Really short on time. Got a quick turn around. I’ll try to cover what I skipped tomorrow night.
**analogizing “Son” with a U.S. State - “Nebraska.”**
No, I was analogizing “God” with a U.S. state.
The Son is of God. That is what the Son testified.
**Nebraska is a place, not a person.**
It is an origin for many. A source of food. A place of learning.
Don’t like places and people in the same phrase? (Jesus of Nazareth).
Have you ever talked to a place? “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah.....”(Micah 5:2)
Or talked to a tree? “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever”. Matt. 21:19
**“PERSON the PERSON””**
You mean like “Billy the Bob”?, or “Jenny the Susan”?
Your problem is how you define the phrase.
“God the Father”, is defining a person and his title, not two persons.
“The Son of God” is a two person phrase. The first person mentioned is “OF” the second person.
That’s why you don’t find the phrase “God the Son” in the scriptures. God is the source of the Son. God is the Father. God the Father is continually in the Son, giving all power and wisdom.
But your model has to create separation: making the Son, God, along side God the Father. And you further show your misunderstanding of the scriptures by quoting......
**John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.”**.......
...whereby you seem to think you have proven the Son to be God, separately and distinctly, from God the Father. When the reality is that you can’t take the Son of God out of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God the Father; or God the Father out of the Son.......not even long enough to quote John 1:14.
**“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.” (NIV John 1:18)**
..”who is himself God”...
See,...your version even tries to show separation. I prefer the old KJV:
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:14 KJV
“Really short on time. Got a quick turn around. I’ll try to cover what I skipped tomorrow night.”
It won’t matter.
“No, I was analogizing “God” with a U.S. state.”
“vladimir998 the Nebraska”. You created that to compare with “God the Son”. “Nebraska” = “Son”. That was your comparative analogy, Zuriel. Own it.
“The Son is of God. That is what the Son testified.”
But that is not all that is testified to by God about Jesus.
“It is an origin for many. A source of food. A place of learning.”
Your analogy still fails. Nebraska cannot be “in” someone and Nebraska is not a PERSON.
“Don’t like places and people in the same phrase? (Jesus of Nazareth).”
It amazes me how you mix and match things without any regard for what they actually say. “Jesus of Nazareth” makes perfect sense as an expression. “vladimir998 the Nebraska” does not. You keep missing that.
“Have you ever talked to a place? “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah.....”(Micah 5:2)”
Yes, I have talked to a place - but only metaphorically - just as the Lord does. When He does so in what you just cited He is really addressing the people of the place.
“Or talked to a tree? “Let no fruit grow on thee henceforth for ever”. Matt. 21:19”
Oh, I am more than sure I have cursed trees here or there in my life - but I have no innate power to make them die.
“You mean like “Billy the Bob”?,”
No, but “Billy the Bobbie” would work. That would mean Billy the Cop.
“or “Jenny the Susan”?”
No, but “Jenny the Chef” would work. Now, there are times when two names can work: “Jesus the Christ”. Christ became a name after all with Jesus even in scripture. I have heard some people say “Jesus the Emmanuel” because that would mean “Jesus the God with us”. Generally speaking we don’t say “Jenny the Susan” because if her name is Jenny then why would we call her Susan? Again, your analogy fails terribly.
“Your problem is how you define the phrase.”
Nope.
““God the Father”, is defining a person and his title, not two persons.”
No one is claiming that God the Father is two persons. Just like Zuriel the Driver represents ONE person so does God the Father.
““The Son of God” is a two person phrase.”
And? God has a Son. And?
“The first person mentioned is “OF” the second person.”
And? That in no way means someone cannot say “God the Son”. The Son is GOD - in that He is divine. The Son is the son of God.
“That’s why you don’t find the phrase “God the Son” in the scriptures.”
No, that it is NOT why you don’t find it in scriptures. You don’t find it because it simply wasn’t employed or needed at the time. Later, as disputes over the Trinity arose, language regarding the Trinitarian Persons was refined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Son
“God is the source of the Son. God is the Father. God the Father is continually in the Son, giving all power and wisdom.”
The Son is God too. He too is divine.
“But your model has to create separation:”
No. There are three distinct Persons in the Trinity. That’s not separation created by my “model”. That’s simply the reality of the distinct Persons. They are no less One.
“making the Son, God, along side God the Father.”
No. The Son IS God. I am not “making” the Son God. He IS God. The Holy Spirit IS God. The Father IS God.
“And you further show your misunderstanding of the scriptures by quoting......”
No, there is no misunderstanding that at all. You are apparently the one who misunderstands John 1.
“...whereby you seem to think you have proven the Son to be God,”
No. Read what I wrote again. I specifically point out that the Son was always God and then became man and then posted John 1:14 - wherein the Son becomes MAN!
“separately and distinctly, from God the Father. When the reality is that you can’t take the Son of God out of the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God the Father;”
No one is trying to “take the Son of God out”. What is most sad is not just that you misunderstand everything that we’re talking about, but you are apparently ascribing motives to what you don’t understand.
“or God the Father out of the Son.......not even long enough to quote John 1:14.”
The Son is God. The Son became man. That’s all there is to it.
“See,...your version even tries to show separation. I prefer the old KJV:”
It’s not my version - it’s a Protestant Bible. And what it shows is distinction not separation. The Father is NOT the Son, the Son is NOT the Father. Both are Divine Persons. That’s not a separation. That’s just a proper distinction. That’s why the Father could address the Son and vice versa. They were distinct Persons.
You’ve made one error after another. I don’t think that will change.