- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
21 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipI don't read anything you write which is used to underpin your erroneous trinity doctrine. I don't know if anyone else hear reads your staff anyway.
A serious false teaching related to the Person of Christ and the Trinity is created by those who try to divide the Father from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit.
Some people do so because of a desire to completely systematize Jesus Christ and the Triune God. They feel the system makes more sense to teach a utter separation of Jesus Christ, the Father ...[text shortened]... eginning abides in you, [b] you will abide in the Son and in the Father. (v.24)
[/quote][/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by divegeesterI think that the few people who send me private messages of encouragement probably have read them.
Face it sonship. Who do you think actually reads your blogs here? I would read them if they weren't laced with all your dodgy beliefs which you actually wrap around the text.
I think it is kind of silly for you to harp a lot on "Na, Na. Nobody reads your posts."
I think you could contribute something a bit more interesting.
For example, spend some time to explain why the Son of God is not eternal. I'll read it.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
23 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipHave done so before...several times..
Explain that the Son of God was not eternal.
Nowhere in scripture is the term "eternal son" used.
"The son shall hand over all authority to the father" (Revelation) - and yet Isaiah says "of his reign there shall be no end".
"He (Jesus) was the firstborn of all creation" and he is the alpha and the omega the beginning and the end. Something that is created, has a beginning and has an end, cannot, by definition be eternal.
This is because the office of sonship has a beginning and has an end but the entity that is also the father and the spirit is eternal.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Jun 16
Originally posted by divegeesterOkay, So then we discuss. Maybe we even fellowship.
"The son shall hand over all authority to the father" (Revelation) - and yet Isaiah says "of his reign there shall be no end".
"He (Jesus) was the firstborn of all creation" and he is the alpha and the omega the beginning and the end. Something that is created, has a beginning and has an end, cannot, by definition be eternal.
This is because the ...[text shortened]... has a beginning and has an end but the entity that is also the father and the spirit is eternal.[/b]
Have done so before...several times..
This time then I will give full attention. Eventually, I will steer the discussion back around to "The Spirit was not yet" of John 3:39.
Nowhere in scripture is the term "eternal son" used.
I don't think that is persuasive enough. In Hebrews 7:3 the mysterious character Melchesidek is used to explain our Great High Priest Christ, the Son of God.
" [Melchesidek ] ... first being interpreted king of righteousness, and then king of Salem, which is king of peace;
Being without father, without mother, without geneology, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, abides a priest perpetually." (See Hebrews 7:2,3)
The writer conveys to us that Christ is the real King of Righteousness and King of Peace. He had no beginning of days. He is eternal.
We could say that the man Jesus had beginning of days and a mother. But in a larger sense Jesus being God incarnate and the Son of God had NO "beginning of days" because God is eternal and had no beginning.
If you argue that the man Jesus had mother and had a birthday as a first day - a beginning of His days, I would not say that was wrong. But if you press it to mean by this that Jesus is not God incarnate I would say that you teach a heresy.
And as God incarnate, like God Himself, He has no beginning of days because God is eternal. And Hebrews 7:3 intends us to understand that the Son of God is God of whom this mysterious Melchesidek character in Genesis was a type..
" ... having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God ... "
Jesus Christ being THE Alpha and THE Omega is that toward us. Saying that God is the beginning does not mean that God HAD a beginning. It means that God is the beginning for the rest of us being the ultimate SOURCE and ORIGIN of our being.
The beginning of OUR existence and of the existence of all created things is God who calls them into being (Rom. 4:17)
God and Christ are both described as the First and the Last.
Neither means that God or Christ had a beginning in the sense you say.
Rather the Triune God is OUR beginning.
The Triune God is eternal. And the Triune God is embodied in the incarnation of the man Jesus.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Jun 16
8 edits
Originally posted by divegeester
This is because the office of sonship has a beginning and has an end but the entity that is also the father and the spirit is eternal.
I believe that you have mentioned First Corinthians 15:27,28 about the Son delivering up the kingdom to God.
Now if God, to Whom the Son delivers up the kingdom, Himself wills that the Son reign forever, then the Son's delivering up the kingdom does not mean the cessation of the Son's reign. Would that not be the case ?
In other words, IF in the utter subjection of the Son it is still the Father's will that the Son reign forever, then that would not be any cessation of the Son's reign. It is only a testimony of the utter subjection of the Son to the Father. And the Father still intends that the Son reign "forever and ever".
Secondly, the Son reigns in the millennial kingdom and the overcoming saints reign with Him. It could logically be assumed that the Son CEASES to reign but the saints continue to reign apart and without Him. Right?
Well we are told concerning the sons of God that "THEY ... will reign forever and ever."
" And night will be no more, and they have no need of the light of a lamp and of the light of the sun, for the Lord God will shine upon them; and they will reign forever and ever." (Revelation 22:5)
Explain how the Son of God's reign is terminated but the sons of God, the constituents of the New Jerusalem "will reign forever and ever"
Explain how the Son reigns for 1,000 years and then has His office terminated.
But the sons of God prolong their offices into eternity - "THEY ... will reign forever and ever."
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 116970
26 Jun 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipIs this the question you want me to answer or is there another, somewhere?
Explain how the Son reigns for 1,000 years and then has His office terminated.
But the sons of God prolong their offices into eternity - [b]"THEY ... will reign forever and ever."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jun 16
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterYes. Comparing 1 Cor. 15:27,28 and Rev. 22:5.
Is this the question you want me to answer or is there another, somewhere?
Do you mean that the sons reign forever and ever with eternal offices but the Son has His office terminated ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
05 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipThis was a typo and should have read thus -This is because the office of sonship has a beginning and has an end but the entity that is also the father and the spirit is eternal.
I believe that you have mentioned [b]First Corinthians 15:27,28 about the Son delivering up the kingdom to God.
Now if God, to Whom the Son delivers up the kingdom, Himself wills that the Son reig ...[text shortened]... ons of God prolong their offices into eternity - "THEY ... will reign forever and ever." [/b]
. It could not very [edited] logically be assumed that the Son CEASES to reign but the saints continue to reign apart and without Him. Right?