# Why is Jesus titled the "Son of God"?



## Stope (Oct 27, 2016)

In what way is Jesus the "Son of God"?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Oct 27, 2016)

Because by nature he is the Son of God the Father. He is eternally generated by the Father. The Nicene Creed really make this clear when it says "Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
 God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father."


----------



## Stope (Oct 27, 2016)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Because by nature he is the Son of God the Father. He is eternally generated by the Father. The Nicene Creed really make this clear when it says "Lord Jesus Christ,
> the only Son of God,
> begotten from the Father before all ages,
> God from God,
> ...



Thanks!!! How can he "by nature [be] the Son of God the Father"?


----------



## Toasty (Oct 27, 2016)

Stope said:


> Doulos McKenzie said:
> 
> 
> > Because by nature he is the Son of God the Father. He is eternally generated by the Father. The Nicene Creed really make this clear when it says "Lord Jesus Christ,
> ...



Jesus has the same nature or essence as the Father. Jesus and the Father have the same divine attributes.


----------



## Cymro (Oct 27, 2016)

Because Christ is the Godman, being very God of very God, and by assuming our human nature to himself, is very flesh of very flesh. So Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ." God was His God as to His human nature, and Father as to His divine nature. So then he is the Son of God, being coequal with the Father in essence ,power and glory. An everlasting Father logically must have an everlasting Son.


----------



## zsmcd (Oct 27, 2016)

Cymro said:


> An everlasting Father logically must have an everlasting Son.


That is a very helpful observation. Never considered that.


----------



## Stope (Oct 27, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Stope said:
> 
> 
> > Doulos McKenzie said:
> ...



Then why does it follow that he is the "son"? That is, if they share the same attributes they could also be "brothers", why does it follow that Jesus must be His "son"(Im NOT saying that as truth, but using it as an example to better understand the "nature")?


----------



## Stope (Oct 27, 2016)

Cymro said:


> Because Christ is the Godman, being very God of very God, and by assuming our human nature to himself, is very flesh of very flesh. So Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ." God was His God as to His human nature, and Father as to His divine nature. So then he is the Son of God, being coequal with the Father in essence ,power and glory. An everlasting Father logically must have an everlasting Son.



A very helpful response!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much


----------



## Toasty (Oct 27, 2016)

Stope said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> > Stope said:
> ...



The word "Son" means "same nature." Think of the phrase, "like father, like son."


----------



## Stope (Oct 27, 2016)

Toasty said:


> Stope said:
> 
> 
> > Toasty said:
> ...



Are we then to take the title of Jesus as "Son" to merely just be a description that functions to describe the same nature of the two? If so would the hearers of Jesus have taken it that way as well or more of a literal "Son"? In other words, how did the title of "Son" sit with the Jewish expectation?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Oct 27, 2016)

On the contrary, Jesus is literally the Son of God. Like I quoted earlier from the creed "begotten from the Father before all ages,God from God,Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made." His nature is derived from the Father's. Both the Westminster standards and the LBCF 1689 affirm this.


----------



## Cymro (Oct 27, 2016)

Christ was begotten not made, proceeding by eternal generation from the Father. Because our Lord made the claim that God was His Father (John5:17-18) "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he said that God was His Father, making himself equal with God." My Father, an avowal of equality with the Father, one with the Father in wisdom, power and creative ability. Psalm 2 records the Father saying, "Thou art my Son." And Psalm 89 records Christ saying, "Thou art my Father." Our Lord to show His coequality declared, " he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." Being of one substance with the Father, yet the Father is not the Son nor the Son the Father. Distinct personages yet one God, a Trinitarian unity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 27, 2016)

Stope said:


> In what way is Jesus the "Son of God"?


Jason,

We are entering deep waters here of the mysteries of God, so let's approach the subject with much fear and trembling.

Think of the phrase, "_In the unity of the Godhead._"

Our theology begins at this point. *One God possessing full Godhead*.

One may read in some treatments, that God the Father is the _source_ of God the Son. I personally think using the word "_source_" opens up too many distractions based upon modern notions that require much qualifications to prevent misunderstandings. The Father is unbegotten. As such it may be said with care that God the Father is the _ever-flowing fountain_ of the one divine essence. God the Father _communicates_ this one divine essence to the Son. God the Father with the Son communicates this one divine essence to the Spirit. _The communication is eternal_. It did not happen one time and then stop.

The first communication, from the Father to the Son is called _begetting_; the second communication, from the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit is called _procession_. Call the communication whatever one pleases, it is the communication itself which is important. So we say the Father _begets _the Son, and the Holy Spirit _proceeds _from Father and the Son. The _begetting _is also often termed _generation_ and _filiation_. The _procession _is also sometimes called _spiration_.

Berkhof is helpful here (see the full treatment here):
c. _The eternal generation of the Son_. The personal property of the Son is that He is eternally begotten of the Father (briefly called "_filiation_"), and shares with the Father in the spiration of the Spirit. The doctrine of the generation of the Son is suggested by the Biblical representation of the first and second persons of the Trinity as standing in the relation of Father and Son to each other. Not only do the names "Father" and "Son" suggest the generation of the latter by the former, but the Son is also repeatedly called "the only-begotten," John 1:14,18; 3:16,13; Heb. 11:17; I John 4:9.

It [_the eternal generation_] is an eternal act of the Father. This naturally follows from the preceding. If the generation of the Son is a necessary act of the Father, so that it is impossible to conceive of Him as not generating, it naturally shares in the eternity of the Father. This does not mean, however, that it is an act that was completed in the far distant past, but rather that it is a timeless act, the act of an eternal present, an act always continuing and yet ever completed. Its eternity follows not only from the eternity of God, but also from the divine immutability and from the true deity of the Son. In addition to this it can be inferred from all those passages of Scripture which teach either the pre-existence of the Son or His equality with the Father, Mic. 5:2; John 1:14,18: 3:16; 5:17,18,30,36; Acts 13:33; John 17:5; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3. The statement of Ps. 2:7, "Thou art my Son; This day have I begotten thee," is generally quoted to prove the generation of the Son, but, according to some, with rather doubtful propriety, cf. Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5. They surmise that these words refer to the raising up of Jesus as Messianic King, and to the recognition of Him as Son of God in an official sense, and should probably be linked up with the promise found in II Sam. 7:14, just as they are in Heb. 1:5.
....

This procession of the Holy Spirit, briefly called _spiration_, is his personal property. Much of what was said respecting the generation of the Son also applies to the spiration of the Holy Spirit, and need not be repeated. The following points of distinction between the two may be noted, however:

(1) Generation is the work of the Father only; spiration is the work of both the Father and the Son.
(2) By generation the Son is enabled to take part in the work of spiration, but the Holy Spirit acquires no such power.
(3) In logical order generation precedes spiration.

It should be remembered, however, that all this _implies no essential subordination_ of the Holy Spirit to the Son.
In _spiration_ as well as in _generation_ there is a communication of the whole of the divine essence, so that the Holy Spirit is on an equality with the Father and the Son.

The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is based on John 15:26, and on the fact that the Spirit is also called the Spirit of Christ and of the Son, Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6, and is sent by Christ into the world. _Spiration _may be defined as _that eternal and necessary act of the first and second persons in the Trinity whereby they, within the divine Being, become the ground of the personal subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and put the third person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation or change_.

When one begins with the unity of God these personal properties are the means by which Godhead is understood to belong to a distinct mode of subsistence within the undivided substance.

(3) _It is a generation of the personal subsistence rather than of the divine essence of the Son_. Some have spoken as if the Father generated the essence of the Son, but this is equivalent to saying that He generated His own essence, for the essence of both the Father and the Son is exactly the same. _It is better to say that the Father generates the personal subsistence of the Son, but thereby also communicates to Him the divine essence in its entirety_. But in doing this we should guard against the idea that the Father first generated a second person, and then communicated the divine essence to this person, for that would lead to the conclusion that the Son was not generated out of the divine essence, but created out of nothing. _In the work of generation there was a communication of essence_; it was one indivisible act. And in virtue of this communication the Son also has life in Himself. This is in agreement with the statement of Jesus, “_For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself,_” John 5:26.​Altering the personal properties so as to deny the _filioque_ (_fill-ee-oh-qwee_), as do the Eastern Orthoddox, serves to create a new "stream" (using the above analogy of "_fountain_").

Once the filioque is denied, there is now no longer one stream
--> Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A second stream has been created
--> Father, Son; Father, Holy Spirit.

There is no longer an unity of three but two unities of two.

Accordingly, the unity of God is maintained in the western theological tradition by what is called the _communication of Godhead_—_begetting_ and _procession_. "_Person_" or "_subsistence_" depends on personal properties, i.e., properties which are unique to a person in relation to other persons. In the words of our Larger Catechism, there is something "proper" in these relations, that is, "divinely proper." To detract from any property of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is to make Him inferior to the Father.

The EO objection in relation to the Holy Spirit is removed by a simple acknowledgement that the unique person of the Holy Spirit also consists in a unique property, and that property is to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity.

If this were not accepted as the Holy Spirit's distinct property He would not be the third person of the Trinity but would be a second _second_ person. This means He would be a second Son. His very name, _Spirit_, is suggestive of an altogether unique relation in union with Father and Son which nullifies the objection. The Holy Spirit is the person upon whom the communication of Godhead finally terminates. In this capacity the Spirit is Himself the bond of union and communion between Father and Son. Likewise, in the _ad extra_ works (works _outside _the Godhead) of the Trinity, this unique relation finds expression in His distinctive function in connection with the creation of, providence over, and redemption of, the world— He is the Spirit of life and communion.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 27, 2016)

Stope said:


> Then why does it follow that he is the "son"? That is, if they share the same attributes they could also be "brothers", why does it follow that Jesus must be His "son"(Im NOT saying that as truth, but using it as an example to better understand the "nature")?



The Godhead comprises three _persons_. Each having equal attributes is an _ontological _(the nature of being) property. The _person _of the Son eternally proceeds from the _person_ of the Father, hence, "Son". That which is eternally generated is not some new _essence_, but a _subsistence_, a _person_, as commonly stated, said subsistence possessing the _whole single divine essence_ (as does the Holy Spirit), without division, alienation, or change. One _what_ (essence), three _whos_ (persons), if you will (though I do not care for the expression).

Again, Berkhof noted:

(3) _It is a generation of the personal subsistence rather than of the divine essence of the Son_. Some have spoken as if the Father generated the essence of the Son, but this is equivalent to saying that He generated His own essence, for the essence of both the Father and the Son is exactly the same. _It is better to say that the Father generates the personal subsistence of the Son, but thereby also communicates to Him the divine essence in its entirety_. But in doing this we should guard against the idea that the Father first generated a second person, and then communicated the divine essence to this person, for that would lead to the conclusion that the Son was not generated out of the divine essence, but created out of nothing. _In the work of generation there was a communication of essence_; it was one indivisible act. And in virtue of this communication the Son also has life in Himself. This is in agreement with the statement of Jesus, “_For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself,_” John 5:26.


----------



## Stope (Oct 27, 2016)

Wow, that was very helpful, but to be honest, in some areas over my foolish head... It is for that reason I ask the following:

1. Has then Jesus always existed as the "son"? Was he the "Son" before he was born of Mary (on that note, did he have a body before the incarnation, and of not did he limit himself in anyways when he did?)?

2. Is there a helpful info graphic on this anywhere?

3. Is there a summary that attempts to describe/explain the Trinity that is a lil longer that the standards that you might point me to? That is, is there something out there that is almost like a thesis that has with it a bit of detail?

4. Where would be a good place to start my reading? I was thinking perhaps Athanasius on the Incarnation so I can sort of chronologically start at the "beginning" of when the hairs were beginning to get split (as was indeed needed)?

Again thank you!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 27, 2016)

Fine if you want to start with the ancient controversies; but do recall that you have been Providentially placed in history long ages after those questions were fought over. There is a degree of situation in your case for which you may be thankful.

You do not have to become a theologian with decades of experience in the Scriptures, or a pastor with decades of practical application of the Scriptures--_which things those ancient fathers were; and all come together in a grand accumulation of service,_ when they were given the task of protecting the apostolic doctrine and codifying and clarifying it for theirs and future generations. It isn't your task to reinvent (from scratch, as it were) the church's doctrine. So, you may benefit more from a modern presentation of the historically orthodox stance of the church. You may also avoid needless failures, following the path of (for instance) the JW's, who ignored the deep stream of orthodox history on this doctrine, and basically revived in the 19th century the ancient heresy of Arianism.

Athanasius (A.D. 293-373) would be a good read. The "Athanasian Creed" (c. A.D. 500, certainly not written by Athanasius, but consistent with his faith) contains multiple theses, from which you might benefit through prolonged reflection. https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 27, 2016)

*WCF 2 - Of God, and of the Holy Trinity*

I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9]eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23]and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]


II. God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37]


III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 27, 2016)

Stope said:


> Wow, that was very helpful, but to be honest, in some areas over my foolish head... It is for that reason I ask the following:
> 
> 1. Has then Jesus always existed as the "son"? Was he the "Son" before he was born of Mary (on that note, did he have a body before the incarnation, and of not did he limit himself in anyways when he did?)?


The orthodox doctrine as to the person of Christ, is that he from eternity has existed as the co–equal Son of the Father, constituted of the same infinite self–existent essence with the father and the Holy Spirit.

Prior to the incarnation, the Second Person of the Trinity, had not assumed a human nature, and hence possessed no physical body.

While Our Lord walked the earth, he limited the _independent use_ of any of his divine attributes. This in no way means he divested himself of his divinity and was not in possession of all the divine attributes. In other words, while our Lord walked the earth, the Second Person of the Trinity was still omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and so forth.



Stope said:


> 2. Is there a helpful info graphic on this anywhere?


Very few graphics adequately capture this sublime mystery of the Trinity. The most often used can be seen here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity



Stope said:


> 3. Is there a summary that attempts to describe/explain the Trinity that is a lil longer that the standards that you might point me to? That is, is there something out there that is almost like a thesis that has with it a bit of detail?
> 
> 4. Where would be a good place to start my reading? I was thinking perhaps Athanasius on the Incarnation so I can sort of chronologically start at the "beginning" of when the hairs were beginning to get split (as was indeed needed)?



As Rev. Buchanan indicated, start with the Athanasian Creed. If you want to dig deeper, rather than attempt to reinvent the doctrines, Berkhof (see my previous links to his book) is a good place to start and is trustworthy. Also....

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/boettner/boettner_trinity.html

http://www.samstorms.com/all-articles/post/the-trinity

https://www.monergism.com/search?keywords=Trinity&format=All&f[0]=topic%3A30865

Lastly, with respect to the incarnation, we claim Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second subsistence of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this _mystical union_ (together united in one distinguishable subsistence) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and human natures of Our Lord is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct subsistence in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct subsistences (often called _persons_) (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).


The Chalcedonian Definition is one of the few statements that all of orthodox Christendom recognizes as the most faithful summary of the teachings of the Scriptures on the matter of the Incarnate Christ. The Chalcedonian Definition was the answer to the many heterodoxies identified above during the third century.


----------



## Stope (Oct 28, 2016)

Ask Mr Religion. O my goodness you are a saint - I need to send you chocolates. Thanks for helping me wade through all of this, may the Lord bless you for the time you have taken to write this up. Thank you

Now, off to read all the resources you sent


----------



## Stope (Oct 28, 2016)

What is meant by the notion that God begat Jesus? At first glance this appears that in some way, Jesus would be inferior to God since he came after


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 28, 2016)

Stope said:


> What is meant by the notion that God begat Jesus? At first glance this appears that in some way, Jesus would be inferior to God since he came after


The matter of what "begat" means was answered here and forward in my posts above.

That all persons of the Godhead are in fact, God, no inferiority is implied. There is an ordering among them as to _roles_, sometime called an _economic ordering_, but this is not an _ontological ordering_, as in some differences in their makeup (_being_). Just as the man is the head of his household (a role), this does not mean the man is somehow a different or greater being than is his wife or his children. All are ontologically human beings.

To say the Second Person of the Trinity "came after" ignores the eternal existence of God, wherein there is no "before" or "after". The Father _eternally generates_ the Son, and as I explained earlier, this is not a "_one and done_" act, but an ever eternal act.

Also, please fix your signature to show your denominational affiliation. See the link below in my sig to the Signature Requirements page for details.


----------



## Stope (Oct 28, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> That all persons of the Godhead are in fact, God, no inferiority is implied. There is an ordering among them as to _roles_, sometime called an _economic ordering_, but this is not an _ontological ordering_, as in some differences in their makeup (_being_). Just as the man is the head of his household (a role), this does not mean the man is somehow a different or greater being than is his wife or his children. All are ontologically human beings.



Ahhhhhh yes, economic ordering, good stuff. Thank you

And, I have fixed my signature


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 28, 2016)

Stope said:


> Ahhhhhh yes, economic ordering, good stuff. Thank you


What systematic theology work are you using in your graduate seminary studies? I am asking because it seems to me that most of your questions would have been answered in any decent systematic theology textbook. What texts does Talbot Seminary use for its coursework along these lines?


----------



## Stope (Oct 28, 2016)

Stope said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > That all persons of the Godhead are in fact, God, no inferiority is implied. There is an ordering among them as to _roles_, sometime called an _economic ordering_, but this is not an _ontological ordering_, as in some differences in their makeup (_being_). Just as the man is the head of his household (a role), this does not mean the man is somehow a different or greater being than is his wife or his children. All are ontologically human beings.
> ...



At Cal Bap, BA, it was Grudem
At Talbot (where I was only there 2 semesters it was upper courses so dedicated course-specific texts)... Thats all I did for grad studies (well I also did 2 semesters at Claremont where I took courses on Mormonism)

But to be honest, so much of what I have read and learned in my life I really have lost the forest for the trees, and thats why I like posting here to really clear thing sup. Thanks for your help!


----------



## Stope (Oct 29, 2016)

What member of the Trinity was in the bush as "I am"? I always kind of assumed it was the father, but in the Gospels Jesus takes that name, so was it Jesus in the bush who has the name "I am"?


----------



## Warren (Oct 29, 2016)

I think the burning bush was indeed Christ, the Godhead always present in Him, communicating the attributes.

We know the Father through His Word: communication. God communicates to believers, through His Word, "everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence."


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 29, 2016)

We would call the burning bush a _theophany,_ God taking some form accessible to the human senses.

The Incarnation teaches "the Word became flesh," and thus we learn that it belongs to the Second Person's office to reveal God to man.

We then look back to the OT, and we begin to see him (the Son) in all the theophanies prior to the Incarnation: a pre-incarnate Revelation of the divine presence.

This explains the many appearances of the Angel of the Lord who often receives the worship due to God alone. He does not always have a "humanoid" appearance (e.g. Jos.5:13-15), but is identified in the flame in the bush in Ex.3:2,4; cf.Act.7:30,38. Also he is in the pillar of cloud/fire which leads the nation, which settles on the Tabernacle, Ex.14:19; 23:20; 32:34; 33:7,10; cf. Ps.78:14. It is he who also is present in sensory-overload mode upon the heights of Sinai; our recognition of him there makes his inviting presence on the mount in Mt.5:1 a sweet contrast.


----------



## Stope (Oct 29, 2016)

Thanks guys!

So, the name "I am" spoken from the burning bush was a theophany of Christ and as such a title reserved for Jesus is "I am". Therefore, should we not apply it to other members of the Tri?

Also, is YHWH reserved for the Father only?


----------



## Warren (Oct 29, 2016)

Hm... I don't think so, if only because the Son is the Word who communicates for the Father. The Son is filled with the Godhead, so it isn't as though they aren't present. Its just that a theophany is the pre-incarnate Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 29, 2016)

He was/is the Eternal God the Son, and as such, He would have been the Son of God while here on earth Incarnation...

As He assumed sinless Humanity, and as such, fulfilled Isaiah prophecy of both a child born, and a son given to us from God...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 29, 2016)

Jn.12:37-41 Though he [Jesus] had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him,*so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: _"Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"_ Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, _"He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."_ Isaiah said these things because *he saw his glory* and spoke of him.


Is.53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD [ALLCAPS=Jehovah] been revealed?

Is.6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.

Isa 6:1-5 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord [Adonai] sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, "Holy, holy, holy, is *the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory*." And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips:* for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts*."


----------



## Stope (Oct 31, 2016)

Thank you guys.

Where would "I am"/"YHWH" fit on the Trinity Shield below:


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 31, 2016)

Stope said:


> Thank you guys.
> 
> Where would "I am"/"YHWH" fit on the Trinity Shield below:
> 
> View attachment 4642



Inside the "God" circle or perhaps represented by a circle encompassing the entire diagram with "_Ego Eimi_" shown in italics atop the circle.


----------



## Stope (Oct 31, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Stope said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you guys.
> ...



Great thanks! very helpful


----------



## Stope (Oct 31, 2016)

Is it accurate to say:

Only the "Father" has the title "Father"
Only Jesus has the titles "Jesus", "The Son of God", "The Son of Man"... (labels applied to Him in the Gospels)?
Only the Spirit has the title "Holy Spirit"

In other words, what titles are interchangeable and dont confuse the persons (like "YHWH", "I Am", "God")


----------

