God will not give His glory to another, or will He?

[genuineoriginal]

John 20:28 KJV
(28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

John 20:31 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

I believe Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ).
I believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Why do you think there is any problem with that?

 

[Rosenritter]

Individuality and separation of Jesus from the Father is the only way to understand the things Jesus said about Himself and the Father.

Jesus often did speak in a sense as if there was distinction, but this is understandable in the sense that he is emphasizing a specific role or roles. And there are some statements which defy individuality and separation.

 

[Rosenritter]

John 20:31 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I believe Jesus is the Messiah (the Christ).
I believe Jesus is the Son of God.

Why do you think there is any problem with that?

Saying that you believe that Jesus is the Son of God doesn't have the same meaning if you don't recognize the Son of God. You will be left without understanding who God really is, what he is really like, the reality of his person. And besides this, you will be left in the position of having to continually argue that passage in the Bible shouldn't be there, or were mistranslated, or that certain passages were commentary edits rather than original scripture.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Surely that wasn't, "He shall be wrongly and mistakenly called.... the mighty God, the everlasting Father?"

Zechariah 12:9-10 KJV
(9) And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
(10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:36-37 KJV
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Who was speaking in Zechariah? Wasn't that "Thus saith the LORD?"

There are so many ways this is woven into the scripture, even from Moses. If it is written, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings to search out a matter..." (Proverbs 25:2) then how much more is it the Glory of God when he reveals that which he has previously concealed?

Revelation 1:7-8 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 22:13-16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

He did tell us, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." We're not going to find a different person on the throne of God. God may have concealed his identity for a time, but when he clearly reveals that which is hidden we are meant to understand and believe.

 

[Rosenritter]

Who sent his angel to testify?

Revelation 22:6 KJV
(6) And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Revelation 22:16 KJV
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Who will be their God and dwell among men? And don't we have a name for God manifest in the flesh? Also called the Son of God? Whom we also called Jesus?

Revelation 21:3-7 KJV
(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(5) And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
(6) And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

John 7:37 KJV
(37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

Who gives of the waters of life? Jesus said he gave the waters of life, and in Revelation it's God. Yet it also says that God shall dwell among men... and he shall be their God. A thought here... if Jesus was not God, why would there be so much blending here, as if we were seeing a holographic image of Clark Kent flicker in and out on top of Superman?

Even Clark referred to Superman in the third person. Would you be willing to consider a similar perspective, that perhaps Jesus may have intentionally downplayed who he was before the crucifixion?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Saying that you believe that Jesus is the Son of God doesn't have the same meaning if you don't recognize the Son of God.

Did you mean to say "you don't recognize the Son is God" instead of saying "you don't recognize the Son of God"?

You will be left without understanding who God really is, what he is really like, the reality of his person.

Why do you think it is necessary to have an understanding of God that comes from outside what is plainly stated in the Bible?

And besides this, you will be left in the position of having to continually argue that passage in the Bible shouldn't be there, or were mistranslated, or that certain passages were commentary edits rather than original scripture.

No, I have to put up with people that try to tell me that their interpretation of certain passages in the Bible are to be believed over what the rest of scripture says.

Isaiah 9:6 KJV
(6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Surely that wasn't, "He shall be wrongly and mistakenly called.... the mighty God, the everlasting Father?"

Zechariah 12:9-10 KJV
(9) And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
(10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:36-37 KJV
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

Who was speaking in Zechariah? Wasn't that "Thus saith the LORD?"

There are so many ways this is woven into the scripture, even from Moses. If it is written, "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings to search out a matter..." (Proverbs 25:2) then how much more is it the Glory of God when he reveals that which he has previously concealed?

Revelation 1:7-8 KJV
(7) Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
(8) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 22:13-16 KJV
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
(16) I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

He did tell us, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." We're not going to find a different person on the throne of God.

In this thread you have managed to post nearly every verse that is used to try to prove that Jesus is God the Father.
Since there are 23,145 verses in the Bible, I still have over 23,000 verses that can't be used as proof texts for that claim.

I see no reason to post all of them, so I will post a couple that appear to contradict the point you are trying to make.

Please try to read this passage as if you did not believe that Jesus is God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:22-27 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

God may have concealed his identity for a time, but when he clearly reveals that which is hidden we are meant to understand and believe.

I guess we will have to wait for the return of Jesus before God will clearly reveal whether the Son is the Father as two gods in one.

The most important thing to realize is that the Bible never tells us to believe that Jesus is the Father, nor does the Bible tell us to believe that God is two (or even three) gods in one god.

What specifically does the Bible tell us we must believe?

1 John 3:23 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.​

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, what do you believe?

 

[genuineoriginal]

A thought here... if Jesus was not God, why would there be so much blending here, as if we were seeing a holographic image of Clark Kent flicker in and out on top of Superman?

Even Clark referred to Superman in the third person. Would you be willing to consider a similar perspective, that perhaps Jesus may have intentionally downplayed who he was before the crucifixion?

If Jesus was downplaying who He was before the crucifixion, He did it while praying to God:

Luke 22:39-44 39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him. 40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, [JESUS]Pray that ye enter not into temptation.[/JESUS] 41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, [JESUS]Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.[/JESUS] 43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.​

We know that Jesus was not lying to God in the prayer, since God sent an angel to strengthen Jesus.

 

[Rosenritter]

Did you mean to say "you don't recognize the Son is God" instead of saying "you don't recognize the Son of God"?

I could say either to the same effect. To recognize the Son of God is to recognize that the Son is God.

Why do you think it is necessary to have an understanding of God that comes from outside what is plainly stated in the Bible?

Genuine, your response does not sound genuine. Each and every argument that I have given has been from what is plainly stated in the Bible, many of which you have declined response.

In this thread you have managed to post nearly every verse that is used to try to prove that Jesus is God the Father.
Since there are 23,145 verses in the Bible, I still have over 23,000 verses that can't be used as proof texts for that claim.

I am familiar with more arguments from scripture that I haven't brought forth yet. You still haven't answered existing arguments straight from the Old Testament.

Regardless, what type of logic is "23000 verses exist but you've only shown me 145?" How many passages show the earth is round? Only a couple, but shall we discard that too based on that type of logic? You're starting do dive deep into the realm of spurious reasoning here. Come back please.

I see no reason to post all of them, so I will post a couple that appear to contradict the point you are trying to make.

Please try to read this passage as if you did not believe that Jesus is God the Father.

1 Corinthians 15:22-27
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
​

So tell me, what is the alleged problem that you perceive? Shall I take a guess that you are confusing the presence of different titles and roles as constituting different beings? We have a God that is big enough to be both judge and mediator... and the same time. "Father" and "Son" and "Christ" are titles and means of reference. The assumption of different roles is not a legitimate challenge; it is within the power of a king to impersonate the role of a subject. It's age old story oft repeated, and where do you think it originated?

Given that taking on multiple roles is not a problem for God, it remains your problem that scripture clearly does identify the Son of God as none other than the LORD, in the very passages that you are refusing to address. It wouldn't matter if there were 1000000 passages that were silent, or 10000 passages where God appears from differing angles and titles, when there exists clear passages (5, 10, let alone the 100+ to which you alluded) that solidly identify Christ as the LORD I cannot imagine you you can rationalize that away in clear conscience.

I guess we will have to wait for the return of Jesus before God will clearly reveal whether the Son is the Father as two gods in one.

That, above, is an example of a backhanded straw man argument. I haven't seen anyone suggest that here.

The most important thing to realize is that the Bible never tells us to believe that Jesus is the Father, nor does the Bible tell us to believe that God is two (or even three) gods in one god.

Isaiah actually did tell us in black and white that the identity of the Christ child was God the everlasting Father. It's just that in this instance you have chosen not to believe what we have been told.

What specifically does the Bible tell us we must believe?

1 John 3:23

23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
​

If you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, what do you believe?

If you believe on his name, you should also believe his words. If you believe his words, then you should recognize that when he reveals himself as "the Almighty" and invokes the titles that also bear the weight of "besides which there is no God" that this is what he has revealed for a reason.

When you stand before God's throne where Jesus sits as he judges the nations, are you going to be looking left and right or up and down searching for someone else?

 

[Rosenritter]

If Jesus was downplaying who He was before the crucifixion, He did it while praying to God:

Luke 22:39-44

39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him.
40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, [JESUS]Pray that ye enter not into temptation.[/JESUS]
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, [JESUS]Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.[/JESUS]
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
​

[/BOX]
We know that Jesus was not lying to God in the prayer, since God sent an angel to strengthen Jesus.

That's the "Why would Jesus Pray" question, which is also answered within the the same framework that acknowledges Jesus as the Son as God. When you are willing to acknowledge "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" and "before Abraham was, I AM" and "I am the first and the last" and "let all the angels of God worship him" and "In the beginning was the Word... and all things were made by him" without inserting straw man arguments for the purpose of ridicule, I can explain that question of prayer.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So tell me, what is the alleged problem that you perceive? Shall I take a guess that you are confusing the presence of different titles and roles as constituting different beings? We have a God that is big enough to be both judge and mediator... and the same time. "Father" and "Son" and "Christ" are titles and means of reference.

You seem to be confusing verses speaking about different beings by making the false assumption that they are speaking about different titles and roles.

Try reading these verses again (I highlighted the different beings):

1 Corinthians 15:22-27 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

 

[Rosenritter]

You seem to be confusing verses speaking about different beings by making the false assumption that they are speaking about different titles and roles.

Try reading these verses again (I highlighted the different beings):

1 Corinthians 15:22-27 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

Short answer also shown in yellow and green:

Spoiler

JESUS

If you start reading that passage with a preconception that there are different beings it will likely reinforce your determination. However it does also read in the sense that I have put forth, that it can speak in terms of titles and roles, yet still ultimately point to the same being. Please read through, I will try to be less confrontational and ask short questions along the way.

1) "Christ" is Greek for Messiah, and although this was prophesied it could potentially have been filled by others. Without New Testament revelation and hindsight it would be difficult to determine whether the Messiah would be fulfilled by God or a created man or angel. Do you agree?

2) God, even the Father, is a reference to the Creator of all things as He is as a Spirit in heaven above (John 4:24). Other than its first appearance in Isaiah 9:6 ("unto us a child is born") Jesus used this term when referring to God in the third person (grammatically). Aside that you may anticipate where I am going with this, can you also agree with these statements so far?

The passage is ambiguous as to the identity of Christ and God the Father. It does not say whether Jesus is the Christ or God, and it certainly does not name God the Father. The actual context and intent of the passage is how the Christ will raise the dead and rule.

1. It is no contradiction that God the Father put all things under the Christ, that his authority was from Heaven Above. Had Jesus said that his authority was from himself, it would indicate that he and God were of different authority (which would actually agree with your preconception.)

2. The statement that "all things are put under him" excludes "God the Father" likewise is no contradiction. The role of the Christ does not replace God but rather this is ordained by divine authority.

If you want to go to the issue of the identity of the Christ, there are passages (250 and more) that explicitly state that Jesus is the Christ. If you want to go to the issue of the identity of God in heaven above, there are also passages that address that question... but you haven't been wanting to address those passages because you have a block against that answer.

For example, we accept that God in heaven above is the Creator, and that there is one Creator. We are directly told in scripture that the Word created all things (John 1) and that the Son created all things that were made (Colossians 1). John tells us that the Word was God and that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and later describes him in a vision as having a vesture dipped in blood, called KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS. As touching the identity of the Son, Jesus is called the Son of God within the New Testament context in many places as well. This is one proof of many, and very easy to conclude from the scripture as it is written. There's nothing hidden or concealed to unravel here.

These places do directly speak to the identity of God and Christ and they are not ambiguous to the question. You have been setting these aside perhaps with the reasoning that "These cannot mean what they sound like" but that is precisely what we should not do.

I understand that your reasoning assumes that He who is God would not fulfill other roles besides that of our Father in Heaven. That's what I am calling out as a mistaken assumption... in a similar fashion as I would call out "man has an immortal soul" in addressing another issue. If your answers to defend "He does not fill other roles" are all based upon that same assumption, it would fall into the same trap of circular logic as the other question.

I have pointed out contradictions that occur when proceeding on your assumption but these have not been addressed. If you wish to put those aside without answer, you cannot fairly continue to use your premise as if it were a proof answer. You could pose similar questions to see if my framework holds up under similar scrutiny, but you cannot have it both ways at the same time. That wouldn't be sound logic or reasoning, it would only create an emotional chaos storm that would prevent eventual resolution.

 

[genuineoriginal]

(working on an answer, please be patient)

 

[Rosenritter]

(working on an answer, please be patient)

Thanks. I'm hoping we can bypass a lot of the back and forth that seems to be the inevitable entry into charged subjects like these and do the constructive focus thing.

 

[genuineoriginal]

1) "Christ" is Greek for Messiah, and although this was prophesied it could potentially have been filled by others. Without New Testament revelation and hindsight it would be difficult to determine whether the Messiah would be fulfilled by God or a created man or angel. Do you agree?

No, the Old Testament prophecies show that the Messiah (Christ) has to be a descendant of David.

2) God, even the Father, is a reference to the Creator of all things as He is as a Spirit in heaven above (John 4:24). Other than its first appearance in Isaiah 9:6 ("unto us a child is born") Jesus used this term when referring to God in the third person (grammatically). Aside that you may anticipate where I am going with this, can you also agree with these statements so far?

No.
God, even the Father is the Creator of all things.
The Son of God has several references in the Old Testament (such as Psalm 2) where He is shown as a separate being from God.

The passage is ambiguous as to the identity of Christ and God the Father. It does not say whether Jesus is the Christ or God, and it certainly does not name God the Father. The actual context and intent of the passage is how the Christ will raise the dead and rule.

1. It is no contradiction that God the Father put all things under the Christ, that his authority was from Heaven Above. Had Jesus said that his authority was from himself, it would indicate that he and God were of different authority (which would actually agree with your preconception.)

Paul often speaks of ideas that come from multiple passages in the Old Testament.
To understand Paul, we have to look for the Old Testament passages that Paul refers to.
Here is one Old Testament passage that says that God will put all things under the rule of His begotten Son.

Psalm 2:6-9 6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.​

2. The statement that "all things are put under him" excludes "God the Father" likewise is no contradiction. The role of the Christ does not replace God but rather this is ordained by divine authority.

It is a contradiction if God the Father is putting all things under himself, as you are reading the passage.
God is not suffering a multiple-personality disorder, nor is God talking in third person about different "roles" and "titles" as if they are different beings.

If you want to go to the issue of the identity of the Christ, there are passages (250 and more) that explicitly state that Jesus is the Christ.

According to the Old Testament, the Christ (Messiah) is the descendant of David, and therefore is a man and not God.

If you want to go to the issue of the identity of God in heaven above, there are also passages that address that question... but you haven't been wanting to address those passages because you have a block against that answer.

I don't have a block, I can see both sides of the argument.
You have a block because you can only see one side.

For example, we accept that God in heaven above is the Creator, and that there is one Creator. We are directly told in scripture that the Word created all things (John 1) and that the Son created all things that were made (Colossians 1). John tells us that the Word was God and that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and later describes him in a vision as having a vesture dipped in blood, called KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS.

You are misreading John 1 and Colossians 1 because of your block.

I understand that your reasoning assumes that He who is God would not fulfill other roles besides that of our Father in Heaven. That's what I am calling out as a mistaken assumption.

The mistaken assumption is thinking that God does not act through agents, but is doing everything Himself.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Shall I take a guess that you are confusing the presence of different titles and roles as constituting different beings? We have a God that is big enough to be both judge and mediator... and the same time. "Father" and "Son" and "Christ" are titles and means of reference. The assumption of different roles is not a legitimate challenge; it is within the power of a king to impersonate the role of a subject. It's age old story oft repeated, and where do you think it originated?

Given that taking on multiple roles is not a problem for God, it remains your problem that scripture clearly does identify the Son of God as none other than the LORD, in the very passages that you are refusing to address.

It sounds like you are promoting Modalistic Monarchianism, Sabellianism, or some other form of Modalism.

Modalistic Monarchianism Modalistic Monarchians believe in the deity of Jesus and understand Jesus, the Son of God, to be a manifestation of the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, in the flesh. When Jesus was on Earth, he referred to God as his Father since God caused his conception through the Holy Spirit. Since God is spirit, the Holy Spirit is used to describe God in action. In this way, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered titles pertaining to the one God, not descriptions of distinct individuals.

​

Sabellianism According to modalism and Sabellianism, God is said to be only one person who reveals himself in different ways called modes, faces, aspects, roles or masks (Greek πρόσωπα prosopa ; Latin personae) of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three co-eternal persons within the Godhead, or a "co-equal Trinity". Modalists note that the only number expressly and repeatedly ascribed to God in the Old Testament is One, do not accept interpreting this number as denoting union (i.e. Gen 2:24) when it is applied to God, and dispute the meaning or validity of related New Testament passages cited by Trinitarians.

​

My beliefs are classical (1st-3rd century) Subordinationism.

Subordinationism Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church Subordinationism, according to Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, "regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Spirit as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as" Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Reasons for this tendency include: "the stress on the absolute unity and transcendence of God the Father, which is common to all forms of theology using the existing categories of Greek thought "the fear of compromising monotheism "the implications of one strand of biblical teaching" represented by John 14:28” By the 4th century, subordinationism was "regarded as clearly heretical in its denial of the co-equality of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The issue was most explicitly dealt with in the conflict with Arius and his followers, who held that the Son was God not by nature but by grace and was created by the Father, though in a creation outside time." Subordination of the Holy Spirit became more prominent in the 4th century Pneumatomachi. The second ecumenical council, Constantinople I, condemned subordinationism in 381. The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology Subordinationism. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared.​

​

I believe that Jesus was 100% divine and 0% human as the Son of God (not God Himself) before the incarnation, 100% human and 0% divine during the incarnation, and is currently a 100% divine human after the ascension.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, the Old Testament prophecies show that the Messiah (Christ) has to be a descendant of David.

Yes, that's right, it does. say that the Messiah shall descend from David. Why then does David call him Lord and Paul call him God?

Matthew 22:41-46 KJV
(41) While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
(42) Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
(43) He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
(44) The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
(45) If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
(46) And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

Mark 12:35-37 KJV
(35) And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
(36) For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
(37) David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Luke 20:41-44 KJV
(41) And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?
(42) And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
(43) Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
(44) David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

Hebrews 1:1-14 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) 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;
(3) Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
(4) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
(5) For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
(6) And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
(7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
(8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
(9) Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
(10) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
(11) They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
(12) And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
(13) But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
(14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

He inherits a name better than the angels, the angels of God worship him. The same angels that say "See that thou do it not, worship God." (Revelation 19:10, 22:9) And to the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.

I didn't mean to go in that direction yet (my mind slipped when I wrote that before) but it's interesting that even that question brings us back in that same direction. It's integrated practically everywhere.

 

[Rosenritter]

No. God, even the Father is the Creator of all things.
The Son of God has several references in the Old Testament (such as Psalm 2) where He is shown as a separate being from God.

Genuine, you are slipping back into that mode again. You are proceeding to use as proof that which is not proven. The bible plainly states that the Word and the Son created all things, even all things that were made. Don't make me fill up the post with repeating the scripture here that you and I both know that you know. If you can show where the Bible says that "the Father" created all things, then by all means please show that, but that only would further reinforce what I have said already, that if we have One creator, then these are different references to that One creator.

Here you go anyway. Please don't argue against the plain scripture.

Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


John 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:10 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Colossians 1:15-18 KJV
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) 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.
(18) 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.

Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) 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;

These plain scriptures make it easy to understand that the Word created all things, the Son created all things, that the Word is God and that God created all things. These equivalences are not a problem for me... but they are in stark contrast to your current position. Surely you don't think that John was ignorant of the parallel between his gospel and Genesis?

 

[Rosenritter]

It is a contradiction if God the Father is putting all things under himself, as you are reading the passage.

Is it a contradiction if a man maintains that he has jurisdiction over his child in his home, but when a crime happens he turns the matter over to police jurisdiction? The same man can be both father and police chief without contradiction. As a citizen he doesn't circumvent the law, he remains under the rule of law and subject to the rule of police. Your thinking is a bit too rigid, as it is declaring "impossible" what is both possible and declared.

God is not suffering a multiple-personality disorder, nor is God talking in third person about different "roles" and "titles" as if they are different beings.

The Son of God doesn't talk about himself in the third person?

John 9:35-38 KJV
(35) Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
(36) He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
(37) And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
(38) And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

I'm fairly certain that's an example of speaking of oneself in the third person. Would you like some more examples, or would you be OK with dropping the "multiple personality disorder" jab here?

According to the Old Testament, the Christ (Messiah) is the descendant of David, and therefore is a man and not God.

Why then does David call him Lord?

I don't have a block, I can see both sides of the argument.
You have a block because you can only see one side.

If you had no block, you wouldn't be claiming that it was proof that the Son was not God because of the way titles were used in reference to roles. That demonstrates that you don't understand the argument or the other side. I am very familiar with every argument you have used so far... a friend grilled me on these years ago before he finally declared "Biblical Unitarianism isn't very biblical." I may not completely understand the mindset that argues against the plainer scriptures, but I am familiar with the other side and its arguments.

You are misreading John 1 and Colossians 1 because of your block.

That would mean me and almost every other person in the world then? Even other Unitarians acknowledge that those passages declare Jesus as God, even to the extent that at least one person I encountered declared that anything written by John, or Paul, or Peter was a forgery and not authentic scripture. He did say that other than that... (anything written by John or Paul or Peter) he believed the entire New Testament.

The mistaken assumption is thinking that God does not act through agents, but is doing everything Himself.

I acknowledge that God does sometimes use agents and sometimes he does use men or created angels to do his bidding, and as such your claim that I have a mistaken assumption that "God does not act through agents" doesn't find solid ground. I think rather you are assuming that He would not take on the most important task himself.

Zechariah 12:10 KJV
(10) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

John 19:34-37 KJV
(34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
(35) And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
(36) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
(37) And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

After all, how could anyone but God be guaranteed to be able to live manifest in the flesh without sin, predicted before his existence, with the entire reputation of God and the salvation of the human race in the balance? There's a saying that "If you want something done right.... you do it yourself." When the LORD speaks in the Old Testament and says they shall look upon "me" whom they have pierced, that's not a third party agent.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Genuine, you are slipping back into that mode again. You are proceeding to use as proof that which is not proven. The bible plainly states that the Word and the Son created all things, even all things that were made. Don't make me fill up the post with repeating the scripture here that you and I both know that you know. If you can show where the Bible says that "the Father" created all things, then by all means please show that, but that only would further reinforce what I have said already, that if we have One creator, then these are different references to that One creator.

Here you go anyway. Please don't argue against the plain scripture.

Genesis 1:1 KJV
(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


John 1:1-3 KJV
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In the Greek, the phrase is "and God was the Word".
There is a difference between claiming that the Word was God and that God was the Word (logos).
Please read up on the Greek idea of "the logos".

(2) The same was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The verse states that all things were made by God, it does not state that all things were made by the Word.

John 1:10 KJV
(10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

Colossians 1:15-18 KJV
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Instead of saying "Who is God" as you are reading it, the verse clearly says "Who is the image of the invisible God".

(16) 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:

The verse is saying that by the invisible God were all things created.

(17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
(18) 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.

Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV
(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
(2) 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;

Did God make the worlds "by" the Son, "with" the Son, or "on account of" the Son?

by g1223 διά dia through of place with in of time throughout during of means by by the means of through the ground or reason by which something is or is not done by reason of on account of because of for this reason therefore on this account

​

These plain scriptures make it easy to understand that the Word created all things, the Son created all things, that the Word is God and that God created all things. These equivalences are not a problem for me... but they are in stark contrast to your current position. Surely you don't think that John was ignorant of the parallel between his gospel and Genesis?

Unfortunately for your argument, too many of the verses you use show signs of being translated through the filter of Trinitarian beliefs.

 

[genuineoriginal]

would you be OK with dropping the "multiple personality disorder" jab here?

You believe that Jesus is merely a title or a role, and not a personality the way Trinitarians do, so I can drop it for this conversation.

If you had no block, you wouldn't be claiming that it was proof that the Son was not God because of the way titles were used in reference to roles.

The "titles and roles" argument is not worth torturing the words of scripture to believe, when we have many examples that show that these are different divine beings and not merely different titles and roles.

a friend grilled me on these years ago before he finally declared "Biblical Unitarianism isn't very biblical."

I know nothing of "Biblical Unitarianism".

I acknowledge that God does sometimes use agents and sometimes he does use men or created angels to do his bidding, and as such your claim that I have a mistaken assumption that "God does not act through agents" doesn't find solid ground. I think rather you are assuming that He would not take on the most important task himself.

Why would I want to believe that God lied about it?

John 3:17 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.​

Do you read this verse as saying "God put on the title of 'Son of God' in order to come into the world to save the world Himself"?

1 John 4:14 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.​

Do you read this verse as saying "God put off the title of 'the Father' in order to use the title of 'the Son', then God told everyone that the title of 'the Father' sent the title of 'the Son' to be the Savior of the world."?

If God did it Himself, there would be no purpose in Him claiming to be both His own Son and His own Father, and no purpose in dying on the cross.
I can't believe in your form of Modalistic Monarchianism that makes Jesus dying on the cross into God merely play-acting for no reason at all.

 

[Rosenritter]

In the Greek, the phrase is "and God was the Word".
There is a difference between claiming that the Word was God and that God was the Word (logos).
Please read up on the Greek idea of "the logos".

The verse states that all things were made by God, it does not state that all things were made by the Word.

Genuine, even if it were to say "God was the Word" would be even more explicit in this sense. But even if you attempt to evade that the "Word" created all things in verse 3, that interpretation is shown in error by the immediate context and clarification. John says that the Light was sent into the world, "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

The only means by which God came into the world in that gospel context is through Jesus Christ.

If you only had a stand alone verse and no context it would explain the misunderstanding, but you have certain clarification for John's meaning that fully justifies the reading as "the Word was God" and the Word as the creator of all things. As such your explanation seems a a bit contrived.

Instead of saying "Who is God" as you are reading it, the verse clearly says "Who is the image of the invisible God".

The verse is saying that by the invisible God were all things created.

Genuine, I did not say it said "Who is God" but rather that it identified the Son as He who created all things. The clear subject of all these verses is the Son.

Colossians 1:14-20 KJV
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
(16) 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.
(18) 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.
(19) For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
(20) And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.


All of the "him" in that passage is one pronoun for He who is the image of the invisible God. You'd have to imagine that Paul was rather schizophrenic with his pronoun use otherwise, which would require a lot of bending over backwards and sideways to evade the obvious force of this passage at this question. By your current position the pronouns would likely have different colors flashing left and right seemingly at random throughout.

If it was colored as you would require, God the Father becomes the head of the church and the firstborn of the dead, and it would please the Father that all fullness in the Father dwell, by the blood of the Father's cross.

Did God make the worlds "by" the Son, "with" the Son, or "on account of" the Son?

In the framework I have been trying to describe, I could see how all of those variations could make sense.

Unfortunately for your argument, too many of the verses you use show signs of being translated through the filter of Trinitarian beliefs.

That argument doesn't go anywhere. It's merely an allegation of "not fair" that doesn't lead to anything constructive. The identity of Jesus as LORD and Christ permeates through many levels of scripture, and I have never invoked any level of Trinitarian dogma or presumption.