3 edits
@secondson saidYou and FMF just can't handle clear, concise and to the point posts. You simply don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty for objective rational discourse for it.
I don't hear you replying to my post either. All I hear is you dodging with your dodge buddy.
You and FMF just can't handle clear, concise and to the point posts. You simply don't have the intellectual fortitude or honesty for objective rational discourse for it.
What you do have in abundance is a bigoted bias against persons, and a wholly shameful disdain for anyone ...[text shortened]... nonsense you plaster this forum with.
Neither one of you is worth the time of day debating with.
What you do have in abundance is a bigoted bias against persons, and a wholly shameful disdain for anyone that disagrees with the unsubstantiated nonsense you plaster this forum with.
How exactly do those descriptions not apply to you?
I'm not saying that there aren't issues with how DG and FMF interact, but your description really does fit you to a T. Laughably so.
Seriously: Set aside your pride and look in the mirror.
@secondson saidI am not going to advocate or defend torturer god ideology.
You dodged the content of my post. You're still dodging.
@divegeester
You cannot control people. I told you that before.
Did you read my little thread on Comic Relief about the Insurance Company attorney trying to corner a witness with a leading question ?
You cannot control what I write to answer a question in the manner in which I CHOOSE to deal with the question.
Get use to it.
No more conditions and rules. Cooperate if you wish. If not forget it.
1 edit
Empty as I suspected.
Forget it then.
Forget what ??!
Now, I tried to be nice to you for a change. Now I'm back to being combative. Next thing on the agenda is to show someone WHY your reasoning about NO ETERNAL SON just doesn't work. I will also show how the questions I asked ARE relevant to the issue.
1 edit
Divegeester can believe whatever he wishes. Here are some of my reasons for not being persuaded by this summary.
Yes, Christ is the firstborn, born to Almighty God who "became" his father on a certain day.
His 'sonship' had a beginning.
What has a beginning cannot, by definition, be eternal
This critique is a rejecting of the eternal pre-existence of the Son. How can I possibly accept this?
Hebrews 1:10,11 referring back to Psalm 102 says OF THE SON that He is the Creator God whose duration was before creation and will outlast it.
"And, "You in the beginning, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands; (v.10)
They will perish, but You remain perpetually; and they will all become old like a garment, (v.11)
And like a mantle You will roll them up; like a garment they will also be changed; But You are the same, and Your years will not fail." (v.12) (Hebrews 1:10-12)
Who is the [b]"You" and to Whom is the word "Your" pointing to? They point to the Son of God addressed in verse 8.
But of the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of exultant joy above Your partners;
You, in the beginning, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth ... etc. etc. etc."
REGARDLESS of the Son being begotten by the Father either as "the Firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15) OR as "the Firstborn from among the dead" (Col. 1:18) this Son of God is the ever existing, self existing God.
You could no more say the Son in Hebrews 1:10,11 is not eternal anymore than you could say Jehovah God of Psalm 102 is not eternal.
Psalm 102:25-27
"I said, My God [Jehovah - vs.1,12,16,21] ... Of old You laid the foundation of the earth. And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They shall perish, but You endure; Indeed all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them, and they will be changed.
But You are the same, And Your years are without end." (Psalm 102:24a-27)
Now Divegeester may protest by saying something like - "It is one Person". Then he would only being AGREEING with that part of my trinitarian belief that the Father - Son - Holy Spirit are one God. He would only be agreeing with part of the best definition of the Trinity - it is not three gods.
At any rate the Son being BEGOTTEN in ANY REGARD by the Father doesn't effect His eternal existence pre-creation or post millennial kingdom.
Divegeester writes hoping to prove NO ETERNAL SON -
Yes, Christ is the firstborn, born to Almighty God who "became" his father on a certain day.
His 'sonship' had a beginning. What has a beginning cannot, by definition, be eternal
REGARDLESS of what DAY the Son was begotten of the Father, the Word who is the Son of God was with God and was God.
Divegeester will have to prove that the Word was not, then was begotten to be WITH GOD and GOD. And that such an "office" will be terminated in the future sometime.
The Son's being BEGOTTEN by the Father on ANY day Divegeester would like to identify, doesn't altar that the Word is the Son of God Who was with God and was God and became flesh. (John 1:1:14)
Now Divegeester may say something about God being one Person. But then he would only be agreeing with that part of the definition of the Trinity which teaches that the Father - Son - Holy Spirit are one God.
There is another paradoxical part of the teaching of the Trinity which admits that there is distinction between the Word and God. There is one God and distinction between the Father and the Son.
Dive wrote what he thinks is his death blow to the revelation of the eternal Son of God.
Yes, Christ is the firstborn, born to Almighty God who "became" his father on a certain day.
His 'sonship' had a beginning.
What has a beginning cannot, by definition, be eternal
I noticed that Dive said "Christ is the firstborn". But he didn't specify WHICH Firstborn he is talking about. I probed to see if he understands the difference. That is between Christ - "the Firstborn of all creation" and Christ - "the Firstborn from among the dead".
He turned his nose up and decided not to answer, saying it was not relevant.
Well, Christ being the Firstborn of all creation does not mean that the Son has no eternal pre-existence. The ones who argue that Col. 1:15 proves Christ is not eternal are the POLYTHEISTS like the Jehovah's Witnesses who say Christ is "a god" that God made FIRST before making everything else.
I suppose Divegeester, ironically, is taking a page out of the polytheistic Jehovah's Witnesses to argue that the BEGETTING by the Father of "the Firstborn of all creation" proves Christ is not eternal. The irony.
Briefly I'll deal with Christ - "the Firstborn of all creation" does not mean Christ is a god who the Father first created. Or it doesn't mean the Son was not eternal.
But Christ being Firstborn from among the dead NEITHER makes the Son not eternal. It means He has two natures. One is that of God the eternal. And the other is that of human being which was able to die and be resurrected.
He has TWO natures. And because as a man He died and was resurrected - "begotten" of God on the day of resurrection (Acts 13:33) it does not make the Son not eternal. It only means incarnation happened, death and resurrection happened.
My questions then were related to the OP.
1.) Do you understand the difference between Firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15) and Firstborn from among the dead (Col. 1:18) ?
2.) Do you know WHERE in the New Testament the word "sonship" is even applied to the Son of God ?
3.) Do you understand that Jesus Christ has TWO natures ?
Lastly, I asked Dive to show me something of yet I am unaware of. That is why I added that it was a genuine question.
That is #1 - Where in the NT is "sonship" used not to explain the saved but the Son of God Himself? Many translations I think render the Greek word there as "adoption".
I was out on a limb. WHERE does "adoption" or "sonship" apply to the Son of God per se in the NT?
He turned his nose up and said the question had nothing to do with his great debunking job .... NOT.
