Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

StanJ · Jan 18, 2016

The 'express image of His being" as the scriptures tell us, yes. Everything Jesus is, so also is the Father. Where in my posts have you gotten the idea that I thought something else?

Not what I quoted, so try being less equivocal. The NIV says thee EXACT representation of HIS being. Do you accept that or not?

Considering there is no original works of Arius in existence, there is some doubt as to what he actually did teach. After all, all we really have as to what he taught is the word of those who killed him and destroyed his papers, the Roman church. Not a particularly reliable source methinks when one considers the many millions she murdered as 'heretics' but were simple Christians wanting to read the Bible. Another spanner in that mindset of so called 'Arianism' is the fact that Ulfilas, a missionary to the Goths, and a very successful one, was also branded as Arian by the same church, and his people, yet we do have some of Ulfilas' writings. And in his own words he ascribes deity to the Son of God, Jesus. And that is what he taught the Goths, converting them from hard-core paganism to a people who raised the morals of towns and villages wherever they went. Don't make the mistake if thinking just because one doesn't accept the trinity, it naturally follows that one doesn't accept the deity or divinity of Christ. The difference Stan is the source of the divine attributes and prerogatives, and in that sense, and that sense only, is the Son less than the Father. He inherited His divinity, much as we inherit our parents genes, so also did Jesus. God's nature, character, everything, resides as much in the Son as in the Father, but all derived from the Father. Which renders the trinity redundant. They cannot be equal on every level, any more than any son can be the equal to his father, particulary in age. esus had a beginning. The trinity teaches Jesus has no beginning, which renders the whole concept of "Sonship" useless.It can ony be one or the other. Either Jesus is a literal on, the trinity sinks, or He is a metaphorical Son, and the trinity is perhaps a little justified, though there is still the matter of the spirit.

How can there be doubt if there are no autographs? Do you doubt the Bible because of that? You become verbose when trying to articulate instead of just plain stating the facts. It is very clear from the gospels that the Pharisees took Jesus' claims to be that He was God Himself.

Do I need to quote all the scripture that confirms this?

I think it is best you actually quote some scripture that confirms your POV, or address the ones I HAVE quoted.

brakelite · Jan 19, 2016

StanJ said:
Not what I quoted, so try being less equivocal. The NIV says thee EXACT representation of HIS being. Do you accept that or not?

In Strong's concordance 'express image means, in part, quote...the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile...this being in reference to His character. He does not look like His Father, else no-one would be able to set eyes on Him. Nor, being God's "only begotten Son" Jesus has not , in the matter of personality, the same age as the Father. In all other things however, He is like the Rock of Daniel 2 cut out of the mountain without hands, coming soon to destroy the works of men. That Rock, is made of the same material as the mountain. The same age, the same quality, the same enduring solidarity and unique 'oneness' with His Father.

StanJ said:
How can there be doubt if there are no autographs? Do you doubt the Bible because of that? You become verbose when trying to articulate instead of just plain stating the facts. It is very clear from the gospels that the Pharisees took Jesus' claims to be that He was God Himself.

The Roman church was instrumental in the destruction of 3 Arian nations. These nations had converted to Christianity upon the missionary endeavors of a number of people , but were of a line of Christian thought outside of the mainstream orthodox line decided upon at Nicea. At least one of those nations was evangelized by Ulfilas, one who believed of a certainty in the divinity/deity of Jesus, His atoning substitutionary death on Calvary, and the necessity for coverts to live sanctified lives. Almost the entire nation of Goths accepted the teachings of Ulfilas, and a pagan nation numbering many thousands was destroyed because of it. By who? The very church whose testimony regarding them you are defending. The other two nations, the Heruli and the Vandals, met the same fate. It is said that they were persecuted and destroyed, their writings obliterated, because they were heretics. How so? Well, according to Rome, because they refused to accept Nicea. Now I don't know how you reconcile a Son as being as eternal as the Father, but Ulfilas couldn't, and neither can I, so in that respect, I cannot accept the traditional concept of trinity. Personally, I believe that is a very valid reason. To claim the Son is the same age as the Father consigns the entire idea of father/son relationships to the realm of metaphor, which you claim Stan is wrong. Those are the facts, articulated or not. You are accepting the word of a murdering corrupt church system as a true testimony against their enemy! That also is a fact. And you claim I am "articulating" as a defense? It aint me who needs to get real here.

StanJ said:
I think it is best you actually quote some scripture that confirms your POV, or address the ones I HAVE quoted.

You have posted no scriptures that I can disagree with. I fully agree with you that Jesus is a literal Son of His Almighty Father. And for that very reason there can never be a trinity of co-eternal persons. Ever!

brakelite · Jan 19, 2016

The Barrd said:
You know I love ya, Brakelite. My brother in the Lord, you are...and special to me.
And I do understand the confusion.
Scholarship is not gonna help, here, obviously. This is something we need to figure out.

I would have described myself as a "trinitarian", believing that God the Father is God, God the Son is also God, and God the Holy Spirit is God as well.
However, I would not stop there. Believing God to be omnipotent, I believe that He could be whatever and as many as He chooses. If God, for whatever reason, decided that He wanted to be a herd of elephants (yes, I know, silly, right?), then God can be a herd of elephants. Who is going to say to God that He may not be any such thing?
I don't see God as a collection of persons, (or a herd of elephants ), nor do I see these different parts of God as being "co-equal". Obviously, Jesus is not equal to His Father, although He is God. He is truly the literal Son of God, of the same essence as God...He is not another, separate God, but a part of the One True God. He is the Word of God. He is seated on the right hand of God, which is the hand of power. He is the Savior. Through all of this, He does the Will of the Father.
The Holy Spirit does the Will of the Father and the Son. He is the comforter. He is the Law in our hearts and in our minds, bringing to our remembrance everything that Jesus taught (by the will of His Father) while He walked among us. He is both the least and the most important member of the "trinity".

As I have said, I prefer the term "Godhead".

Actually, don't tell anyone I said this...but I think the whole trinity thing is a bit short-sighted. After all, there is a huge universe out there. Does it contain other life? I'm pretty sure it does. And if it does, then, since the entire universe is subject to entropy, doesn't that mean they are also fallen? And in need of a Savior?
And doesn't that thought open up tremendous vistas of possibilities???

Think about it.

I guarantee, I will be criticized for this post.
Ahh, well....gotta shake 'em up from time to time...otherwise they'll remain asleep and aslumber . And shaking 'em up has always been my job...and my pleasure .

Okay, I think you and I may be closer than you realize. I do agree with you that there can only be 'one Holy Spirit". But if this Holy Spirit is separate personality from the Son or the Father, how do you explain

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 ¶ And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

How many personalities do we have in us? How many spirits? Here in this short passage of Romans 8 we see that the Father and the Son share the same Spirit. It is, not God the Holy Spirit, like a separate God, but rather the Spirit OF God, AND of Christ. They, the Father and the Son, then SHARE that same Spirit with us. It is no-one in us except Christ and the Father, BY THEIR SPIRIT. It is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

As for life on other planets. Lucifer, aka Satan, was cast down to the earth...no where else. It is here that sin developed, no where else. I do not believe "aliens" are actually allowed here, even if they wanted to come. Nor do I believe men will ever meet with them in the fallen state, so as to not tempt and corrupt the unfallen natures of those from the unfallen worlds. Just my thoughts.

Barrd · Jan 19, 2016

brakelite said:
Okay, I think you and I may be closer than you realize. I do agree with you that there can only be 'one Holy Spirit". But if this Holy Spirit is separate personality from the Son or the Father, how do you explain

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 ¶ And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

How many personalities do we have in us? How many spirits? Here in this short passage of Romans 8 we see that the Father and the Son share the same Spirit. It is, not God the Holy Spirit, like a separate God, but rather the Spirit OF God, AND of Christ. They, the Father and the Son, then SHARE that same Spirit with us. It is no-one in us except Christ and the Father, BY THEIR SPIRIT. It is Christ in us, the hope of glory.

As for life on other planets. Lucifer, aka Satan, was cast down to the earth...no where else. It is here that sin developed, no where else. I do not believe "aliens" are actually allowed here, even if they wanted to come. Nor do I believe men will ever meet with them in the fallen state, so as to not tempt and corrupt the unfallen natures of those from the unfallen worlds. Just my thoughts.

Yet another reason why I do not like the term "Trinity". I believe you are right...we are closer together in this than either of us thought at the beginning.
The Holy Spirit within us is, as you say, God in us. God the Father, and God the Son. It is all God, my precious brother.
When we say that the Holy Spirit is within our heart, what we are actually saying is that the Godhead resides within us. Because it's all God.
And that is the point.

As for those other planets...since I've never been there, I'm a bit hesitant to state definitely what has or has not happened there.
The Bible doesn't tell us anything about those other worlds. Did sin develop there? I would say yes, more than likely. But, of course, i do not know this.
You believe that it was only here that Satan was cast down. Why?
Ahh, well. It is highly unlikely that we will ever find out, in this life.
Tell ya what...let's make a date to meet up top...and one of us will get to say her...or his..."I told you so."

Just kidding, of course...

StanJ · Jan 19, 2016

In Strong's concordance 'express image means, in part, quote...the exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile...this being in reference to His character. He does not look like His Father, else no-one would be able to set eyes on Him. Nor, being God's "only begotten Son" Jesus has not , in the matter of personality, the same age as the Father. In all other things however, He is like the Rock of Daniel 2 cut out of the mountain without hands, coming soon to destroy the works of men. That Rock, is made of the same material as the mountain. The same age, the same quality, the same enduring solidarity and unique 'oneness' with His Father.

This is just avoiding my direct question. I don't really care about your understanding of Strong's, I care if you actually understand the English used? The English does NOT say Jesus LOOKS like His father, which I'm sure you know, so just answer my question.

The Roman church was instrumental in the destruction of 3 Arian nations.

The issue here is NOT the RCC, and Arianism is heretical, so do you support Arius' teaching or do you believe it was heretical?

You have posted no scriptures that I can disagree with. I fully agree with you that Jesus is a literal Son of His Almighty Father. And for that very reason there can never be a trinity of co-eternal persons. Ever!

Jesus is not JUST a literal Son, He is God/The WORD incarnate, as the scriptures I have given you show. You either agree with what they say or you don't? Which is it?
Did you actually READ post #12?

brakelite · Jan 20, 2016

StanJ said:
This is just avoiding my direct question. I don't really care about your understanding of Strong's, I care if you actually understand the English used? The English does NOT say Jesus LOOKS like His father, which I'm sure you know, so just answer my question.

It isn't about me. It's about Christ and His word. And Strongs concordance agrees with both of us. I agree with you, but for some reason you don't want to agree with me. I gave you my answer. If you don't like the way I'm putting it, then try this. Your question, is Jesus God? Here is the Biblical answer. 1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Thus Christ, through His receiving all power, glory, authority, as derived from His Father, is thus in every sense, God.

StanJ said:
The issue here is NOT the RCC, and Arianism is heretical, so do you support Arius' teaching or do you believe it was heretical?

The issue, whether you like it or not, is that o-one, either you nor me or anyone else, knows for sure what Arius taught. And it is about the RCC, because you are accepting their testimony on whether Arius teachings were heresy or not. Me, I don't know if what he taught is heresy or not, because I don't trust the RCC, and I don't have any other reference to judge by. And neither do you.

StanJ said:
Jesus is not JUST a literal Son, He is God/The WORD incarnate, as the scriptures I have given you show. You either agree with what they say or you don't? Which is it?
Did you actually READ post #12?

I have already agreed with you on everything you have said...for the life of me I don't get what on earth you are on about. What is the problem? I know what the problem is. You fully recognize the contradiction between what you have written and quoted from the Bible, that Jesus is indeed the literal Son of His Father, with which I agree!!!!....but what you do not want to admit to is that the trinity cannot be justified on the basis of that understanding.
It isn't me with the problem here. It isn't the issue of whether Jesus is the literal Son of God, we agree on that. The issue is the trinity. The issue is whether Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. What I cannot agree to is that particular understanding of traditional trinitarian teaching. As the literal Son of God, Jesus cannot be co-equal and co-eternal. On His own admission, Jesus said "The Father is greater than I". What more do you need?

StanJ · Jan 21, 2016

It isn't about me. It's about Christ and His word. And Strongs concordance agrees with both of us. I agree with you, but for some reason you don't want to agree with me. I gave you my answer. If you don't like the way I'm putting it, then try this. Your question, is Jesus God? Here is the Biblical answer. 1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Thus Christ, through His receiving all power, glory, authority, as derived from His Father, is thus in every sense, God.

is it really that hard for you to answer this directly, and NOT in an equivocal style?

The issue, whether you like it or not, is that o-one, either you nor me or anyone else, knows for sure what Arius taught. And it is about the RCC, because you are accepting their testimony on whether Arius teachings were heresy or not. Me, I don't know if what he taught is heresy or not, because I don't trust the RCC, and I don't have any other reference to judge by. And neither do you.

As you made the point of there not being any autographs from Arius, are you also advocating we don't really know what the Bible says and it cannot be trusted. What I've learned about Arius is NOT from the RCC.

I have already agreed with you on everything you have said...for the life of me I don't get what on earth you are on about. What is the problem? I know what the problem is. You fully recognize the contradiction between what you have written and quoted from the Bible, that Jesus is indeed the literal Son of His Father, with which I agree!!!!....but what you do not want to admit to is that the trinity cannot be justified on the basis of that understanding.
It isn't me with the problem here. It isn't the issue of whether Jesus is the literal Son of God, we agree on that. The issue is the trinity. The issue is whether Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. What I cannot agree to is that particular understanding of traditional trinitarian teaching. As the literal Son of God, Jesus cannot be co-equal and co-eternal. On His own admission, Jesus said "The Father is greater than I". What more do you need?

I am asking for an UNEQUIVOCAL statement from YOU, not more questions. Why is that so hard for you, unless you are trying to hide something that you KNOW will be successfully challenged as fallacious?
Is the following true?
Jesus said: I and the Father are one.
Jesus said: If you've seen me you've seen the Father.
Jesus said: If you knew me, you would know my Father also.
Jesus said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.
Jesus said: If you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins.
Jesus said: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Jesus said: Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jesus is God because his Father, God, addressed him as "O God"- Hebrews 1:8, Psalms 45:6
Jesus is God because he, himself, says he is God: "I will be his God"- Revelation 21:7
Jesus is God because the bible says he is God: "The mighty God" - Isaiah 9:6
Jesus is God because his disciples knew he was God:
"my Lord and my God" - John 20:28
"our God and Savior Jesus Christ" - 2 Peter 1:1
"the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" - Titus 2:13
Jesus is God because the OT says Israel's Rock was God & Christ was that same Rock: Psalms 78:35, 1 Corinthians 10:4

If you say yes then Jesus is God, if you say not then you don't believe Jesus is God....it is THAT simple.

Barrd · Jan 21, 2016

Let me see if I have this straight.
Brakelite is saying that he believes that Jesus is God...but that He is not equal to God in age or in authority.
Stan is saying that Jesus is God.

Unless the argument is over whether God the Father and God the Son are the same age and have the same authority, there really doesn't seem to be an argument here.

Did I miss something?

opcorn:

Barrd · Jan 21, 2016

Brakelite makes the point that the RCC destroyed all of Arius' work.

Stan makes the point that we have no original original autographs of the books of the Bible either.

I wonder...did anyone ever make any copies of Arius' work that we could look at? We do have copies of copies of copies of the orginal books of the Bible. It's hard to know whether anything might have been changed from what the original authors wrote. There comes a time when we must simply decide to trust God...or not.

Is there any way to actually know what the man had to say for himself, other than taking the RCC's word for it?

opcorn:

brakelite · Jan 21, 2016

The Barrd said:
Let me see if I have this straight.
Brakelite is saying that he believes that Jesus is God...but that He is not equal to God in age or in authority.
Stan is saying that Jesus is God.

Unless the argument is over whether God the Father and God the Son are the same age and have the same authority, there really doesn't seem to be an argument here.

Did I miss something?

opcorn:

Stan, like most who uphold the strict trinitarian line, are of the mistaken opinion that anyone who does not accept the trinity, also deny the divinity of Jesus. What he is attempting to do is to extract that denial from me, so as to win his argument. He has a problem though. I do not deny the divinity of Jesus, never have, never will. Have said so many times. As your own post herein quoted attests. Now if you can understand my positive affirmation of the deity of Christ, why can't Stan? Because he doesn't want to. It doesn't suit his argument.
Having already admitted to the literal understanding of the Sonship of Jesus, Stan is unable to reconcile that with the co-equal, co-eternal trinity doctrine. This is very awkward for him. He is in a quandary because he realizes that he has to discard one or the other, because together, they are incompatible. So he has to take another tact, attempt to discredit my stand through the age-old tactic of bringing up the divinity issue. Unfortunately for him, there is no issue.

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Now Barrd, the discussion is over age and authority, the above two verses should be sufficient to answer both. First, at some point in time, the Father gave to His Son life. This was the very same life that the Father has....self supporting. Also, possibly at some point in time, the Father gave to His Son authority to judge. Again, the same authority that the Father has. Which of course makes Jesus of equal authority to His Father...should I say it...a divine authority.
What we all need to realize, is the verifiable Biblical fact, that all Jesus is, His nature, His authority, His power, His righteousness, everything, He owes to His Father, for it was from the Father that they all were derived.
Which makes the Father older, greater, yet in all other aspects, when Jesus said I and the Father are one, He was speaking truth.

brakelite · Jan 21, 2016

The Barrd said:
Brakelite makes the point that the RCC destroyed all of Arius' work.

Stan makes the point that we have no original original autographs of the books of the Bible either.

I wonder...did anyone ever make any copies of Arius' work that we could look at? We do have copies of copies of copies of the orginal books of the Bible. It's hard to know whether anything might have been changed from what the original authors wrote. There comes a time when we must simply decide to trust God...or not.

Is there any way to actually know what the man had to say for himself, other than taking the RCC's word for it?

opcorn:

As far as I know, there are no copies or autographs of Arius' work, none. The RCC's opinion is all we have to go on, as far as I know...if I am mistaken and there is another verifiable source and independant of the RCC, then great, I would be interested in reading it. What makes the whole deal very curious is the RCC branded Ulfilas and his converted Goths as Arian also. And we do have Ulfilas original works. They are currently held in a museum I think in Stockholm or somewhere. And Ulfilas upheld the deity and divinity of Christ, yet at the same time rejected the Nicean creed. It was for his rejection of the man-made creed that made him, and his followers, enemies of the state and the RCC. Not because they were heretics, or non-Christian. Just non-Roman Catholic.

Barrd · Jan 21, 2016

brakelite said:
Stan, like most who uphold the strict trinitarian line, are of the mistaken opinion that anyone who does not accept the trinity, also deny the divinity of Jesus. What he is attempting to do is to extract that denial from me, so as to win his argument. He has a problem though. I do not deny the divinity of Jesus, never have, never will. Have said so many times. As your own post herein quoted attests. Now if you can understand my positive affirmation of the deity of Christ, why can't Stan? Because he doesn't want to. It doesn't suit his argument.
Having already admitted to the literal understanding of the Sonship of Jesus, Stan is unable to reconcile that with the co-equal, co-eternal trinity doctrine. This is very awkward for him. He is in a quandary because he realizes that he has to discard one or the other, because together, they are incompatible. So he has to take another tact, attempt to discredit my stand through the age-old tactic of bringing up the divinity issue. Unfortunately for him, there is no issue.

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Now Barrd, the discussion is over age and authority, the above two verses should be sufficient to answer both. First, at some point in time, the Father gave to His Son life. This was the very same life that the Father has....self supporting. Also, possibly at some point in time, the Father gave to His Son authority to judge. Again, the same authority that the Father has. Which of course makes Jesus of equal authority to His Father...should I say it...a divine authority.
What we all need to realize, is the verifiable Biblical fact, that all Jesus is, His nature, His authority, His power, His righteousness, everything, He owes to His Father, for it was from the Father that they all were derived.
Which makes the Father older, greater, yet in all other aspects, when Jesus said I and the Father are one, He was speaking truth.

Ahh, well. We find ourselves in agreement, Brakelite.
As for Stan...he's a stubborn old codger, and that's a fact. When he's right, he is right. And when he is wrong...he is even more right.

To quote from my dear, departed, and much beloved Grandda'

"They shouldna let fools write books!"

Oh...fools should be pronounced to rhyme with 'fuels'....just so that you get it right, doncha know, me bucko

StanJ · Jan 21, 2016

Brakelite makes the point that the RCC destroyed all of Arius' work.

I wonder...did anyone ever make any copies of Arius' work that we could look at? We do have copies of copies of copies of the orginal books of the Bible. It's hard to know whether anything might have been changed from what the original authors wrote. There comes a time when we must simply decide to trust God...or not.

Brakelite asserts, with NO evidence, but to answer your question, yes there are, and you can find them with a simple Google search. The following is just one of many;
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.viii.i.v.html

StanJ · Jan 21, 2016

Stan, like most who uphold the strict trinitarian line, are of the mistaken opinion that anyone who does not accept the trinity, also deny the divinity of Jesus. What he is attempting to do is to extract that denial from me, so as to win his argument. He has a problem though. I do not deny the divinity of Jesus, never have, never will. Have said so many times. As your own post herein quoted attests. Now if you can understand my positive affirmation of the deity of Christ, why can't Stan? Because he doesn't want to. It doesn't suit his argument.
Having already admitted to the literal understanding of the Sonship of Jesus, Stan is unable to reconcile that with the co-equal, co-eternal trinity doctrine. This is very awkward for him. He is in a quandary because he realizes that he has to discard one or the other, because together, they are incompatible. So he has to take another tact, attempt to discredit my stand through the age-old tactic of bringing up the divinity issue. Unfortunately for him, there is no issue.
John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

What I am attempting to do is get you to make an UNequivocal statement. So far, without ANY success.
Also I've given you plenty of scripture you also refuse to comment of.

As there is only ONE God, I fail to see how you can claim the Shema but say Jesus and God are NOT on and the same? I don't really care who else you can con brakelite, I care that you PROVE your assertions, which so far you have not or refuse to clearly state. Here are many more scriptures that SHOW who God is, but I'm pretty sure you won't address ANY of them given they refute your own personal POV, however vague that may be.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
John 8:58
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
Heb 1:8
But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”
2 Peter 1:1
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
2 Peter 1:11
and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 2:20
If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.
2 Peter 3:2
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
2 Peter 3:18
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
Col 1:19-20
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Col 1:9-10
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.
Titus 1:3
and which now at his appointed season he has brought to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior,
Titus 1:4
To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
Titus 2:10
and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Titus 3:4
But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
Titus 3:6
whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior
Is 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is 43:11-12
I, yes I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I’ve revealed and saved and proclaimed, when there was no foreign god among you — and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD.

brakelite · Jan 21, 2016

StanJ said:
Brakelite asserts, with NO evidence, but to answer your question, yes there are, and you can find them with a simple Google search. The following is just one of many;
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.iv.viii.i.v.html

Thankyou for that Stan, that is a very clear exposition of his own teachings and beliefs. After reading that, do you still name him a heretic? And if so, on what basis?

brakelite · Jan 21, 2016

StanJ said:
What I am attempting to do is get you to make an UNequivocal statement. So far, without ANY success.
Also I've given you plenty of scripture you also refuse to comment of.

I had no need to comment on any of the scripture you offered Stan except for one comment I know I did make. I agree with the scripture. If the scripture proclaims Jesus as God...who am I to argue with that?

StanJ said:
As there is only ONE God, I fail to see how you can claim the Shema but say Jesus and God are NOT on and the same?

Yes, there is one God. What does the NT say about that? What does the NT say as to the identity of God?
1 Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
'Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.' (Ephesians 1:2)
'Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.' (Philippians 1:2)
'Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' (Colossians 1:2)
'Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.' (1 Thessalonians 1:1)
2 Peter 1:2 ...'Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.'
2 John 1:3 ...'Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Fathttp://www.christianityboard.com/topic/22301-is-jesus-the-son-of-godtruly-or-metaphorically/page-2her, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.'
'Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.' (1 Corinthians 1:3)
'Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,' (Galatians 1:3)
Romans 1:7-8 ...'Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all.'
1 Corinthians 1:3-4 ...'Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ.'
Ephesians 1:3 ...'Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
Ephesians 6:23 ...'Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.'
James 1:1 ...'James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.'

So Stan, if the scripture says the Father is God, and nowhere saying Jesus is God but that He is the Son of God, how can they be the same? In fact, I would strongly suggest that our salvation is imperative on the recognition of their difference.

1Jo 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1Jo 2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
1Jo 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
1Jo 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
2Jo 1:3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

Yes, Jesus is God. But He is not the Father, He is most assuredly the Son, and through deriving the nature of the Father through being begotten of Him, Jesus can rightly be called God. But like Arius said, being begotten Jesus is not of the same age as the father...therefore not co-eternal as the trinity claims. Nothing heretical about that...its what the scripture teaches. If anything is heretical, it is the trinity. It owes its entire existence to circumstantial evidence only made enforcable by church councils and persecution against dissenters. Much like Sunday sacredness in fact.

Barrd · Jan 21, 2016

So, let me see if I have this straight.
The trinity teaching is that God the Son, or Jesus, always existed? That The Son, or Jesus, is completely equal with The Father in all things?
And Brakelite says this is impossible, because The Son's authority derives from The Father...in fact His very life derives from The Father.
And this is the "Arian Heresy", that Arius asserted that the Son was second to the Father in all things, and not co-equal with Him?

I need a minute to wrap my head around all of this. Remember, I've said from the beginning that I am not a scholar...this particular subject has never cropped up in my experience before.
But I do know that all power and authority was given to Jesus...and that Jesus said, often and often, that He did the will of His Father always.

Is it just me, or does this seem a particularly petty argument? Especially seeing that these men were willing to kill one another over it.

Isn't it enough, then, to accept the Divinity of Jesus Christ, without insisting that He be on exactly the same level as His Father? One of the major arguments folks have against Jesus being divine is that He prayed to His Father in Gethsemane, begging for the cross to be removed from Him. In the end, He submitted Himself to the Father's will, and went willingly to His death. It is one of the saddest scenes in all of the Bible...for that matter, in all of literature...The Son, praying alone, the Angel, sent to comfort and strengthen Him for the ordeal ahead...

At the risk of being burned at the stake, I have to agree with Brakelite...The Son submits to the Will of The Father. And He eventually turns the Kingdom over to the Father.
I'm a bit sketchy on the details...But seriously, is this really worth getting all worked up over?
Is He co-eternal? Very good question. My answer? I do not know.

StanJ · Jan 22, 2016

Thankyou for that Stan, that is a very clear exposition of his own teachings and beliefs. After reading that, do you still name him a heretic? And if so, on what basis?

I didn't read it, I just proved you wrong in that there were writings from him available. His heresy was established by much greater men of God than I, and understanding what I do about the nature of God, I concur with those men. BTW, none of whom were in the RCC.

StanJ · Jan 22, 2016

I had no need to comment on any of the scripture you offered Stan except for one comment I know I did make.

As usual brakelite you avoid direct answers to direct questions....only someone with something to hide does that. Most likely because you know from others on this board that anti Trinitarians are kicked off.
I would be dishonest if I were to claim that is NOT my goal.

Barrd · Jan 22, 2016

StanJ said:
As usual brakelite you avoid direct answers to direct questions....only someone with something to hide does that. Most likely because you know from others on this board that anti Trinitarians are kicked off.
I would be dishonest if I were to claim that is NOT my goal.

Whoa...did you just say that your goal was to have Brakelite kicked off the board?

Stan, tell me that I misunderstood you, and I will apologize.
Please, tell me that I misunderstood you.

Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

Lifelong student of God's Word.

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

His Humble Servant

Lifelong student of God's Word.

brakelite

Guest

Lifelong student of God's Word.

His Humble Servant

His Humble Servant

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

His Humble Servant

Lifelong student of God's Word.

Lifelong student of God's Word.

brakelite

Guest

brakelite

Guest

His Humble Servant

Lifelong student of God's Word.

Lifelong student of God's Word.

His Humble Servant

Similar threads