If Jesus is God, how is he called God's only begotten son?

agrote wrote:

real life wrote:

agrote wrote:

Okay. My solution: there is no God.

Hi Agrote,

Not exactly original, or the product of much effort on your part, I see. Well ....... I don't want you to strain yourself or anything like that.

But since you like math, you might consider how 1+1+1= 3, but 1x1x1=1 .

The Bible teaches that the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

That probably qualifies with some as trinitarianism, and others as not trinitarian enough. But it is what the Bible teaches.

BTW, Neologist, I don't remember my making any reference to hell. Can you refresh my memory?

I don't like maths, I like logic.

The bible teaches that F = God, JC = God, and HS = God. This entails that F = JC = HS, since identity is a transitive relationship. If Maggie is the fastest athlete in the world, and the fastest athlete in the world is the author of a book called 'blah di blah,' then Maggie is the author of a book called 'blah di blah.' Rubbish example I know, but it'll do. So if F = God, and JC = God, then F = JC. If JC = the one who died for our sins, then F = the one who died for our sins, since JC = F. But do trinitarians really believe that the Father died for our sins? I think not. So their beliefs are illogical

The Bible doesn't say they are the same, it says they are One. Being one and being the same is not the same thing, which is why your logic is flawed. Just because they are one in essence, it doesn't follow that they are identical in every way. Obviously they are distinct in some manner, but still they are all part of the fullness of God.

But what does that mean? What do you mean, 'in essence'? Is it like the human race - we are all different people, but we are all, in essence, human beigns, and therefore we are one, in the sense that we are one race. Is that the sort of thing you mean?

agrote wrote:

The bible teaches that F = God, JC = God, and HS = God.

BZZZZT! The bible does not teach that JC=God or HS=God. Preachers teach that.

The oneness here refers to the three persons of the trinity all being comprised in the one indivisible God.

How, and in what sense this can be is of course beyond all human understanding. Many call it illogical because they cannot understand it. Personally I prefer to call it extralogical. It is simply beyond all human understanding and concepts of logic.

So he's indivisible, yet he can be divided into three parts. Doesn't make sense does it.

How convenient.

If it's beyond your understanding, how do you know that it's extralogical, rather than illogical?

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 14:28 wrote:

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Perhaps my human brain cannot comprehend this cosmic mathematics but isn't he saying Father > Jesus. Not Father = Jesus.

When Christ walked in a human body, obviously he had voluntarily taken upon Him the limitations of that body.

He hungered as a man. He wearied as a man. His body was not omnipresent, being only in one place at a time. And so on.

(How God could voluntarily limit Himself in this way is impossible for us to understand. Truth doesn't become truth just when I understand it, however. )

It is this limitation to which He refers when He says the Father is greater than I and you should rejoice because I go back to the Father.

This was also referred to by the apostle:

5 Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men. 8 More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Christ equated those in His hand with being in the hand of the Father.

28 And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. 30 I and the Father are one."

And again it is said of the son that His name is called (among other titles)-- the Eternal Father.
6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

And again Christ says:

7 If YOU men had known me, YOU would have known my Father also; from this moment on YOU know him and have seen him."

8 Philip said to him: "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

9 Jesus said to him: "Have I been with YOU men so long a time, and yet, Philip, you have not come to know me? He that has seen me has seen the Father [also]. How is it you say, ?'Show us the Father'?

This is typical trinitarian logic. When confronted with scriptural evidence of Jesus' subjection to his father, they waffle.

real life wrote:

And again it is said of the son that His name is called (among other titles)-- the Eternal Father.
6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Since he was the first born of all creation, the title 'eternal' seems appropriate, as does the title 'mighty' since through him all things were created. However, nowhere is he referred to as 'almighty'.

real life,

So then if Jesus had all of the limitations of man, why should we listen to him at all? You quite clearly stated he was not omnipresent so then where do we draw the line? How much of the divine blueprint was he allowed to retain and what was lost due to his human restriction? You can't have it both ways. You can't justify errancy in one breath because he was human and then give him omniscient power as a divine being in the next.

What of this (from a previous post of mine):

Luke 21:12-36 "I tell you truly, that there are some of those standing right here who will never taste death before they see the kingdom of God. And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on earth an anxious mass of people in confusion over the roar of the sea and the tides, with people dying of fear and apprehension about what's coming over the world. Yes, the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory. When these things start to happen, look up and raise your heads, because our redemption is approaching. When you see these things happening, you know the kingdom of God is close. I assure you that this generation will not pass away till it all happens."

Likewise in Matthew

16:28 "I assure you there are some among those standing here who will never taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his monarchy."

24:34 "I assure you that this generation will not go by before all this happens."

Unless it is your contention that their are 2,000 year old men walking the earth it would be safe to say Jesus was wrong here. Again, if he had human limitation (as you say) and the ability to be wrong (as he is in the above passage) how much of what he said are we to believe and what do we dismiss as erroneous?

Resisting the temptation (the very great temptation) to riff off "meaningful contributions," i would simply note that i, for one, am only here for the entertainment value. I would not for a moment suggest that people not quote scripture, especially as it would help to spoil my fun.

Resisting the temptation (the very great temptation) to riff off "meaningful contributions," i would simply note that i, for one, am only here for the entertainment value. I would not for a moment suggest that people not quote scripture, especially as it would help to spoil my fun.

SN95 wrote:

real life,

So then if Jesus had all of the limitations of man, why should we listen to him at all? You quite clearly stated he was not omnipresent so then where do we draw the line? How much of the divine blueprint was he allowed to retain and what was lost due to his human restriction? You can't have it both ways. You can't justify errancy in one breath because he was human and then give him omniscient power as a divine being in the next.

What of this (from a previous post of mine):

Luke 21:12-36 "I tell you truly, that there are some of those standing right here who will never taste death before they see the kingdom of God. And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on earth an anxious mass of people in confusion over the roar of the sea and the tides, with people dying of fear and apprehension about what's coming over the world. Yes, the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory. When these things start to happen, look up and raise your heads, because our redemption is approaching. When you see these things happening, you know the kingdom of God is close. I assure you that this generation will not pass away till it all happens."

Likewise in Matthew

16:28 "I assure you there are some among those standing here who will never taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his monarchy."

24:34 "I assure you that this generation will not go by before all this happens."

Unless it is your contention that their are 2,000 year old men walking the earth it would be safe to say Jesus was wrong here. Again, if he had human limitation (as you say) and the ability to be wrong (as he is in the above passage) how much of what he said are we to believe and what do we dismiss as erroneous?

Think about it.

Being weary is not error, nor sin.

Being only in one place is not error, nor sin.

Being hungry is not error, nor sin.

Having a limitation does not equate with error.
-------------------------------
However that Christ's kingdom did come in the lifetime of his hearers is evident. He died and rose to life within a few years (at most) of making that statement; and His kingdom , which He stated was not of this world (i.e. it is spiritual ) was established and has expanded ever since.

It is pictured in the prophets as the rock that smote the feet of the idol and grew to be a mountain which filled the earth.

And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on earth an anxious mass of people in confusion over the roar of the sea and the tides, with people dying of fear and apprehension about what's coming over the world. Yes, the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming on a cloud with power and great glory.