The book of Hebrews

[~Clay]

We must also remind ourselves that Jesus Christ has a second nature. The Father does not. The Spirit does not. So when we see God AND Jesus Christ this in no way diminishes the deity of Christ... rather it establishes the uniqueness of Christ the God man.

Yes, but don't confuse the Trinitarian Son ("second person of the Godhead") with Jesus.

The Son has no second nature. He is only God. Always was. Always will be. And He does not change.

Jesus is the Son incarnate. He has both natures - the Theanthropic Being. The God-Man. Very God and Very Man.

But He didn't exist until the incarnation just over 2000 years ago.

peace

If you are referring to the eternal son doctrine, Clay, I would appreciate scriptures to support this view. There is no doubt the Spirit of Jesus preexisted the incarnation. God the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1 / John 1:14). But according to Hebrews 1:5 he became the Son only after that point which he took on the second nature of flesh which Philippians says in the Greek was done without any change in his deity "morphe theos huparchon." I have debated (I guess you'd call them scholars) on the eternal son doctrine being unbiblical... but if you have found scripture to the contrary I'd be happy to look into them with you.

I guess that I was, though not my direct intent. I am not a champion of Eternal Sonship so I will not provide scriptures. If you have debated with scholars, you would likely want to debate with me if I provide scriptures and I do not wish to hijack the topic. You can Google it and find references to many of them if you wish.

I only desired to clarify your statement that Jesus had a second nature (ie - both human and divine natures). To this I completely agree. But then you juxtapose Jesus with the Father and the Spirit to compare them directly (as regards to their natures). Which is confusing to me.

My conclusions were either 1) you made a mistake and meant to type something else or 2) you are not a Trinitarian and as such your statement is judged by a different paradigm. Honestly, I didn't consider the latter likely because of your use of the words Father and Spirit (sounds Trinitarian), so I wished to provide an opportunity for you to correct whatever error you might have made. Now it appears that I erred and you are likely not a Trinitarian and therefore not speaking with Trinitarian language. If so, I think that I better understand your statement now. And perhaps I have clarified it for other readers who did not realize what you were positing.

My response was not intended to support Eternal Sonship, but clearly refers to it because I am couched my response in Trinitarian language out of respect for the community's statement of faith, which is clearly Trinitarian (and invokes Eternal Sonship):

We believe in the triunity of God. We believe that God is eternally One, and also

eternally

the Father,

the Son

and the Holy Spirit — the three being distinct, but not separate. Each Person of the Godhead coexists from everlasting to everlasting.

So now it seems to me that either

1. You are not Trinitarian, in which case I do not fully understand why you are comparing Jesus' nature to that of the Father and the Spirit, or
2. You are Trinitarian but do not accept the doctrine of Eternal Sonship (which is not required for a Trinitarian belief), in which case I am interested to know why you compare the nature of Jesus only to the Father and Spirit; not to the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Perhaps I am making much ado about nothing, but to better help us (me) understand your statement, what do you believe, in regards to the nature of God (especially your use of the Father and the Spirit)?

And what is the importance of noting that Jesus has a human nature when the Father and the Spirit do not? That is, if you are Trinitarian, why exclude the Son (or Second Person to avoid Eternal Sonship debates) and if not Trinitarian, why include "The Spirit" with "The Father"?

peace - clay