does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "person"?

[Steven Avery]

Hebrews 1:1-3 (AV)
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory,
and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

[Stephen]

The passagse says "God" rather than "God the Father". And it describes "God" as a single person through the use of "he" and "his" pronouns and describes that this person "God" has a son.



Unitarians believe "God" is a person and is identical to Christ's father.

Trinitarians believe that "God" is multiple persons and is not identical to Christ's father.



The passage is a direct affirmation of the former conception of God, and a direct contradiction to the latter conception of God.

 

[Yahchristian]

Hebrews 1:1-3 (AV)
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory,
and the express image of his person,
and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself purged our sins,
sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Your question was... Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "person"?

I define “a person” as “a spirit or human being” and I define “a being” as “a sentient living thing”.

So my answer is... Yes.

How do YOU define “a person” and “a being“?

And how would you answer my question...

Does “the express image of his PERSON” refer to a different person than that “PERSON”?

I say No.

 

[Dizerner]

Person is not a good translation for this Greek word.

who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, (Heb. 1:3 YLT)

who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance (Heb. 1:3 DBY)

 

[johnny guitar]

The passagse says "God" rather than "God the Father". And it describes "God" as a single person through the use of "he" and "his" pronouns and describes that this person "God" has a son.



Unitarians believe "God" is a person and is identical to Christ's father.

Trinitarians believe that "God" is multiple persons and is not identical to Christ's father.



The passage is a direct affirmation of the former conception of God, and a direct contradiction to the latter conception of God.

God The Father is A Person, as is God The Son.

 

[aeg4971]

Your question was... Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "person"?

I define “a person” as “a spirit or human being” and I define “a being” as “a sentient living thing”.

So my answer is... Yes.

How do YOU define “a person” and “a being“?

And how would you answer my question...

Does “the express image of his PERSON” refer to a different person than that “PERSON”?

I say No.

The Express Image is not a different person as if it be a composite subject ,as you define, or something alien to God , nevertheless a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken, signifies a distinct Person from Whom He Image . Thus the Figure of His Substance, as when we say determinately , One Person of the Father, and another Person of the Son.

No , not a different person , but rather a distinct person by reason of whatever it is you use to deny the Son His own personhood.

.......Alan

 

[Yahchristian]

who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, (Heb. 1:3 YLT)

who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance (Heb. 1:3 DBY)

So, are you able to answer these questions with a simple Yes or No...

1) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "person"?

2) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "subsistence"?

3) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "substance"?

 

[Dizerner]

So, to clarify your Trinitarian view...

1) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "subsistence"?

NO.

He "has" one.

2) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "substance"?

NO.

He "has" one.

 

[Yahchristian]

1) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "subsistence"?

NO.

He "has" one.

Does an “impress of a subsistence” result in a distinct subsistence?

I say No.

2) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "substance"?

NO.

He "has" one.

Does an “expression of a substance” result in a distinct substance?

I say No.

 

[aeg4971]

So, are you able to answer these questions with a simple Yes or No...

1) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "person"?

2) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "subsistence"?

3) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "substance"?

Well for once your questions demonstrate just how many English variations it takes to express Greek nuance.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

....... Alan

 

[Yahchristian]

1) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "person"?

2) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "subsistence"?

3) Does Hebrews 1:3 teach that God the Father is a "substance"?

Well for once your questions demonstrate just how many English variations it takes to express Greek nuance.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

So you believe in Hebrews 1:3, hypostasis means “person”, “subsistence”, and “substance”.

Correct?

Hebrews 1:3... Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his hypostasis, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

 

[aeg4971]

So you believe in Hebrews 1:3, hypostasis means “person”, “subsistence”, and “substance”.

Correct?

Hebrews 1:3... Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his hypostasis, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Pretty much.

....... Alan

 

[Dizerner]

I don't think it means person at all. It's the foundation of something, what something stands on.

Does an “impress of a subsistence” result in a distinct subsistence?

I say No.

Does an “expression of a substance” result in a distinct substance?

I say No.

We can equate those words, no need to repeat them.

No, there is one substance.

 

[aeg4971]

Does an “impress of a subsistence” result in a distinct subsistence?

I say No.





Does an “expression of a substance” result in a distinct substance?

I say No.

The Impress of the Subsistence of the Father is by way of Substance or Hypostasis , and within itself its own Subsistence. Thus the distinct Person of the Son. Yes in God it is distinct ,as it is not in us, for in us it is difference or other thing. Which could not be said of God.

In God the Expression of the Divine Substance is within itself Subsistence. No, there is but One Divine Substance as it is in His simplicity , God is Spirit.

........Alan

 

[Yahchristian]

We can equate those words, no need to repeat them.

No, there is one substance.

If you equate the words subsistence and substance...

You are answering NO to BOTH questions...

Does an “impress of a subsistence” result in a distinct subsistence?

Does an “expression of a substance” result in a distinct substance?

Correct?