If you can call the Holy Spirit God, why can't you call God the Son?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

Something that seems to go fairly unscrutinized in the Church is taking everything literally, but never so much that basic relationships which are taken for granted are reversed - I don't see how this can make sense?

For example, people say "Oh yes, the Holy Spirit is God" as if He wants to be called that (maybe He does, I don't know), but when you similarly say "God is the Son" people look at you funny, like you are reversing something that shouldn't be or there is some dastardly consequence from talking endearingly down to God (as if He doesn't want that, as if anyone would know but God).

So I don't know, am I observing a phenomenon or just distracting the Church from its important business with this stuff?

Thanks?

 

[Rescued One]

I think people get confused.

Usually when people say "God" they mean the Father. Sometimes they mean the Trinity.

There is only One God, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are that One God.

Hebrews 1 : 1, 2, 8 — God the Father calls the Son, "God."
Acts 5 : 3-4 --Peter calls the Holy Spirit, "God."
John 6 : 27 --Jesus calls the Father, "God."

I hope that helps. I don't have much time to post in Controversial Theology.

 

[RDKirk]

It's worth noting as Phoebe Ann does that many people are sloppy in their terminology. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and they are all God, but in sloppy usages, people tend to say "God" when they really mean the Father.

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think that cuts it (if you will permit me to say so).

I think the associations we make around religiously recognized ideas, are nothing to do with the expectations of the Church.

People's needs should be the expectation of the Church, if I need God to be the Son - that should be cool.

 

[he-man]

For example, people say "Oh yes, the Holy Spirit is God" as if He wants to be called that (maybe He does, I don't know), but when you similarly say "God is the Son" people look at you funny, like you are reversing something that shouldn't be or there is some dastardly consequence from talking endearingly down to God (as if He doesn't want that, as if anyone would know but God).Thanks?

Here is your manna for today but you must gather it quickly in this bright revealing day! Exodus 16:21 So they gathered it every morning, every man according to his need. And when the sun became hot, it melted.

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
He sat down on his own right hand? Then why did Christ say, "..but to sit on the right hand or the left hand is NOT mine to give?
Did God forget to tell Jesus the HOUR?
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
Mat 24:36 περι δε τηϲ ημεραϲ εκεινηϲ και ωραϲ ουδειϲ οιδε ουδε οι αγγελοι τω ουρανων ουδε ο υιοϲ ει μη ο πατηρ μονοϲ.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, not the Son, if not the Father only. [Codex Sinaiticus]
Mat 24:36 περι δε της ημερας εκεινης και ωρας ουδεις οιδεν ουδε οι αγγελοι των ουρανων ουδε ο υιος ει μη ο πατηρ μονος [GNT]
36 But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens, nor the Son, but the Father only.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that cuts it (if you will permit me to say so).

You're permitted to say so, but RDKirk's answer was exactly correct and nicely succinct as well. Your OP question is predicated upon the word "God" referring only to the Father, but it does not.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Hi there,

Something that seems to go fairly unscrutinized in the Church is taking everything literally, but never so much that basic relationships which are taken for granted are reversed - I don't see how this can make sense?

For example, people say "Oh yes, the Holy Spirit is God" as if He wants to be called that (maybe He does, I don't know), but when you similarly say "God is the Son" people look at you funny, like you are reversing something that shouldn't be or there is some dastardly consequence from talking endearingly down to God (as if He doesn't want that, as if anyone would know but God).

So I don't know, am I observing a phenomenon or just distracting the Church from its important business with this stuff?

Thanks?

Your question is posed from the standpoint of a Trinitarian. Christians are Trinitarian. That is one God in three persons. So.......

The Father = God
The Son = God
The Holy Ghost = God
The Father is not the Son
The Father is not the Holy Spirit
The Son is not the Father
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Son
The Holy Spirit is not the Father

So to clarify your question, are you getting funny looks from other Christians when you say the Son is God? If so, the funny looks are problematic. It would indicate a Christian who doesn't even try to comprehend the trinity which is the Godhead. Or are you getting these funny looks from non-Christians who legitimately wouldn't have the first clue of what the trinity is or means?

In any event, if you speak with Catholic or Protestant Christians you won't have any problem referring to the Father, the Son, OR the Holy Spirit as God. I have noticed though, that in the vernacular of English anyway, and the word "God", if not elaborated upon in some way within a sentence of paragraph, the default understanding of the word when left alone seems to fall to the Father. While there is no theological reason for this, it's simply human nature. I even find myself doing this myself, and I believe in the Trinity with every fiber of my being. It's just shortcomings in our language, I think.

 

[RDKirk]

Your question is posed from the standpoint of a Trinitarian. Christians are Trinitarian. That is one God in three persons. So.......

The Father = God
The Son = God
The Holy Ghost = God
The Father is not the Son
The Father is not the Holy Spirit
The Son is not the Father
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Son
The Holy Spirit is not the Father

So to clarify your question, are you getting funny looks from other Christians when you say the Son is God? If so, the funny looks are problematic. It would indicate a Christian who doesn't even try to comprehend the trinity which is the Godhead. Or are you getting these funny looks from non-Christians who legitimately wouldn't have the first clue of what the trinity is or means?

In any event, if you speak with Catholic or Protestant Christians you won't have any problem referring to the Father, the Son, OR the Holy Spirit as God. I have noticed though, that in the vernacular of English anyway, and the word "God", if not elaborated upon in some way within a sentence of paragraph, the default understanding of the word when left alone seems to fall to the Father. While there is no theological reason for this, it's simply human nature. I even find myself doing this myself, and I believe in the Trinity with every fiber of my being. It's just shortcomings in our language, I think.

I would not use the equals sign in this context. The equals sign denotes mathematical absolute identity that I don't think is ontologically sound. I would simply say "is."

It is perhaps your intent to convey that none of the Trinity is less than or greater than God, but I would say "none of the Trinity is less than or greater than God" rather than use the mathematical sign.

 

[daq]

Here is your manna for today but you must gather it quickly in this bright revealing day! Exodus 16:21 So they gathered it every morning, every man according to his need. And when the sun became hot, it melted.

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
He sat down on his own right hand? Then why did Christ say, "..but to sit on the right hand or the left hand is NOT mine to give?
Did God forget to tell Jesus the HOUR?
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
Mat 24:36 περι δε τηϲ ημεραϲ εκεινηϲ και ωραϲ ουδειϲ οιδε ουδε οι αγγελοι τω ουρανων ουδε ο υιοϲ ει μη ο πατηρ μονοϲ.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, not the Son, if not the Father only. [Codex Sinaiticus]
Mat 24:36 περι δε της ημερας εκεινης και ωρας ουδεις οιδεν ουδε οι αγγελοι των ουρανων ουδε ο υιος ει μη ο πατηρ μονος [GNT]
36 But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens, nor the Son, but the Father only.

What do you think of the following passage?

Deuteronomy 10:16-17 KJV
16. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
17. For the Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Deuteronomy 10:17
17. For YHWH your Elohey is Elohey of the elohim, and Adonai of the adonim: the El, the Great, the Gibor and the Awesome, who regards not persons, nor takes rewards:

Is "God of gods and Lord of lords" a greater title than "King of kings and Lord of lords"?

 

[RDKirk]

What do you think of the following passage?

Deuteronomy 10:16-17 KJV
16. Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.
17. For the Lord your God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

Deuteronomy 10:17
17. For YHWH your Elohey is Elohey of the elohim, and Adonai of the adonim: the El, the Great, the Gibor and the Awesome, who regards not persons, nor takes rewards:

Is "God of gods and Lord of lords" a greater title than "King of kings and Lord of lords"?

The difference is that the Israelites right out of Egypt were not certain that God was the only God...they still believed in God as supreme over other gods. For them, "God of gods" had meaning.

By the time of the gospels, Jews understood that there was only one God, therefore "God of gods" no longer meant anything.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I would not use the equals sign in this context. The equals sign denotes mathematical absolute identity that I don't think is ontologically sound. I would simply say "is."

It is perhaps your intent to convey that none of the Trinity is less than or greater than God, but I would say "none of the Trinity is less than or greater than God" rather than use the mathematical sign.

Hmmm. I think I see what you're saying. So.....anyone reading my post.....read IS in place of =.

God's love,

Steve

 

[Gottservant]

Your question is posed from the standpoint of a Trinitarian. Christians are Trinitarian. That is one God in three persons. So.......

The Father = God
The Son = God
The Holy Ghost = God
The Father is not the Son
The Father is not the Holy Spirit
The Son is not the Father
The Son is not the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not the Son
The Holy Spirit is not the Father

So to clarify your question, are you getting funny looks from other Christians when you say the Son is God? If so, the funny looks are problematic. It would indicate a Christian who doesn't even try to comprehend the trinity which is the Godhead. Or are you getting these funny looks from non-Christians who legitimately wouldn't have the first clue of what the trinity is or means?

In any event, if you speak with Catholic or Protestant Christians you won't have any problem referring to the Father, the Son, OR the Holy Spirit as God. I have noticed though, that in the vernacular of English anyway, and the word "God", if not elaborated upon in some way within a sentence of paragraph, the default understanding of the word when left alone seems to fall to the Father. While there is no theological reason for this, it's simply human nature. I even find myself doing this myself, and I believe in the Trinity with every fiber of my being. It's just shortcomings in our language, I think.

Hello brother, I think you understood God quite well in your response, but I don't think you understood me... (not that that is any great loss). I am not saying Christians don't understand that the Son is God, Christians understand this connection quite well, at least you would think so. I am saying they don't understand unorthodox changes to this association, so if I say God is the Son they come along and perhaps quite innocently as you have, imagine that I must be talking about what they are familiar with, rather than what I am actually saying. I am not saying that's wrong, I just think its quite confusing for me because I started with the assumption that the religion could be reinterpreted and found that people were giving me their own interpretations of standard dogma instead.

So I think you understand what you understand quite well, but you may not end up understanding the Lord as quickly as you think you will, if it turns out that He wants to interpret things more freely than you are permitting. I'm just trying to make an observation, here.

 

[Gottservant]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

 

[Rescued One]

Hello brother, I think you understood God quite well in your response, but I don't think you understood me... (not that that is any great loss). I am not saying Christians don't understand that the Son is God, Christians understand this connection quite well, at least you would think so. I am saying they don't understand unorthodox changes to this association, so if I say God is the Son they come along and perhaps quite innocently as you have, imagine that I must be talking about what they are familiar with, rather than what I am actually saying. I am not saying that's wrong, I just think its quite confusing for me because I started with the assumption that the religion could be reinterpreted and found that people were giving me their own interpretations of standard dogma instead.

So I think you understand what you understand quite well, but you may not end up understanding the Lord as quickly as you think you will, if it turns out that He wants to interpret things more freely than you are permitting. I'm just trying to make an observation, here.

Are you a modalist?

 

[Architeuthus]

 

[Architeuthus]

Hello brother, I think you understood God quite well in your response, but I don't think you understood me... (not that that is any great loss). I am not saying Christians don't understand that the Son is God, Christians understand this connection quite well, at least you would think so. I am saying they don't understand unorthodox changes to this association, so if I say God is the Son they come along and perhaps quite innocently as you have, imagine that I must be talking about what they are familiar with, rather than what I am actually saying. I am not saying that's wrong, I just think its quite confusing for me because I started with the assumption that the religion could be reinterpreted and found that people were giving me their own interpretations of standard dogma instead.

So I think you understand what you understand quite well, but you may not end up understanding the Lord as quickly as you think you will, if it turns out that He wants to interpret things more freely than you are permitting. I'm just trying to make an observation, here.

So you're not a Nicene/Trinitarian Christian?

 

[he-man]

Something that seems to go fairly unscrutinized in the Church is taking everything literally, For example, people say "Oh yes, the Holy Spirit is God" Thanks? and Phoebe Ann: Hebrews 1 : 1, 2, 8 — God the Father calls the Son, "God."
Acts 5 : 3-4 --Peter calls the Holy Spirit, "God."
John 6 : 27 --Jesus calls the Father, "God."

Looks like God calls him an appointed Son for the purpose of speaking to us in these last days.

Heb 1:1 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, for whom He also made
the worlds;

4 Having become so much superior to the angels, as he has by inheritance a more diverse​

1 name than they.​

5 For unto which of the angels said He at any time, You are my Son, this day have I created​

2 you? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when the firstborn entered into the inhabited Roman world, and said: And everyone of the angels of God bow to him. [Luk 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.]
8 But to the Son the throne, of your God, is for ever and ever: and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
​

Act 5:34 ??? a Pharisee, ???? is not God
Joh 6:27 ..everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Here is your manna for today but you must gather it quickly in this bright revealing day! Exodus 16:21 So they gathered it every morning, every man according to his need. And when the sun became hot, it melted.

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God every time I remember you. In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
He sat down on his own right hand? Then why did Christ say, "..but to sit on the right hand or the left hand is NOT mine to give?
Did God forget to tell Jesus the HOUR?
Mar 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
Mat 24:36 περι δε τηϲ ημεραϲ εκεινηϲ και ωραϲ ουδειϲ οιδε ουδε οι αγγελοι τω ουρανων ουδε ο υιοϲ ει μη ο πατηρ μονοϲ.
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, not the Son, if not the Father only. [Codex Sinaiticus]
Mat 24:36 περι δε της ημερας εκεινης και ωρας ουδεις οιδεν ουδε οι αγγελοι των ουρανων ουδε ο υιος ει μη ο πατηρ μονος [GNT]
36 But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of the heavens, nor the Son, but the Father only.

 

[stevenfrancis]

Hello brother, I think you understood God quite well in your response, but I don't think you understood me... (not that that is any great loss). I am not saying Christians don't understand that the Son is God, Christians understand this connection quite well, at least you would think so. I am saying they don't understand unorthodox changes to this association, so if I say God is the Son they come along and perhaps quite innocently as you have, imagine that I must be talking about what they are familiar with, rather than what I am actually saying. I am not saying that's wrong, I just think its quite confusing for me because I started with the assumption that the religion could be reinterpreted and found that people were giving me their own interpretations of standard dogma instead.

So I think you understand what you understand quite well, but you may not end up understanding the Lord as quickly as you think you will, if it turns out that He wants to interpret things more freely than you are permitting. I'm just trying to make an observation, here.

I apologize. Even after reading this post of explanation, I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you're after or looking for, and perhaps, therefore, I don't understand the thread at all. In any event, if it really does turn out to be about the Trinitarian Godhead, and if the aspect you're looking for is some change in it over time because of man(?), I don't think you'll get very far. I don't have the exact scripture at hand right at the moment, or even the CCC, but I can get them if you're interested. Essentially, everything about God, since He is the origin of all, omnipresent, and omniscient, He is also immutable, unchangeable, in need of nothing, and in possession of all, so there is no reason, motivation, impetus or possibility of change in the relationship of God within God. If you're discussing a change in the relationship between God and His creature, man. That has been ongoing from the creation of man until the incarnation, life, passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus is, was and will be the final and only necessary Word of God, and the remainder of our relationship with Him will be living out and seeking the Christ in mystery. Mysteries we will not be able to answer in life. The pursuit is noble, and really all we have to do of any importance in this life, but to actually believe we will find the answers to the mysteries of the Trinity on this side of eternity, is important only to the extent that we don't stop trying. We should be found trying still on the last day. It is a sign of our love for Him. Having said all that, my form of seeking is contemplation and prayer. I'm a contemplative, and so my discussions on the nature of Trinity probably aren't very engaging. I don't find my way through the mysteries of God in forums.

Anyway.....sorry again for misunderstanding the OP, and I wish you peace in God's love,

Steve

 

[daq]

Please correct me with scripture wherever I may be wrong but I see four heads in the graven artwork. I suppose the image can be seen in either of two ways: either there is one great Head in the center with three lesser appendages round about it, or perhaps the image portrays one great Head in the center and three subservient little heads round about the great Head in the center. However I see no name or title given for the great Head which is labeled with the generic name or title of "God" in the center. Who is the unknown God in the center and what is His name and or title? Paul writes, in 1Cor.11:3, that the head of every man is the Messiah and the Head of Messiah is God. Yeshua likewise says, "My Father is greater than I." Moreover, in the following passage, Paul states to the Greek Athenian Aeropagans that their monument inscription to the "Unknown God" is to the One who raised the man Yeshua from the dead:

Acts 17:22-31 ASV
22. And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.
23. For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.
24. The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25. neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26. and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;
27. that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:
28. for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29. Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man.
30. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent:
31. inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Ah, yes, the God Head is not like unto gold, [1] or silver, [2] or stone [3].
Neither is the God Head like unto graven artwork, [4] and devices of man.

 

[RDKirk]

Please correct me with scripture wherever I may be wrong but I see four heads in the graven artwork. I suppose the image can be seen in either of two ways: either there is one great Head in the center with three lesser appendages round about it, or perhaps the image portrays one great Head in the center and three subservient little heads round about the great Head in the center.

You're misunderstanding the object. It's not an image of God or an image of the Trinity, it's a schematic diagram of the Trinity relationships.

This is what I mean. Here is an image of a radio circuit:

Here is a schematic diagram of the same radio circuit:

So what you're seeing is a schematic diagram of the Trinity relationships, not an image of the Trinity.