“I can’t own it. Search my posts and find “vladimir998 the Nebraska”. It is your creation.”
Oh, my gosh - your analogy was so ludicrously wrong that I couldn’t remember it in it’s original state of complete wrongness! You’re right: You actually did say ‘Nebraska the vladimir998’ rather than ‘vladimir998 the Nebraska’. I have to apologize to you because it was such an incredibly bad analogy that you made that I literally could not remember it in its original form and just naturally gave it more sensibility than you did. Yeah, it was that bad! My goodness it was ten times worse than I remembered it!
“Is “Nebraska the vladimir998” an improperly worded description?....yes, and it was intended to be.”
Maybe you intended to word it wrongly, but as an analogy it didn’t work. And that’s the issue. God the Son is a perfectly fine expression. “Nebraska the vladimir998” is not.
“So also, is “God the Son” an improperly worded description.
“Son” indicates a beginning (the only begotten Son. the firstborn of every creature). God has no beginning.”
God has no beginning. And since the Son is God, He has no beginning. He is eternal just like His Father and just like the Holy Spirit. He is eternal. Eternal has no beginning. Eternal is just always present.
“So the Master teacher just wasn’t that effective?”
He did not teach everything in writing and never claimed to.
“He needed help from fallible men to define the Godhead?”
He needed no help, but men did, and He used an infallible Church to do the teaching, not fallible men. Next, you’ll make the mistake of saying the Church is made up of fallible men and therefore is a fallible teacher, right?
“In John 4:23,24, the description isn’t about the infinite things that God can do.”
Who is saying it is?
“It’s a description of God himself, that harmonizes with the descriptions of God’s invisibility found in John 1:18, Col. 1:15, and 1 John 4:12.”
You’re driving your truck fast to no where.
“Your quoting of John 1:1 and 14 attempt to ascribe the ‘Word’ to the Son only, when all through the book of John, the Son testifies that the words are not his but the Father’s.”
Word and word are two different words. One is Word. The other is word. See a difference?
“The Son is the physical mouthpiece speaking:”
No. The Son only BECAME physical. He always WAS, but later became man too. Get it right.
“...whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” John 12:50”
Whatever your point is you’re not making it.
“I asked you to find at least one divine attribute that the Son possessed, that he did NOT receive from the Father. You failed to come up with one.”
No, you keep failing to make sense. You wrote: “The challenge for you is to prove that the Son of God had/has any one divine attribute, that he did NOT receive from the Father that dwells in him continually.”
And I VERY CLEARLY explained to you: “No, that is not my challenge at all. Jesus is God. I have no reason (no challenge) to attribute to Him anything that His Father did not have other than His humanity. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty thinking.”
You apparently want me to defend a doctrine I do not believe in and have never once expressed a belief in. Again, that’s a logic error on your part and not mine.
“I have more, but it’s past bedtime.”
You might post more, but it will probably be no more helpful than what you have posted so far.
In your opinion....
**God the Son is a perfectly fine** man-made **expression.**
Fixed it.
**And since the Son is God, He has no beginning.**
So you don’t believe that begotten means begotten, and firstborn doesn’t mean firstborn? Got it.
**He did not teach everything in writing and never claimed to.**
He just made sure that there are at least 50 instances where you find the phrase “the Son of God”, and no phrases of “God the Son”. That’s a pretty thorough point that he drove home. He witnesses that he is from his Father, and his God.
**You’re driving your truck fast to no where.**
I know your riding a hot air balloon that is driven by every wind of man-made tradition, so you can’t help but give non-answers.
**Word and word are two different words. One is Word. The other is word. See a difference?**
No, because I don’t see God the Father, and the Son of God as two separate and distinct persons, with one giving the words to speak, and the other being called the Word (with none of the words he speaks being his own).
“..the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) is such a good, harmonious, description. One that parallels John 1:14 quite well.
So your view of the Godhead, in the eons before God made man, has a Father who isn’t even one second older than a separate and distinct person that is called the Son. And of course there is the other God; the Holy Ghost, even though the scriptures say he proceeds from the Father. And even though there is no “God the Holy Ghost (Spirit)” phrase in the scriptures, He is, by man’s interpretation, co-equal, and separate and distinct.
Who is the author of confusion?