Even granting your position creates a problem. One, you've created a second God just like human begetting creates a second human. Two, begetting also presupposes a beginning of a person. So when the word is initally used of Jesus the only direct creation account of Jesus is his virgin birth. Which is unique.
I don't see the problems you suggest. The Son was divine at his "begetting" (which happened at a point in time prior to creation), but a “begotten” son was always inferior to his father in rank. The Son was not the one true "unbegotten" God.
@@ThePristineFaith Human begets Human, 2 humans. God begets God, 2 Gods. Really simple. You're polytheistic for the definition of "God" or you're going to collapse them by equivocating the word "God" like when you used the word "divine" to hide it's meaning. Some of the early church called Jesus another lesser god than God the Father(see Dialogue with Trypho). The Bible affirms the title "god" may go to lesser beings as a representational term for the one God the Father in authority. Where does the Scripture say Jesus was begotten prior to creation? I have no problem accepting Arian like views as I see how people get them, just more study showed it less likely and problematic for creating a 2 person Jesus.
I don't know where the idea came from that Biblical Unitarians believe adoptionism; they do not. It's standard BU christology to believe that Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, begotten by the one God in the virgin Mary by the agency of the Holy Spirit, as Luke and Matthew tell us plainly. Those authors record that Jesus was begotten by God in Mary (Mat 1:20), and that for that reason he is called the Son of God (Lk 1:35)... what no one can find in either account is any statement of ontological equality. That's because what God miraculously begat was a man, and apparently neither the apostle nor Luke shared the assumption that what God miraculously begets in a virgin must share His nature. Nor, for that matter do we have any reason to think that these authors believed that God could be divided into 'person' and 'nature', as creatures can be. We must remember, after all, that God is not a man with a body and physical reproductive organs; nor did He beget in the manner men do, sexually. Yet, it seems as though these things must necessarily follow as well from this logic, if we are going to say that God's generation of Jesus must in all ways be like the way that one animal generates another. While I understand where these Nicene ideas come from, they end up trying to answer questions the Bible has already given us other straightforward answers to, namely, the origin story of Jesus presented by Matthew and Luke.
Elijah 145 The term "god" is just a title. Nothing to do with nature. Purely relational. Jesus pre-existed his earthly birth. He says so himself in a riddle. Matt 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44. Biblically, a father is always greater than his son. The answer to this riddle is that Jesus existed before David.
Unitarianism does not equate to denial of Christs divinity that is inaccurate. Unitarians simply believe that the father is the eternal God from before the beginning without beginning or end of days from which all living proceeded and that Christ came out of the father who is one person. Check all of scripture before attempt at refuting.
@@ThePristineFaith I know there are Trinitarians who believe God became fully man and was only man on earth but what do I say to those who say God can't cease to be God and can't change???
Thats totally nuts what you are saying , ....then we are all Gods , and Adam too , Jesus was the last adam ....made exactly like him , but begotten ....he has to be a man to be our examole , period .
Jesus was fully man, but he was begotten of the Father prior to his incarnation, thus he was divine in origin and in his essence prior to the incarnation. But he divested himself of his equality with the Father to fully experience the human condition.
It is written you are Gods all of you are sons of the most high yet you will die like men. The word God is just a title. In truth the meaning does not denote the identity of a person only their title position. This is why the most high gave a name to show us exactly which person of power/authority(God) he was. This is why the word elohim is used both plural and singular. It is a class just as it is used in the scriptures. This is the cultural understanding of the people of the scriptures in ancient times. Don't take a word for it though study and see.
@@gustavmahler1466 he doesn't change but the way he talks with us does because we change all the time as our language changes too. The 1st cause the most high is immortal and never mortal though he may dwell within mortality as he is spirit but his spirit cannot die. Human beings clearly can die. Unless we recieve immortality from the immortal 1st cause the father of all living. I believe this was and is the God Jesus taught.
Even granting your position creates a problem. One, you've created a second God just like human begetting creates a second human. Two, begetting also presupposes a beginning of a person. So when the word is initally used of Jesus the only direct creation account of Jesus is his virgin birth. Which is unique.
I don't see the problems you suggest. The Son was divine at his "begetting" (which happened at a point in time prior to creation), but a “begotten” son was always inferior to his father in rank. The Son was not the one true "unbegotten" God.
"God" is a title. "Deity" is a 'kind'. The Son of God is deity. YHWH the Father is the only one with the title "God".
@@ThePristineFaith Human begets Human, 2 humans. God begets God, 2 Gods. Really simple. You're polytheistic for the definition of "God" or you're going to collapse them by equivocating the word "God" like when you used the word "divine" to hide it's meaning.
Some of the early church called Jesus another lesser god than God the Father(see Dialogue with Trypho). The Bible affirms the title "god" may go to lesser beings as a representational term for the one God the Father in authority.
Where does the Scripture say Jesus was begotten prior to creation? I have no problem accepting Arian like views as I see how people get them, just more study showed it less likely and problematic for creating a 2 person Jesus.
ThePristineFaith that’s still Unitarian what you described bro. It’s just an Arian view (in as far you described it here)
I don't know where the idea came from that Biblical Unitarians believe adoptionism; they do not. It's standard BU christology to believe that Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, begotten by the one God in the virgin Mary by the agency of the Holy Spirit, as Luke and Matthew tell us plainly. Those authors record that Jesus was begotten by God in Mary (Mat 1:20), and that for that reason he is called the Son of God (Lk 1:35)... what no one can find in either account is any statement of ontological equality. That's because what God miraculously begat was a man, and apparently neither the apostle nor Luke shared the assumption that what God miraculously begets in a virgin must share His nature. Nor, for that matter do we have any reason to think that these authors believed that God could be divided into 'person' and 'nature', as creatures can be. We must remember, after all, that God is not a man with a body and physical reproductive organs; nor did He beget in the manner men do, sexually. Yet, it seems as though these things must necessarily follow as well from this logic, if we are going to say that God's generation of Jesus must in all ways be like the way that one animal generates another.
While I understand where these Nicene ideas come from, they end up trying to answer questions the Bible has already given us other straightforward answers to, namely, the origin story of Jesus presented by Matthew and Luke.
Elijah 145 The term "god" is just a title. Nothing to do with nature. Purely relational.
Jesus pre-existed his earthly birth. He says so himself in a riddle. Matt 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44. Biblically, a father is always greater than his son. The answer to this riddle is that Jesus existed before David.
Unitarianism does not equate to denial of Christs divinity that is inaccurate. Unitarians simply believe that the father is the eternal God from before the beginning without beginning or end of days from which all living proceeded and that Christ came out of the father who is one person. Check all of scripture before attempt at refuting.
All living creatures came from the dirt by the power of God. Why does Luke say something similar about the how Jesus came into existence?
This kenosis heresy is an attack to God. The trinity is always the trinity in your case there is somewhat a period where God is twonity.
How can God empty himself and be fully God?
The Son of God emptied himself. "God" is a relational term, not an ontological abstract term.
@@ThePristineFaith I know there are Trinitarians who believe God became fully man and was only man on earth but what do I say to those who say God can't cease to be God and can't change???
@@ThePristineFaith if God is a relational term then there are many Gods just as the scriptures state. The who is what is really in question.
If
Jesus emptied his divinity that is a paradox. It is like stating a God creating a stone he can't carry.
@@gustavmahler1466 there is a veiling of his nature not subtracting.
Thats totally nuts what you are saying , ....then we are all Gods , and Adam too , Jesus was the last adam ....made exactly like him , but begotten ....he has to be a man to be our examole , period .
Jesus was fully man, but he was begotten of the Father prior to his incarnation, thus he was divine in origin and in his essence prior to the incarnation. But he divested himself of his equality with the Father to fully experience the human condition.
@@ThePristineFaith Problem God cannot cease to be God and cannot change
It is written you are Gods all of you are sons of the most high yet you will die like men. The word God is just a title. In truth the meaning does not denote the identity of a person only their title position. This is why the most high gave a name to show us exactly which person of power/authority(God) he was. This is why the word elohim is used both plural and singular. It is a class just as it is used in the scriptures. This is the cultural understanding of the people of the scriptures in ancient times. Don't take a word for it though study and see.
@@gustavmahler1466 he doesn't change but the way he talks with us does because we change all the time as our language changes too. The 1st cause the most high is immortal and never mortal though he may dwell within mortality as he is spirit but his spirit cannot die. Human beings clearly can die. Unless we recieve immortality from the immortal 1st cause the father of all living. I believe this was and is the God Jesus taught.