Who really created the Son of God?

[Justified]

Listen, first set aside the large amount of pride you express in your writing and return to reality.

Not pride, confidence in what I have prayerfully studied.

You talk more than you offer helpful and motivating insight.

So, because what I say disagrees with you, it’s not helpful and “motivating insight”?

Like many others, you push your own belief system and impose it forcefully onto scripture instead of humbling yourself and listening to those with more experience to understand the truth as why scripture was written.

That is pride. You’ve made several assumptions in this one sentence, most notably that your beliefs are right and “mine” (which happen to more or less align with 2,000 years of Christian belief) are wrong.

Take for example John's prologue:

To genuinely understand the truth in this difficult topic, for many, John's prologue, one must first set aside all biases and preconceived ideas.

Again, pride. You’re assuming that you have or had no biases or preconceived ideas, or can simply set them aside; it’s only those who disagree with your position that have them, or do not set then aside.

Without doing this, this study becomes a pointless, immature exercise that is endlessly repeated and causes discomfort to more than some, who actually know more that you do.

Again, pride. You’re implying that those who disagree with your position don’t know more than you, or those with whom you agree.

So, additionally, it is important to be aware of one's own mental limits, knowledge, and capacity to learn new concepts, such as within the Greek and Hebrew languages.

Of course, but just make sure you’re not making assumptions about those things regarding those who disagree with your position.

Many are unable to meet these requirements, which is why disputes persist without end on this type of study.

Those are some of the reasons, yes.

 

[Wrangler]

Except that it does. You're not following the flow of John's thoughts and reasoning

Projecting. You are again guilty of eisegesis in not admitting that v1 doesn't mention Yeshua, let alone that he is divine. For some reason, you ignore v45 and pretend v14 mentions what it doesn't. It doesn't mention that God became flesh.

One reason v14 doesn't say that God became flesh could be that never happened and John's thought's and reasoning never expressed this. The way we know that is he was good enough to write a purpose statement for his entire gospel. See 20:31.

 

[dak]

While I have never heard a complete treatise on adoptionism, I do believe it is the only Biblically justified position based on my own reading of Scripture. See John 1:12, Colossians 3:12, Galatians 3:26 and other verses.

The NLT translation note says some manuscripts include this. Others (most?) don't and neither does the NLT. To me, it is irrelevant since this notion of Jesus becoming God's son on a certain day is explicit in Hebrews 1 and other places.

Amen, true, the quotes in the epistle to the Hebrews containing the decree, in the contexts in which they are written, leave no room for anyone to speculate on or reject what is said and meant therein. And that fact has been gone over thoroughly elsewhere here, (in a dead thread wherein the OP himself destroyed his own thread because he could not accept what is right in front of him in the epistle to the Hebrews).

According to Hebrews 5:4-6 the decree necessarily had to have been spoken by the Father to the Anointed One somewhere in the Gospel narratives: Luke 3:22, (Codex Bezae), is the smoking gun evidence that the decree has been purposely removed from several Gospel accounts, (both Matthew and Luke according to testimonies of the so-called church fathers themselves found in patristic writings, in their own words).

 

[JustMe]

Not pride, confidence in what I have prayerfully studied.


So, because what I say disagrees with you, it’s not helpful and “motivating insight”?


That is pride. You’ve made several assumptions in this one sentence, most notably that your beliefs are right and “mine” (which happen to more or less align with 2,000 years of Christian belief) are wrong.


Again, pride. You’re assuming that you have or had no biases or preconceived ideas, or can simply set them aside; it’s only those who disagree with your position that have them, or do not set then aside.


Again, pride. You’re implying that those who disagree with your position don’t know more than you, or those with whom you agree.


Of course, but just make sure you’re not making assumptions about those things regarding those who disagree with your position.


Those are some of the reasons, yes.

This is one example WHY you cannot and will not given up your prejudices and extreme biases regarding this subject. You are engrained in this instutional belief/

When you say: "That is pride. You’ve made several assumptions in this one sentence, most notably that your beliefs are right and “mine” (which happen to more or less align with 2,000 years of Christian belief) are wrong."

The first thing I suggest you understand completely in scripture on the particular subject is what is the word of God and its relationship with him. This is the 1st base. And you are still batting out..

 

[HealthyShape]

This is one example WHY you cannot and will not given up your prejudices and extreme biases regarding this subject. You are engrained in this instutional belief/

When you say: "That is pride. You’ve made several assumptions in this one sentence, most notably that your beliefs are right and “mine” (which happen to more or less align with 2,000 years of Christian belief) are wrong."

The first thing I suggest you understand completely in scripture on the particular subject is what is the word of God and its relationship with him. This is the 1st base. And you are still batting out..

The New Testament did not appear today in your hands in vacuum, for you to find out what it means.

It was written by the first church and this first church trained the second church etc. till today. You cannot throw away Christianity and work with the New Testament in isolation from the church. It is nonsensical and a wrong use.

 

[JustMe]

The New Testament did not appear today in your hands in vacuum, for you to find out what it means.

It was written by the first church and this first church trained the second church etc. till today. You cannot throw away Christianity and work with the New Testament in isolation from the church. It is nonsensical and a wrong use.

You can hold this 'church' as a crutch, but have you really gone over their views in detail, and agreed to all it essentials, with independent critical thought? Or have you just taken it all in whole sale and called it good?

 

[Justified]

You are again guilty of eisegesis in not admitting that v1 doesn't mention Yeshua,

As said, I made a simple statement, which, if you understood it, you would see my explicit affirmation of your request. My statement was: 'That “John 1:1 does not mention Yeshua,” is irrelevant.' If you can't understand that I am literally saying that John 1:1 doesn't mention Jesus, then how can you understand what the Bible says?

let alone that he is divine. For some reason, you ignore v45 and pretend v14 mentions what it doesn't. It doesn't mention that God became flesh.

Again, John 1:1-18 is John's prologue, the introduction of who Jesus is which is the foundation of everything else he writes. First understand those verses, then go on to the rest, keeping that understanding in mind.

Although I've already dealt with this, what do you think verse 45 says that supposedly proves that God didn't become flesh?

One reason v14 doesn't say that God became flesh could be that never happened and John's thought's and reasoning never expressed this. The way we know that is he was good enough to write a purpose statement for his entire gospel. See 20:31.

Your continual proof-texting is leading you into error. It is worth noting that you are not even bothering to engage with any of the exegesis I provided on 1:1-18. There is an entire flow of thought prior to verse 14 that you are ignoring.

I've also already dealt with 20:31, showing that the title "Son of God" strongly implies that he was truly God. But, when you ignore much of the context of the book of John (and the rest of the NT), you come away with an insufficient understanding. That would include ignoring Thomas's confession and declaration, just three verses prior that Jesus was both his Lord and his God, for which Jesus gives no rebuke.

John's gospel is consistent from beginning to end that Jesus is the Son of God in human flesh, being both truly and fully human and truly and fully God. There is no other view that comes close to the explanatory power of the doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Justified]

This is one example WHY you cannot and will not given up your prejudices and extreme biases regarding this subject. You are engrained in this instutional belief/

Again, assumption. You have no idea who I am, how long I've studied this topic (or any other), and why I have come to the conclusions I have. Do you notice your "extreme biases regarding this subject"? Anyone who disagrees with you automatically has "prejudices and extreme biases" and "engrained . . . institutional belief."

We all have prejudices and biases which inform our understanding of Scripture, including you. To think that you and those who agree with you are the only ones who have been able to understand Scripture without prejudices and biases is a serious error in reasoning.

When you say: "That is pride. You’ve made several assumptions in this one sentence, most notably that your beliefs are right and “mine” (which happen to more or less align with 2,000 years of Christian belief) are wrong."

The first thing I suggest you understand completely in scripture on the particular subject is what is the word of God and its relationship with him. This is the 1st base. And you are still batting out..

You make the claim but offer no support. First, the Word was in interpersonal relationship with God for all "eternity past." Second, the Word was God in nature. Words don't have relationships with persons and are not deity in and of themselves.

Note that Rev. 19:13, which John wrote, says that Jesus has the name The Word of God, which is perfectly consistent with what he wrote in John 1:1-18. Only John uses Logos of the Son, first in his preincarnate state, then when he returns as the God-man.

Defining what or who the Logos is is a complicated topic, but it certainly does involve talk of being a person, yet not the Father. To start with, I suggest reading the first 12 or so chapters of Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundations of Western Thought by Vern S. Poythress.

 

[Justified]

While I have never heard a complete treatise on adoptionism, I do believe it is the only Biblically justified position based on my own reading of Scripture.

It cannot be, as it simply cannot take into account the full revelation of God or of the Son that we are given in Scripture. That's why it was condemned as heresy long ago.

See John 1:12, Colossians 3:12, Galatians 3:26

Are you saying these verses support Adoptionism? How so?

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Col 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

Do you know what Adoptionism refers to? Humans are clearly said to be adopted as God's children, but that isn't what Adoptionism means. Jesus, or rather the Son, was never adopted--that's rather the whole point of monogenes, which refers to "one and only" and uniqueness.

Again, as I have pointed out, even Jesus claims he is the only Son:

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Verse 18 is interesting because "the name" means the sum of the person--all that he is. Do you disagree with Jesus that he is the only Son of God, that it means something quite different when applied to him than it does when applied to humans?

John seems to have agree with Jesus, perhaps you should too:

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

The NLT translation note says some manuscripts include this. Others (most?) don't and neither does the NLT. To me, it is irrelevant since this notion of Jesus becoming God's son on a certain day is explicit in Hebrews 1 and other places.

If you're going to appeal to a verse, take it in context. First, we see in Heb. 1:2 that "in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world."

How did the Father create the world through his Son if the Son didn't exist when the world was created? Basic reasoning shows that the Son necessarily existed prior to the creation of the world. This comes out again in Heb. 1:10-12:

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Who is speaking here? The Father, as we can see from verse 8. But look at the astounding claim--he is applying Ps. 102:25-27 to the Son. But who is Ps. 102:25-27 referring to? To Yahweh, to God. The Father is literally saying the Son is also Yahweh. (Yet, we know that there is only one God.) Again, there is a consistency from Heb. 1:2 to 10-12, which is consistent with what John says in 1:1-18.

Whatever you think Heb. 1:5 states, it cannot override the clear claims in the other verses--verses 2 and 10-12--or any other verse in the Bible, particularly the NT.

Once again, proof-texting is getting you into trouble.

 

[Wrangler]

As said, I made a simple statement, which, if you understood it, you would see my explicit affirmation of your request. My statement was: 'That “John 1:1 does not mention Yeshua,” is irrelevant.'

Nope. You are immediately going to deflection. You made a simple deflection.

The simple statement before is to admit that Yeshua is not mentioned in John 1:1. Once you admit this, we can discuss the relevance.

 

[Wrangler]

we are given in Scripture. That's why it was condemned as heresy long ago.

The heretics eventually won the political battle with the help of an absolute ruler in the name of a Roman emperor as the empire crumbled. Before that, other emperors sided with the Arians.

Are you saying these verses support Adoptionism?

I already said they did, yes.

Humans are clearly said to be adopted as God's children, but that isn't what Adoptionism means. Jesus, or rather the Son, was never adopted

Jesus was certainly adopted! Not only is this stated in Hebrews 1 when God said "Today, you have become my son," which obviously means before that day he was not his son but other verses as well such as Acts 17:31 that emphasizes that God selected this man. Not only does this verse tell us the nature of Jesus, a man, only and just a man, it tells us that this man was chosen, selected, adopted or anointed by his God. Jesus is anointed by God, yes? That is why Jesus is called in Scripture in the language of English, God's anointed, the Christ in Greek or the Messiah in Hebrew.

This is why LANGUAGE USAGE does not support your cause. This is not how we refer to ourselves. I am the servant of myself, who selected myself to sent myself to tell myself what to say and how to say it.

 

[Wrangler]

Are you saying these verses support Adoptionism? How so?

Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

Col 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,

Gal 3:26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

<sigh> What set of words would support adoptionism?

 

[Justified]

Jesus was certainly adopted! Not only is this stated in Hebrews 1 when God said "Today, you have become my son," which obviously means before that day he was not his son

So, you are just going to ignore the context of Heb.1:5? In context, the writer of Hebrews is pointing out the superiority of the Son to the angels. Even in verse 6 the Father says "Let all God's angels worship him." Really? God says we are to worship him alone, yet somehow worship of the Son is acceptable too?

Whatever Heb. 1:5 means, it cannot mean that Jesus was adopted as the Son or that at one point in time he didn't exist. It necessarily must mean something else, or Heb. 1:2, 10-12 are false.

If God created everything through the Son, then it necessarily follows that the Son has always existed. If the Father says the Son is Yahweh, the creator, of Ps. 102-25-27, then it necessarily follows that the Son is just as much God and the Father is. Basic logic shows that the Son is also truly and fully God, so whatever you want Heb. 1:5 to mean, it must mean something else. It could even just mean that it was the Father's public declaration of who the Son already was for the purpose of his ministry (John 1:29-34).

More than that though, you are saying it applies to his baptism, where Paul says in Acts 13:33 that it applies to his resurrection:

Act 13:33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’

The apparent different use alone shows that either something else is meant, that it is figurative, or that it can be used in different ways.

but other verses as well such as Acts 17:31 that emphasizes that God selected this man.

Act 17:31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Yes, he appointed the Son.

Act 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Trinitarianism fully affirms all those verses.

Not only does this verse tell us the nature of Jesus, a man, only and just a man,

It simply says "a man." To say that it means "only and just a man," is to read that into the text while ignoring many other passages, some of which I have provided and you continue to leave unaddressed. Jesus was truly and fully a man, which is something affirmed by Trinitarianism.

it tells us that this man was chosen, selected, adopted or anointed by his God. Jesus is anointed by God, yes? That is why Jesus is called in Scripture in the language of English, God's anointed, the Christ in Greek or the Messiah in Hebrew.

Of course. That is fully affirmed by Trinitarianism.

This is why LANGUAGE USAGE does not support your cause. This is not how we refer to ourselves. I am the servant of myself, who selected myself to sent myself to tell myself what to say and how to say it.

This is a straw man. You clearly do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, which makes me wonder why you rail against it so much. How is it rational to argue so much against something one doesn't understand? The Son is distinct from the Father; they are not one and the same.

 

[dak]

Do you know what Adoptionism refers to? Humans are clearly said to be adopted as God's children, but that isn't what Adoptionism means. Jesus, or rather the Son, was never adopted--that's rather the whole point of monogenes, which refers to "one and only" and uniqueness.

You are combining the Memra-Logos one and only-kind Son with the Anointed One, a man: yet another catastrophic error much like the other poster herein. That mixture was forced in the early days of the RCC in order to invent a God-Man because of an utter misunderstanding of the nomen sacrum written all through the texts. The Meshiah or Christos is the Anointed One: the Memra or Logos is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One. You should listen to @Wrangler: the Gospel of John does not say that "Jesus is the Logos" anywhere and especially not in the first chapter, that's another catastrophic assumption that leads to catastrophic error even in most of the mainstream. It's based on nothing more than your indoctrination which has given birth to your dogma.

Again, as I have pointed out, even Jesus claims he is the only Son:

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Another catastrophic error: thinking that the Meshiah/Christ is always speaking of himself in the third person.

Verse 18 is interesting because "the name" means the sum of the person--all that he is. Do you disagree with Jesus that he is the only Son of God, that it means something quite different when applied to him than it does when applied to humans?

The Meshiah/Christ is a man, not a "God-Man", and his Anointing, the One and Only-Kind Son of the Father, is Divine, uncreated, and is ever in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18), because he is the Memra-Logos-Word of the Father. The Father has never been without His Word and His Word is not a man.

John seems to have agree with Jesus, perhaps you should too:

Perhaps you should open your eyes and ears and realize that the Meshiah may not be always speaking of himself when he mentions the Son in the third person. Moreover, regarding other topics and situations, especially in the Gospel of John, the Son, the Word, speaks through the Anointed One: and why should anyone be surprised about that? for the Son is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One. Generally when you see the double affirmation, "Amen, amen", (which only happens of the Gospel of John), the text is most likely signifying this fact, that the Son is speaking through the Anointed One, the Meshiah or Christos. Was the divine Son also sent? Yes, in the form of a dove in the immersion accounts, and He therefore descends and ascends the heavens.

Many of your opinions are illogical and unreasonable, and yet logos and logic go hand in hand, (see Rom 12:1, reasonable is actually logikos, that is, logical, and its root is logos).

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

All flesh is not the same flesh: even Torah scrolls are made of flesh, originally lambskins, also called parchment.

 

[JustMe]

You are combining the Memra-Logos one and only-kind Son with the Anointed One, a man: yet another catastrophic error much like the other poster herein. That mixture was forced in the early days of the RCC in order to invent a God-Man because of an utter misunderstanding of the nomen sacrum written all through the texts. The Meshiah or Christos is the Anointed One: the Memra or Logos is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One. You should listen to @Wrangler: the Gospel of John does not say that "Jesus is the Logos" anywhere and especially not in the first chapter, that's another catastrophic assumption that leads to catastrophic error even in most of the mainstream. It's based on nothing more than your indoctrination which has given birth to your dogma.



Another catastrophic error: thinking that the Meshiah/Christ is always speaking of himself in the third person.



The Meshiah/Christ is a man, not a "God-Man", and his Anointing, the One and Only-Kind Son of the Father, is Divine, uncreated, and is ever in the bosom of the Father, (John 1:18), because he is the Memra-Logos-Word of the Father. The Father has never been without His Word and His Word is not a man.



Perhaps you should open your eyes and ears and realize that the Meshiah may not be always speaking of himself when he mentions the Son in the third person. Moreover, regarding other topics and situations, especially in the Gospel of John, the Son, the Word, speaks through the Anointed One: and why should anyone be surprised about that? for the Son is the very Anointing upon the Anointed One. Generally when you see the double affirmation, "Amen, amen", (which only happens of the Gospel of John), the text is most likely signifying this fact, that the Son is speaking through the Anointed One, the Meshiah or Christos. Was the divine Son also sent? Yes, in the form of a dove in the immersion accounts, and He therefore descends and ascends the heavens.

Many of your opinions are illogical and unreasonable, and yet logos and logic go hand in hand, (see Rom 12:1, reasonable is actually logikos, that is, logical, and its root is logos).



All flesh is not the same flesh: even Torah scrolls are made of flesh, originally lambskins, also called parchment.

Been busy this pm....

You have consistently replied in an instructional and edifying way, very well done. Thank you

I have come to realize that trying to correct clear mistakes in some of these posts is becoming pointless. The individuals behind these posts seem to have closed minds, firmly fixed in their Orthodox beliefs, with a rigid and institutionalized perspective on concepts like word, memra, logos, wisdom, the Father, and his chosen and 'adopted' Son.

These same individuals accuse me of creating my own path in interpreting scripture, opposing their cherished 'church' wisdom and mistaken theological ideas. Naturally, I do have my own path, guided by the spirit of the Son and the Father within me. I usually begin when they inspire me, and it is both wonderful and humbling when that occurs. I do not depend on the flawed wisdom and knowledge of humans, which is inherently prone to deception and misguidance. The real problem lies in the lack of spiritual guidance and possession among many of these posters.

Anyway, I'm glad you are providing information that is both interesting and illuminating to me.

 

[dak]

Been busy this pm....

You have consistently replied in an instructional and edifying way, very well done. Thank you

I have come to realize that trying to correct clear mistakes in some of these posts is becoming pointless. The individuals behind these posts seem to have closed minds, firmly fixed in their Orthodox beliefs, with a rigid and institutionalized perspective on concepts like word, memra, logos, wisdom, the Father, and his chosen and 'adopted' Son.

These same individuals accuse me of creating my own path in interpreting scripture, opposing their cherished 'church' wisdom and mistaken theological ideas. Naturally, I do have my own path, guided by the spirit of the Son and the Father within me. I usually begin when they inspire me, and it is both wonderful and humbling when that occurs. I do not depend on the flawed wisdom and knowledge of humans, which is inherently prone to deception and misguidance. The real problem lies in the lack of spiritual guidance and possession among many of these posters.

Anyway, I'm glad you are providing information that is both interesting and illuminating to me.

Thank you for your kind words. It's very simply this: both you and Wrangler showed an interest in Adoptionism so I was prompted to hang out here in this thread for a while because there are indeed differences in types of Adoptionism. For example, I am not an Arian, (or at least not what they painted him to be after he was poisoned). I do indeed believe in a version of the "eternal Son doctrine", it's just that I do not believe the one and only-kind Son to be a man born into this world naturally, that is, physically. This isn't my own: even Paul teaches this, (and taught me this), in Ephesians 4:8-15. In this particular case all one needs to do is be prayerful, with an open heart, and study both the Ephesians passage and the background material Paul provides from the Psalm, realizing that Paul, of course, was not a cherry picker like modern mainstreamers who fancy themselves to be scripture exegetes. When those who penned the scriptures inserted quotes from other scripture passages, they intended the passage context for the text that was quoted or referred to, and are not stripping the quote from its context, (which actually contains the logos-understanding).

 

[HealthyShape]

You can hold this 'church' as a crutch, but have you really gone over their views in detail, and agreed to all it essentials, with independent critical thought? Or have you just taken it all in whole sale and called it good?

The church, me included, used a lot of critical thinking throughout centuries and millennia, plenty of debates, disputations, discussions and polemics.

We do not start today, therefore your attitude "throw everything away, ignore that the New Testament was written by Christians and try to find something totally different than the accepted truths in its text" is completely nonsensical.

The New Testament was written by the first church and for the first church, to record the events and teachings of the first church. It is not a blank check for you in the 21st century to replace the basic presuppositions of the Christian church with whatever you can fantasize about.

You can be of another religion, but please, do not abuse the New Testament for that, write your own books - if you do not want to respect neither the authors nor their disciples who picked and preserved their writings for us. It is like grabbing my posts and interpreting them in a Buddhist way. Both disrespectful and absurd.

 

[Hiddenthings]

I don't understand how you can state what you do about the Son of God being created, in view of the Fact that John's gospel opens in that passage about the Word Who became flesh:

What else was Logos used to create?

 

[Hiddenthings]

Thank you for your kind words. It's very simply this: both you and Wrangler showed an interest in Adoptionism so I was prompted to hang out here in this thread for a while because there are indeed differences in types of Adoptionism. For example, I am not an Arian, (or at least not what they painted him to be after he was poisoned). I do indeed believe in a version of the "eternal Son doctrine", it's just that I do not believe the one and only-kind Son to be a man born into this world naturally, that is, physically. This isn't my own: even Paul teaches this, (and taught me this), in Ephesians 4:8-15. In this particular case all one needs to do is be prayerful, with an open heart, and study both the Ephesians passage and the background material Paul provides from the Psalm, realizing that Paul, of course, was not a cherry picker like modern mainstreamers who fancy themselves to be scripture exegetes. When those who penned the scriptures inserted quotes from other scripture passages, they intended the passage context for the text that was quoted or referred to, and are not stripping the quote from its context, (which actually contains the logos-understanding).

Don't twist Paul's writings to fit your own paradigm.

2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. 2:18 For since he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted Heb 2:17–18.

Paul knew the Son of Man who became the Son of God with Power - he went from Sin's flesh to the first to partake in Divine Nature according to the promises which are all yes in him.

Christ was held captive himself until he crucified the flesh and led those also captive into himself.

Only man to ascend!
Only man to pass through the veil which is his rent flesh and now those who understand the victory have an anchor for their hope!
Only man to inherit a position higher than the angels having not held that state before!

One day you will be confronted with these truths dak!

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't understand how you can state what you do about the Son of God being created, in view of the Fact that John's gospel opens in that passage about the Word Who became flesh:

“1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 NKJV)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” (Joh 1:14 NKJV)

Those verses and others tell us that He was the Creator of all things, not a created Being Himself. For exmple:

“15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” (Col 1:15-17 NKJV)

Correct David Lamb.

But the OP has begun his very own religion and is trying to teach others about it.

All this talk about Jesus not being God must make God very angry.

And persons that want to start their own religion should give that religion a name/title.

It certainly is NOT the Christian religion - as the OP seems to believe.

And, yes, this post is for @JustMe too.
Who is practicing some odd religion I know nothing about.