God the Son

[Hammster]

Perhaps you should look into that.

I am. I'm asking you. You made the claim. Surely you can substantiate it.

 

[radhead]

I am. I'm asking you. You made the claim. Surely you can substantiate it.

No I don't have to support it because it's a Christian term which only Christians accept. Right now it seems like you don't even have an opinion on it one way or the other. So what is your point in asking me anything?

I've already been as clear as I can in saying that I don't believe it because it isn't in the Bible.

What do you believe? Do you have an opinion?

 

[Hammster]

No I don't have because it's a Christian term which Christians accept. Right now it seems like you don't even have an opinion on it one way or the other. So what is your point in asking me anything?

I've already been as clear as I can in saying that I don't believe it because it isn't in the Bible.

What do you believe? Do you have an opinion?

Yes. I don't believe the term is in the bible.

 

[radhead]

Yes. I don't believe the term is in the bible.

You know that's not what I asked. Are you afraid to say what you think? Are you afraid that lightning bolts are going to strike you dead if you say the wrong thing? Because God already knows what you think. If you trust God then you won't be afraid to say what he already knows is in your heart.

 

[radhead]

Are you more afraid of what people on this forum will think if you say the wrong thing in their eyes? You should only care about what God thinks if you trust that God is greater.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

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

Nobody is changing the title.

It is still Son of God.

But it is also God the Son as well.

Jesus is both the Son of God and God the Son.

 

[Hammster]

You know that's not what I asked. Are you afraid to say what you think? Are you afraid that lightning bolts are going to strike you dead if you say the wrong thing? Because God already knows what you think. If you trust God then you won't be afraid to say what he already knows is in your heart.

I've been trying to stay on topic. If the argument in the OP isn't really what you want to discuss, then that is fine. If you want to know my opinion on the term "God the Son" and why Christians find it acceptable to use even though it's not in scripture, that's a different topic, but one that I would be happy to discuss.

 

[Hammster]

Are you more afraid of what people on this forum will think if you say the wrong thing in their eyes? You should only care about what God thinks if you trust that God is greater.

I assume this is directed towards me. No, I'm not afraid of what people think. I just want to stay on topic.

 

[Wgw]

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.

Hardly imaginary. See Arianism.

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

That phrase is not only absent from the Nicene Creed, but also, as far as I am aware, from the Orthodox liturgy and service books.

 

[dysert]

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

No. (I am not denying the title "God the Son".)

 

[oi_antz]

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.

I believe it is, based on John 1:1 and John 1:14. Can you please explain your preferred way to view those verses?

 

[Alla27]

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.

The Bible claims that Jesus or Son is God. The Bible also claims that Jesus or Son has His God and His Father(Who is also our God and our Father).
Now biblical quotes which claim that Jesus or Son is God Himself and that He also has His God.
God of the Old Testament said this: I AM THAT I AM" (see Exodus 3:14)
Some Jews asked Jesus (or Son) this question: thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
Jesus answered this: Verily, verily, I say unto you, "before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58)
Jews took up stones to cast at Him. Why?
Because Jesus told them that He is "I AM". Jesus didn't tell them: "before Abraham was I have been". But He said what God of OT said: "I AM that I AM"
Another quote from the Bible. Hebrews 1. In this quote God calls His Son "God" and says this: 8 But unto the Son(Jesus)
he(God) saith:"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God(Son Jesus) even thy God(Heavenly Father), hath anointed thee with oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So, from these verses we see that Jesus or Son is God and this God has His God.
So, Jesus is God and He is Son of His God.
God Son or God of Old Testament I AM(Jesus) has His God ACCORDING to the Bible.
But not all people are willing to accept that God I AM has His God and His Father ACCORDING to the Bible.

Gods said: Let US make man in OUR image and in OUR likeness". Gods said:" man became like ONE OF US". (Genesis)

 

[radhead]

I believe it is, based on John 1:1 and John 1:14. Can you please explain your preferred way to view those verses?

You have stumped me. I guess I will just have to agree to disagree because I read that from a Unitarian/Jewish perspective. This was a Jewish writing originally. I think that should be read in light of Proverbs 8, if that's the chapter I'm thinking about. It talks about Wisdom becoming flesh.

 

[Wgw]

You have stumped me. I guess I will just have to agree to disagree because I read that from a Unitarian/Jewish perspective. This was a Jewish writing originally. I think that should be read in light of Proverbs 8, if that's the chapter I'm thinking about. It talks about Wisdom becoming flesh.

And thus refers to the incarnation of the Word. Logos can be read as "reason," "wisdom" and so on; however, if read in context, John 1:1-14 clearly describes the incarnation of the Lord. In fact, Unitarianism cannot handle John 1:1-14 in my opinion; I have never encountered a plausible Unitarian exegesis of that passage, and I believe that it contributed to the Unitarians effectively giving up on sola scriptura and embracing transcendentalism in the mid 19th century.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Not really. "the Son" is the term applied to Jesus in Trinitarian theology.

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

They--we--haven't changed it. The term "God the Son" isn't used instead of "Son of God" or "the Son", but in addition to.

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.

Assumption without substance.

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.

Non-sequitur.

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.

You mean the Comma Johanneum? The King James wasn't altered to fit Trinitarian theology, the way that the Comma entered into the KJV has to do with the critical Greek texts of Erasmus in the 16th century--the first couple of his critical texts did not include the Comma because there wasn't sufficient evidence for its inclusion, but Erasmus did agree to include it if manuscript support could be provided. He was provided with a late, 15th century Greek manuscript, so the Comma's inclusion into Erasmus' critical texts happened, the translators of the KJV used the third, fourth, and fifth editions of Erasmus critical text, along with the critical texts of Stephanus and Beza in their translation. That's why the KJV contains the Comma.

The Comma isn't some nefarious plot, it's simply a goof of medieval text copying.

Also the doctrine of the Trinity isn't based upon several proof-texts from the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity is the Church's response to a series of theological controversies of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, the most significant of which being the Arian controversy wherein Arius of Alexandria taught that there were two Gods, the uncreated Father and a created, secondary God, the Son. The Council of Nicea met precisely to address the Arian controversy, in which the Godhead of the Son was asserted in the formula that He is ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί (homoousion to patri), that is to say, consubstantial with the Father.

If you are really interested in the history of the development of Trinitarian dogma within the context of Christian antiquity then you are more than welcome to ask.

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.

There's literally nothing that makes sense in how you've reached your conclusion.

You have made a faulty assumption about the poetic phrase "God the Son", a phrase used (best I can tell) in English hymnody because it works within the poetic rhythm of said hymnody, that it has replaced the biblical term "Son of God" which it definitely hasn't ("Son of God" and "the Son" are used extensively in Christian theological literature and is the standard nomenclature for Christian [Trinitarian] theology). From this you then have made a rather absurd leap that this means there are people who are out to control and amass wealth and have divinely appointed control over my life.

The entire thing, from start to finish, is a great big mess that seems could easily be corrected by asking a few basic questions or doing a tiny bit of research into the history of Christianity and its theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You have stumped me. I guess I will just have to agree to disagree because I read that from a Unitarian/Jewish perspective. This was a Jewish writing originally. I think that should be read in light of Proverbs 8, if that's the chapter I'm thinking about. It talks about Wisdom becoming flesh.

Wisdom is personified in the Proverbs, not incarnate.

However the ancient fathers (and St. Paul himself in the New Testament) refer to Christ as the Wisdom of God. So, yes, the concept of holy wisdom is one of the things that has influenced Christian teaching on the Incarnation of the Logos.

As a sidenote, the ancient church of Hagia Sophia means "Holy Wisdom", and the full name is "Holy Wisdom of God", in reference to Christ. Further, in the Western Advent tradition of the O Antiphons, one of the Antiphons is O Sapientia, or "O Wisdom". The O Antiphons are the basis for the Advent hymn "Come, O Come Emmanuel", with the relevant Antiphon corresponding to this verse:

"O come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
And order all things, far and nigh;
To us the path of knowledge show,
And cause us in her ways to go.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee, O Israel."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

No I don't have to support it because it's a Christian term which only Christians accept. Right now it seems like you don't even have an opinion on it one way or the other. So what is your point in asking me anything?

I've already been as clear as I can in saying that I don't believe it because it isn't in the Bible.

What do you believe? Do you have an opinion?

Hammster is perfectably capable of responding for himself, but allow me to tell you what I believe:

"And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." - Quicumque Vult, aka the Athanasian Creed, c. 500 AD

Note that He is not called "God the Son" here.

And now for the universally confessed faith of the Christian Church:

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." - The Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed, 381 AD

Again, no mention of "God the Son," He is called "Son of God".

The following comes from a somewhat minor council in Spain, specifically the 11th Council of Toledo in the 7th century,

"We also confess that the Son was born, but not made, from the substance of the Father, without beginning, before all ages, for at no time did the Father exist without the Son, nor the Son without the Father. Yet the Father is not from the Son, as the Son is from the Father, because the Father was not generated by the Son but the Son by the Father. The Son, therefore, is God from the Father, and the Father is God, but not from the son. He is indeed the Father of the Son, not God from the Son; but the latter is the Son of the Father and God from the Father. Yet in all things the Son is equal to God the Father, for He has never begun nor ceased to be born. We also believe that He is of one substance with the Father; wherefore He is called homoousios with the Father, that is of the same being as the Father, for homos in Greek means 'one' and ousia means 'being', and joined together they mean 'one in being'. We must believe that the Son is begotten or born not from nothing or from any other substance, but from the womb of the Father, that is from His substance. Therefore the Father is eternal, and the Son is also eternal. If He was always Father, He always had a Son, whose Father He was, and therefore we confess that the Son was born from the Father without beginning. We do not call the same Son of God a part of a divided nature,[1]because He was generated from the Father, but we assert that the perfect Father has begotten the perfect Son, without diminution or division, for it pertains to the Godhead alone not to have an unequal Son. This Son of God is also Son by nature, not by adoption; of Him we must also believe that God the Father begot Him neither by an act of will nor out of necessity, for in God there is no necessity nor does will precede wisdom."

Note, again, "the Son" and "Son of God" but not "God the Son".

And finally, the Definition of Chalcedon, 451 AD

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."

Notice a trend?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[radhead]

I don't really see a trend that addresses what is in the Bible.

I still think of the Lord Jesus Christ as being the Son of God. Just as we are Sons of God. We are also "gods" in Psalm 82. You might say that Christ is a human reflection of the Logos. The same messiah spirit existed before Abraham, before the creation of the world, and was working in the creation of the world.

And likewise, the Holy Spirit is actually the Spirit of God.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Early Christianity grew out of a largely Jewish binitarian theological milieu and a very early and very high Christology exists within the NT texts. For example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 includes a Pauline (or possibly pre-Pauline) creed, an expansion, redefinition, or perhaps better, an integration of Christology into the ancient Jewish Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). Evidently, for Paul and very much assumed by the Corinthian church, and probably assumed by pre-Pauline Christians, the Shema "Shema Yisrael Yhwh elohenu Yhwh ehad" or Greek "Akoue, Israel; Kyrios ho theos hemon Kyrios heis estin" can be said for them as:
(a) for us, there is one God, the Father,
(b) from whom are all things (c) and to/for whom we live,
(d) and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
(e) through whom are all things (f) and through whom we live.
or in the Greek:
(a) hemin heis theos ho pater
(b) ex hou ta panta (c) kai hemeis eis auton,
(d) kai heis Kyrios Iesous Christos
(e) di' hou ta panta (f) kai hemeis di' autou.

Paul does more than evoke the Shema in this text. I would actually see the vocabulary of 1 Cor 8:6 as reworking the Shema in which the identity of the one God is split in two, through the glossing of the word theos (God) with "the Father" and Kyrios (Lord) with "Jesus Christ". Paul still believes there is one God (v. 4) - he has not become a ditheist - but given the way the Shema has been opened up and reinterpreted the one God is now mysteriously two.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't really see a trend that addresses what is in the Bible.

I still think of the Lord Jesus Christ as being the Son of God. Just as we are Sons of God. We are also "gods" in Psalm 82. You might say that Christ is a human reflection of the Logos. The same messiah spirit existed before Abraham, before the creation of the world, and was working in the creation of the world.

And likewise, the Holy Spirit is actually the Spirit of God.

Except the Bible, rather explicitly, states that Jesus is the Logos made flesh. Jesus is the Logos Ensarkos, the Incarnate Word. Not a "human reflection of the Logos", but is the Logos. And throughout the Pauline literature there is a high Christology that identifies Jesus with God. Take, for example, the Christological hymn of Philippians 2 which asserts that Christ though being "the form of God" became a human servant, not clinging to His equality with God.

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" (Philippians 2:6),

or in Greek, ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ,

This high language continues in the literature of the ancient Fathers, for example, St. Ignatius writes (c. 107 AD),

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." - Ignatius to the Ephesians, 18

"And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared, ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He mediated the abolition of death." - ibid, 19

Tatian the Syrian writing around 170,

"We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations." - Address to the Greeks, ch. 21

St. Clement of Alexandria, writing about 190,

"Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man— the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, 'the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.'" - Exhortation to the Greeks, 1

The issue, ultimately, isn't whether or not Christians understood Christ to be divine--even God--from early on; as they very obviously did. What was the issue, ultimately, was what did it mean to say that Christ was God, that's where the controversies surrounding Sabellius, Praxeas, and Noetus in the 3rd century and Arius and Apollonius in the 4th. It's this which came to a head and which was then addressed at the Council of Nicea and which the council fathers put down in their symbol of faith, that He is "God of God", "begotten, not made", and "of one being with the Father".

That is to say, Christ was not a secondary God, a different God, than the Father, He was the same God as the Father. And at the same time Christ is not the Father, He is the Son of the Father.

That He is Son of the Father, not the Father, is against Sabellius, Praxeas, and Noetus who taught Modalistic Monarchanism (or Sabellianism after Sabellius); and that He, as Son, is God of God and the same God as the Father from the Father and with the Father is against Arius and the Arians who asserted Christ was "of a different substance" or heteroousios, that the Son or Logos was the divine demiurge created by the Father as the agency to make all worlds (borrowed almost in total from Platonic thought).

-CryptoLutheran