'How Jesus Became God': Skeptic scholar asks why it matters

Since you continue to ignore most of what i wrote, including texts which clearly say or teach Christ is God, and hang all upon your premise that as the Source of all then Christ cannot be God the Son, then i need not address all you wrote.

He repeatedly tells us throughout the book of John where EVERY divine word or action originates: the Father.

Which is only what we affirm:

The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit. The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the [Father and the] Son. With reference to God's creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality. -http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html

But the Father as the Source of all refers to the direction from which all comes, but which is not necessarily the same thing as the Father creating something. This is so in the case of creation, as Scripture distinctly teaches God created it, but which is never said of the Son or Spirit.

In fact if the Son was created then since "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made," (John 1:3) then the Son would have created Himself, unless there was a clause which is carefully given to qualify that when Scripture says "he hath put all things under his feet," "it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him." (1 Corinthians 15:27) But which clause is never given, though what Jn. 1:3 says on this is distinctly reiterated twice. (Eph 3:9; Col 1:16,17)

Instead God, as God, can always have existed as Father, Son and Spirit, but with the Son proceeding from the Father, but not as in time, as if there was a time when the person who occupies the position of the Son never existed, but as light from light. .

As said, there was never a time when God did not exist as 3 entities, each having personhood. You certainly cannot deny the Spirit always existed, the problem we have is comprehending all this, and what i see you doing is forcing God to conform to your understanding under the constrains of existence as we know it.

Your reasoning is similar to the ‘Mary worshippers’, who feel there are supernatural powers she possesses, and uses to help the trinity in handle the workload.

Which would not be wrong if such were said of Mary, which is not, nor that she is God, but both of which is said of the Son.

Everywhere you think you have found the Son, separate and distinct from the Father, you are attempting to remove the Father out of the Son. The Son says that is not possible.

Seeing the Son as being a person is not removing the Father out of the Son, which reasoning is a result of you compelling Being to refer to one having personhood, versus 3 who cannot be God without the other, having one nature and mind, which always acts together.

You folks want the Holy Ghost to be a coequal person in the ‘trinity’. Yet, it proceeds (originates) from the Father, having no will of it’s own.

Equality of nature does not exclude positional order within the Trinity, any more than does in marriage (unless you subscribe to egalitarianism). Nor does submission of will exclude personhood.

Rats. I just got a hot dispatch. So the truck must roll. I’ll be back in a couple of days.

Used to be a truck driver myself and usually pressed for time. I understand. But can you tell me what sects are you part of?

**Since you continue to ignore most of what i wrote, including texts which clearly say or teach Christ is God, and hang all upon your premise that as the Source of all then Christ cannot be God the Son, then i need not address all you wrote.**

So if I respond to every line of what you wrote, you will address ALL of what I wrote? It’s a deal! (Those will be some LONG posts by both of us, no doubt.)

You say I am ignoring texts. It may seem that way, but as I have said repeatedly, any place you think you see the Son,...as God,...it is the invisible Father in him that the Son is displaying (he is the express image of the invisible God). You can see the Son of God as a man, in every sense, except for the sin nature. But, every divine aspect he displays is the Father IN him.

How many times in John did the Christ tell us that the WORDS that he SPEAKS, and the works that he does, are not his, or even his will, but the Father’s? You say that the Son is the Word, which is right. But, you isolate him from God the Father when you treat him separately in divine virtues, referring to him as God the Son (using your opinion, ‘God the Word’ would be equally descriptive, right?). But, who’s WORDS are they that he speaks? I say the words originate from the Father that dwelleth in him. But, nevermind me, Jesus Christ tells us where the words come from:

(First, John the baptist’s testamony) John 3:34,35 “For he whom God hath SENT speaketh the WORDS of God: for God GIVETH not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath GIVEN ALL THINGS iinto his hand.” The Spirit, which “proceedeth from the Father” (Jesus’ words, not mine), was GIVEN to the Christ without measure; unlimited, and in every fiber of his being.

(now, the Son’s testamony) 8:26 “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that hath SENT me is true; and I SPEAK to the world those things which I have HEARD of him.” 27 “They understood not that he spake to them of the FATHER.”

47-50 “And if any man hear my words........He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have NOT SPOKEN of MYSELF; but the FATHER which SENT me, he GAVE me a COMMANDMENT, what I should SAY, and what I should SPEAK. And I know his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I SPEAK therefore, even as the FATHER SAID unto ME, so I SPEAK.”

17:14 “I have given them THY WORD...” 17:17 “..THY WORD is truth”. (remember who the Son was talking to in John 17?)

You offer this explanation (from quoted source):

**The Father is the unseen, omnipresent Source of all being, revealed in and by the Son, experienced in and by the Holy Spirit.The Son proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit from the [Father and the] Son. With reference to God’s creation, the Father is the Thought behind it, the Son is the Word calling it forth, and the Spirit is the Deed making it a reality. -http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t002.html**

It has some accuracy, and some inconsistancy as well. The first sentence is quite accurate. The second sentence is close enough. The third is where the ‘co-equal persons’ theology diverts from the first two sentences. The third sentence appears to show the Father as the ‘thinker’, but not specifically credit him as THE source all power. You then choose to put the same declaration into your own wording.

**But the Father as the Source of all refers to the direction from which all comes,**

But then, after saying that the Father is the source, or “direction from which all comes”, you seem to contradict scripture by finishing with this:

**but which is not necessarily the same thing as the Father creating something.**

You’ve probably seen the wide variety of power tools that use the same battery pack. The Father is the ‘battery pack’, and is in Jesus Christ; and as such all was created.

Paul said: “But unto us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are ALL things..” (including the ‘Son OF God’), “and we IN him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we BY him”. 1Cor. 8:6

**In fact if the Son was created then since “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made,” (John 1:3) then the Son would have created Himself, unless there was a clause which is carefully given to qualify that when Scripture says “he hath put all things under his feet,” “it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him.” (1 Corinthians 15:27) But which clause is never given, though what Jn. 1:3 says on this is distinctly reiterated twice. (Eph 3:9; Col 1:16,17)**

“All things were made by him” is true, and he is OF the Father, and powered by him:
“For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he GIVEN to the Son to have life in himself”. John 5:26

**Instead God, as God, can always have existed as Father, Son and Spirit, but with the Son proceeding from the Father, but not as in time, as if there was a time when the person who occupies the position of the Son never existed, but as light from light. As said, there was never a time when God did not exist as 3 entities, each having personhood. You certainly cannot deny the Spirit always existed, the problem we have is comprehending all this, and what i see you doing is forcing God to conform to your understanding under the constrains of existence as we know it.**

Aren’t you forcing God to conform to your definitions of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’? For you insist that the Son is really not a ‘son’ that is ‘fathered’. You have a separate and distinct person you assign the title of ‘Son’ to, that has no physical body, yet is the creator of everything. But, somehow he needs the other two persons to make his physical body. (i think I’m getting dizzy)

**Seeing the Son as being a person is not removing the Father out of the Son, which reasoning is a result of you compelling Being to refer to one having personhood, versus 3 who cannot be God without the other, having one nature and mind, which always acts together.**

The Son has a soul, under the control of the Father; “because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell...” Acts 2:27.

**Equality of nature does not exclude positional order within the Trinity, any more than does in marriage (unless you subscribe to egalitarianism). Nor does submission of will exclude personhood.**

Paul tells us that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus Christ. That agrees with Christ’s own testamony of the origins of every divine word and/or action he displays. The Father is his ‘battery pack’.

**Used to be a truck driver myself and usually pressed for time. I understand. But can you tell me what sects are you part of?**

It was a pressed for time load, for sure. Thankfully, no flatbed or stepdeck this time. Just a dry van, with no touch freight. Pretty easy.

I’m Oneness Pentecostal. We mostly just give a brief definition: The ‘Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in emmanation’. But the Godhead is really better explained by the testamony of the scriptures themselves, which of course is much more accurate.

This will probably have some repitition from my most recent reply, but in order not to be accused of skipping any points, here goes:

**No, as my word is not even a person, as Scripture says the Word is, and that person is explicitly said to be God. Your tactic is that of not dealing with the concept as God reveals it.**

The concept that God reveals is: that God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Your words originate from within your brain. Your tonque speaks the words as your brain issues them forth. God is invisible, the manner of speaking is created.

**Christ is also called the Lamb of God, the Door, and many other metaphors, but Christ is a also person and is called the Word because words express who were are. Creation also expresses God, as do all God’s words. But the Word expressly does so and is a person and as person He is God, who took upon flesh.. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1) And the Word was made 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. (John 1:14) **

You insist on the Word being separate, yet in your other post quote a source as saying that the Father ‘is the thought’. Well, the Son repeats everything he hears from the Father. The Word originates from within the Father, as my most recent reply points out.

I said: He gives the Father credit for ALL of the divine power placed in him.

**Which commitment of function and authority is not contrary to Christ being God by nature. There is order within the Trinity.**

You’re not proving a ‘trinity’ of ‘separate and distinct persons of God’ with that statement.

I said: So, when Thomas worshipped him as Lord and God, he was acknowledging Him as Lord, AND as the express image of the INVISIBLE God that dwelled in Christ.

**Please. This is reading into the text what is necessary to conform to your Arianism. Thomas did not say. “My express image of the INVISIBLE God,” by “My Lord and my God,” which is consistent with John’s theme of the word being God by nature, and the one Isaiah saw in His glory.**

I would say that it seems that you don’t read/believe some scriptures in order to make a case for trinitarianism (such as Jn 14:10). And why did you ignore my FULL statement?....here’s the rest: “The Lord had taught him individually that the Father was IN him (Jn 14:5-7), and expounded futher to Philip and the rest of the disciples as the passage continues.”

I said: You started out great, using the scriptures. You should have harmonized them with the similar verses of chapter 14. Instead, you interpret at the end,

**Wrong, unlike you here i stuck with the scriptures which teach that the LORD whom Isaiah saw in His glory in Is. 6 was Christ. “These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.” (John 12:41)

Indeed, Isaiah did see the image of the invisible God. Remember, Jesus Christ and the apostle John tell you that “no man hath seen God at any time”.

**This is what clearly defines why “he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” (John 12:45) He that believe on The Son, believe on the Father, as Christ is God. “...we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)**

There you go, guilty of what you accused me of in my explanation of Thomas’ confession; by making this statement: “He that believe on The Son, believe on the Father, as Christ is God”. AND then make 1John 5:20 CONFORM to your trinitarianism, BY leaving out (intentionally?) the first half of the verse. Here is the entire verse (with intermittant commentary):

1Jn 5:20, “And we know that the Son of God is come..” (from where?..the Father), “and hath given us an understanding..” (and where did the Son get HIS understanding from?..the Father), “that we may know him..” (him who?..the Father) “..that is true, and we are in him...” (him who?..the Father) “..that is true, even in HIS..” (his who?..the Father’s) “..Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life”.

Notice that, as always, John uses the phrase ‘Son of God’. This is the same John that tells us that “no man hath seen God at any time” (Jn 1:18; Jn 4:12). AND, notice the phrase, “that is true”. Where did Jesus Christ get his truth from?...the Father in him. What did he call the Father, when praying in the garden?.....”the only true God” (Jn 17:1-3).

I said: Peter declared “that God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”.

**Exactly, which does not say “made God,” but “made Lord” since Lord and Christ here refers to function, not nature. The Son was God by nature before His resurrection: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.., (Hebrews 1:8) And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Hebrews 1:10) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:8) But being the Divine Son of God the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, (1 John 4:14) and having accomplished that He was functionally given authority to “reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25) For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Acts 2:34,35) After which time the Father shall once again functionally reign as God overall. (1Co. 15:28)**

All of that is easily understood when one ACCEPTS that Jesus Christ was telling the truth when he said that he dwelleth in the Father, and the Father dwelleth in him (literally...remember Jn 14:10?). The omnipresent Father is IN the Son that is given the throne.

I said: As I said, Paul understood the Godhead perfectly, showing it even in his salutations near the beginning of his epistles; “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

**And as Paul understood the Godhead, He does not simply say “God” as distinct from Christ, but “God the Father,” with Christ being Lord in function, but wholly uniquely one with the Father in uncreated Divine nature. Thus, Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:8)**

The Son says that he has a beginning, while God has no beginning. Just like the Son says in Jn chapter 14, when you see the Son, you are seeing the Father. That’s HOW you see the invisible God; by his express image. God is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24).

I said: Notice that Paul also doesn’t add, “and from God the Holy Ghost”. That’s because that Paul knew that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father.

**Same distinction without a difference as regards being God, and thus, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19) The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas. (2 Corinthians 13:14)**

I have not denied there being a Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I simply define them the way the scriptures do: God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost (which proceeds from the Father). It’s another topic for later, but surely you’ve noticed that the apostles obeyed Matt. 28:19 by baptizing in the name of Jesus.

I left out nothing.
**You have indeed.**
I admit to being hasty. Perhaps this time I’m being more thorough.

I said: Concerning Hebrews chap 1: IF you believe in a literal handing over of power from one God the image, to another God the image, the first image is from henceforth powerless.

**That conclusion would only follow is we are referring to nature vs.function. The Father making the LORD of glory the Lord in function does not leave the former without power.**

Of course not, in my position, because the omnipresent Father is IN Christ.

Your answer to the riddle:
**A logical fallacy as the analogy does not have full correspondence. If daniel1212 was said to be Massachusetts than i could be both. Son of God denotes position, as can Lord, while God denotes uncreated nature.**

Well, at least you gave the ol’ college try. That’s more than most. Whether you realize it or not, you have admitted that ‘God the Son’ and ‘Son of God’ do not mean the same thing.

Which puts us back at the beginning: Jesus Christ and the apostles NEVER used the phrase ‘God the Son’. It was always the ‘Son of God’.

Also, I don’t recall you explaining your position on Jn 20:17 Jesus Christ speaking to Mary Magdalene: “..say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God”.

Daniel, I added you to this since your name is in this reply.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. Sorry for the long delay. Such is the life of a truck driver.

I was in KC, MO a couple of days ago, unloading in one of the underground warehouses. Always an interesting time, slipping a big truck though those tunnels. Then took a roundabout backhaul to get home.

This reply is only long because you have a lot to reply to.

I said: Paul says that the Son is “the image of the INVISIBLE God, the firstborn of every creature”. Col. 1:15. John says that the “faithful and true witness” is the “beginning of the creation of God”. Rev. 2:14

**I think you mean Rev. 3:14, but are you saying that the Son is a created being?**

I’m saying he is the Son of God, just as the Christ and his apostles define him. He is the beginning. God the Father dwells in him, and he in the Father. God the Father has no beginning. (I know that is hard to comprehend, just as trying to comprehend that there is no end to outer space.)

**Colossians 1:15 The image (eikwn). In predicate and no article. On eikwn, see 2 Corinthians 4:4 ; 2 Corinthians 3:18 ; Romans 8:29 ; Colossians 3:10 . Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation ( John 17:5 ) and is now ( Philippians 2:5-11 ; Hebrews 1:3 ). Of the invisible God (tou qeou tou aoratou). But the one who sees Jesus has seen God ( John 14:9 ).**

The commentary is interpretting in John 14:9, replacing the specific word ‘Father’, with the not so specific word ‘God’ (if you are desiring to use trinitarian design, which calls the Son of God, ‘God the Son’. Which is why the commenter thought it convenient to do the switch, imo).

**See this verbal adjective (a privative and oraw) in Romans 1:20 . The first born (prwtotoko). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logo passage in John 1:1-18 and to Hebrews 1:1-4 as well as Philippians 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son).**

All you are (ignorantly?) doing is proving the the omnipresent Father is in Jesus Christ, just as Jesus Christ said to be the case; who said that the words were not his, but the Father’s. So, in your trinitarian design, you have a ‘second person’ ( that you believe to be God the Word) speaking words that originate from the ‘first person’ (God the Father).

**This word (LXX and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luke 2:7 and Aleph for Matthew 1:25 ; Romans 8:29 . The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pash ktisew, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prwto that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Colossians 1:18 ; Romans 8:29 ; Hebrews 1:6 ; Hebrews 12:23 ; Revelation 1:5 . Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eikwn we find prwtotoko in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logo teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikwn (Image) and to the universe as prwtotoko (First-born).
Revelation 3:14
The beginning of the creation of God (h arch th ktisew tou qeou). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works ( Colossians 1:15 Colossians 1:18 , a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3 ; Hebrews 1:2 , as is made clear by Revelation 1:18 ; Revelation 2:8 ; Revelation 3:21 ; Revelation 5:13 ). Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament (emphasis mine)**

I believe the Son to be the beginning of the creation of God; made before anything else. I believe the Son is just that: the Son. You can’t have a son without a father, and the father comes first. That’s God’s ordained plan. It takes preconceived trinitarianism to counter that understanding, AND to insist on using the phrase ‘God the Son’, when it not found in the scriptures.

daniel1212 said this:
This is reading into the text what is necessary to conform to your Arianism. Thomas did not say. “My express image of the INVISIBLE God,” by “My Lord and my God,” which is consistent with John’s theme of the word being God by nature, and the one Isaiah saw in His glory.

**daniel1212, glad you brought up the one Isaiah saw in His glory.**

I responded to daniel1212 on that (and hopefully everything else).

**Zuriel, I ask you, to Whom does Isaiah refer in the following passage? Isaiah 6 - (KJV) 6 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. 3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. 4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. 5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. 6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: 7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. 8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 9 And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.**

You are seeing the Son of God. You are not seeing God. God is a Spirit, and invisible. Jesus Christ and the apostle John both declare that “no man hath seen God at any time”.

I said: The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, to do the will of the Father. It does not have a will of it’s own. (see Jn 16:13).

**Ok, here is John 16:13: 13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” John here (and in verses 14 and 26) intentionally called the Spirit “He” by using the masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos, not the neuter pronoun ekeino meaning “it”. You say “it”. John says “He”. Who should I believe; you or John?**

That was sloppiness on my part. But I don’t think it was sloppiness on the part of Robertson’s commentary to switch the word ‘Father’ with the word ‘God’, in his opinion of Jn 14:9.

**Moreover, Jesus called the Spirit “another allos Comforter paracletos in John 14:16. Allos means “another of like kind.” And in 1 John 2.1 paracletos is applied to Jesus Christ. As Jesus is a divine Person who comforts His disciples, so also is the Holy Spirit.**

As Jesus Christ is ‘of God’, so also is the Holy Spirit ‘of God’ (proceeds from the Father). Since you are correct in affirming that the Holy Ghost is a ‘he’, and not and ‘it’, you should also be as precise in defining the ‘Son of God’. Also, it should be noted that neither Jesus Christ nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Holy Ghost’ (or ‘Spirit’).

**As to your contention that the Spirit “does not have of will of it’s own”, Paul himself directly and explicitly contradicts you: 1 Corinthians 12:11 “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.”**

That’s just more trinitarian interpretting (or is it flipflopping?). You post the verse I referred to (Jn 16:13), which shows the Spirit of truth as not having a will of his own. Then you interpret Paul’s words in 1Cor 12:11 as being counter to Jesus Christ’s in Jn 16:13, AND those words of the Christ in verses 14 and 15:

“He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

**There are many other instances that could be adduced, such as that you can’t grieve an impersonal force, but these are sufficient to prove that your assertions above about the Holy Spirit are false.**

I think you have more work to do.

Also, I’d like to know your position on Jn 20:17; Jesus Christ speaking to Mary Magdalene: “..say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God”.

Oh, I have put forth this riddle to others, and it’s your turn: Are you ‘Missouri the Diamond’ or ‘Diamond of Missouri’?

Regards

Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. (Isaiah 6:5)

Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:8-10)

These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (John 12:41)

You are seeing the Son of God. You are not seeing God. God is a Spirit, and invisible. Jesus Christ and the apostle John both declare that “no man hath seen God at any time”.

Since you reject this and other texts which clearly ascribe to Christ OT texts which are speaking of God, as well as texts say Christ is God/the Almighty/I AM, then am not gong to explain again how the Father being the source, being the direction from which the Son flows, is not contrary to Him being God. The rejection is which is due to trying to make God subject to man's restricted definition of what constitutes one being.

I ascend to my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God”.

That is simple, as the context shows this as speaking in regards to the Son in position, coming from the Father who is His head, but unlike Mary, Christ descent was from everlasting is one in nature with the Father and Spirit. And thus Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:28-29)

Oh, I have put forth this riddle to others, and it’s your turn: Are you ‘Missouri the Diamond’ or ‘Diamond of Missouri’?

You already tried this with me, and again, if the text said "in the beginning was Diamond, and Diamond was with Missouri and Diamond was with Missouri," and applied many texts to Diamond which said things like "unto Diamond He saith, Thy throne, O Missouri, is for ever and ever," and was affirmed as being "my Missouri" then we could say 'Missouri the Diamond," as being the Diamondwho is one with the Missouri in nature.

Thank you for your response.

I believe the Son to be the beginning of the creation of God; made before anything else.

And elsewhere in the thread you said to daniel1212:

God the Father is the source of ALL things divine, including his creating of the Son (the beginning).

You believe the Son is a created being, who was "made".

If that were true it would not be proper to worship him or to ascribe to him the titles of Jehovah as Scripture does. And as already been pointed out numerous times he does receive worship in Scripture, and the Scripture says that by him all things were made and without him was not made anything made that was made. He Who made all things cannot himself made made.

That was sloppiness on my part. But I don’t think it was sloppiness on the part of Robertson’s commentary to switch the word ‘Father’ with the word ‘God’, in his opinion of Jn 14:9.

What was sloppy about what you wrote? You don't say, but you immediately change the subject and point how Roberstson substituted the word, "God" for "the "Father", an objection that might have force if you were arguing that the Father were not God, but since you are not arguing that your objection about the Holy Spirit refutes itself.

If indeed you are intimating that absent your sloppiness you ought to have referred to the Holy Spirit as "He" and not "it, then can you please explain to me how He could be referred to with the personal pronoun and still be an impersonal force?

Is it possible that my wife could defer to my will, not acting on her own initiative and still have a will of her own? I know it sounds far-fetched, but if she did defer to my will would that mean she is an impersonal force? I also admit that she is a force to be reckoned with, but does that in and of itself mean she is a non-person?

Please tell me how you can grieve an impersonal force.

daniel1212 has already replied Scripturally and directly to some of your other points here so I won't belabor them.

Cordially,

Well hello, glad you could reply.

**You believe the Son is a created being, who was “made”.**

The Son is appointed heir of ALL things (Heb. 1:2), and even inheritted his NAME (1:4). That would make it clear that the Son had absolutely nothing at some earlier time (like, maybe before he became the ‘beginning of creation’.

The good news is: By inheritting ALL things, he has the Father too (which I’ve tried to get across to you and others).

**If that were true it would not be proper to worship him or to ascribe to him the titles of Jehovah as Scripture does.**

Jehovah is IN him, and HE is IN Jehovah. Believe not that Jehovah is in him doing the works? Thomas was straightened out by the Son in John 14, telling him that when he sees him, he is seeing the Father. He clarified that even more to his disciples in the following verses, letting them know (in verse 10) that the Father in him ‘doeth the works’. That’s how they ‘see’ the Father, by the words and works of the Father coming forth from the Christ. You really can’t get around that fact, unless you ignore the totality of John 14, ESPECIALLY verse 10.

**and the Scripture says that by him all things were made and without him was not made anything made that was made. He Who made all things cannot himself made made.**

And where did the WORDS come from that the Christ spoke?

The Son of God tells you how it all started: “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he GIVEN TO the Son to have life in himself.” Jn 5:26

**What was sloppy about what you wrote? You don’t say, but you immediately change the subject**

Referring to the Holy Ghost as ‘it’ instead of ‘he’. Just was in too big of a hurry.

**..and point how Roberstson substituted the word, “God” for “the “Father”, an objection that might have force if you were arguing that the Father were not God, but since you are not arguing that your objection about the Holy Spirit refutes itself.**

Well, here it is again: The commentary is interpretting in John 14:9, replacing the specific word ‘Father’, with the not so specific word ‘God’ (IF YOU ARE DESIRING to use trinitarian design, which calls the Son of God, ‘God the Son’. Which is why the commenter thought it convenient to do the switch, imo).

AND I will explain further: Since Roberstson thinks that the Son is God, separate and distinct from the Father, in verse 9 he can replace ‘Father’ with ‘God’, and still not admit to the plain teaching of verse 10 (which I just covered a few paragraphs earlier).

**If indeed you are intimating that absent your sloppiness you ought to have referred to the Holy Spirit as “He” and not “it, then can you please explain to me how He could be referred to with the personal pronoun and still be an impersonal force?**

The Son has a soul. That is what is separate and distinct from the Father. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father (is ‘of God’), and the will that the Comforter displays is the Father’s.

Again: “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and and shall shew it unto you. ALL THINGS..” (remember JN 5:26?) “..that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.”

**Is it possible that my wife could defer to my will, not acting on her own initiative and still have a will of her own? I know it sounds far-fetched, but if she did defer to my will would that mean she is an impersonal force? I also admit that she is a force to be reckoned with, but does that in and of itself mean she is a non-person?**

Are you the SOURCE of your wife??

**Please tell me how you can grieve an impersonal force.**

The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, doing all things according to the will of God. When we reject/disobey God, he knows by his Spirit. We grieve the Spirit OF God, not God the Spirit (another phrase not found in Scripture).

**daniel1212 has already replied Scripturally and directly to some of your other points here so I won’t belabor them.**

This is one of a few he didn’t reply to:

I’d like to know your position on Jn 20:17; Jesus Christ speaking to Mary Magdalene: “..say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God”.

And, daniel ‘attempted’ to answer this, but it was personally directed to you:

I have put forth this riddle to others, and it’s your turn: Are you ‘Missouri the Diamond’ or ‘Diamond of Missouri’?

Thanks, I’ll be back tomorrow night, I hope.

Regards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.