God the Son

[radhead]

That is the official title of Jesus according to the Trinity theology.

But why do they change if from the biblical "Son of God"?

The whole thing feels weird. The fact that it would have to be changed in order to fit into a more pagan/trinity type of theology. It's as if people are doing this in an attempt to control people and generate wealth. Saying that "We" have the answer on who God is. So you must follow "Us" in order to be made right with God.

I'm sorry, but that is just not the message I find anywhere in the Bible. You would have to take isolated verses and really twist their meaning out of context in order to support the Trinity. And there is already evidence that there were alterations done in the original King James Bible in order to accomplish this.

As long as there is a Trinity, it gives credence to the idea that certain men have divinely appointed control over your life. This is true of any Trinity based religion or denomination.

 

[Hammster]

Where do you find anything that officially changed His title to God the Son?

 

[dysert]

That is the official title of Jesus according to the Trinity theology.

But why do they change if from the biblical "Son of God"?

The whole thing feels weird. The fact that it would have to be changed in order to fit into a more pagan/trinity type of theology. It's as if people are doing this in an attempt to control people and generate wealth. Saying that "We" have the answer on who God is. So you must follow "Us" in order to be made right with God.

I'm sorry, but that is just not the message I find anywhere in the Bible. You would have to take isolated verses and really twist their meaning out of context in order to support the Trinity. And there is already evidence that there were alterations done in the original King James Bible in order to accomplish this.

As long as there is a Trinity, it gives credence to the idea that certain men have divinely appointed control over your life. This is true of any Trinity based religion or denomination.

I'm afraid I don't know what you're railing against: Son of God vs. God the Son; or the (erroneous) idea that the concept of the Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm afraid I don't know what you're railing against: Son of God vs. God the Son; or the (erroneous) idea that the concept of the Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture.

He's saying that the Son of God is not necessarily a god of any sort, so to call such a being God the Son is not necessarily correct. I know you believe that Jesus is God, is the Son of God, and is God the Son, but consider some imaginary religion where there is a God who has a son, and this son is not a god. That is the scenario he is describing.

 

[radhead]

Where do you find anything that officially changed His title to God the Son?

Is the Trinity not part of Christian theology? I'm talking about Christianity.

 

[Hammster]

Is the Trinity not part of Christian theology? I'm talking about Christianity.

Yes, the Trinity is a part of Christian theology. The Son of God is one member of the Trinity. But I don't know anywhere that states His title has been officially changed.

 

[dysert]

He's saying that the Son of God is not necessarily a god of any sort, so to call such a being God the Son is not necessarily correct. I know you believe that Jesus is God, is the Son of God, and is God the Son, but consider some imaginary religion where there is a God who has a son, and this son is not a god. That is the scenario he is describing.

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm even more confused now. Radhead said, "I'm sorry, but that is just not the message I find anywhere in the Bible. You would have to take isolated verses and really twist their meaning out of context in order to support the Trinity." This is certainly not true and shows a real lack of knowledge of the Scriptures. Maybe I'll just lurk a while to see where this thread goes.

 

[radhead]

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm even more confused now. Radhead said, "I'm sorry, but that is just not the message I find anywhere in the Bible. You would have to take isolated verses and really twist their meaning out of context in order to support the Trinity." This is certainly not true and shows a real lack of knowledge of the Scriptures. Maybe I'll just lurk a while to see where this thread goes.

That's an unfounded statement. If you had been able to support it with something written in the Bible then perhaps you would have.

So far no one has answered why Christian theology changed what the Bible states.

 

[Hammster]

That's an unfounded statement. If you had been able to support it with something written in the Bible then perhaps you would have.

So far no one has answered why Christian theology changed what the Bible states.

You have yet to support that assertion. So far, there's nothing to defend.

 

[dysert]

That's an unfounded statement. If you had been able to support it with something written in the Bible then perhaps you would have.

So far no one has answered why Christian theology changed what the Bible states.

I don't know what you're saying is unfounded. If it's verses that support the concept of Trinity you want, just ask. There are a boatload of them. And I still don't know what you mean by saying that "Christian theology changed what the Bible states". Sorry I don't understand. (really)

 

[radhead]

You have yet to support that assertion. So far, there's nothing to defend.

So you are saying that "God the Son" is biblical? Yet you haven't supported it. I don't have to support it because I don't believe it is biblical.

 

[Hammster]

So you are saying that "God the Son" is biblical? Yet you haven't supported it. I don't have to support it because I don't believe it is biblical.

You need to support the claim you made that it's an officially changed title.

 

[radhead]

You need to support the claim you made that it's an officially changed title.

I don't have to support anything of the sort. You are now acknowledging that it is an actual title.

Or aren't you?

 

[Hammster]

I don't have to support anything of the sort. You are now acknowledging that it is an actual title.

Or aren't you?

That is the official title of Jesus according to the Trinity theology.

Then you said "they" changed it. Who is "they" and what evidence do you have that "they" changed it?

 

[radhead]

So far no one has denied that "God the Son" is an official title.

 

[Hammster]

So far no one has denied that "God the Son" is an official title.

So for, no one has claimed that it is except you.

 

[dysert]

So far no one has denied that "God the Son" is an official title.

The phrase "God the Son" does not appear in the Bible. Is that all this thread was about? I don't know about any "official title". Who makes a title official?

 

[radhead]

The phrase "God the Son" does not appear in the Bible. Is that all this thread was about? I don't know about any "official title". Who makes a title official?

So are you denying that title or not? A simple yes or no is all I'm asking for.

 

[Hammster]

So are you denying that title or not? A simple yes or no is all I'm asking for.

Again, who is calling it an official title?

 

[radhead]

Again, who is calling it an official title?

Perhaps you should look into that.