WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

[GentleGospeller]

It is obvious that the text of the NT was corrupted and changed in many places in the first few centuries after Christ.

It is obvious, that some tried (hence God's warnings against adding or diminishing from His words (as previously shown - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? ), following after their father, the devil.

It is obvious some forged documents:

2Th_2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

It is obvious some wrested the words of the texts for their own purposes:

Deu_16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Psa_56:5 Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil.

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

It is obvious some abused their places:

3Jn_1:9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

It is obvious some were false:

Joh_6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

2Co_11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Rev_2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

It is obvious some would "depart from the faith" while remaining among the people of God:

1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

In spite of all the assaults of the enemy of souls, God's words are preserved by Almighty God, and cannot be overthrown by such feeble attempts of the finite.

Ecc_3:14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Act_5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

So, of course, there exists fraudulent copies of mss, that have been purposefully altered by wicked men, and some have been altered through lack of precision, or accidental cares-taking by various scribes, or persons. Some copies were rushed. None of those things affected the true stream of mss, with the true words of God, and by the varied methods of God, preserved by God in the hands of His living church.

It is like saying that because there are tares, goats and foolish in the church that there was never any, or currently existing wheat, sheep or wise church, or that they are preserved, living. The evils / darkness / lies that exist, does not ever snuff out the good / light / truth.

So, how to tell the difference? Simple. God told us in the word itself. Isa. 8:20. The corrupted mss, or places in certain mss, codices, papyri, lacunae, do not agree with the Ten Commandments of JEHOVAH Elohiym, and the prophets that are in harmony with them.

Joh_7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Psa_40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Fact is most of the bible didn't even exist at the time of the Patriarchs, but they still managed to obey God.

Did I question such a thing? No. It is already admitted, granted, accepted. You are simply agreeing with my point. It is not evidence for your point, nor evidence against my point.

That is because of the ongoing and continuous doctrine of "preservation", which goes alongside of "inspiration", and also a later third (translation). God preserved the words spoken to the Patriarchs in their hearts / minds, as their minds were much more focused and retentive, than those of later generations, which is one of the reasons, God later inspired Moses to "write". As for instance the mind of Adam, at the beginning of this creation (earth, and local Sol system), had perfect memory, and it was only after sin, that such things begin to degrade in the person, and in the succeeding generations through decay.

As to the last point, yes, in the main, they obeyed God (Ecc. 7:20), in God's eternal law / commandments. As for instance, of Abraham it is said:

Gen_26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen_18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

For the Commandments of God, existed from even before this creation, and existed since the beginning of this creation.

(Gen. 4:7, 16:5, 5:16, 18:20, 19:15, 20:9, 31:36, 39:9, 42:22, 44:16, 50:17; Exo. 5:4-5,9, 9:27,34, 10:16-17, 16:4,28-30; Job 1:5,22, 2:10, 5:24, 7:20, 8:4, 10:6,14, 13:23,26, 20:11, 22:5,15-17, 24:19, 31:30,33, 33:27, 34:37, 35:3; Ecc. 7:20; Isa. 3:9; Lam. 4:6; Eze. 16:49-50, 28:12-19; Jhn. 8:44; Rom. 2:12, 3:23, 5:12-21; 2 Cor. 11:3; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Pet. 2:4; 1 Jhn. 2:2, 3:8; Jud. 1:6 KJB; &c.)

 

[GentleGospeller]

The Byzantine Text Type is extensively stylised to inculcate a later High Trinitarian theology that didn't exist in the apostolic church, although it certainly wasn't unitarian, but as unitarians now do assert. 1 Tim 3:16 is a good example.

This is all just 'you' again, in spite of the documentation provided earlier.
- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?
- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

I am not interested in "trinitarian" or "unitarian" in this discussion in regards the texts under discussion. All of that is simply red-herring, and non-sequitur. The texts say what they say irrespective of persons erroneous beliefs, as the linked book material also shows.

 

[GentleGospeller]

Never said it wasn't.

When do you (in your theological position) say is "the foundation of the church", then?

 

[GentleGospeller]

"Almighty God = Lord God = Lord God Almighty" is plainly a title of the Father to the exclusion of the Son

No.

Gen_17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

This is the Son's Person / Being. Not the Father's who remained in Heaven.

Gen 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Gen 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

The first "LORD" [JHVH, the Son] is literally standing on earth having come "down". The other "LORD" [JHVH, the Father] is in Heaven.

Joh_1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Joh_6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

It is always the Son who comes down, and ascends up to reveal the Father to mankind.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Eph_4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

 

[GentleGospeller]

I am done with this thread. There is nothing more to say to the willingly deaf, willingly blind. They have chosen their darkness and silence. So be it.

The Great Controversy, p. 524:

“... If men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of God for man's redemption. ...”

 

[cjab]

Why sure it does. It says He was with God and was God. It then says the Word became flesh, vs 14. Its there as plain as the nose on your face.

I am talking about the Greek, not English. Christ put it this way: "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father." He didn't say "I am the Father."

The distinction between "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" and "I am the Father" is the distinction between Jn 1:1b, and Jn 1:1c, in a nutshell. It is also reflected in the Pauline distinction between "Christ is the image of God" and "Christ is God."

Distinctions are important in the bible. Otherwise heresies such as Modalistic Monarchianism are a consequence. This is a heresy especially prevalent amongst Latin and English speakers, and which is very close to Athanasian Creed based High Trinitarianism, due to the inability of the High Trinitarian to allow any real distinction between divine persons, known individually only by their "roles." Contrariwise, the biblical naming conventions provide for real differences in names & titles & relations, as well as of roles, between Christ and his Father, when considered independently of each other.

 

[cjab]

This is all just 'you' again, in spite of the documentation provided earlier.
- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?
- WHO IS THE SON OF GOD?

I am not interested in "trinitarian" or "unitarian" in this discussion in regards the texts under discussion. All of that is simply red-herring, and non-sequitur. The texts say what they say irrespective of persons erroneous beliefs, as the linked book material also shows.

The evidence for Constantine Simonides being a liar and forger and of bad character is very extensive indeed and attested by numerous people, and it commenced at an early age when he was expelled from the monastery he was sent to be educated at. In fact his bad character started in childhood, when it is reported he tried to poison his parents. The Greeks themselves first exposed him as a forger, and of bad character, in sundry press articles, respecting an ancient Greek witness which he had forged, and which was exposed in the Greek newspapers. He was a political player, and forged documents for a living. However he didn't forge Sinaiticus; such was his vain boast, in respect of which he was exposed in the English press. As for David Daniels of Chick Productions, he is wasting his time; and has trashed his own reputation over his support for Constantine Simonides.

 

[cjab]

I am done with this thread. There is nothing more to say to the willingly deaf, willingly blind. They have chosen their darkness and silence. So be it.

The Great Controversy, p. 524:

“... If men reject the testimony of the inspired Scriptures concerning the deity of Christ, it is in vain to argue the point with them; for no argument, however conclusive, could convince them. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14. None who hold this error can have a true conception of the character or the mission of Christ, or of the great plan of God for man's redemption. ...”

Sinaiticus & Vaticanus caused no-one to reject the deity of Christ. Your words are slanderous and libellous other of Christians. KJVO is today a cult, for it cannot accept the scientific evidence of the Byzantine Text Type comprising a 4th century edition of biblical texts design to promote High Trinitarianism e.g. along the lines of the Creed of Constantinople AD381, when the Son became "begotten in heaven," by human decree.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Codex_Sinaiticus

"Biblical scholarship considers Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the most important Greek texts of the New Testament, along with Codex Vaticanus."

 

[cjab]

When do you (in your theological position) say is "the foundation of the church", then?

Different metaphors are used in scripture when referring to the foundation of the church, and they depend on who is speaking. Christ is obviously the first and chief foundation, joined to which are others later laid, i.e. the apostles.

The first reference to foundation is in Isaiah 28:16: YHWH is the speaker:

"So this is what the Sovereign LORD says: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

• 1 Corinthians 3:11, Christ is the ONLY permissible foundation of the local Church.
• 1 Peter 2:4-10, Christ is the cornerstone of the Church (cf. Isaiah above).
• Ephesians 2, Christ is the cornerstone, with the apostles and New Testament prophets as the foundation.
• Revelation 21, the foundation is the Twelve.
• Matthew 16, the foundation is Peter.

(also see here).

 

[cjab]

Did I question such a thing? No. It is already admitted, granted, accepted. You are simply agreeing with my point. It is not evidence for your point, nor evidence against my point.

That is because of the ongoing and continuous doctrine of "preservation", which goes alongside of "inspiration", and also a later third (translation). God preserved the words spoken to the Patriarchs in their hearts / minds, as their minds were much more focused and retentive, than those of later generations, which is one of the reasons, God later inspired Moses to "write". As for instance the mind of Adam, at the beginning of this creation (earth, and local Sol system), had perfect memory, and it was only after sin, that such things begin to degrade in the person, and in the succeeding generations through decay.

As to the last point, yes, in the main, they obeyed God (Ecc. 7:20), in God's eternal law / commandments. As for instance, of Abraham it is said:

Gen_26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Gen_18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

For the Commandments of God, existed from even before this creation, and existed since the beginning of this creation.

(Gen. 4:7, 16:5, 5:16, 18:20, 19:15, 20:9, 31:36, 39:9, 42:22, 44:16, 50:17; Exo. 5:4-5,9, 9:27,34, 10:16-17, 16:4,28-30; Job 1:5,22, 2:10, 5:24, 7:20, 8:4, 10:6,14, 13:23,26, 20:11, 22:5,15-17, 24:19, 31:30,33, 33:27, 34:37, 35:3; Ecc. 7:20; Isa. 3:9; Lam. 4:6; Eze. 16:49-50, 28:12-19; Jhn. 8:44; Rom. 2:12, 3:23, 5:12-21; 2 Cor. 11:3; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Pet. 2:4; 1 Jhn. 2:2, 3:8; Jud. 1:6 KJB; &c.)

To select an arbitrary English translation or concoction of late Greek manuscripts, and arbitrarily label your selection as God's preserved Word, is something scripture knows nothing of. Here we enter the world of science, and scholarship. The question of which of many different text variants is the original thing are by no means easy to answer.

 

[cjab]

It is obvious, that some tried (hence God's warnings against adding or diminishing from His words (as previously shown - WHO IS THE SON OF GOD? ), following after their father, the devil.

It is obvious some forged documents:

Some also sought to correct mistakes, or what they thought were mistakes, and ended up corrupting the text; some made unintentional mistakes. Some made intentional changes, bringing stuff in from the margins or in seeking to clarify doctrine.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It should go without saying that YHWH ( Jehovah, LORD) does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. The word used is theos, 'God,' kurios, 'Lord' or pater, 'Father,' which is of course how Christians are instructed to address God (Matt. 6:9).
So when we consider Joel 2:32, '...And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD [Heb. YHWH] shall be saved,' and compare it with Romans 10:13, which is obviously a quotation of Joel, 'For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord [Gk. kurios] shall be saved,"' we notice that the word for YHWH is kurios. So to whom is Romans 10:13 referring?
It is not difficult to find out. Just go back to verses9:
'...That if you confess with your mouth the Lord [Gk. kurios] Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'

So Romans 10:9-13 tells us that Jesus is YHWH, and that believing that is the route to salvation.

 

[cjab]

It should go without saying that YHWH ( Jehovah, LORD) does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. The word used is theos, 'God,' kurios, 'Lord' or pater, 'Father,' which is of course how Christians are instructed to address God (Matt. 6:9).
So when we consider Joel 2:32, '...And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the LORD [Heb. YHWH] shall be saved,' and compare it with Romans 10:13, which is obviously a quotation of Joel, 'For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord [Gk. kurios] shall be saved,"' we notice that the word for YHWH is kurios. So to whom is Romans 10:13 referring?
It is not difficult to find out. Just go back to verses9:
'...That if you confess with your mouth the Lord [Gk. kurios] Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'

So Romans 10:9-13 tells us that Jesus is YHWH, and that believing that is the route to salvation.

What if Jesus was given the name of (i.e. the authority of) YHWH for his ministry, per Jn 17:11? This then accounts for why faith in Jesus under the New Covenant fulfils the Joel prophecy: it denotes recognition of Jesus as God's Son, and allows, as Jesus himself allowed, that the YHWH name was and remains the name of his Father, for Jesus always refers to the unspoken "name" as the name of his Father (and which is why he himself, as himself, is not YHWH but Jesus).

If Jesus himself was YHWH, then we are into Jesus usurping his Father's role entirely, along the lines of pagan theology, where Father gods fade into the background of a pantheon, to be replaced by their sons. But this doesn't occur in Christianity. Jesus ascended to where he was before, and no higher: John 6:62. But in heaven, i.e. in the OT, I grant you that Jesus is/was the "right arm of YHWH" in sitting at the right hand of God, so in the OT his identity was subsumed under the YHWH name.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What if

I don't think it's a question of "What if...." The text speaks for itself. Bearing in mind that YHWH does not appear in the New Testament, how could the Holy Spirit (who is also YHWH) make is more clear. Jesus is the LORD.
When Thomas realised who Jesus really was, he cried out, "My Lord [Gk. kupios] and my God." What words could he have used to express our Lord's divinity more clearly? The Lord Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy, but for not believing earlier.

Mark 12:29-30. "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord [Gk. kupios] our God, the Lord [Gk. kupios] is one. And you shall love the Lord [Gk. kupios] your God with all your heart, with all mind and with all your strength.'"

 

[cjab]

I don't think it's a question of "What if...." The text speaks for itself. Bearing in mind that YHWH does not appear in the New Testament, how could the Holy Spirit (who is also YHWH) make is more clear.

Jesus is the LORD.

Such is the Modalistic Monarchian creed also. So my question to you is, how are you not a participant in the Modalist Monarchian heresy?

There is nothing in the NT that says Jesus is YHWH. Jesus always refers to his Father's name as .... his Father's name. So why are arguing contrary to Christ?

When Thomas realised who Jesus really was, he cried out, "My Lord [Gk. kupios] and my God." What words could he have used to express our Lord's divinity more clearly? The Lord Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for blasphemy, but for not believing earlier.

Divinity is not limited to the NT application of titular <o theos>, which is reserved to the Father alone. Divinity is distributable, just by the Father being in the Son, and the Son sharing in his Father's glory. Thus, "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." 1 Cor 8:6, as reflected in Eph 4:4-6 etc.

Seems to me that you are determined to reject apostolic doctrine for the sake of your High Trinitarian variation on Modalistic Monarchianism which takes exception "to the subordinationism of some of the Church Fathers and maintains that the names Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject, the one God, who “with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to his appearance in humanity is called the Son." [source]

NB: 1 Cor 8:6 and Eph 4:4-6 both teach or infer subordinationism.

Ancient Modalistic Monarchianism apparently conceived of Son & Father as strictly sequential appearances of YHWH, but now we have Son and Father conceived of as merely different roles of "God", sometimes as Son, sometimes as Father, and where it constitutes heresy to conceive of any substantial distinction between Son and Father. You will say they are distinct persons, but in practice it is considered heretical by your High Trinitarian creed to formulate any tangible distinction between the persons, so that in practice "persons" are de facto modes of God, being indistinguishable except as to role.

Mark 12:29-30. "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord [Gk. kupios] our God, the Lord [Gk. kupios] is one. And you shall love the Lord [Gk. kupios] your God with all your heart, with all mind and with all your strength.'"

There is only one Greek word for "Lord" : kyrios. There are however two Hebrew words, besides YHWH: Adon and Adonai. The perpetual Jewish Qere & Ketiv convention applied to YHWH, which forbade the sacred name to be uttered. So that is why three Hebrew name & title words, Adon, Adonai & YHWH became translated by the one Greek word : kyrios. In addition, kyrios has a Greek secular usage outside of religion, being a very commonplace word, referring to any master. In consequence nothing is deducible from the usage of kyrios applied to Christ, and as applied to Greek translations of YHWH.

YHWH is pre-eminently the "Lord God", but Jesus is not "Lord God." There is no instance of Jesus ever referring to himself by that title. This is your problem: you need to show Jesus being denoted unequivocally as the "Lord God", but by Luke 1:32, it is clear that the "Lord God" is not Jesus.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Such is the Modalistic Monarchian creed also. So my question to you is, how are you not a participant in the Modalist Monarchian heresy?

Because I am not a Modalist Monarchian. I am a Trinitarian.
What are you, since you like to throw names around?

 

[cjab]

Because I am not a Modalist Monarchian. I am a Trinitarian.
What are you, since you like to throw names around?

I think you would have to say you were a typical "Latin Trinitarian" lending credence to the High Trinity of the Athanasian Creed, which brooks no subordination of the Son to the Father, in contrast to a Greek Trinitarian, which allows for a degree of subordination.

I would style myself a trinitarian of the school of Eusebius of Caesarea. See here and which is in fundamental disagreement with what I would describe as the High Trinity, seeing the wording of the Nicene Creed of AD 325 as the absolute limit of the extent of the "compromise" between the two schools. Everything after the AD325 creed I would deem as heretical, and the AD325 creed itself as borderline heretical, due to its non-biblical phraseology.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I had a brief convo with chaptGPT, and it went like this:

Me: Please translate this for me into today’s English. ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.


It: That Greek text is John 1:1.

A natural translation into modern English would be:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

If you wanted it expressed in very contemporary English while preserving the meaning, you could say:

"In the beginning, the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

A few notes on the Greek:

• ἀρχῇ (archē) = "beginning"
• λόγος (logos) = "Word" (though it carries richer ideas such as message, expression, reason, or self-revelation)
• πρὸς τὸν θεόν (pros ton theon) = "with God," implying a close personal relationship or fellowship
• θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (theos ēn ho logos) = literally, "God was the Word" in word order, but in Greek the word order emphasizes the nature or identity of the Word. Hence most translations render it, "the Word was God."

In the context of John's Gospel, the "Word" is identified a few verses later with Jesus Christ. (See Gospel of John 1:14.)


Me: So, it’s true it says Christ is God in that passage, correct?

It: Yes. In the traditional Christian understanding, John 1:1 teaches that Jesus (the Word) is God.

The passage says:

"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."

Then later, in John 1:14, the Word is identified as the one who became flesh—understood by Christians to be Jesus Christ. So the flow of John's argument is:

1. The Word existed in the beginning.
2. The Word was with God (distinction of person).
3. The Word was God (sharing the divine nature).
4. The Word became flesh (Jesus Christ).

The Greek phrase θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is the key clause. While there has been debate over exactly how to express it in English, the overwhelming consensus of Greek scholars is that John is affirming the deity of the Word, not merely saying that the Word was "a god" or godlike.

At the same time, John distinguishes the Word from "the God" whom the Word was with, which is one reason this verse became important in later Christian discussions of the Trinity.

So, if by "Christ is God" you mean that John is attributing true deity to Christ, then yes—John 1:1 is one of the strongest passages in the New Testament used to support that belief.



I know it’s AI and has its limitations, but there is overwhelming support that John 1:1 teaches Jesus is God.