Arianism (What is that)?

[barbara van loo]

Hi people,

Oke some people know that i am curious about different groups in Christianity, i learn about some different groups, but one group i don't know what it is, arianism. I get some information on wikipedia but the text contradict themself. Does someone know what they believe, are there people on this site who are of that group maybe? Are there a lot followers of that group? Someone who can tell me more about Arianism.

Also still looking for Non-Trinitarians, (Unitarians for example), if they are here, give a reaction

Thanks!

Greetings,
Barbara.

 

[BreadAlone]

From what I understand, Arianism teaches that Christ was created by the Father before all time, and through Christ all that is was created. The Holy Spirit, in this view, was created by Christ and is subservient to Christ, as Christ is to the Father.

In essence, it is viewed as heresy because it denies the divinity of Christ and the nature of the Trinity.

 

[laconicstudent]

Hi people,

Oke some people know that i am curious about different groups in Christianity, i learn about some different groups, but one group i don't know what it is, arianism. I get some information on wikipedia but the text contradict themself. Does someone know what they believe, are there people on this site who are of that group maybe? Are there a lot followers of that group? Someone who can tell me more about Arianism.

Also still looking for Non-Trinitarians, (Unitarians for example), if they are here, give a reaction

Thanks!

Greetings,
Barbara.

Its an abominable heresy that teaches that Jesus Christ was a created being. It is pretty much extinct, glory be to God.

 

[BreadAlone]

Wouldn't you say Mormonism has traces of Arianism, though?

 

[Big Drew]

Its an abominable heresy that teaches that Jesus Christ was a created being. It is pretty much extinct, glory be to God.

I wouldn't say it's extinct...Jehovah's Witnesses fall in this category.

 

[laconicstudent]

Traces, and yes, the Jehovah's Witnesses are similar. But I wouldn't say they are exactly classically Arian. I see your points, though.

 

[barbara van loo]

But that are not Christians? How many arians are there in the world, where i can i read more about them, anybody know that? Are they on this site, or can i better ask somewhere else?

 

[wayseer]

But that are not Christians? How many arians are there in the world, where i can i read more about them, anybody know that? Are they on this site, or can i better ask somewhere else?

Read this.

 

[BreadAlone]

By definition Arianism would not be classified as Christian (they may classify themselves as it though, as the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses do, however). Those would be the places to start, I think.

 

[TheGMan]

I think these days Arianism tends more to mean the belief that Jesus is not G-d. As others have said, there is a narrower, original meaning. The language of 4th Century theology is rather complex and esoteric so the original meaning may be better left aside.

These days, it has a pejorative sense. It is not something people say about themselves, it something that is said about other people. Usually to point out they are wrong in a particular way. It's not a group within Christianity but a label.

But I don't think what it labels is that extinct. I've certainly been to Unitarian churches where they teach that Jesus was less than G-d. And periodically people surface in liberal mainstream Protestant churches who hold similar views. I think, in the broad sense, it's not that rare in the liberal church.

Personally, I'm happy admitting to being Arian in the broad sense. To me, the Trinity just seem to be a coherent concept.

 

[BreadAlone]

I think these days Arianism tends more to mean the belief that Jesus is not G-d. As others have said, there is a narrower, original meaning. The language of 4th Century theology is rather complex and esoteric so the original meaning may be better left aside.

These days, it has a pejorative sense. It is not something people say about themselves, it something that is said about other people. Usually to point out they are wrong in a particular way. It's not a group within Christianity but a label.

But I don't think what it labels is that extinct. I've certainly been to Unitarian churches where they teach that Jesus was less than G-d. And periodically people surface in liberal mainstream Protestant churches who hold similar views. I think, in the broad sense, it's not that rare in the liberal church.

Personally, I'm happy admitting to being Arian in the broad sense. To me, the Trinity just seem to be a coherent concept.

Really? The concept of God and Christ seems incoherent to me without the nature of the Trinity.

The omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God that "is" (The Hebrew name of God is rooted in a conglomerate of the forms of the verb "to be") . . . is just that. He "is." Everywhere and in everything, outside of time, containing all things within the fullness of Himself. And yet this boundless and timeless God, in order to fully understand, empathize, and solve the plight of humanity, becomes that which He has created. All things then complete, God now dwells inside of us - the Holy Spirit - compelling us to will and to act according to his own, good purposes.

And yet, these are not simply "manifestations" of God. All three persons are present at various times. I think namely of the Creation, Christ's baptism, and the vision of St. John on Patmos. In all of these instances (particularly the latter two), the three persons can be clearly and distinctly seen fulfilling their roles. But it is imperative to go back to the original thought to fully understand that the three Persons are but One God.

 

[he-man]

Really? The concept of God and Christ seems incoherent to me without the nature of the Trinity.
But it is imperative to go back to the original thought to fully understand that the three Persons are but One God.

Guess you never heard of the Johanne Comma (1John 5:7)?
A Reference to the Trinity.
The [Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 John |] link works just fine when you get there click on "verse by Verse" on the far right, since you are not aware of the Codex!

And you are dead wrong period. See The Greek New Testament, with Dictionary, 4th Edition 2007, page 819; SEE also Diaglott Footnote 7, Page 803

Here are a few that show your errors beginning with the codex-sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which both read as follows:
1Jn 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
1John 5:7 For they that testify are three,

8 το πνα και το ϋδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.
[Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 John |]

"Codex Vaticanus." Vatican Library, Greek 1209

I have examined sixty-four versions of the New Testament in regard to the inclusion and omission of 1 John 5: 7 as it appears in the Authorized Version (or King James Version). An analysis of my findings is recorded. see
[http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/trinity.htm] A Reference to the Trinity

"No one can bring forth a son older than herself."
Cassian represents the Constantinoplitan patriarch (Nestorius) as teaching that Christ is a mere man (homo solitarius) who merited union with the Divinity as the reward of His Passion.

But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up

God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech.

Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians.

Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like "the second God," concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church — this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian.

To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

The man Jesus, said Paul of Samosata, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence.

Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate."
Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation.

Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their "fellow-Lucianist," as Arius did not hesitate to call himself.
From this Byzantine conception of Constantine (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325.
NEW ADVENT: Home []CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arianism
[http://bible-researcher.com/comma.html]

During the controversies of the fourth century over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded -- first in Spain circa 380, and then taken up in the Vulgate -- by the insertion: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one." A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it passed into the KJV.

But all modern critical editions and translations of the New Testament, including the RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers.

Conclusion

All but nine of the versions examined either omit this verse or note that it was added to the original text. The footnotes indicate that it was an addition, although a few suggest that its conclusion may be proper. The few references that suggest or state the source give the impression that it was not a reliable one. If it should be included, it had to have been removed before the fourth century A.D.
[http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/trinity.htm] A Reference to the Trinity

 

[barbara van loo]

Are you a follower of arianism?

What's this for text it's long, is it about arianism or?

Guess you never heard of the Johanne Comma (1John 5:7)?
A Reference to the Trinity.
The [Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 John |] link works just fine when you get there click on "verse by Verse" on the far right, since you are not aware of the Codex!

And you are dead wrong period. See The Greek New Testament, with Dictionary, 4th Edition 2007, page 819; SEE also Diaglott Footnote 7, Page 803

Here are a few that show your errors beginning with the codex-sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which both read as follows:
1Jn 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
1John 5:7 For they that testify are three,

8 το πνα και το ϋδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.
[Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 John |]

"Codex Vaticanus." Vatican Library, Greek 1209

I have examined sixty-four versions of the New Testament in regard to the inclusion and omission of 1 John 5: 7 as it appears in the Authorized Version (or King James Version). An analysis of my findings is recorded. see
[http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/trinity.htm] A Reference to the Trinity

"No one can bring forth a son older than herself."
Cassian represents the Constantinoplitan patriarch (Nestorius) as teaching that Christ is a mere man (homo solitarius) who merited union with the Divinity as the reward of His Passion.

But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up

God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech.

Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians.

Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like "the second God," concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church — this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian.

To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

The man Jesus, said Paul of Samosata, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence.

Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate."
Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation.

Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their "fellow-Lucianist," as Arius did not hesitate to call himself.
From this Byzantine conception of Constantine (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325.
NEW ADVENT: Home []CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arianism
[http://bible-researcher.com/comma.html]

During the controversies of the fourth century over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded -- first in Spain circa 380, and then taken up in the Vulgate -- by the insertion: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one." A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it passed into the KJV.

But all modern critical editions and translations of the New Testament, including the RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers.

Conclusion

All but nine of the versions examined either omit this verse or note that it was added to the original text. The footnotes indicate that it was an addition, although a few suggest that its conclusion may be proper. The few references that suggest or state the source give the impression that it was not a reliable one. If it should be included, it had to have been removed before the fourth century A.D.
[http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/trinity.htm] A Reference to the Trinity

 

[TheGMan]

Really? The concept of God and Christ seems incoherent to me without the nature of the Trinity.

I think its less explicit in the Bereshiyt, the Baptism and Apocalypse of John then perhaps you have convinced yourself of. Nevertheless, I'm not really looking to argue the point. People think it makes sense to them. I'm not sure how, but I take them at their word. It doesn't make sense to me. I'd be an utter hypocrite to proclaim belief in something that makes no sense to me. So I don't.

 

[he-man]

Are you a follower of arianism?

What's this for text it's long, is it about arianism or?

No, but they are the closeat people we have of what the REAL believers thought about Christ and the Trinity.

The man Jesus, said Paul of Samosata, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence.

Have you you never heard of the Johanne Comma (1John 5:7)?
A Reference to the Trinity.
The [Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 John |] link works just fine when you get there click on "verse by Verse" on the far right, since you are not aware of the Codex!

And you are dead wrong period. See The Greek New Testament, with Dictionary, 4th Edition 2007, page 819; SEE also Diaglott Footnote 7, Page 803

Here are a few that show your errors beginning with the codex-sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which both read as follows:
1Jn 5:7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
1John 5:7 For they that testify are three,

8 το πνα και το ϋδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.
[Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 John |]

"Codex Vaticanus." Vatican Library, Greek 1209

I have examined sixty-four versions of the New Testament in regard to the inclusion and omission of 1 John 5: 7 as it appears in the Authorized Version (or King James Version). An analysis of my findings is recorded. see
[http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/trinity.htm] A Reference to the Trinity

"No one can bring forth a son older than herself."
Cassian represents the Constantinoplitan patriarch (Nestorius) as teaching that Christ is a mere man (homo solitarius) who merited union with the Divinity as the reward of His Passion.

But the technical terms of doctrine were not fully defined; and even in Greek words like essence (ousia), substance (hypostasis), nature (physis), person (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from the pre-Christian sects of philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up

God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Such is the genuine doctrine of Arius. Using Greek terms, it denies that the Son is of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He is not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real sphere of Deity.

The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, Reason, belonging to the Divine nature, not a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son merely in figure of speech.

Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate." Hence the Arian sectaries who reasoned logically were styled Anomoeans: they said that the Son was "unlike" the Father. And they defined God as simply the Unoriginate. They are also termed the Exucontians (ex ouk onton), because they held the creation of the Son to be out of nothing.

But a view so unlike tradition found little favour; it required softening or palliation, even at the cost of logic; and the school which supplanted Arianism from an early date affirmed the likeness, either without adjunct, or in all things, or in substance, of the Son to the Father, while denying His co-equal dignity and co-eternal existence. These men of the Via Media were named Semi-Arians.

Origen himself, whose unadvised speculations were charged with the guilt of Arianism, and who employed terms like "the second God," concerning the Logos, which were never adopted by the Church — this very Origen taught the eternal Sonship of the Word, and was not a Semi-Arian.

To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. Dionysius of Alexandria (260) was even denounced at Rome for calling the Son a work or creature of God; but he explained himself to the pope on orthodox principles, and confessed the Homoousian Creed.

The man Jesus, said Paul of Samosata, was distinct from the Logos, and, in Milton's later language, by merit was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence.

Arius maintains in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, that the Son "is no part of the Ingenerate."
Eusebius the historian, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius himself, all came under Lucian's influence. Not, therefore, to Egypt and its mystical teaching, but to Syria, where Aristotle flourished with his logic and its tendency to Rationalism, should we look for the home of an aberration which had it finally triumphed, would have anticipated Islam, reducing the Eternal Son to the rank of a prophet, and thus undoing the Christian revelation.

Many bishops of Asia Minor and Syria took up the defence of their "fellow-Lucianist," as Arius did not hesitate to call himself.
From this Byzantine conception of Constantine (labelled in modern terms Erastianism) we must derive the calamities which during many hundreds of years set their mark on the development of Christian dogma. Alexander could not give way in a matter so vitally important. Arius and his supporters would not yield. A council was, therefore, assembled in Nicaea, in Bithynia, which has ever been counted the first ecumenical, and which held its sittings from the middle of June, 325.
NEW ADVENT: Home []CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Arianism
[http://bible-researcher.com/comma.html]

During the controversies of the fourth century over the doctrine of the Trinity the text was expanded -- first in Spain circa 380, and then taken up in the Vulgate -- by the insertion: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one." A few late Greek manuscripts contain the addition. Hence it passed into the KJV.

But all modern critical editions and translations of the New Testament, including the RSV, omit the interpolation, as it has no warrant in the best and most ancient manuscripts or in the early church fathers.

Conclusion

All but nine of the versions examined either omit this verse or note that it was added to the original text. The footnotes indicate that it was an addition, although a few suggest that its conclusion may be proper. The few references that suggest or state the source give the impression that it was not a reliable one. If it should be included, it had to have been removed before the fourth century A.D.
[http://www.innvista.com/culture/religion/bible/compare/trinity.htm] A Reference to the Trinity

 

[barbara van loo]

Heman, what do you believe exactly? And in the bible everybody is called sons of God, can you tell me maybe why Hebrew 1:1 make a difference between Prophets and Son.

 

[he-man]

Heman, what do you believe exactly? And in the bible everybody is called sons of God, can you tell me maybe why Hebrew 1:1 make a difference between Prophets and Son.

Sure, Heb 1:2 but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, for whom also He created the world.
God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Nor is the Son of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He was not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, but within the sphere of the Deity, being begat by Him.

The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, in Regards to God and belonging to the Divine nature, but as a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son by the rising up of him, the Messiah, as foretold by the word as it is written in the Old Testament and proclaimed by the New.

He comes forth proclaiming peace, as a dove, from the Holy Spirit of God as His creative word, and so is a servant of God, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born out of the dead ones of creation.
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Mr 11:7 And they fetched the foal to Jesus, and threw their cloaks upon him; and he sat upon him.
8 And many bestrew their cloaks onto the road; and others layered cut offs from the fields.
9 And those forward and those following did cry, saying, 'Hosanna! blessed he coming in the name of the Lord; [Psalm 118:25-26, 148:1]
10 "Blessed the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"
Hosanna, an exclamation of praise that literally means "save now"

Joh 14:17 The Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.

The man Jesus, is distinct from the Logos, and, by sacrificial obedience was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence.

1Co 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.

But now as Jesus said to him, You have said: nevertheless I say to you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the aura of heaven. Mat 26:64

1Jn 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, because you have known him that is from the start. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked.

 

[barbara van loo]

Oke but why make hebrew a difference cause everybody is called sons in the bible so why make hebrew 1:1 then a difference between Prophets (sons) and the son. Do you believe Jesus is the only son? Explain more for me,can you explain in youre own words maybe,why the verse make a difference?

Sure, Heb 1:2 but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, for whom also He created the world.
God alone was without beginning, unoriginate; the Son was originated, and once had not existed. For all that has origin must begin to be.

Nor is the Son of one essence, nature, or substance with God; He was not consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore not like Him, or equal in dignity, or co-eternal, but within the sphere of the Deity, being begat by Him.

The Logos which St. John exalts is an attribute, in Regards to God and belonging to the Divine nature, but as a person distinct from another, and therefore is a Son by the rising up of him, the Messiah, as foretold by the word as it is written in the Old Testament and proclaimed by the New.

He comes forth proclaiming peace, as a dove, from the Holy Spirit of God as His creative word, and so is a servant of God, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born out of the dead ones of creation.
Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Mr 11:7 And they fetched the foal to Jesus, and threw their cloaks upon him; and he sat upon him.
8 And many bestrew their cloaks onto the road; and others layered cut offs from the fields.
9 And those forward and those following did cry, saying, 'Hosanna! blessed he coming in the name of the Lord; [Psalm 118:25-26, 148:1]
10 "Blessed the coming kingdom of our father David!" "Hosanna in the highest!"
Hosanna, an exclamation of praise that literally means "save now"

Joh 14:17 The Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.

The man Jesus, is distinct from the Logos, and, by sacrificial obedience was made the Son of God. The Supreme is one in Person as in Essence.

1Co 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.

But now as Jesus said to him, You have said: nevertheless I say to you, Hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the aura of heaven. Mat 26:64

1Jn 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, because you have known him that is from the start. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked.

 

[he-man]

Oke but why make hebrew a difference cause everybody is called sons in the bible so why make hebrew 1:1 then a difference between Prophets (sons) and the son. Do you believe Jesus is the only son? Explain more for me,can you explain in youre own words maybe,why the verse make a difference?

The only Son is best described by the words, "the second Adam" because by the disobedience of Adam came death and by the obedience of the Messiah, even to submit to death, came everlasting Life. 1Co 15:22

That death was destroyed by the emolition of the Messiah for those who believe in him as the Son of God.

In Luke's Gospel, the word is used in reference to an only child in 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is said that when Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac he was offering up τον μονογενή, "his only-begotten" (11:17), because although Abraham had another son, God had said that only in Isaac shall Abraham's seed (σπερμ&#945 be named.

In John's Gospel and First Epistle the same words and concepts are used to describe the special relationship of Jesus to God. The word μονογενὴς is used as an adjective modifying "Son," and once as a substantive. He uses the word in five places. I give the literal translation from the English Revised Version of 1881, with the corresponding Greek text:

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. μονογενοῦς

John 1:18. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός,

John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ

John 3:18. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ

1 John 4:9. Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ

In four of the five places the word is used as an adjective modifying "Son," and in one of these (1:18) the Son is said to be "in the bosom of the Father." In the one place where it occurs as a substantive (1:14), it is followed by the prepositional phrase "from the Father," which implies sonship. And so we see that in every occurrence John is using the word as a biological metaphor, in which Christ is the "Only Begotten Son" of the Father. The Only Begotten Son (ο μονογενης υιο&#962

You can also study the meaning of these scriptures:

Heb 1:13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?

Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

 

[barbara van loo]

So what are you meaning, everybody is a Son, and Jesus also or? And still don't know why hebrew 1:1 make a difference? I'm sorry i don't find the answer on my question,in youre messages. Still don't know why hebrew make a difference between Prophets (who are called sons in the bible cause everybody is called sons) and the Son, are the prophets also sons, or is Jesus the only son, what do you believe i don't get it..

And what means Jesus the "Only begotten" Son?

Better give a short reaction and not lot of text cause then i don't get it.