What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

[Mattathias]

...you typed at the end of one your post, "In The Son of God," Would it be okay with you to type, "IN GOD THE SON?"

I wanted to come back to this, since I’ve been speaking about the Anabaptist faith in this thread.

An Anabaptist man was burned at the stake by Protestants. His crime? Heresy; denying the deity of Christ. The Protestants, in their wrath, went straight savage on him. They used green wood so that it would longer to burn and increase his pain and suffering before he died. The condemned man cried out from the flames, “Jesus, Son of the eternal God, have mercy on me.”

Later, one of the Protestants commented that the condemned man could have been spared if only he had cried out, “Jesus, eternal son of God”.

How you choose to close your posts is okay with me. “In God the Son” is in keeping with your faith. Do I think it would be okay for me to close my posts with “In God the Son”? No. Not only would it be disrespectful toward one of my spiritual ancestors, it would be a betrayal of my faith.

As the Protestant observed, there was (still is?) a life and death difference between “Jesus, Son of the eternal God” and “Jesus, eternal Son of God” in this age, with implications for the age to come.

 

[Mattathias]

Thank you for your sweet reply, you're very kind.

What I meant was that what REALLY matters is what God thinks.....I need to ask Him what He thinks.....not myself. lol!

You have a gentle spirit and a kind heart. It comes through clearly in everything I’ve heard you say. That’s why you have my attention.

I agree that we need to ask God what he thinks rather than going it alone.

 

[bluto]

Thank you for asking. It’s a long story. I’ll try to be brief.

It was impressed on me early in life by my Sunday School teacher that we should listen to Jesus, believe what he said, and obey him. This same dear man gave a lesson on loving our enemies. Whatever else he taught us, these are the two things which I took to heart and remember over 50 years later.

I am a pacifist. I’ve never believed that killing my enemies is loving my enemies. I don’t believe Jesus is pleased with Christians killing non-Christians, nor with Christians killing Christians. The Baptist Church tolerates pacifists but doesn’t preach pacifism. As the years passed I sought out historical documentation on pacifism, particularly documentation from Christian sources. It was during that effort that I learned about the Anabaptists. They were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants for their beliefs.

Anabaptists have a trinitarian line and a unitarian line. (For the unitarian line, see the Radical Reformation). I was no longer welcome in the Baptist Church after I came to believe that the God of Jesus (the Father alone) is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Those are the major issues which lead to me moving from Baptist to Anabaptist.

I decided to do some more research on this subject. I found the following article on what was going on with the Council of Chalcedon. The article clears it up for me, especially the second from last paragraph that starts out: "The Fathers at Chalcedon set themselves firmly against both of the unholesom tendencies."

The two "tendencies" were the teachings of "Nestorianism" and what "Anticochenes" taught. They were sort of the aftermath of the Arian heresy that the Council of Nicea dealt with at 326. Btw, the various "Creeds" were developed as heretical teachings were trying in infiltrate the Church. There are even "creeds" within the Bible itself. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is a creed.

I also agree completely with the second to last paragraph. Oops, here is the article: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/truly-god-truly-man-council-chalcedon/

I guess my problem with you Mattathias was the way you presented or explained your argument? It just was not clear enough even though you posted sources that seemed to be unclear as well.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Mattathias]

I decided to do some more research on this subject. I found the following article on what was going on with the Council of Chalcedon. The article clears it up for me, especially the second from last paragraph that starts out: "The Fathers at Chalcedon set themselves firmly against both of the unholesom tendencies."

The two "tendencies" were the teachings of "Nestorianism" and what "Anticochenes" taught. They were sort of the aftermath of the Arian heresy that the Council of Nicea dealt with at 326.

I find it very easy to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Btw, the various "Creeds" were developed as heretical teachings were trying in infiltrate the Church.

Most of the creeds were developed after the Church veered away from the Jewish unitarian faith it began with. Once that was done, creeds were developed to ward off challenges to what had become established orthodoxy.

There are even "creeds" within the Bible itself.

Yes. Are you aware of what happened to Jesus’ creed in the days of Justinian? And why it happened?

I guess my problem with you Mattathias was the way you presented or explained your argument? It just was not clear enough...

What is unclear about saying “Jesus was God who became man” is incompatible with and contradictory of historical orthodox trinitarianism teaching “Jesus is not a human person”?

I also want our readers to be clear that I have no problem with you. My issue is with the trinitarian clergy.

…even though you posted sources that seemed to be unclear as well.

The sources I quoted were from trinitarians who hold to historical orthodox trinitarianism. I think they are crystal clear. As I commented earlier, everything they say is exactly what I was taught in the Southern Baptist Church and my wife was taught in the Roman Catholic Church (and school system).

 

[bluto]

I find it very easy to understand what they were doing and why they were doing it.



Most of the creeds were developed after the Church veered away from the Jewish unitarian faith it began with. Once that was done, creeds were developed to ward off challenges to what had become established orthodoxy.



Yes. Are you aware of what happened to Jesus’ creed in the days of Justinian? And why it happened?



What is unclear about saying “Jesus was God who became man” is incompatible with and contradictory of historical orthodox trinitarianism teaching “Jesus is not a human person”?

I also want our readers to be clear that I have no problem with you. My issue is with the trinitarian clergy.



The sources I quoted were from trinitarians who hold to historical orthodox trinitarianism. I think they are crystal clear. As I commented earlier, everything they say is exactly what I was taught in the Southern Baptist Church and my wife was taught in the Roman Catholic Church (and school system).

Look, it's all a matter of one's perspective. I saw it differently than you did. Some things may appear clear to one person and not to another. Even you said, "Have you ever been to a church that taught, "Jesus is not a human person?" In my mind "red flags" popped up. Then after I read the article i could see clearly what they meant by ther Council making the statement in a context I understood. Btw, did I read that your a professor? Is it at Biola college?

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Mattathias]

What is unclear about saying “Jesus was God who became man” is incompatible with and contradictory of historical orthodox trinitarianism teaching “Jesus is not a human person”?

Correction. There would be nothing incompatible and contradictory had you said “Jesus was God who became man”. That’s what trinitarianism teaches.

The incompatible and contradictory statement is the one you actually made, “Jesus was God who became a human person.”

“Jesus was God who became man” = compatible and in agreement with “Jesus is not a human person.”

”Jesus was God who became a human person” = incompatible with and contradictory of “Jesus is not a human person.”

 

[Mattathias]

Look, it's all a matter of one's perspective.

There was a time when you would have been tortured by the trinitarians until you confessed, and killed if you didn’t recant, for saying “Jesus was God who became a human person.”

Even you said, "Have you ever been to a church that taught, "Jesus is not a human person?" In my mind "red flags" popped up.

Red flags should have popped up. That’s the whole point. The trinitarian clergy is withholding, for various reasons, the information from the people in their care.

Then after I read the article i could see clearly what they meant by ther Council making the statement in a context I understood.

I’m still not sure that you do, but I’m willing to accept that you do. My point is that it is the duty of the trinitarian clergy to ensure that those in their care do understand. They are neglecting their duty.

Btw, did I read that your a professor?

Yes, but I’m retired. (I’m also a retired pastor and a retired civil engineer. I work now as a volunteer chaplain, primarily counseling neglected and abused children, but also pastoral counseling with others. I‘m also a volunteer leader of an after-school program at the local elementary school for 3rd-5th grade boys who are at risk of being neglected and/or abused. They wear me out. And I love it.)

Is it at Biola college?

No. I’m acquainted with some of the staff but I’ve never been on staff there. I taught at a couple of colleges in the US and Africa.

 

[bluto]

Thank you for asking. It’s a long story. I’ll try to be brief.

It was impressed on me early in life by my Sunday School teacher that we should listen to Jesus, believe what he said, and obey him. This same dear man gave a lesson on loving our enemies. Whatever else he taught us, these are the two things which I took to heart and remember over 50 years later.

I am a pacifist. I’ve never believed that killing my enemies is loving my enemies. I don’t believe Jesus is pleased with Christians killing non-Christians, nor with Christians killing Christians. The Baptist Church tolerates pacifists but doesn’t preach pacifism. As the years passed I sought out historical documentation on pacifism, particularly documentation from Christian sources. It was during that effort that I learned about the Anabaptists. They were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants for their beliefs.

Anabaptists have a trinitarian line and a unitarian line. (For the unitarian line, see the Radical Reformation). I"

Those are the major issues which lead to me moving from Baptist to Anabaptist.

Hey Mattathias! Your statement here also peeked my interest,

Thank you for asking. It’s a long story. I’ll try to be brief.

It was impressed on me early in life by my Sunday School teacher that we should listen to Jesus, believe what he said, and obey him. This same dear man gave a lesson on loving our enemies. Whatever else he taught us, these are the two things which I took to heart and remember over 50 years later.

I am a pacifist. I’ve never believed that killing my enemies is loving my enemies. I don’t believe Jesus is pleased with Christians killing non-Christians, nor with Christians killing Christians. The Baptist Church tolerates pacifists but doesn’t preach pacifism. As the years passed I sought out historical documentation on pacifism, particularly documentation from Christian sources. It was during that effort that I learned about the Anabaptists. They were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants for their beliefs.

Anabaptists have a trinitarian line and a unitarian line. (For the unitarian line, see the Radical Reformation). I was no longer welcome in the Baptist Church after I came to believe that the God of Jesus (the Father alone) is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Those are the major issues which lead to me moving from Baptist to Anabaptist.

This statement of yours also "peeked" my interest. "I was no longer welcome in the Baptist Church after I came to believe that the God of Jesus (the Father alone) is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Since Jesus Christ is God would not He be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?" I'm specifically referring to the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[soggykitten]

We all know that when one ask the question, "Who is Jesus Christ" the inevitable answer will be, "He is the Son of God." Okay, but what does that really mean? Does it mean Jesus is the Son of God just like Christians are called and identified as the sons of God? No, Christians are "adopted" sons of God, we are not "THE" Son of God in an exclusive sense as pointed out at John 3:16.

The Jews have what is known as "idioms" just like all nationalities have idioms. One of the idioms they have is "the son of" idiom. For example in the Old Testament you will read various phrases like, "Sons of prophets," refer to men belogning to a prophetic band. (1 Kings 20:35). Sons of the goldsmiths refers to a goldsmith (Nehemiah 3:31). How about "Sons of affliction are afflicted ones. (Proverbs 31:8). Sons of valor, is simply a brave man. (1 Samuel 14:52.) There are literally thousands of these idioms throughout the Bible.

The idiom also demonstrates one posse3ssing a certain nature. The idiom, "son of man" clealy exhibits the use of the word "son" to show the possession of a certain nature. This is brought out at Numbers 23:19. "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." The "son of man" idiom is used throughout the Bible. Ezekiel 2:1, 3:3,4, 10:4. Job 25:6, Psalm 8:4 and in the book of Daniel. Jesus Christ often referred to Himself as the "Son of Man" and as the "Son of God."

The idiom is also present in the New Testament. Sons of peace refers to a peaceful person. (Luke 10:6). Sons of Abraham are those like him in the exercise of faith. (Galatians 3:7). Son of perdition is the lost one. This refers to two persons, Judas and the antichrist. (John 17:12) (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

At this point I want to explain how all of this applys to Jesus Christ. But first let me say I am not going to explain the terms "Firstborn" or the term "Only Begotten," (although I could) as it pertains to Jesus Christ. I am not going to get into the weeds about explaining the Trinity either.

The most important question for me is the one that Jesus ask His disciples at Matthew 16:13, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" Notice what Peter says at vs16, "Thou are the Christ/Messiah, the Son of the living God." How did Peter know this? Verse 17, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, BUT MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN."

Now, I'm going to address the argument from the "anti's" that the Jews misunderstood, or did not understand their own scriptures, or the reasons why they hated Him as it pertains to the claims of Jesus. Here's the question? Whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understood Jesus is NOT the isssue. The issue is "What was it that Jesus said that caused them to accuse Him of blasphemy resulting in His death/crucifixion?

John 5:17-18, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." Vs18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because (or why), He not only was breaking the Sabbath but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." Jesus knew who He was even at an early age. Luke 2:48-49, When His mother and father were looking for Him He says at vs49, "Why is it that you were looking for Me. Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

John 8:56-59, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." The Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham? vs58, Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you before Abraham was born (or sprang into exitence) I am." Vs59, "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

John 10:30-37. "I and the Father are one." There is more to this verse than Jesus just saying He and the Father are one in purpose. Of course they are one in purpose otherwise there would be no reason for them to say at vs31, "The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him." Jesus ask why are you stoning Me? Vs33, "The Jews answered Him, for a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out God." At verse 34-36 Jesus brings up Psalm 82:6, why?

Notice that it is Jesus who brings up the subject of God and not the subject of Him and the Father being one in purpose. At vs36 Jesus says, "do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, (Jesus was not a created being, He was sent into the world by God His Father). "You are blaspheming because I said, I AM THE SON OF GOD." So again, why did Jesus bring up Psalm 82:6?

At John 19:7 the Jews appeal to Pilate and Pilate says (vs6) "I find no guilt in Him" the Jews say, Vs7, We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He make Himself OUT THE SON OF GOD." So again, if the Jews misunderstood Jesus why did they bring up the law at John 19:7? The law that Jesus supposedly broke is at Leviticus 24:16.

Now we come to the complete trial record at Matthew 26:57-68. I'm not going to quote all the verses but explain the main points. At vs59, "the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain FALSE testimony against Jesus, in order to PUT HIM TO DEATH." at vs63, the high priest Caiaphas says, " I adjure You (he wants Jesus to swear as to His identity), "I adjure you by the living God, that You tell us whether (Whether means in either case). So the high priest is asking the one person of Jesus Christ are You (1) the Christ/Messiah and (2) THE SON OF GOD."

In Luke's account Jesus says, "Yes, I am." Then at vs65 of Matthew 26:65, "Then the high priest tore his robes saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have heard the blasphemy;" So, why would Jesus be accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of God since the Jews themselves claim to be sons of God? It is not blasphemous offense to claim to be the "Messiah/Christ. In fact all through history people have come along claiming to be the Messiah even including today and none of them have been put to death for making the claim.

In summing up, please read what the Apostle John's authorial intent was at John 20:30-31 right after Thomas made his declaration to Jesus Christ that He/Jesus was his "Lord and God." "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; vs31, but these have been written that you may beleive that JESUS IS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD; and that believing you may have life in his name."

So we went full circle from Jesus asking, "Who do people say that I am" and Peter saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" to the conclusion by the Apostle John that "you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, The Son of God." To me, it's "inconceivable" that Jesus Christ is "a son of God" just like the rest of us.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

I'll take a shot.
I think Hebrew nomenclature and culture has to be considered in order to approach the question.
In his time it appeared that Joseph was his dad. When people would refer to or at times address a Hebrew male being there were no surnames at that time, (last names), the son would be considered to be one born in the house of, their fathers name.
That means Emmanuel, the name the Angel Gabriel told Mary her son would be called, and because that very name Emmanuel would inform all who were introduced this is before you is God, would have in Hebrew culture been referred to as, Emmanuel bin Joseph.
Bin meaning, son, adding, of to that identity. Emmanuel son of Joseph.
Because Emmanuel was of the house of Joseph, his sire.
Emmanuel, or Jesus, was the son of Joseph, in that appearing as flesh and blood human with a mother, Mary, in that culture of the time there were no single moms. Well, not those that lived to be so in most cases. The sire of the male child was the identity of the family and tribal line.
Emmanuel with his parents present looked like a small family, though Jesus did have brothers.

When we hear Jesus, Emmanuel, called son of God, it is the same thing in human terms in that God "sired" Emmanuel. Jesus was Holy Spirit God who entered Mary's womb in the form of a baby so as to be born into this world. His appearance as a Hebrew male with a family let Jesus speak to those chosen to receive the new covenant. Because they could not behold the Holy Spirit himself because God would not let that occur.
People in the Bible did say they met with God, but there is no record in my reading of the Bible that says they met the full on Holy Spirit, synonymous with God, really a verb or title itself.

That's my shot. Could have missed by a mile but I get brownie points for trying.
Now, pass the brownies! Don't worry, I do share.

 

[Mattathias]

This statement of yours also "peeked" my interest. "I was no longer welcome in the Baptist Church after I came to believe that the God of Jesus (the Father alone) is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Since Jesus Christ is God would not He be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?"

There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Does Jesus Christ himself have a God? If he does, then his God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[Heavenian]

Son of GOD means "GOD in the Human body" that is GOD in the Flesh. Before the coming of JESUS CHRIST, GOD never had a body but when the WORD became Flesh, GOD had a Body (John 1:1-15). JESUS is the Body of GOD. Remember GOD our HOLY FATHER is SPIRIT, and JESUS is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Again it is written, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16)."

When we go to Heaven, the only Person we shall see setting on the Glorious Throne is "JESUS CHRIST" because HE is GOD HIMSELF. Period.

 

[EternalFire]

Son of GOD means "GOD in the Human body" that is GOD in the Flesh. Before the coming of JESUS CHRIST, GOD never had a body but when the WORD became Flesh, GOD had a Body (John 1:1-15). JESUS is the Body of GOD. Remember GOD our HOLY FATHER is SPIRIT, and JESUS is the image of the invisible GOD, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Again it is written, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16)."

When we go to Heaven, the only Person we shall see setting on the Glorious Throne is "JESUS CHRIST" because HE is GOD HIMSELF. Period.

Help, please? I’m still working on understanding the “God in three persons” terminology. According to the verse you quoted—GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16)—is what I’ve written below the correct Trinitarian understanding? I want to be able to sort out which Divine Person is doing what, in addition to what is happening to each Divine Person.

Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was manifest in the flesh of Divine Person 2 of 3 in 1 Triune God, Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was justified in the Divine Person 3 of 3 in 1 Triune God, Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was seen of Angels, Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was preached unto the Gentiles, Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was believed on in the world, Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was received up into glory (1 Timothy 3:16).

 

[Nehemiah6]

Divine Person 1 of 3 in 1 Triune God was manifest in the flesh...

It should be obvious that "God manifest in the flesh" applies to Jesus Christ, who is (1) God, (2) God the Word, (3) the Son of God, (4) God the Son, (5) the only begotten Son of God, and (6) the second person of the triune Godhead.

What that verse starts out by saying is that God became a Man, and that He was fully God and fully Man at one and the same time. Now you can either (1) accept it by faith or (2) reject it and face the consequences.

God the Father is a Spirit, and so is God the Holy Spirit.

1. God the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit.
2. God the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit.
3. God the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

 

[Mattathias]

There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Does Jesus Christ himself have a God? If he does, then his God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

There is a human person [a Jew, the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth] sitting at the right hand of God [Yahweh, the living God, the Father, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one and only true God, the God of the human Jewish person seated at his right hand] in heaven.

This resonates with me as being true to the biblical storyline, against the suggestion that God is sitting beside himself.

 

[Mattathias]

I'm specifically referring to the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.

bluto - the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (aka God the Son).

Mattathias - the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament and in the New Testament is an angel.

The angel of the Lord cannot possibly be Jesus in the New Testament appearances. I presume that’s why you confined identification of the angel of the Lord as the Son to appearances in the Old Testament.

Hebrew phrase “malakh YHVH” can be translated “an angel of the Lord” or “the angel of the Lord”. The phrase occurs 65 times in the Old Testament. How many of these occurrences do you attribute to pre-incarnate appearances of the Son?

In other words, on how many occasions do you believe the Son is speaking in the Old Testament?

 

[Mattathias]

Since Jesus Christ is God would not He be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?" I'm specifically referring to the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament.

I’ll select one passage where the phrase “the angel of the Lord“ occurs in the OT which I doubt will be among the OT passages which you‘re going to identify as pre-incarnate appearances by the Son. If you do think this passage is one where you believe the Son is speaking, that’s fine.

What I’m hoping to establish with this example is agreement that the phrase “the angel of the Lord,” in and of itself, does not equate to a pre-incarnate appearance of the Son.

“Then the angel of the LORD said, ‘O LORD of hosts, how long will You have no compassion for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which You have been indignant these seventy years?”

(Zechariah 1:12 NASB)

The Son speaking or not the Son speaking?

 

[bluto]

bluto - the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ (aka God the Son).

Mattathias - the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament and in the New Testament is an angel.

The angel of the Lord cannot possibly be Jesus in the New Testament appearances. I presume that’s why you confined identification of the angel of the Lord as the Son to appearances in the Old Testament.

Hebrew phrase “malakh YHVH” can be translated “an angel of the Lord” or “the angel of the Lord”. The phrase occurs 65 times in the Old Testament. How many of these occurrences do you attribute to pre-incarnate appearances of the Son?

In other words, on how many occasions do you believe the Son is speaking in the Old Testament?

Ok Mattathias, what do we have here? You said, "the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament and in the New Testament is an angel." And yes, I am familiar with the Hebrew word, "malakh" which simply means "messenger." I'm not concerned as to how many times the phrase is used. The CONTEXT determines whether or not it's "THE" angel of the Lord or "AN/A" angel of the Lord. There is only one "THE" angel of the Lord and as a side note "THE" angel of the Lord never appears in the New Testament, although He is mentioned in the NT by Stephen at Acts 7. The other thing you should know is there is a difference in definition between the word, "the" and the words "an/a." I will explain the difference later.

Now, the angel of the Lord first appears as the angel of the Lord at Genesis 16:7. He confronts Hagar and says to her, vs9, Then the angel of the Lord said to her, Return to your mistress/Sarah, and submit yourself to her. "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they shall be too many to count." At vs11 he says your with child. Vs12, He says he will be a wild donkey of a man, everyone's hand will be against him etc.

She says at vs13, "The she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, "Thou are a God who sees, for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him." Now for Genesis 17:1-2. Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; Walk before Me, and be blameless. vs2, "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you, And I will multiply you exceedingly."

My question to you is this? Is the angel of the Lord who appeared to Abram the same being who appeared to Abram at Genesis 17:1-2? Btw, this was a physical appearance by God to Abram. PS: Trust me, this is going to be fun!

IN THE ANGEL OF THE LORD,
bluto

 

[EternalFire]

It should be obvious that "God manifest in the flesh" applies to Jesus Christ, who is (1) God, (2) God the Word, (3) the Son of God, (4) God the Son, (5) the only begotten Son of God, and (6) the second person of the triune Godhead.

What that verse starts out by saying is that God became a Man, and that He was fully God and fully Man at one and the same time. Now you can either (1) accept it by faith or (2) reject it and face the consequences.

God the Father is a Spirit, and so is God the Holy Spirit.

1. God the Father is neither the Son nor the Spirit.
2. God the Son is neither the Father nor the Spirit.
3. God the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.

So God at the beginning of this verse means the 1 Triune God who is the 3 Divine Persons known as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit?

The 1 Triune God who is the 3 Divine Persons known as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit was manifest in the flesh of Divine Person 2 of 3 (who is 100% Divine and 100% Human) in 1 Triune God.

Is that more accurate to your Trinitarian understanding? If not, please spell it out with the actual verse, the whole verse, referencing who is who.

 

[Nehemiah6]

If not, please spell it out with the actual verse, the whole verse, referencing who is who.

There's no point wasting any more time with you, since you have chosen to be deliberately obtuse.

 

[EternalFire]

There's no point wasting any more time with you, since you have chosen to be deliberately obtuse.

Thank you for your attempt to try and explain what you believe.