Jesus Christ Is Not the Father or the Holy Gost

The Op makes it clear the distiction of God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit .

But needs to be clear that Jesus was God, not a lessor god, not a created being.

It also needs to mention the unity of the GodHead, one God three distinct personalities that are separable
 
Thread starter #22
Genesis 14:18

Just out of curiosity whats your thoughts on Melchizedek?
Gen. 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

Many idle stories and unscriptural interpretations have been given about Melchizedek; But the Bible states very simple facts about him which will give us a clear understanding of the subject, if we will limit ourselves to what is written.
He was king of Salem, which is the name of ancient Jerusalem. v. 18; Ps. 76:2; 122:3; Heb. 7:1, 2).

Bread and wine, these are the emblems of the Lord's Supper, showing that Melchizedek and the patriarchs fully understood the doctrine of atonement (Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:1, 2; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; Luke 22:14-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-34).

A priest the first of the word and proves that God has had representatives in all ages. Melchizedek was Gentile whose priesthood is eternal in Christ (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-28). The Aaronic priesthood was temporary (Heb. 7:11, 12).

Melchizedek----7fold type of Christ (Gen. 14:18) in

1. Genealogy (Heb. 7:3, 6 with Mic. 5:2)
2. Sacrifice (14:18 with Luke 22:14-30)
3. Endless priesthood (Ps. 110 with Heb. 5:10; 6:20; 7:3, 17, 21, 23-28)
4. King-priest (Heb. 7:1 with Zech. 6:12, 13)
5. Greater than Abraham (Heb. 7:4-8 with Jn. 8:55-59)
6. King of righteousness (Heb. 7:2 with 1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 1:8)
7. King of peace (Heb. 7:2 with Isa. 9:6)
The contrast between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods is the person, order and duration in His sacrificial work Christ followed the Aaronic which was merely the shadow of His sacrifice (Heb. 8:1-10:19).

Most high God Heb. EL-ELYON Most high God. First occurrence (v. 18-22). EL signifies Strong, first. It is the title that shows God to be the Mighty One, the first cause of everything, the possessor of the heavens and earth. It is used 245 times and is connected with some of the attributes of God as Al-mighty-God Gen. 17:1; Everlasting-God Gen. 21:33; Jealous-God Ex. 20:5; Great-God Dt. 10:17; Living-God Josh. 3:10; Merciful-God Dt. 4:31; Faithful-God Dt. 7:9; Mighty-God Dt. 7:21). In Dt. 32:4 it is connected with truth, justice, righteousness and perfection. EL-ELYON is always used to refer to the highest Sovereign of the heavens and earth (Luke 1:76; Acts 17:24).
 
Ephesians 1:3-5
3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms. 4For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless in His presence. In love 5He predestined us for adoption as His sons through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of His will,

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

We know from scripture that God(singular) predestined us to be in the image of his Son.

Not really a Trinity or Oneness question but is their any other reason, other than predestination, that the Messiah had to be;
A) God(singular)
B) God the Son(duality)
C) The Son of God(deity)

Did the Messiah have to be a son? Is so, why? What's the importance or reason of the Messiah being a son? Especially the Son of God.

I'm wondering why or the difference between God incarnate vs the preexisting Son incarnate.
Why a Son? Why didn't God just come as God?
Why did God predestine us to be in the image of his Son instead of the Son predestining us to be in the image of himself? If there was a preexisting Trinity, it seems like scripture would say; "God the Son made us in his image" instead of "God made us in the image of his Son."

There must be a connection to sonship or a child of God dying for children of God. Our adoption of an inheritance we share with God's Son. It's just something about this sonship and inheritance sharing that makes it appear God's Son is his Son and not himself.
When we see Jesus and become like him. We won't become like his Father. We won't become God other than in unity.

God will still be able to be in one place and Jesus in another.
Otherwise God(Oneness) would have come to the earth as himself. He wouldn't have to morph back and forth between Father and Son like in the Oneness belief. In Oneness God can't be both at the same time. He has to be one or the other.
 
Jesus as God was in Heaven while on earth as a man.

He was the (only) image of the invisable God.

Conformed to be the image of His Son is not salvation or spiritual maturity it is becoming a human being, a prerequisite of sinful spiriual beings to be saved.

How can we be conformed before we are call or justified?
 
He was the (only) image of the invisable God.

Conformed to be the image of His Son is not salvation or spiritual maturity it is becoming a human being, a prerequisite of sinful spiriual beings to be saved.

How can we be conformed before we are call or justified?
The Son was the only image of God. We are made in the image of the Son. You think this "image" is becoming human? You think God is human?

"He predestined us for adoption as His sons"
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"
(This means becoming Human?)

When we see the Son and become like him; what does that mean?
 
I still see something about son-ship, God's Son, adoption, image of Son, inheritance, and seeing Jesus as he is and becoming like him.

That appears to be more than just spirits becoming human. Still appears to be some importance of Jesus being a Son. I see this as being more of an issue than Jesus being God.
Jesus had to be God's son because we were made in his Son's image. Maybe he had to be a son to be the firstborn. He had to do what Adam couldn't. Maybe there are some other reasons one could share.

He had to be a Son for some reason or God would have just come to the earth as Jesus in a Oneness sense. God would not have made us in the image of his Son. The Son would have made us in the image of himself.
There would be no Trinity if a Son was not the one who was coming. God in a Oneness way would have come to the earth. He would have sent himself to die for our sins. Yet he sent his Son. God sent his Son. God the Son did not send himself to die for our sins.
God, the Father of Jesus, sent his Son to die for our sins. God, the Father of Jesus, made us in the image of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter #29
That Melchizedek Was An Ordinary Man

He is called a "Man" in Heb. 7:4 He had a "descent" or genealogy but it was not counted (Heb. 7:6). He was an ordinary man who lived in the days of Abraham, as plainly taught in Gen. 14:17-24; Heb. 7:1-11. He was without recorded father or mother, beginning of days and end of life, so that he could be a type of Christ Who really had no beginning or end of days and Who was to be a priest after his order forever (Heb. 6:20).
 
The Son was the only image of God. We are made in the image of the Son. You think this "image" is becoming human? You think God is human?

"He predestined us for adoption as His sons"
"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"
(This means becoming Human?)

When we see the Son and become like him; what does that mean?
God was human. Real human, flesh and blood, not an apparition. That is Gnosticism



He foreknew you because you had a relationship before with him. You existed as a spirit before you were "predestinated" (His choosing of place, time, family).
He chose for you to be human, to make a choice to be saved.
He called you out of sin and justified you through being human with Jesus death

He did choose you for ekection but has set aside all these blessing for those WHO do chose to be sons of God.

Jhn 1:12

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Who has the opportunity and ability to be redeemed?
 
Thread starter #32
The Truth About Jesus Christ

1. Peter received a revelation from the Father in Heaven of the Sonship of Jesus (Matt. 16:17) and also actually heard the Father's voice from Heaven say of the Son on Earth, "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him" (Matt. 17:5). Peter later testified that this voice came from Heaven and that it was not a voice inside of Jesus (through practice of ventriloquism). He said later that came "FROM GOD the Father . . . FROM the excellent glory . . . FROM Heaven (2 Pet. 1:16-18). John the Baptist also heard this voice FROM Heaven while Jesus was on Earth (Matt. 3:16, 17). They did not say Jesus was the Father in Heaven speaking, and they never believed such.
2.The Jews never understood that Jesus claim to be the Father, But that He claimed to be the Son. Thus making Himself equal with God (Matt. 26:64; 27:40-43; John 5:17-35; 6:45; 8:13-38; 10:34-39; 19:7). If He had claimed to be the Father, the only God, all of God, and the only person of the Godhead, they would have had a just cause against Him. For not one of the prophets ever foretold this doctrine, but they did say that God would have a Son as a separate person from Himself.
3. Jesus called the Father "my God" even after the resurrection (John 10:17; Rev. 3:12; Ps. 22:1-10).He could not be His own Father and His own God. If He were the only person in the Godhead, this would be a false statement.
4. The angel Gabriel, "the angel of the Lord" (whom some sects say was God Himself) did not know that Jesus was the only person in the Godhead, for he spoke of a God still in Heaven and called Jesus only "the Son of God' and "the Son of the Highest" (Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:19, 27-38; 2:21).
5. All the Angels in Heaven were as ignorant as Gabriel for they praised and gave glory to a "God in the highest," who was outside of the baby Jesus in the manger (Luke 2:8-16). It would not be a sin for us to believe that they, being just from Heaven and having come from the Father in the highest and having more intelligence than any man, knew that there was still a "God in the highest," who was one person, and that Jesus in the manger on Earth was another person.
6. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, and Simeon were also ignorant of the theory that the baby Jesus was the and all of God, for they talked TO and PRAISED a "God" outside of the baby Jesus (Luke 1:36-56, 67, 79; 2:25).

"a workman that needth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).
 
God was human. Real human, flesh and blood, not an apparition. That is Gnosticism
My point was why did he come as his Son instead of just God?
Why a Father God and a Son God?
Why not just "the" God(Oneness)? If it had to be God to be the Messiah, why a Son of God? Why a child of God?
If God had to be human, why not just God in the oneness sense?

Next, if it had to be a Son then why didn't the singular Oneness of God become his Son? In other words, why didn't God incarnate as his Son instead of the spiritual preexisting Son who incarnate as a human?

Easier question, why did God need a Son or why did he need to manifest as a Son? Not a human mind you but a Son. Regardless of if he incarnate as the Son(Oneness) or the preexisting 1/3 of the Godhead incarnate as himself.(Trinity)
 
Last edited:
My point was why did he come as his Son instead of just God?
Why a Father God and a Son God?
Why not just "the" God(Oneness)? If it had to be God to be the Messiah, why a Son of God? Why a child of God?
If God had to be human, why not just God in the oneness sense?

Next, if it had to be a Son then why didn't the singular Oneness of God become his Son? In other words, why didn't God incarnate as his Son instead of the spiritual preexisting Son who incarnate as a human?

Easier question, why did God need a Son or why did he need to manifest as a Son? Not a human mind you but a Son. Regardless of if he incarnate as the Son(Oneness) or the preexisting 1/3 of the Godhead incarnate as himself.(Trinity)
It's that firstborn thing we talked about
 
God was human. Real human, flesh and blood, not an apparition. That is Gnosticism

He foreknew you because you had a relationship before with him. You existed as a spirit before you were "predestinated" (His choosing of place, time, family).
He chose for you to be human, to make a choice to be saved.
He called you out of sin and justified you through being human with Jesus death

Who has the opportunity and ability to be redeemed?
Let's work through this belief. We preexisted as spirits. We needed a temporary place to come to redeem ourselves. Better yet to be given the opportunity for God to redeem us.

Only God is perfect. So we come to a place filled with sin and freewill. A place full of evil. A proving grounds.
As it turns out we couldn't do it. God knew we couldn't so his plan was to do it for us.
In order to do this he had to become human.

OK, why a Son?
 
Redemption. I can see it both ways. Humans need redemption but being human can't do it.
Jesus as God can because he's God.

The problem is or at least I thought was that the redemption had to come from a human.

It's a catch 22. If God does it, even as a man, then it's not really a human that did it. God did it. Only God could do it because he's the only one perfect.
Yet if a perfect God did it, then it's not the redemption needed from a human.

I really can see it both ways. Was that really God's answer? God's plan? God way to get man redeemed? He knew that man couldn't do it being human so he came himself or he sent his Son. If himself then God died for our redemption. If his son then. Well depends. How human was he? How God was he? If both?
If God in the flesh did he have to give up his deity? If just a man with the Holy Spirit being controlled by God?
 
Because we are unique created individial spiritual beings (souls) that have no brotherhood or kin, one sinless death could be shared .That is why God had to be a man , so we could share in His death on the cross. So God had to be man, yet that man had to be God or it was only a created being dying for another created being.

The creator and judged took the sin debt for us all.

If He was not God our sin was not paid, if He was not man we could not have a claim to the payment
 
Because we are unique created individial spiritual beings (souls) that have no brotherhood or kin, one sinless death could be shared .That is why God had to be a man , so we could share in His death on the cross. So God had to be man, yet that man had to be God or it was only a created being dying for another created being.

The creator and judged took the sin debt for us all.

If He was not God our sin was not paid, if He was not man we could not have a claim to the payment
"He foreknew you because you had a relationship before with him. You existed as a spirit before you were "predestinated" (His choosing of place, time, family).
He chose for you to be human, to make a choice to be saved.
He called you out of sin and justified you through being human with Jesus death."

That isn't a brotherhood?

You give a pretty good reason on why God had to incarnate as a man and die for our sins instead of a created being.
Why did he incarnate as his Son?
 
"Son"
I guess the definition changed when man was created. Maybe the meaning is different for God than us. For humans a Son comes from a mother and father. Perhaps the son could preexist in his parents mind. They might even have a plan for him to take over the family business.

God had a Son. God made us in the image of his Son. God had a son in Word. In the Oneness belief this Son existed only in Word or God's plan. God made us in the image of his Son. The Son didn't make us in the image of the Son.

God's Son preexisted in his Word/mind/plan. In Oneness, God becomes the Son at the incarnation. This still gives the Son the deity of God needed to redeem our sins. If that is indeed a prerequisite. God becomes man.

If as in the Trinity belief the Son is equal and always existing in more than Word, then he isn't a Son by the definition of a Son.
The Son would have made us in the image of the Son.

At least in Oneness the Son only exist as Word until God incarnates as the Son. God becomes the Son needed to be the divine human sacrifice.
He became the Son of God. A union between God and Mother Mary. God becomes human.

I don't see how a son can preexist with his Father and still be considered a son. In Word yes. Even if he could, how would he be equal to his Father if his Father made us in the image of his son? If the Father sent him? If the Father will send him again. If he will eventually had over his kingdom to his Father and sit at the right hand of his Father.
This just sounds more like the definition of a Son that I am familiar with.
 
Top