Can YHWH exist without divine attributes?

Originally Posted by Chan

"Eternal Son" is an oxymoron. Sonship, by its very nature, is something that had a beginning. The Bible very clearly tells us that the Son was begotten. In fact, God said about the Son "this day have I begotten thee." You are engaging in the same error that Cyril was engaged in: commingling or intermixing Jesus' divinity with His humanity.

Wow how am I doing that, beaing in mind that I'm not Cyril and I've always said that the two natures arn't mixed and arn't fuesed into some new combined third nature?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Then why do you deny that the SON (as the SON) isn't an eternal Son, isn't creator, isn't omnipresent, isn't omniscient, isn't ompitotent ... as the SON? How can you calim that the Son is Yahweh and then deny that he possesses Yahweh's divine attributes? Your position is that the Son is called God, but isn't God, it's; 'the Almighty God in Christ,' who is the real deity for you, this Father who indwells the Son (flesh) is yoru real deity.

You call the Son .... God, but in your heart like a JW, Mormon or Christadelphian who does the same, you deny this truth and it will cost you your soul at the judgement (John 8:24). Unless you beleive that the Son is the I AM this verse states; 'you'll die in your sins.' The world is full of cults which state 'jesus is God' but then redefine their terminology so that the Son isn't really deity at all, Oneness is no different in this and does just what the JWs, Mormons and others also do.

YOu refuse to read anything we say Robert. I have already told you everything you need to know about the Son. The Son is Yahweh HIMSELF, Deity AND Humanity, not humanity only. The Son is NOT someone other than Yahweh but IS Himself that One God with a Human nature. The Son being the Person of Yahweh is therefore the creator, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent because HE is Yahweh and possesses the Divine nature as well as the Human nature. Yahweh though did NOT eternally exist AS the Son for He did not eternally have a Human nature.

And I predict you will tell me that is not what I believe

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

OK Chan I'm intrigued, do do you believe that God has eternally existed as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit from before the creation of the universe, or did God become these three at a point in time?

I believe that God has eternally existed as God. I believe He is the Father because He fathered. I believe He is the Son because His logos (divine expression) "became flesh and dwelt among us." I believe He is the Holy Spirit in that He pours out of Himself into His Church collectively and into Christians individually.

Even the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says "We believe in one God" and then goes on to identify that one God as "the Father Almighty."

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Wow how am I doing that, beaing in mind that I'm not Cyril and I've always said that the two natures arn't mixed and arn't fuesed into some new combined third nature?

You're doing it in your continual statements about Jesus "as the Son." You don't refer to Jesus, you refer to "the Son." You are mixing divinity and humanity together by continually focusing on "the Son" despite the fact that the Bible says the Son was begotten.

I have not seen so much as a single post where you said the two natures aren't mixed/fused into a third nature (of course, the Cappadocian fathers didn't believe they became a third "nature" either; they believed the natures became one "person").

Originally Posted by Chan

I believe that God has eternally existed as God. I believe He is the Father because He fathered. I believe He is the Son because His logos (divine expression) "became flesh and dwelt among us." I believe He is the Holy Spirit in that He pours out of Himself into His Church collectively and into Christians individually.

Even the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed says "We believe in one God" and then goes on to identify that one God as "the Father Almighty."

No it doesn't the creed identifies God as the father which you've quoted above, it then goes onto to further identify God as the Son and Holy Spirit, something which your selective quoting left out.

Originally Posted by Chan

You're doing it in your continual statements about Jesus "as the Son." You don't refer to Jesus, you refer to "the Son." You are mixing divinity and humanity together by continually focusing on "the Son" despite the fact that the Bible says the Son was begotten.

I have not seen so much as a single post where you said the two natures aren't mixed/fused into a third nature (of course, the Cappadocian fathers didn't believe they became a third "nature" either; they believed the natures became one "person").

I have said it already but I'll say it again, Christ's two natures of deity and humanity arn't mixed or fused, but remain distinct as the one person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Secondly, the Son was only begotten in his humanity, he's unbegotten in his deity. if I'm wrong please prove me wrong from the Scriptures, you have a habit of making statements which you don't even attempt to back up from the scriptures.

Thirdly, Colossians 1:18 as well as ps 2:7 which is quoted at Acts 13, Heb 1:5 and 5:5 all apply to the begetting of Christ's humanity at the resurrection. You fail to understand that the Son being both God and man possesses two natures and whilst his humanity is begotten, in his deity the Son is not begotten at all being the etenal and unbegotten God. So passages such as (Heb 1:8, John 20:28) which refer to the SON as God, or hebrews 1:10 which refers to the Son as Yahweh quoting psalm 102, prove that the Son is also unbegotten (as God) as well as being begotten 9as a man).

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

No it doesn't the creed identifies God as the father which you've quoted above, it then goes onto to further identify God as the Son and Holy Spirit, something which your selective quoting left out.

No, the Creed doesn't say anything about the Son and Holy Spirit being the one God. It doesn't say "and in one God, the Son" and "in one God, the Holy Spirit." The divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit are derived from the Father.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I have said it already but I'll say it again, Christ's two natures of deity and humanity arn't mixed or fused, but remain distinct as the one person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Your continual references to "the Son" and "as the Son" suggest otherwise.

Secondly, the Son was only begotten in his humanity, he's unbegotten in his deity. if I'm wrong please prove me wrong from the Scriptures, you have a habit of making statements which you don't even attempt to back up from the scriptures.

Finally, you're getting it! THE SON WAS BEGOTTEN WITH REGARD ONLY TO HIS HUMANITY. That being the case, since the Bible consistently refers to Jesus as God's "only begotten Son," meaning that Jesus became the Son when He was begotten, you cannot have Jesus - as the Son - doing things in eternity because He wasn't begotten yet!

Thirdly, Colossians 1:18 as well as ps 2:7 which is quoted at Acts 13, Heb 1:5 and 5:5 all apply to the begetting of Christ's humanity at the resurrection. You fail to understand that the Son being both God and man possesses two natures and whilst his humanity is begotten, in his deity the Son is not begotten at all being the etenal and unbegotten God. So passages such as (Heb 1:8, John 20:28) which refer to the SON as God, or hebrews 1:10 which refers to the Son as Yahweh quoting psalm 102, prove that the Son is also unbegotten (as God) as well as being begotten 9as a man).

You really don't know how to read very well do you? There is nothing in any post I wrote that says Jesus was not both fully God and fully man. I do understand that Jesus has two natures, and I fully accept that He has two natures. However, it is only in His human nature that Jesus is "the Son" because the Bible specifically states that the Son was begotten. The Bible NEVER refers to the Son as God but does refer to Jesus as God. By you referring to the Son as God, you are mixing Jesus' divinity and His humanity because you have Jesus' humanity, which was begotten and, thus, is what makes Him the Son, existing prior to the Creation.

Or are you saying you believe in the divine flesh heresy?

Originally Posted by Chan

Finally, you're getting it! THE SON WAS BEGOTTEN WITH REGARD ONLY TO HIS HUMANITY. That being the case, since the Bible consistently refers to Jesus as God's "only begotten Son," meaning that Jesus became the Son when He was begotten, you cannot have Jesus - as the Son - doing things in eternity because He wasn't begotten yet!

Firstly, the term 'Only begotten Son' isn't Biblical, but is a Trinitarian term meaning eternally begotten, which was put into the KJV at John 3:16 and 4 other places to imply that Christ is eternally begotten in his Sonship. Not all Trinitarians believe this and today many modern scholars reject this term and it's implications. So 'only begotten' does not mean 'begotten.'

Secondly, everybody believes that the humanity of Christ was begotten, so bheing undisputed it's a non-issue.

Thirdly, you used what I call the 'Jesus Trick' in your reply when you shifted the context from the Son (whom you call Jesus) to the father (whom you also call Jesus). The issue isn't does jesus have two natures as both Trinitarians and Oneness agree that he has, the issue is does the SON (I said SON) have two natures of deity and humanity. Trinitarians say yes, but Oneness say no as the flesh or humanity is Christ's sonship in most Oneness Christologies, the father being his deity. To state otherwise in Oneness would result in two distinct deities of the Father and secondly the Son both being Yahweh and yet dialoguing, loving and relating to the other.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Firstly, the term 'Only begotten Son' isn't Biblical, but is a Trinitarian term meaning eternally begotten, which was put into the KJV at John 3:16 and 4 other places to imply that Christ is eternally begotten in his Sonship. Not all Trinitarians believe this and today many modern scholars reject this term and it's implications. So 'only begotten' does not mean 'begotten.'

The phrase "only begotten Son" most certainly is biblical - it's in the Bible and that makes it biblical. The Greek word monogenes in John 3:16 can most literally be translated "only born" and, so, "only begotten" is an accurate translation. I don't give a rat's behind what "many modern scholars" do!

Secondly, everybody believes that the humanity of Christ was begotten, so bheing undisputed it's a non-issue.

No, it's not a non-issue. You insisted above that "only begotten Son" is not biblical. The only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the Son was not begotten.

Thirdly, you used what I call the 'Jesus Trick' in your reply when you shifted the context from the Son (whom you call Jesus) to the father (whom you also call Jesus). The issue isn't does jesus have two natures as both Trinitarians and Oneness agree that he has, the issue is does the SON (I said SON) have two natures of deity and humanity. Trinitarians say yes, but Oneness say no as the flesh or humanity is Christ's sonship in most Oneness Christologies, the father being his deity. To state otherwise in Oneness would result in two distinct deities of the Father and secondly the Son both being Yahweh and yet dialoguing, loving and relating to the other.

I did no such thing! First of all, I never refer to the Father as "Jesus"! So, you need to STOP this nonsense of continually accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

What I said in my earlier post is applicable here: "since the Bible consistently refers to Jesus as God's 'only begotten Son,' meaning that Jesus became the Son when He was begotten, you cannot have Jesus - as the Son - doing things in eternity because He wasn't begotten yet!"

Let me turn your statement into a question: "Does the SON (I said SON) have two natures of deity and humanity?" Well, to answer that question we need to answer the question "What is it about Jesus that makes HIM 'the Son"? Is it Jesus' divinity that makes Him the Son (in which case there would exist two divine beings, one of which was somehow begotten or fathered by the other)? Is it His being the memra or logos (divine expression) that makes Him the Son (in which case His having been begotten is merely figurative)? Is it His having been conceived by God in the womb of a virgin girl named Mary that makes Him the Son? How one answers whether the Son as the Son has two natures of deity and humanity depends on how one answers the other questions.

For me, it's Jesus that has two natures in hypostatic union; it's not Jesus status as the Son that has these two natures.