My point is that saying that a son is the spitting or splitting (whichever you prefer) image of you, is not the same as saying he is the EXACT image of you. That is the difference. In human terms, there has NEVER been a son that was the EXACT image of his Father. Because to be the EXACT image, he would have to BE his father. That was the whole point.
I simply can't think of an example where something being an image, even an exact image, means that the image is itself the thing. Now, of course, this is God that we're talking about, so I wouldn't expect to find a direct corollary in human experience, but at that point, saying that Jesus being the exact image of God is indicative of him being the Son as distinct from the Father is as likely as it is saying they are the same person. You'll have to reason to me as to why you think being an exact image means that Jesus is necessarily the Father, from this passage. Now, I would say that Jesus is in some measure the exact image of God in the sense of BEING the thing in that he is God, and is of one substance of God. But he also isn't, because Jesus is not God. Thus, image language actually seems the best way of articulating that clearly. If the Son was the Father, the descriptions and language of Hebrews 1 all of a sudden starts to become needlessly obscure.
How do you read the rest of Hebrews 1? The sense is one of a relationship between Father and Son, and they are discussed as relating to each other. Is that kind of language not at least a little bit disingenuous, if not contradictory, if the Father and the Son are the same person?
See, again, you are inserting things that are not there. You said "God as an entirety did not manifest in the flesh." 1 Tim 3:16 says that God WAS manifest in the flesh. I am not pushing it to extremes, I am just reading what it says. But you are saying that is not what it says. If I were to agree with what you are saying, then everywhere the bible makes a statement about God, I would have to say that it is not talking about God as an entirety. You can't say that for one scripture and then not use it anywhere else.
Again, saying that "God was manifest in the flesh" MUST mean all of God was manifest is like saying "Burbank High School appeared at the local show" means every student was there. It does not logically follow, and it's unreasonable to force language to that extreme. Now, when the Bible says things about God at any given point, it may be making points that are descriptive of God in his entirety, or on some aspect of God in particular. My point is that the language of the word 'God' does not ON ITS OWN refer to all of God at any given point unless you are already working on the assumption that Father, Son, and Spirit are not just one substance, but one person. The word itself doesn't have to carry that semiotic force, and requires the context of the passage in order to inform what is clearly to be understood.
Yes he is. Hebrews 10:5 tells us that there was a BODY that was prepared for sacrifice. What body was it? The body of Jesus Christ. Who was in that body? 1 Tim 3:16 tells us that God was in that body. Who is God? 1 Corinthians 8:6 says that the Father is God.
1 Timothy doesn't prove your point on its own, again, unless you already assume a modalist perspective. Certainly, 1 Corinthians 8:6 is quite explicit in putting Jesus and the Father as separate, but similarly divine persons, using the language of the pagan argument Paul is arguing against (that is, gods and lords). It affirms monotheism in opposition to pagan polytheism, but also affirms the linked but distinguishable divine authority of Jesus Christ.
You're connecting threads from disparate places and contexts, while ignoring the immediate context and language of the passages in question. Again, the only way you can put the Father in a body is by first assuming the Father and the Son are the same, as you illustrated in the quote above. Hebrews 10:5 therefore is not a proof for your position. Your argument is circular.
Here again, we are adding words. You are right. You can know ABOUT a person without talking directly to them. But no matter how much information you gather ABOUT them from other people, you still don't KNOW them until you have been WITH them. That is what Jesus was telling him. He was saying I AM the Father and from hence forth you have both SEEN and KNOWN him. Why? Because he had been there with them the whole time IN JESUS CHRIST.
No, I'm not adding words. What's happening is that you're forcing a very extreme and specific interpretation of given words in order to further your argument. It is quite possible today to know people extremely well without meeting them face to face, enough to say you KNOW them. Similarly you can live with someone for 20 years, and still not KNOW them in many respects. So it is not the proximity that matters, but the quality of the relationship.
Therefore, I simply reject your proposition that the only way to know anyone meaningful is to be physically with them, though it often helps. If that is so, then how much more so for Jesus, the exact representation and substance of God (which does not equate to Jesus being the Father), to allow us to know the Father through him? Yes, the Father dwells in the Son, and the Son in the Father. That doesn't mean the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, otherwise the whole discussion of dwelling becomes nonsensical and redundant.
This goes back to what you were saying earlier about entirety. You said that in 1 Tim 3:16 it does not say "God in his entirety was manifest in the flesh." Well here in Colossians 2:9 it does say that. Fullness and Entirety are interchangeable.
It actually says something closer to the entire or all of the
fullness, but go on.
Not really, because I suspect we have different ideas about what fullness is supposed to intimate. Regardless, I disagree that Colossians 2:9 means fullness= literal ontological entirety and therefore 1 Tim 3:16 must mean that all of God, in every sense, literally was in a body. Again, this is borne out several times where it is clear that God continues to exist outside a body while Jesus was on Earth.
So with that being the case, we are told that in Jesus Christ is the ENTIRETY of the Godhead bodily. Now if you believe that God is a trinity, you have a problem because that means there are three separate beings inside of one man. Jesus also said that ALL power belonged to him. Matt 28:18. So if he has ALL of the power, then the Father and the Holy Ghost have NO power because ALL of it was given to Jesus.
I dealt with this above. It is simply not possible that all of God, in every respect, existed in the body of Jesus, because God continues to exist outside of Jesus. So, how do you read the baptism narrative? How do you read the transfiguration?
If you have no problem with Jesus being fully God and fully man (that is, 100% each of two natures), then I don't see why you say that the fullness of God dwelling in Jesus means that therefore all of God, every last bit, was in the body of Jesus. You've already agreed that God can't be reduced to simple arithmetic.
Also, while I think of it, there is this outstanding question from my previous post. Perhaps you could answer it for me, as that will help me understand your position a little better:
Nick01 said:
In any case, what do you make, then, of Jesus' statement that he must go to the Father in that same chapter [John 14]? What does he mean by that, in your reading, if he actually is the Father?
