Originally posted by galveston75What a bunch of bull crap.
Thanks as we are doing quite well in our work of helping ones to see the truths in the Bible and what Jehovah and his son Jesus will be doing in the near future for deserving ones. The 6 billion hours we spend each year earthwide and the 2000 new congregtions we start each year are a good sign were doing what Jesus has commanded us all to do. But not many other religions help out with this. Too bad.
divegeester wrote:
================================
This scripture in no ways says the Son is eternal.
================================
I regard this comment as indicative of simply not taking the Bible for what it says. There certainly is a way in which scripture assigns eternality to the Son.
The Son given, in Isaiah 9:6, will be call "Eternal Father". The jist of your criticism is that this calling of the "son ... given" "Eternal Father", is vain, or a lie, or not significant because of being not true.
It is no more vain that He be called the "Eternal Father" than it is vain that He be called "Prince of Peace". He is that which He is to be called.
===========================================
The office of son-ship will be handed over when the son hands all things over to the father.
=====================================
I am going to assume you are refering to 1 Cor. 15:28.
Where in First Corinthians 15:28 does it say that Christ will be no longer the Son of God ?
"And when all things have been subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all."
I didn't notice any words there saying the Son of God will no longer be the Son of God.
And whatever Paul meant there, it cannot contradict that the Son's throne is "forever and ever" per Hebrews chapter one. For in the same chapter where there is a verse similar to 1 Cor. 15:28 - Hebrews 1:13,
ie. "But to which of the angels has He ever said, Sit at My right hand until I set Your enemies as a footstool for Your feet?" (subjecting all to Him),
the same writer also says - "But of the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever ..." (Heb. 1:8a)
1.) The Son is God
2.) The Son's throne is forever and ever.
3.) The Son will have all His enemies subject under His feet.
There is no hint that the Son is no longer the Son after all things have been subjected under Him, in either 1 Cor. 15:28 or Hebrews 1:8,13.
And Hebrews 13:8 says "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, [yes], even forever."
Did you notice that ? It does not say that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and until the end of the millennium. It says "yesterday and today, ... even FOREVER."
( I count "yesterday" here to mean from the day of His resurrection ).
=====================================
The "beginning and the end" are not eternal concepts they are temporal; that is way they have a 'beginning' and an 'end'.
=======================================
In the passage under question, Hebrews 7:3 the writer is not arguing FOR the beginning and the end. He is arguing for the ABSENCE of beginning and end. That is effectually an argument for BEGINNINGLESSNESS and ENDLESSNESS. It is an argument for INFINITY.
The absence of beginning and the absence of end are certainly intended to convey eternity, by the writer.
Secondly, what is WITHOUT beginning and WITHOUT end is the LIFE of the Person being discussed. Effectively the writer is saying this Son of God had NO beginning of life and will have NO ending of life.
It is effectually revelation of Christ the Son being the eternal God, without beginning of life or end of life.
====================================
Jesus is God revealed and in him dwells the Godhead fully, in bodily form. We agree who our God is, but the trinity is pagan in origin and denies God of his oneness and glory.
============================
I do not know if we agree or not, sad to say. My God is the Man Jesus Christ, now and for eternity.
If you cannot say that your God is the man Jesus Christ, then maybe we do not agree who God is.
As for Col. 2:9, yes "For in Him dwells all the fullness ofthe Godhead bodily". I believe that. But notice what the Son of Man says in Revelation:
" ... and He [One like the Son of Man] placed His right hand on me [John] , saying,
Do not fear; I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became dead, and bvehold, I am living forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Rev. 1:17b-18)
This One Who is the Son of Man, is the First and the Last. That is Jehovah God (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12)
Ie. Isaiah 44:6 - Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts,
I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God."
He incarnated as a MAN, the Son of Man, He died and is living forever and ever. Besides this Son of Man there is no God, for He is God incarnate.
And the flesh that He put on and the humanity that He clothed Himself with, He will never put off. He will be the God-man forever.
Originally posted by jaywillLook out! If you keep this up, You might have a thread about you and it
divegeester wrote:
[b]================================
This scripture in no ways says the Son is eternal.
================================
I regard this comment as indicative of simply not taking the Bible for what it says. There certainly is a way in which scripture assigns eternality to the Son.
The Son given, in Isaiah 9:6,[ ...[text shortened]... th, He will never put off. He will be the God-man forever.
want be good.
Originally posted by RJHindsI am not sure what you meant.
Look out! If you keep this up, You might have a thread about you and it
want be good.
But I am aware that some evangelical Christians do not like to interpret that the Son is the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
1.) They may suspect Oneness Pentacostalism, which I do not believe in.
2.) They may press Patriapassionism, saying that saying the Son is the Eternal Father means the Father died on the cross.
3.) They insist that the Eternal Father cannot be the Father of the Trinity.
If one of these objections to my expounding of Isaiah 9:6 is your point, or some other objection, another thread may open up.
And any rate, I think the Bible is unique in the it contains something for everyone not to like at least some utterance somewhere. There are trinitarians who do not like to say that the Son is the Eternal Father. But Isaiah 9:6 says it.
I mean if He is called Prinice of Peace, it must be because He is that which He is called.
And if He is called "Eternal Father" then He must be that which He is called.
To Christian brothers who would object that I wrote that the Son given will be called the Eternal Father, I would ask -
"Is it any easier to believe that the Word was WITH God and WAS God ? (John 1:1)
Is it any easier to believe that "the Mighty God" spent nine months in the womb of a woman and was born as a human child ?? "
It is best just to say "Amen" to what the word of God said. The son given will be called "Eternal Father". And there is only ONE - Divine Eternal Father, the Father of the Trinity.
Originally posted by jaywillI don't disagree with you. What I meant is that those that don't agree
I am not sure what you meant.
But I am aware that some evangelical Christians do not like to interpret that the Son is the Eternal Father in Isaiah 9:6.
1.) They may suspect Oneness Pentacostalism, which I do not believe in.
2.) They may press Patriapassionism, saying that saying the Son is the Eternal Father means the Father died on the cross.
...[text shortened]... ather". And there is only ONE - Divine Eternal Father, the Father of the Trinity.[/b]
with us on this may start to vilify you with a thread dedicated to you.
Originally posted by RJHinds=======================================
I don't disagree with you. What I meant is that those that don't agree
with us on this may start to vilify you with a thread dedicated to you.
I don't disagree with you. What I meant is that those that don't agree
with us on this may start to vilify you with a thread dedicated to you.
==========================================
I see what you mean.
Making me or any other Christian the issue is a distraction.
I feel that I am commissioned to speak of Jesus Christ until Jesus becomes an issue in the life of my hearers. It is not that I become an issue, but that Jesus becomes an issue.
I wouldn't waste much time with a thread dedicated to jaywill being an issue.
Originally posted by jaywillIt appears that you may have spent less time on chess and more on the
[b]=======================================
I don't disagree with you. What I meant is that those that don't agree
with us on this may start to vilify you with a thread dedicated to you.
==========================================
I see what you mean.
Making me or any other Christian the issue is a distraction.
I feel that I am commissi ...[text shortened]... an issue.
I wouldn't waste much time with a thread dedicated to jaywill being an issue.[/b]
Holy Word than I have.