Two principle NT issues.

[37818]

Either way keeps the deity of Jesus!

Twice in John 1:1-2 He is referred to as "with God." Someone beside God, being someone other than God. [The Son of God]. So instead of being both "with God" and "was God." He is a or the unique God with the [true] God the Father. How is that better?

 

[37818]

Because basically the same term is used in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9. Also μονογενής may stand on it own as a reference to the only-begotten Son John 1:14. The concept is still found the Johannine literature.

Yet again that has nothing with the points I was making in 156.

First, numerous orthodox church fathers (Greek or Latin) used the phrase knowing that was also used by Gnostics. They knew that a heretic could twist any Scripture to fit their needs if they wanted yet they still quoted john 1:18 with "unique God."

Second, the point was illustrated from the above Excerpts of Theodotus (a Valentianian Gnostic) which took "unique son" and did just that. The term "unique son" is by no mean heretic proof. Theodotus took the term "unique son" and used it for his own advantage.

I am not sure you understood this issue of being then the unique Son in appearing as G.d (like in Genesis 12:7) as opposed to not becoming the unique Son until He changed to become a man, Luke 1:35. 1) He was always the Son. Versus. 2) He only became the Son at His incarnation.

 

[37818]

I would say capital God, as in God, not a god!

The Greek is the same.

 

[Origen]

I am not sure you understood this issue of being then the unique Son in appearing as G.d (like in Genesis 12:7) as opposed to not becoming the unique Son until He changed to become a man, Luke 1:35. 1) He was always the Son. Versus. 2) He only became the Son at His incarnation.

I understand what you mean. As I point out above basically the same term is used in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9. Also μονογενής may stand on it own as a reference to the only-begotten Son John 1:14. Thus the concept is still found in the Johannine literature. Nothing would be lost.

 

[McCree79]

The Son of God is one Person. Two natures. Was always God [YHWH]. Was always with God. How He was with God changed in His incarntion when He became the man Jesus. The Son of God and the man Jesus are one and the same Person.

Thank you for the clarification

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Twice in John 1:1-2 He is referred to as "with God." Someone beside God, being someone other than God. [The Son of God]. So instead of being both "with God" and "was God." He is a or the unique God with the [true] God the Father. How is that better?

Actually, He was and is God Himself, not someone other than God, but the member of the Godhead not known as the Father!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not sure you understood this issue of being then the unique Son in appearing as G.d (like in Genesis 12:7) as opposed to not becoming the unique Son until He changed to become a man, Luke 1:35. 1) He was always the Son. Versus. 2) He only became the Son at His incarnation.

He was eternally God the Son, who when Incarnated became the Son of God...

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand what you mean. As I point out above basically the same term is used in John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9. Also μονογενής may stand on it own as a reference to the only-begotten Son John 1:14. Thus the concept is still found in the Johannine literature. Nothing would be lost.

Seems that we are straining hard here to try to point out things that really do not make a real difference...

 

[37818]

Actually, He was and is God Himself, not someone other than God, but the member of the Godhead not known as the Father!

The Persons are equally God, no subordination as God. But as Persons there is subordination. Not everyone agrees on this or even understand this the same way.

He was eternally God the Son, who when Incarnated became the Son of God...

Gibberish. Either the Son was always the Son or became the Son in the incaration. These are two views. I hold the Son was always the Son, so I hold that "the unique Son" is what John 1:18 says, and that "unique God" reading is error. We disagree on this, fine. The constant witness is 100%. The reading I understand to be the God breathed word in this instance is 99% of the evidence. Not the 00.4% of the Greek text, which I see as a big problem places falsehood as the word of God. We do not agree. And yes I know I am in a minority of Christians.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Persons are equally God, no subordination as God. But as Persons there is subordination. Not everyone agrees on this or even understand this the same way.
Gibberish. Either the Son was always the Son or became the Son in the incaration. These are two views. I hold the Son was always the Son, so I hold that "the unique Son" is what John 1:18 says, and that "unique God" reading is error. We disagree on this, fine. The constant witness is 100%. The reading I understand to be the God breathed word in this instance is 99% of the evidence. Not the 00.4% of the Greek text, which I see as a big problem places falsehood as the word of God. We do not agree. And yes I know I am in a minority of Christians.

There was a temporary subordination of Jesus to he father while here on the earth , but no eternal subordination...
Before he incarnated, he was only God the Son, but when he became Jesus the Christ, then was known as the Son of God.

 

[37818]

There was a temporary subordination of Jesus to he father while here on the earth , but no eternal subordination...

Well we do not agree. Twice prior to the Word's incarnation He is said to be "with God." If that is not a subordination being someone other than God, explain to me why you do not understand that to be the case.
Also 1 Corinthains 15:28, ". . . And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Where the Son is for the remaining eternity in subordination to God. And in this He the Son is still God too. Hebews 1:3.

Before he incarnated, he was only God the Son, but when he became Jesus the Christ, then was known as the Son of God.

Repeating gibberish. What is your simple proof that He is the eternal Son before His incarnation from holy Scripture?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well we do not agree. Twice prior to the Word's incarnation He is said to be "with God." If that is not a subordination being someone other than God, explain to me why you do not understand that to be the case.
Also 1 Corinthains 15:28, ". . . And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." Where the Son is for the remaining eternity in subordination to God. And in this He the Son is still God too. Hebews 1:3.
Repeating gibberish. What is your simple proof that He is the eternal Son before His incarnation from holy Scripture?

He was God the Son, and he always existed with the Father, and was always also God!

 

[37818]

He was God the Son, and he always existed with the Father, and was always also God!

Saying that claim does not make it so. Prove simply from Holy Scripture the Person, the Word was always the Son.

My proof verse is John 1:18 where He is called "the unique Son" who appears as YHWH in the OT.

 

[Yeshua1]

Saying that claim does not make it so. Prove simply from Holy Scripture the Person, the Word was always the Son.

My proof verse is John 1:18 where He is called "the unique Son" who appears as YHWH in the OT.

The only begotten of the Father, full of glory and grace!

 

[37818]

The only begotten of the Father, full of glory and grace!

That reference refers to the "unique" one who was incarnated and does not prove that He did not become the Son at His incarnation. John 1:14 being the Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

That reference refers to the "unique" one who was incarnated and does not prove that He did not become the Son at His incarnation. John 1:14 being the Scripture.

In His deity was always the Son, and now in His humanity now also the Son of God!