how Paul preaches Jesus as God by altering the traditional Jewish monotheistic creed in the light of God's revelation through his eternal Son, Jesus Christ.

Ricky, you wrote, "In the early church, there was just ONE pre-requisite for baptism and membership in God's church and that was simply to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God - Acts 8:37."

Actually, throughout the early Church, the Apostles' Creed was a type of baptismal questioning that you had to affirm. You should check out early liturgical texts such as that of Hippolytus; the Church's baptismal profession of faith has always been Christocentric and Trinitarian; threefold with Jesus Christ, God's Son - at its center.

"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man" (Tatian the Syrian, Oration Against the Greeks 21 [A.D. 175]).

[ July 08, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Tuor:
Looks like we got another one.

Yep, I think so.

 

[Ricky_Lee]

Hi Carson,

To answer your question, no, Kelly did not invite me here to defend the 1,700 year old Arian heresy. Neither did she invite me here to defend the 1,700 year old Trinitarian heresy.

The Arians believed that God's Son was a created being and not divine. That is false and unBiblical. The Trinitarians believe that God is a corporation consisting of three co-equal, co-eternal, CEO's, three separate, individual deities - three gods. This also is false and unBiblical.

There is one God - the Father - 1 Corinthians 8:6, who begot a Son in His express image - Hebrews 1:3 and who is everywhere present and lives in each of His children by His Spirit - Psalms 51:11, 139:7. This is true and Biblical.

Nice to meet you, Carson.

God Bless

 

[Ricky_Lee]

Carson, you stated:

Actually, throughout the early Church, the Apostles' Creed was a type of baptismal questioning that you had to affirm. You should check out early liturgical texts such as that of Hippolytus; the Church's baptismal profession of faith has always been Christocentric and Trinitarian; threefold with Jesus Christ, God's Son - at its center.

While I have no doubts as to the veracity of your statement, it is irrelevant to what my original statement was regarding the BIBLICAL pre-requisite for baptism and membership in the church. In other words, my brother, I'm all "Sola Scriptura". While the reading of the writings of the early church fathers provides interesting insights into history and the church's evolution, it is not authoritative. The Word of God is the sole authority that I go by.

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Wygal:
Well, I read some of the other threads here, and see where you (Kelly) say you are not an Arian. So, nevermind the question.
Apparently, I just have not understood exactly what you have been saying. I guess the question would be, can you be saved if you don't believe that Jesus was/is God, but that's a whole 'nuther topic to tackle, and not what was started here.

It is part and parcel with what is going on here! The whole reason this thread was started was so that the 'is Kelly saved' debate would stop taking over the other threads, and STAY here.

Am I saved even though I do not believe in a trinity?

Absolutely.

Is ANYONE saved that does not believe in a trinity?

Absolutely.

Are the Messianic Christians saved even though they do not profess a trinity or believe that Yeshua IS Yahweh?

Absolutely.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Jew that would allow you to teach them that the Son of God is God with the Father.

They just might try to stone you.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Jew that would allow you to teach them that the Son of God is God with the Father.

They just might try to stone you.

God Bless,
Kelly

And at the same time you would be hard pressed to find a Jew that is saved.
When the Jews became saved (in the New Testament) they gave up their Judaism. There are three identifiable groups in the New Testament: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God (Christians). When a Jew got saved he left Judaism, as Paul left it. He became a Christian, not a Jew any longer. The Jews reject Christ as their Saviour and Messiah. They are still awaiting their Messiah to come. Their religion is very much different than that of Christianity. You are either a Jew or a Christian. You are not both.
DHK

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Jew that would allow you to teach them that the Son of God is God with the Father.

They just might try to stone you.

God Bless,
Kelly

And at the same time you would be hard pressed to find a Jew that is saved.
When the Jews became saved (in the New Testament) they gave up their Judaism. There are three identifiable groups in the New Testament: the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church of God (Christians). When a Jew got saved he left Judaism, as Paul left it. He became a Christian, not a Jew any longer. The Jews reject Christ as their Saviour and Messiah. They are still awaiting their Messiah to come. Their religion is very much different than that of Christianity. You are either a Jew or a Christian. You are not both.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]What exactly do you think Paul stopped believing when he abandoned Judiasm for Christianity?

This should be interesting.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
What exactly do you think Paul stopped believing when he abandoned Judiasm for Christianity?

This should be interesting.

Paul abondoned the law, primarliy the ceremonnial of the Old Testament. Christ fulfilled the law. He contended almost wherever he went on his missionary journeys with Judaizing teachers, the account of which can be found in Acts 15. These ones believed that keeping the law and circumcision were necessary to salvation. The consensus of the Apostles was that it was not necessary to salvation at all. Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles and put upon the gentiles no other burden than what was necessary.

We do not live under the law; we live under grace. Through Christ the law has been abolished.

Galatians 3:10-13
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

 

[3AngelsMom]

DHK,
Ok, so you believe that Paul, a Jew, threw out His Torah and followed Christ?

What did he have left?

God Bless,
Kelly

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
DHK,
Ok, so you believe that Paul, a Jew, threw out His Torah and followed Christ?

What did he have left?

Christianity was a new religion entirely. It was accompanied by signs and wonders primarily to convince the Jews that this "religion" was from God, and was genuine. Certainly it had its roots in Judaism. "Salvation is of the Jews." That is where the Saviour came from. Yes Paul had the Old Testament and would not give that up. It is absolutely essential to our faith. But the Jews today (as back then) reject New Testament revelation. They reject the gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ had to appear to Saul personally on the road to Damascus in order for him to be convinced. The Jews bribed the Roman soldiers to lie about the Resurrection of Christ--to say that his body was stolen.
When a Jew converted to Christianity (much like today's Muslim converting to Christianity), he was persecuted by his own family, and treated as an outcast. It was difficult to become a Christian for a Jewish person, to give up a way of life that they were both proud of, and had known for so long.
They gave up the sacrifices, the temple worship, all the ceremony, and even the dietary laws as the visions to Peter demonstrated. (Acts 10)

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

It was a different way of life that they lived completely. They lived according to a different revelation eventually--that which came to be the New Testament canon. In the mean time God gave them prophesies, revelations, and even tongues to make up for the deficiency of not having the entire New Testament.
DHK

 

[neal4christ]

I think I have gone over that already, but for your sake, I believe that Jesus was in God, prior to coming out of God, in the form of the Word of God, and while still in God, He was God, because He was part of God. Now that He has come out of God, and is the Son of God, He is no longer just a part of God, but His own person, the Son of God.

You make absolutely no sense here. While He was in God He was God? Could you point me to some Scripture to support that? How can He 'be' God and at some point cease to 'be' God? That is impossible! Either He was God or He was not! You are taking a plain statement and totally twisting it. You do the same with John 5 and 10. The Bible reports that the Jews knew that by claiming God as His Father Jesus was equating Himself to God. And you state the exact opposite of Scripture. Who am I to believe, you or Scripture?

Also, it is clear that the Holy Spirit is seperate from both Jesus and the Father. Read over John 14:15-31. It is CLEAR that the Holy Spirit is separate from both Jesus and the Father. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Do you not see all the trouble that you are running into with this? Your explanation as to how the Father and Jesus are one is woefully inadequate. In philosophy we learned that the most desirable position to take is one that best explains ALL the evidence. Your position does not explain ALL the evidence very well and you have to twist and turn plain teachings just to try to hold on to it. It is irrational. I admire your zeal, but I fear that you are making a very grave mistake with all of this.

May the Lord Jesus Christ Bless You,
Neal