God the Son

[cloudyday2]

@radhead , that is an interesting observation. "God the Son" much more strongly emphasizes that Jesus was God. "Son of God" might only mean that Jesus was a godly mortal man.

I don't think anybody has mentioned the most common title used by Jesus - "son of Man". From what I have read, this "son of Man" title really upset the Jewish establishment, because it meant that Jesus was the divine being mentioned by end-time prophesies in the book of Daniel and the book of Enoch. "Son of God" meant only that Jesus was a holy man.

 

[oi_antz]

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.

Consider Matthew 1:18 and Matthew 1:20. ViaCrucis said "wisdom is personified in the Proverbs, not incarnate" - and that's better than a response I could have given. Additionally, I will point to Matthew 12:42. It's quite relevant too!

Yes I would tend to say The Logos is incarnate as the human we know as Jesus the Christ, who before His birth did not have a human body. Yet God The Father is regarded as greater than Jesus (Matthew 26:39, Mark 13:32). Further, you may enjoy considering John 1:4, Luke 11:34, James 1:15, John 15:4-11.

.. and I urge you to pursue agreement, because that is the only way truth is established.

 

[ChetSinger]

...You would have to take isolated verses and really twist their meaning out of context in order to support the Trinity...

Oh, good heavens no. Imo it's not even close:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people.

It trains us to reject godless ways and worldly desires and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. - Titus 2 NET

From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. - 2 Peter 1 NET

And when I'm more prepared I'd also like to talk about the Jewish origins of the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Butch5]

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.

Hi Radhead,

The Trinity doctrine is a doctrine that is vastly misunderstood by many, including Christians. You say, "God the Son" is the official title of Jesus in the Trinity doctrine. Where does this idea come from and who are these "officials" who designated it as such?

 

[ViaCrucis]

According to Wikipedia the phrase "God the Son" seems to be a somewhat literal rendering of the sporadic Latin use of Deus Fillius, again somewhat sporadically used in some late Christian writings, once in the Latin of the Quicumque Vult (where it is normally translated as "the Son is God"), and once by St. Augustine in On the Trinity, "Deo patri deus filius obediens".

But as noted the standard Trinitarian use is to say "Son of God" or simply "the Son". As such "God the Son" seems like it could be used primarily for emphasis by way of comparison with the phrase "God the Father" in order to emphasize the explicit deity of the Son, but this seems to be effectively non-standard.

Ultimately, of course, this is entirely a non-issue.

At no point has anyone changed Christ's title from "Son of God" to "God the Son, that never happened, nobody did that. The OP has merely asserted this to be the case and, thus far, has not even attempted to back this claim up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

Ultimately, of course, this is entirely a non-issue.

There's a 25¢ doctrine called ontological subordination, where the distinction between God the Father (JEHOVAH), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (Holy) are used.

In ontological subordination, one Member of the Godhead is the active One, while the other Two are, respectfully speaking, in the background and making cameo appearances.

In the Old Testament, we see God the Father doing most of the work, with the Son and the Spirit in the background.

In the first century AD, we see God the Son take the foreground, with the Father and the Spirit in the background.

In this dispensation (Grace) today, we have God the Spirit in the foreground, with the Father and the Son in the background.

In the next dispensation, Millennial Kingdom, God the Son will take the foreground for a thousand years.

Then He will turn it all over to the Father for [what we call] eternity future.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

There's a 25¢ doctrine called ontological subordination, where the distinction between God the Father (JEHOVAH), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Spirit (Holy) are used.

In ontological subordination, one Member of the Godhead is the active One, while the other Two are, respectfully speaking, in the background and making cameo appearances.

In the Old Testament, we see God the Father doing most of the work, with the Son and the Spirit in the background.

In the first century AD, we see God the Son take the foreground, with the Father and the Spirit in the background.

In this dispensation (Grace) today, we have God the Spirit in the foreground, with the Father and the Son in the background.

In the next dispensation, Millennial Kingdom, God the Son will take the foreground for a thousand years.

Then He will turn it all over to the Father for [what we call] eternity future.

I don't like it when this sort of distinction in action is posited in the workings of the Trinity. The more theologically correct manner in seeing the Trinity in Salvation history is that Creation was a Trinitarian event, the Incarnation was a Trinitarian event, the Crucifixion and Resurrection was a Trinitarian event, the Ascension and Pentacost, Trinitarian, Salvation itself is a Trinitarian event. When too much emphasis is placed on different actions by different members then one runs into the possibility of Modalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't like it when this sort of distinction in action is posited in the workings of the Trinity. The more theologically correct manner in seeing the Trinity in Salvation history is that Creation was a Trinitarian event, the Incarnation was a Trinitarian event, the Crucifixion and Resurrection was a Trinitarian event, the Ascension and Pentacost, Trinitarian, Salvation itself is a Trinitarian event.

Yes, in essence, they are trinitarian in nature.

But there are times when it is necessary to focus on one Member or the Other (or the Other) in order to get a fuller meaning of what is going on.

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

When too much emphasis is placed on different actions by different members then one runs into the possibility of Modalism.

Then don't place too much emphasis on different actions by different Members.

Draw a clear distinction and know the difference.

Modalism is anti-trinitarian; ontological subordination is not.

You wouldn't hear a modalist use the terms that an ontological subordinationist would use.

To wit: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

In other words, how can you accuse a person of being a modalist, when that person believes that God the Father did this, God the Son did that, and God the Spirit did another thing?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

In other words, how can you accuse a person of being a modalist, when that person believes that God the Father did this, God the Son did that, and God the Spirit did another thing?

I didn't. I said that concentrating on the roles of the persons of the Trinity and focusing heavily on that may lead to talk of the so-called "Creator, Redeemer and Comforter" which is not how the Trinity should be understood. And that can lead to Modalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't. I said that concentrating on the roles of the persons of the Trinity and focusing heavily on that may lead to talk of the so-called "Creator, Redeemer and Comforter" which is not how the Trinity should be understood. And that can lead to Modalism.

Then Who does constitute the Trinity?

Or is it you don't believe in the Trinity at all?

 

[radhead]

When I say "God the Son" I'm not necessarily referring to a *literal* phrase used by anyone. But just the concept of the Trinity in general.

In the same way, I don't think of the Spirit as being a separate conscious being apart from God. The spirit represents the unseen part of any person. You could say that God the Father and Jesus the Son both had the same spirit. It is manifest in wisdom and love. And it could also be a sort of Force which exists in nature. I don't think that either religion or science has fully grasped this.

 

[radhead]

Going back to John 1. I don't see anything in the gospel of John as being literal. I don't think that a single word in the book was spoken literally by any of the characters in it. The entire book is almost like a vision. Some of the characters could have been entirely made up. So even the idea of Jesus being whatever he was in that story should be understood in that light.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the same way, I don't think of the Spirit as being a separate conscious being apart from God.

Ananias & Sapphira learned differently the hard way.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Then Who does constitute the Trinity?

The Trinity is One God, the Father the Almighty, One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Each are involved in Creation for Creation is from God through Christ with the Holy Spirit; in terms of Creation one sees in the opening chapters of Genesis enough for the Midraishic Trinitarian formulae: that of all Three involved, God the Father, the Word and the Spirit of God. In terms of the Baptism of Jesus one sees Christ the Son present with God the Father's voice and the Spirit descending, thus the ministry of Jesus is a Trinitarian act of Salvation history. In terms of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, one cannot see these as separate events because the Crucifixion is theologically the Crucifixion of the Risen Christ, the Resurrection is theologically the Resurrection of the Crucified One: In this respect the Crucifixion/Resurrection is an Event within God, the Father experiences the death of Christ, his Son, and by the power of the Holy Spirit Christ is Resurrected (Rom. 8:11). To speak of God the Father as the Creator and the Son as the Redeemer is to invite theological error, the whole Trinity is involved in the Creation and Salvation of the world.

 

[radhead]

What if the Son just represents all of humanity. We are all "sons of God" as Paul explained. What if the character of Jesus in the gospel stories was based on a real man, but was presented as the true son of God in all of us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then Who does constitute the Trinity?

Or is it you don't believe in the Trinity at all?

The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that three Hypostases or "Persons", the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, are the one God, being of the same being and substance.

Focusing on a particular "role" of one Person of the Trinity against the others amounts nearly to a kind of functional Modalism.

It's not the Father who is chiefly at work with Israel in the Old Testament, it is the Trinity. While during the Lord's ministry we can point to an apparent focus on the Son because He's the One bodily present in the narratives of the Gospels, it is still the entire Trinity at work. And right now it is not the Holy Spirit who is focused upon, it is the entire Trinity.

If not a kind of functional Modalism it does, at the very least, come across as a kind of quasi-Montanism or Joachimism.

Challenging this is not a rejection of the Trinity. Just the opposite, it is an affirmation and defense of the Trinity against potential error.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Going back to John 1. I don't see anything in the gospel of John as being literal. I don't think that a single word in the book was spoken literally by any of the characters in it. The entire book is almost like a vision. Some of the characters could have been entirely made up. So even the idea of Jesus being whatever he was in that story should be understood in that light.

On this basis I hardly think you are in any position to then claim any of us as departing from what the Bible says. As it's rather clear that when we have appealed to biblical material you are going to whisk it away into the realm of esoteric mysticism to avoid dealing with the concrete elements raised in the texts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What if the Son just represents all of humanity. We are all "sons of God" as Paul explained.

Except that's not even a remote approximation of what Paul wrote.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ChetSinger]

What if the Son just represents all of humanity. We are all "sons of God" as Paul explained. What if the character of Jesus in the gospel stories was based on a real man, but was presented as the true son of God in all of us.

The Christian divinity of Jesus originated from Judaism, as explored by rabbinical scholars including Alan Segal and Daniel Boyarin. Binitarian beliefs were widespread and orthodox in Judaism at that time. They were later declared heretical by the rabbis after Christianity applied them to Jesus.

If you read the Acts of the Apostles it should become clear that they weren't attempting to create a new religion, or even a new sect. They were orthodox, observant Jews who had experienced the Messiah. They still went to temple, kept kosher, and kept the law. It was only after the Holy Spirit fell upon Gentiles did the church begin to lose its "Jewishness", because the apostles exempted Gentile believers from following the law.

PS. I'll second what ViaCrucis said immediately above.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.

The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. Of real importance is that the concept represented by the word “Trinity” does exist in Scripture. The following is what God’s Word says about the Trinity:

1) There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5).

2) The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity.

In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this passage is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of three distinct Persons in the Trinity.

3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages. In the Old Testament, “LORD” is distinguished from “Lord” (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The LORD has a Son (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). The Spirit is distinguished from the “LORD” (Numbers 27:18) and from “God” (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17). This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No. He spoke to another Person in the Trinity—the Father.

4) Each member of the Trinity is God. The Father is God (John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). The Son is God (John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

5) There is subordination within the Trinity. Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son, and the Son is subordinate to the Father. This is an internal relationship and does not deny the deity of any Person of the Trinity. This is simply an area which our finite minds cannot understand concerning the infinite God. Concerning the Son see Luke 22:42, John 5:36, John 20:21, and 1 John 4:14. Concerning the Holy Spirit see John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and especially John 16:13-14.

6) The individual members of the Trinity have different tasks. The Father is the ultimate source or cause of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); salvation (John 3:16-17); and Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father initiates all of these things.

The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); divine revelation (John 1:1, 16:12-15; Matthew 11:27; Revelation 1:1); and salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.

The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus, the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.

There have been many attempts to develop illustrations of the Trinity. However, none of the popular illustrations are completely accurate. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves, just as the skin, flesh, and seeds of the apple are parts of it, not the apple itself. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of God; each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better, but it still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapor, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration.

The doctrine of the Trinity has been a divisive issue throughout the entire history of the Christian church. While the core aspects of the Trinity are clearly presented in God’s Word, some of the side issues are not as explicitly clear. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God—but there is only one God. That is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Beyond that, the issues are, to a certain extent, debatable and non-essential. Rather than attempting to fully define the Trinity with our finite human minds, we would be better served by focusing on the fact of God's greatness and His infinitely higher nature. “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).