Is Jesus THE Son of God or A Son of God?

[davo]

Hi Jason,

So are references to “holy spirit”, for that matter, although the way the term is used the lack of articles could sometimes refer to a holy spirit of a person or a person’s spirit being given holiness more generally. But other times it’s “the holy spirit”, and a few times “the spirit of-the-holy”. But whether there is a distinct person of divinity being called the Holy Spirit doesn’t depend on the article usage at all.

With regards to the definite article and the Spirit, one explanation that seems reasonable to me is this… Paul asked John’s disciples at Ephesus (Act 19:2) “Did you receive [the] Holy Spirit when you believed?” to which they replied “No, we have not even heard that there is [a] Holy Spirit.” The bracketed definite article as it appears in all English translations “the Holy Spirit" is in fact not present in any Greek text, and thus in this context references not the person i.e., “the” Holy Spirit per se, but rather the “power” or presence of the Spirit as is evidenced and demonstrated by the then following gifts etc, as per verse 6.

There are very important contextual issues in Heb 1 which explain why “deific terms” are being “read into” Heb 1:3. The Hebraist declares that the Son is as much better than any angels as his name.

Well that is true… the Son indeed was so much better, in every way. What I’m really querying is… does deification have to equate to divine self-sameness? IOW, does “equality with God” literally mean same-essence as or constituting God? Or, can it mean same position as or with God, i.e., by appointment? Jesus carried the imprimatur of God, that is, Jesus was sanctioned with God’s authority and approval (you know the texts)… He was the express or “exact imprint” of His person in terms of reflecting His will, purpose and power.

Under the Old régime for example Moses fitted the bill, being the one made (appointed not created… an argument that IMO is such a blinding distraction) to be “God to Pharaoh” with Aaron as His prophet, as per Ex 7:1 and 4:16 “You will be [as/like] God to Pharaoh”. Again, the bracketed “as/like” supplied in all English versions appears nowhere in either Hebrew or Greek texts. Thus to all intents and purposes Moses being the mouth and hand of Yahweh WAS God, to them, AS divinely appointed. Now in a similar vein though WITHOUT transgression we have Jesus, obedient, and so “greater than” Moses perfecting and accomplishing this role and being duly declared “the Son of God with power” Rom 1:4, as is reflected accordingly in other NT passages such as you have touted.

1.) Only God Most High can give eonian life, which Jesus also claims to do.

Again this is the equality of oneness where Jesus does as he sees the Father doing (again you know the texts). It is this SAME oneness Jesus advocates ON BEHALF OF those called etc, “…that they all may be ONE, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be ONE in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” Following your logic through with consistency has certain obvious implications. Said “divinity” if you will thus becomes less about personal-being per se, being understood rather more in positional, practical and consistent terms. Again… not forgetting that if only God alone can forgive sins “which Jesus also claims to do” we also have the likes of Jesus’ “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” of Jn 20:23. Surely consistency as just outlined above has to count for something?

[Paidion]

Jason, I was surprised that you “corrected” me in my translation of “ἀληθινος” as “real”.

Please consider the following definition of the word found in the Online Bible Program, and tell me whether or not you still regard “real” as incorrect:

1. that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true, genuine
   1a) opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended
   1b) it contrasts realities with their semblances
   1c) opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain

[Melchizedek]

In terms of functional vs. ontological subordination; what does it mean for Jesus to say, “The Father is greater than I”?

This is the point I continually stumble over with respect to the relationship between the Father and the Son, if they are in fact ontologically equal.

[Paidion]

Positionally, the Father is greater than the Son. But essentially They are equal, id est equally divine.

What confuses the issue for some as to what or who God is, is that “God” is used in two different ways in John 1:1 while they presume it is used in the same way. In the clause “The Logos was with the God”, the words “the God” refers to the One Real God whom Jesus addressed as such as recorded in John 17:3.

In the next clause “The Logos was God”, the word “God” refers to the essence of divinity. It tells the KIND OF THING the Logos is. The order of the words indicates this. Literally they are “and God was the Logos” (with no article before “God”). This word order, placing “God” before the verb “was” is characteristic of Greek grammar. Here are two other places in which this is done:

“God is love” (1 John 4:8). The word order is “The God love is.” Notice “love” is placed BEFORE the verb “is”. This is done to show that “love” is the kind of thing or quality that the God IS. The same clause is used in 1 John 4:16.

Another example: “Your word is reality (or “truth”)” (John 17:17). The word order is “Your word reality is”. Again by placing “reality” BEFORE “is” instead of after it, indicates that Jesus is affirming that reality is the kind of thing God’s word is.

Martin Luther, whatever else he was, was a good Greek scholar. He said it very succinctily:

“The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism”

Sabellianism was a form of Modalism, the concept that that God is a single divine Being who expressses Himself as the Father, and as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit, just as an actor can express himself as three different characters by wearing three different masks. So if the apostle John had been a Modalist, he would have written, “The Logos was the God”, meaning that the Logos was the same Person as the One Real God.

Arianism is thought to have taught that the one Real God created his Son. (Though the Arians used the the word “begat” not “created”). In any case, Luther thought an Arian would translate the clause as “And the Logos was a god” (as the NWT has it). If that had been the intention of the apostle John, he would have had the words in natural order. rather than placing “God” before “was”.

You can tell by listening to a person read John 1:1 whether or not he understands it in the way intended. If he puts the emphasis on “was”, that is, “And the Logos WAS God”, you know that he thinks it is saying that the Logos was the great God Himself, as a Modalist believes. Indeed the word “was” is where almost everyone puts the emphasis. However, if the reader puts the emphasis on “God”, that is, “And the Logos was GOD”, you know that he understands that it is saying that God, (or Divinity, or Deity) is the very essence of the Logos.

[Melchizedek]

I think that all makes sense. How is this distinct from trinitarianism, though?

[Paidion]

Trinitarians believe in one compound God, consisting of three divine Individuals: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These three Individuals are somehow melded into one single God. Yet Trinitarians use the word “He” to refer to this one God, where one would expect them to use the word “They”. I can’t make sense of it. Throughout the New Testament, the word “God” usually refers to the Father (especially when prefixed with the article), and NEVER to some entity known as “The Trinity”.

The theology which I am advocating is that there is one real God (the Father) whom Jesus addresses as such (John 17:3), and one Son of God, who is fully divine, not in the sense of being part of a Trinity, but in the sense of being of the same essence as his Father, the one real God. He is the ONLY other One of this essence, since He is the ONLY-begotten Son of God.

I believe the Holy Spirit is not a third divine Individual as Trinitarians believe, but the extended Personality of the Father and or the Son. The Lord Jesus is said to BE the Spirit (2 Cor 3:18). I think this is why Jesus couldn’t send his Spirit to live in his disciples until his death and resurrection. While He lived on earth, his Personality or Spirit was confined to his human body.

In my previous post, I was explaining John 1:1 in the light of the theology I have described above.

[Paidion]

If Thomas starts addressing Jesus as {ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou}, how in the world is the {mou} “of me” supposed to seriously count as a qualifier that Thomas doesn’t think he’s using a phrase from the Psalms, originally applying to God Most High (in contexts where only God Most High should be worshiped as one’s lord and god), to call Jesus God Most High?? (Not to call Jesus the Father, but still calling Jesus GMH

Okay, I’ll tell you how in the world it should seriously be considered to count as a qualifier, and why Jesus is Thomas’s God in the sense of his divine essence rather than being God Most High. If the apostle John who records these words of Thomas had believed that Thomas was worshipping Jesus as God Most High, then don’t you find John’s summary just 3 verses later rather odd?

…but these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

If John had believed that Philip was recognizing Jesus as the Most High God, and if he, John, believed the same, then why did he not write “but these things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the one and only God Most High” (or at least “God Himself”)? The very fact that he wrote “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” indicates that John wanted his readers to believe in Jesus’ divinity as the Son of God, but not that He was the Most High God, Himself, Creator of heaven and earth, the One who created all things through his Son, his Son being the Father’s agent of creation.

[Paidion]

I only say that [you are a Bi-Theist] because you have also in the past (including the very recent past) vocally insisted on Jesus being essentially (and also uniquely) the same kind of thing the Father is, not only over-against those unitarians who regard Jesus as being only an empowered man but also over-against those unitarians who (like Arius) regarded Jesus as the incarnation of the highest possible super-angel but essentially different from God.

You’re doing it right now! – “They are equally divine. Jesus and His Father are both of divine essence. The Son is divine as He, the Father, is.” No, if the Son is not also the self-existent ground of all reality, if the Son is not also essentially God Most High, then those persons are not equally divine.

You seem to be saying that if the Son is of the same essence as the Father, then the Son IS “the self-existent ground of all reality”. You seem to be defining “God Most High”, not as a divine Individual, but as an Essence (or “Substance”, as the early Trinitarians used to say). But God is not an essence or a substance. An essence or substance has no personality. You are of human substance. Does that substance—your bones, your skin, your flesh, have personality? Or do YOU have personality? The Most High is a divine Person, the Creator of all things, the One who created all things THROUGH His divine Son, that is, his Son is God’s agent.

To understand how the Son can be just as divine as the Father, and yet NOT be “the self-existent ground of all reality”, I use a human analogy again.

Adam, being the biological father of all mankind might be said to be “the source of all humanity”. His son Seth was just as human as his father Adam who begat him. Yet Seth was himself not “the source of all humanity”. Only his father Adam was.

Similarly, Jesus was just as divine as his heavenly Father “the self-existent ground of all reality” who begat Him. Yet Jesus was Himself not "“the self-existent ground of all reality”. Only God his Father was.

Paul declared the Father to be the one God, the source of all things, and Jesus to be the one Lord, through whom God created all things.

… for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1Cor 8:6)

Paul also said that there is "one Lord [that would be Jesus], one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Eph 4:5,6). Never did Paul remotely suggest that Jesus was the One God, the Creator of all things.

It’s only in modern songs that we read such fantasies as “the Great Creator became my Saviour” who came “down from his Glory” to the earth to be “born in a manger”. When Baby Jesus was born in the manger, God the Father was still in heaven. When the adult Jesus was praying to his Father, He was talking to another divine Person, not to Himself!

[Agnostic_Gabe]

I had not read every post here, but I definitely believe that Jesus was “THE” Son of God. But, I also believe that Jesus was lesser than God. Jesus himself said this a few different ways. But perhaps the most commonly stated way was “He who sends is greater than he who is sent”. I know other use certain verses “I am the Father are one” to say the opposite but that tells me He and the Father are united in purpose and are of the same essence. I also seem to have a hard time applying the Holy Spirit as a separate person instead of the essence of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Honestly, I am not sure Jesus really cares what our minds comprehend of Him other than that we recognize He is our savior and is superior to us in every way.

I am curious, though, how does this one belief impact our Christian faith? Does knowing about the Trinity make you more able to be obedient to Christ? Does being a Unitarian increase your faith? I myself am dumbfounded as to why the issue is so important.

[Paidion]

I am curious, though, how does this one belief impact our Christian faith? Does knowing about the Trinity make you more able to be obedient to Christ? Does being a Unitarian increase your faith? I myself am dumbfounded as to why the issue is so important.

I have long been a seeker after truth and reality. The position I have expressed concerning the relation of Jesus to his Father helps me to understand in a way that makes sense to me, and which is consistent with the Scriptures. Some people are able to believe contadictions by taking the humble position, “I am only a weak human being who cannot undestand this mystery, but I believe it anyway.” I am not one of those people. Claims of any kind must make sense to me before I can accept them.

Though the belief I have in this matter doesn’t directly relate to righteousness, obedience, and faith, I think it does so indirectly. For if I have merely a blind faith in some self-contradictory doctrine or a doctrine which I see as being inconsistent with the Scriptures, I could become uncertain, and lose faith, and this could affect my obedience.

I remember one man who used to ask people concerning their beliefs, “How does this affect your salvation?” The man thought that any belief or doctrine that isn’t relevant to one’s salvation, has no importance. I simply don’t think that way. Truth and reality are of paramount importance, whether they differ from our traditional beliefs or not. We ought to pursue reality wherever it may lead us.