'God the Son' is unbiblical

[Tellyontellyon]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

That is true, the Biblical texts do not contain that phrase, and therefore I also refrain from using it. The NT speaks innumerous times of 'God the Father', and in all those instances with the semantics God = the Father. Yet John 1:1 also says 'god is the word' and in John 20:28 Thomas exclaims 'My master/lord and my god' towards Yeshua.

Please notice I have avoided using interpretation dependent capital letters (which the underlying Greek does not have), and that the definite article ('the') is indeed missing in John 1:1.

Whatever that all means may correspond to various theological positions; I'm just agreeing with your observation at this point.

It's interesting to note that even the Nicene Creeds (AD 325 and AD 381) do not use this phrase. But they do, reflecting John, state that Yeshua is ' ... god of god, light of light, very god of very god, begotten, not made ... '.

 

[Lost4words]

Nowhere is Trinity used. Doesnt mean its not true.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

That is true, the Biblical texts do not contain that phrase, and therefore I also refrain from using it. The NT speaks innumerous times of 'God the Father', and in all those instances with the semantics God = the Father. Yet John 1:1 also says 'god is the word' and in John 20:28 Thomas exclaims 'My master/lord and my god' towards Yeshua.

Please notice I have avoided using interpretation dependent capital letters (which the underlying Greek does not have), and that the definite article ('the') is indeed missing in John 1:1.

Whatever that all means may correspond to various theological positions; I'm just agreeing with your observation at this point.

It's interesting to note that even the Nicene Creeds (AD 325 and AD 381) do not use this phrase. But they do, reflecting John, state that Yeshua is ' ... god of god, light of light, very god of very god, begotten, not made ... '.

Yes, that's the point I'm making. I'm not about to debate the Trinity.
But there must be some importance to avoiding the phrase "God the Son"..
It must lead to some sort of error...
... but what would the error be?

 

[Lost4words]

Jesus is God the Son.

Father.
Son.
Holy Spirit.

One God, 3 persons

 

[Reluctant Theologian]

Jesus is God the Son.

Father.
Son.
Holy Spirit.

One God, 3 persons

You're reiterating a theological position, but not addressing or replying to the OP's proposition or question. It would be nice if you could simply concur with his observation, and then try to answer his question what the significance of that observation would be.

Another question I have for you: what is the earliest recorded use of the term 'God the Son' in early Christianity by any Church Father or Church/Council documents? Again, this is not about interpretation/opinion, just about facts

 

[Lost4words]

You're reiterating a theological position, but not addressing or replying to the OP's proposition or question. It would be nice if you could simply concur with his observation, and then try to answer his question what the significance of that observation would be.

Another question I have for you: what is the earliest recorded use of the term 'God the Son' in early Christianity by any Church Father or Church/Council documents? Again, this is not about interpretation/opinion, just about facts

Fact, is, Jesus is God the Son!

Believing in the Trinity is all about faith.

 

[d taylor]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

That is because Jesus came as the Son of God and the Son of man

And not God the Son and Man the Son

Notice the comma between “the Christ” and “the Son of God” in John 20:31. The words “the Son of God” are appositional to “the Christ.” That is, the Son of God is another way of saying the Messiah.

The expression the Son of God is used in John’s Gospel and in the Synoptic Gospels as a Messianic title. See, for example Matt 14:33; 16:16; 26:63; Luke 22:69-70; John 1:49; 3:18, 36; 11:27; 20:31.

The exact expression “the Christ, the Son of God” only occurs twice in John’s Gospel, John 11:27 and John 20:31. John 11:27 explains what “the Christ, the Son of God” means.

 

[Clare73]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

A distinction without difference.

, that's the point I'm making. I'm not about to debate the Trinity.
But there must be some importance to avoiding the phrase "God the Son."
It must lead to some sort of error...
... but what would the error be?

Are you saying Jesus had a navel?

God the Son flows out of the doctrine of the Trinity, of which Trinity the NT presents ample evidence.

God the Son is a reference to the second person of the Trinity, as God the Father is the first, and God the Holy Spirit is the third.
There is no more reason not to use that phrase than there is reason not to use the phrases God the Father, God the Holy Spirit or Trinity.

The incarnate God the Son is referred to as the Son of God in his incarnation.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Fact, is, Jesus is God the Son!

Believing in the Trinity is all about faith.

You are missing the point of my question.. it is not about believing in the trinity or not believing in the trinity...
Maybe spend a bit of time reading my question and my responses in the thread and you might get the gist of what I'm actually asking.

 

[Tellyontellyon]

Are you saying Jesus had a navel?

God the Son flows out of the doctrine of the Trinity, of which Trinity the NT presents ample evidence.

God the Son is a reference to the second person of the Trinity, as God the Father is the first, and God the Holy Spirit is the third.
There is no more reason not to use that phrase than there is reason not to use the phrases God the Father, God the Holy Spirit or Trinity.

The incarnate God the Son is referred to as the Son of God in his incarnation.

But the Bible doesn't use that phrase... When it easily could... When the people writing the NT believed what you believe... They still didn't use that phrase 'God the Son...

Why? Why was that phrase avoided?

This isn't a challenge to the Trinity... it is about better understanding that Trinity... through better grasping the very carefully selected terms to describe Jesus.

 

[Clare73]

But the Bible doesn't use that phrase... When it easily could... When the people writing the NT believed what you believe... They still didn't use that phrase 'God the Son...

Why? Why was that phrase avoided?

This isn't a challenge to the Trinity... it is about better understanding that Trinity... through better grasping the very carefully selected terms to describe Jesus.

Again: the Bible likewise doesn't use "Trinity," to which that phrase is connected.

 

[Lost4words]

You are missing the point of my question.. it is not about believing in the trinity or not believing in the trinity...
Maybe spend a bit of time reading my question and my responses in the thread and you might get the gist of what I'm actually asking.

I have read your post....my answer still remains the same....the Bible doesnt use the word Trinity either!

The Apostles new that Jesus was the son of God. Just because they didnt call Him that, in the writings that exist, doesnt mean its not a reality.

 

[BobRyan]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

The very fact that there is "God the Father" instead of just "God" or just "The Father" -- shows a qualifier for God such that "God the ..." something other than Father is allowed.

One God Deut 6:4
In three persons Matt 28:19 -- Father, Son and Holy Spirit

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying Jesus had a navel?

Why wouldn't He? Mary gave birth to him and even in the context of incarnation there is still a baby that is born from a real human.

Incarnation relates to conception. But from that point - there is biological development and the baby needs both air and food.

 

[Clare73]

Why wouldn't He? Mary gave birth to him and even in the context of incarnation there is still a baby that is born from a real human.

Incarnation relates to conception. But from that point - there is biological development and the baby needs both air and food.

Agreed.

Why bring it up?

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed.

Why bring it up?

Someone said something about not having a navel.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

Is Jesus God?
Is he also the "only a son" of God?

I don't see a problem. Just because the phrase "God the son" is not in scripture does not mean it is unacceptable. It is a logical conclusion.

 

[Daniel9v9]

The expression "God the Son" is a shorthand for referring to what the Bible calls Logos and our Lord Jesus Christ — it's used to emphasise the divinity of Christ. Same as the word "Trinity", it's not found in the Bible, but it's a summary of Biblical teaching.

One thing that is important to understand is that though Jesus is often referred to as "Lord" in the sense of a "Master" in the gospels, elsewhere in the New Testament, the "Lord" is better understood as "YHWH", "GOD".

In Romans 10, Paul writes: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." And then later: "... the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on Him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Here Paul quotes Joel 2:32, which says: "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (YHWH) shall be saved." In other words, Paul applies the holy name of God, "YHWH", which we write in all-caps as "LORD" and "GOD" in English, to Jesus. So, in fact, when Paul writes: "Lord Jesus", he is saying: "GOD Jesus".

Jesus is the Son of God, and He is God, and if we want to emphasise his divinity or if we want to refer to the Logos, we can rightly say "God the Son". We don't have to, but it's a useful shorthand that is well-understood by all Christian churches. So if anyone is offended by this, it's good to learn what is meant by it, what is confessed by it, which, again, is the divinity of the Son.

 

[biblelesson]

Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus called God the Son. ... Yet, this phrasing is used over and again... Such a central concept to the Trinitarian description of God has been kept out of the Bible scriptures. I don't think that is an accident.
Whether you are a Trinitarian or not... there must be something unacceptable to God about using that particular phrase.
There must be a subtle misunderstanding in using that phrase, or it would be in the Bible.

1 Timothy 3:16 KJV, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Isaiah 9:6 KJV, “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.”

John 1:1 KJV, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14 KJV, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,…”

Colossians 2:9 KJV, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

There was not just One in the Godhead, but Two, and also the Holy Spirit as God.

Jesus was in the beginning. God said “let Us make man…,” Genesis 1:26 KJV

It was only when Jesus was born of a woman and the Holy Spirit did He become the Son of God. He was always from the beginning God with God in heaven - Hebrews 1:9 KJV

Therefore Jesus is God the Son and the Son of God!