I'm not arguing against either Modalism or Trinitarianism.
I'm simply stating a fact.
What fact, you describe the Trinity using a Modalist definition. That is not a fact that is fiction.
What does any of that have to do with God being listed as Christ's father in the genealogical records:
Read again, God is not listed as being Jesus' Father. In Luke Joseph is listed as being Jesus' adopted Father, and Adam is listed as being the son of God. In Mathew Jesus is listed as being the Son of Mary. Notice, in Luke, you have to take a 15 verse leap for your idea to be considered. You should take hermeneutics.
Futhermore, you argued that "son of" was not used in the same way today as it was back then. This demonstrates it was used in the exact same way as it is used today.
True, the term 'son of' is not as constrictive as it is today. It can also be used to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being.
But let's go back to Luke 3, anyone can conclude from the texts that Luke was recording lineage, no equality of nature.
But don't take my word for it.
Let's continue.
Mt 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God:
Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy! 66 What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”
If 'Son of God' means 'a creation of God', why would the high priest ask Jesus such a question? Following your interpretation of 'son of' meaning 'procreation of', everyone in the room was a son of God. What constitutes blasphemy? Is it claiming to be 'the son of man', sitting at the right hand of power', coming on the clouds of heaven'. Is it one or all three? No, it is claiming to be God. Question = which item mentioned by Jesus constitutes blasphemy? And why?
But I will do your homework for you.
Asking Jesu if He was the 'Son of God' was asking Jesus is He was equal to God. Also, note that only God appears in a cloud; therefore anyone claiming the cloud is claiming deity. That is how Jesus answered the question, and in doing so triggered the high priest to the point of demanding the death of Jesus.
Jn 10:33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
No I am not because a father/son relationship is hierarchical due to the biological.
(Only with regards to adopted sonship is a father/son relationship solely hierarchical.)
Now you are making things up. Hierarchical has nothing to do with biological. Hierarchical pertains to a relationship, status, or authority. A biological relationship is not necessary.
Simple: they are not "two independent centers of consciousness within one spiritual being".
They are two separate beings.
Your quote =
17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”
Again I suggest you read up on the Trinity before you continue to debate.
- Just as I am a being with one center of self-consciousness, who I call “I”, God is a being with three centers of self-consciousness each of which can say “I”.
- I am the Father.
- I am the Son.
- I am the Holy Spirit
- Each has a first-person perspective, each has a separate will, and desires
- They are three distinct persons.
- The Father is not identical to the Son or the Holy Spirit.
- The Son is not identical to the Father or the Holy Spirit
- The Holy Spirit is not identical to the Son or to the Father.
- They are not independent of each other they still belong to the same being.
The citation does not disagree with the Trinity but supports it. Here we have two separate centers of consciousness bearing witness.
Actually, it does because Thomas never doubted who Jesus was--only that he had been resurrected (John 20:25).
Are you saying that Thomas never doubted that Jesus is God? As much as that kills your argument, I cannot agree with that.
Jesus had no reason to correct John since John wasn't calling him God(--just like Jesus wasn't calling those in the crowd his 'mother and brothers' at
Luke 8:21--just like Jonathon wasn't calling David "YHWH God of Israel" at
1 Samuel 20:12).
Talk about pulling verses out the air. Why did you stop here, since what you cited is irrelevant to the topic at hand, you can cite thousands of verses, as much as you want, since there exist no standard as to what is relevant and what is not. What did Thomas say? 'The Lord of me and the God of me." Note thoes carries the definite article "ho" identifying Jesus as his God =YHWH.
The above is nonsense since words are defined based on how they are used(--which is why words are added to the dictionary every year).
Your critique of 'eternal sonship" =
"sonship=the time at which a father begets his male offspring". Ignoring the fact that 'sonship' is being applied to relationship not procreation. And not you write the above? Notice you are playing both sides of the fence.
It is not illogical to believe there exist an eternal hierarchical Father/Son relationship. Definitions do not reason. For example, "Natural Selection" it is neither natural or does it select, but when discussing this Creationist don't spit hairs on the dictionary meaning but understand the expanded meaning.
Again, the only way God and Jesus could have a (solely) "Father / Son relationship based on a hierarchy" is if Jesus was adopted.
Wrong, hierarchy has nothing to do with adoption, it has to do with position of authority. There can and does exist two eternal centers of consciousness where one has authority over the other.
By stating "Horaizo son of human=human", you're attempting to use "God" as a nature (just as human is a nature).
Wrong.
- Essence -is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is; the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition.
- Existence - whereas the essence gives an answer to the question as to what the thing is, the existence is the affirmative to the question as to whether it is.
- God is eternal, existence is of the essence of God,
- Essence and existence are identical in God.
- Nature - is that whereby it acts as it does, the essence considered as the foundation and principle of its operation.
- Love is a marker of God’s essence.
- God’s nature is love.
- Being- signifies the substance of X, what makes X individual.
- “Being” refers to the essential attributes that make God what He is,
- holy
- omnipresent
- omniscient
- immutable
- omnipotent
When using human I am referring to being. =
Human being = one center of consciousness per being.
God = three centers of consciousness fully share the being called God.
Unfortunately, "God" in the phrase "son of God" is never used in that way(--Biblically speaking).
Rather narrow minded. Somethings do not have to be expressed explicitly to be understood. Are you not the champion of this?
I've addressed this
here.
The context surrounding 2 Thess 1:12 can support the translation "our God and Lord Jesus Christ" or "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ"." What decides? I believe the context of vs 11 supports "our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" Just as the context of Titus 2 and 2 Peter 1 supports "our God and Savior Jesus Christ". It is done all the time. Translation has to take into account grammar and context. Note John 1:6,12,13,18 theos does not carry the definite article but is translated as if it does. Why? Why does the translator translate God instead of a god? Because of the context. And note no none trin disagrees with John 1:6,12,13,18 but they do have a hard time with John 1:1c. Why?