Getitright
Member
thanks for the reply. second, based on your definition, "God is two separate beings". which is incorrect, for God is ONE BEING and everything else is his creation. with your statement, you have two Gods.
lets examine this closley. the Lord Jesus whom you call the son is the almighty also. Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." and JESUS is Lord. now, is he LORD, all caps. for the LORD is the almighty also, scripture, Genesis 17:1 "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect." now if the LORD, all caps is the same one who is Lord, then all separation and distiction goes right out the window because it would be a lie.
now, either the LORD, (whom you calls the Father), and the Lord, (whom you calls the Son), is the same one person, or you have two almighty persons which is two Gods. and the latter is anti Bible.
so that means that the LORD, all caps is the Lord, the same one person. but that needed to be explain correctly. else as said you have two almighties.
if you like we can discuss this in detail.
PICJAG
Actually, it's not. Jesus said the words He spoke were the Father's. So, there is only one almighty and that is the Father. Paul too acknowledges that the Father spoke through the Son.
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 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; (Heb. 1:1-2 KJV)
God has spoken through His Son and His Son spoke His words. Also notice that Paul says, his Son. God can't be His own Son. That doesn't work.
We also know from the Nicene Creed that the early Christians didn't believe that God and His Son were the same being.
Here is how the Creed begins.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Notice that it says "God of God". The word "of" is the Greek word "ek" which literally means. to come out of. So, what they are saying is, God out of God. The Son was begotten out of God before all worlds. He came out of God.
We also have the witness of the man who is credited with coining the term Trinity as it pertains to the Scriptures.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 4.
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son. Look to it then, that it be not you rather who are destroying the Monarchy, when you overthrow the arrangement and dispensation of it, which has been constituted in just as many names as it has pleased God to employ. But it remains so firm and stable in its own state, notwithstanding the introduction into it of the Trinity, that the Son actually has to restore it entire to the Father; even as the apostle says in his epistle, concerning the very end of all: “When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; for He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet; ” following of course the words of the Psalm: “Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” “When, however, all things shall be subdued to Him, (with the exception of Him who did put all things under Him, ) then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” We thus see that the Son is no obstacle to the Monarchy, although it is now administered by the Son; because with the Son it is still in its own state, and with its own state will be restored to the Father by the Son. No one, therefore, will impair it, on account of admitting the Son (to it), since it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father, and by and by has to be again delivered up by Him to the Father. Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up—and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.
Early Church Fathers - – Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down To A.D. 325.