- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Assume for a moment that God is one spiritual entity, the son therefore is an aspect of that entity, the right arm which is laid bare and walked among us. He IS Jehovah in the flesh.
I do not have to for the moment "assume" that Divegeester.
The Biblre reveals that to me.
And I know that when I received the Lord Jesus I got to know God.
Therefore he cannot “go away”.
The Son of God is eternal and the glorified man Jesus reigns forever and ever.
Jesus is an aspect, a projection of Jehovah in the flesh.
However [/i] we grope with our limited human language to express the [b]"mystery of God, Christ,"{/b] even creating a phrase "the office of the Son" the Son is eternal.
The man resurrecteed, gloridfied, exalted to the right hand of God is the Son for eternity, whose dominion as [b]the Son of Man is eternal. The Son is God whose throne is forever and ever.
The Man, glorified is THE SAME from the day of His resurrection, today, and yes even forever,.
Your created term "the office of the Son" never is abolished.
You use that phrase not me - "the office of the Son." However, I think I understand what you mean by your "office of the Son". And such an "office" [if you will] is NEVER abolioshed.
He is the Son, God for eternity.
Delivering the kingdom to God His Father has no effect on the Son being the
reigning One forever.
The "sons"{/b] reign forever and ever. And you can be assured that their prototype the [b]Son reigns forever. He does not put away the resurrected and deigfied, human nature. Nor do the sons who CO-REIGN with Him.
There is no "Let's get back to the good old days of Deutoronomy when there was just Jehovah, the shema, no triune God, no trinity. Let's get this Son thing OUT OF THE WAY and go BACK to the good old days when no Trinity could be thought of."
The unitarian daydream of finally getting this supposed bothersome "Son and Father" thing out of the way and going back to the good old Shema is what you seem to be teaching me.
The MAN - the God-Man Jesus is for eternity.
Read Hebrews some couple of nights aloud.
He simply returns to heaven (whatever that actually is). The right arm which was laid bare is taken back. But it’s Jehovah’s right arm, not a different person.
Yes and not exactly as simple as Islam's Allah or the "no Father - Son - Holy Spirit" Triune God.
The Three are distinct but not separate.
His trhee-one being is intrinsically related to His eternal purpose to dispense God
into man.
That Father as the Source.
The Son as the Course.
The Holy Spirit as the Flow - the transmission.
@divegeester said1 Timothy 1:17
There is NO “eternal son” and therefore there is no trinity.
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
At best you are a misbeliever, if even a Christian at all.
Yours is only the doctrine of divegeester. Void of correct biblical exegesis. Rife with error.
1 John 5:11
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
Hebrews 9:14
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Your systematic theology is garbage. Even heretical.
@josephw saidI’ll wait to see what you’re posting on this over the next few days as you’ll probably change you mind again, as you have with the talking serpent.
1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
At best you are a misbeliever, if even a Christian at all.
Yours is only the doctrine of divegeester. Void of correct biblical exegesis. Rife with error.
1 John 5:11
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this l ...[text shortened]... and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Your systematic theology is garbage. Even heretical.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
When we worship Jesus we are actually worshiping Jehovah. It’s the same person manifested in the flesh.
You wrote that there is no "eternal son."
Remove the quotes and you can find the FACT of the eternal Son of God.
I could say there is no "eternal Yahweh" or there is no "eternal El Shadai" or no
"eternal Jehovah Jira" or no "eternal Bride of Christ" or no "eternal Comforter".
I don't think you've made any significant point by pointing out the phrase within quotation marks might not be found in Scripture. The Fact of an eternal Son of God is there.
Where? For one in Hebrews 1:8 as pointed out before.
"But of the Son, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever . . . ".
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Whose throne is forever and ever?
The Son of God's throne is forever and ever.
Do we need the exactly quotation "eternal Son"?
It is not reliable to argue that the Son or the office of the Son is NOT forever and ever but His throne is.
Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of God's promise that a descendent of David would sit upon His mesianic throne forever. (2 Sam. 7:13,14; 1 Kings 9:5; 1 Chronicles 17:12; Psalm 89:29 )
David and Solomon fell short.
The perfect man Jesus, the Son of God was the One to whom they pointed to.
And He will not put off or put away His resurrected, glorfied humanity. Nor will His "office" of Son of God be vacated.
@sonship saidNo, what I wrote, what I have written, dozens and dozens and dozens of times (so I’m fascinated as to why you choose to misquote me) is:
@divegeester
When we worship Jesus we are actually worshiping Jehovah. It’s the same person manifested in the flesh.
You wrote that there is no "eternal son."
There is no mention of an Eternal Son anywhere in the Bible.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
That is what I am correcting- the Son of God is eternal.
I don't care how many dozens of times you write there is no eternal Son, no Eternal Son, or no "Eternal Son," or however you write it.
Stubborn repetition is all you have because you cannot refute that the Son of God is eternal.
@sonship saidThere is no “trinity” mentioned ANYWHERE in the bible, it is a man-made concept.
@divegeester
Stubborn repetition is all you have because you cannot refute that the Son of God is eternal.
God is ONE spirit, one entity, one being (not “3 beings” as kellyjay asserts), who is revealed in many ways, one of them as a son born of Mary, who was made of human flesh which never existed before her conception.
Because God is ONE and the son was born, there is no “eternal son”
Because there is no “eternal son”, the phrase is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the bible.
Simple logic.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So the phrase spoken of the Son - "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever" to your so-called "simple logic" should be understood as 'Your throne, O God, is [NOT] forever and ever.'
I think that understanding must be influenced by a doctrine of demons.
I will stick with the logic of the passage - "But of the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." (Heb. 1:8a)
@sonship saidPerhaps you didn’t notice the several hundred times previous where I’ve written that God is one, there isn’t three, just one, what you think of a three beings/people/persons, I see as ONE.
So the phrase spoken of the Son - "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever" to your so-called "simple logic" should be understood as 'Your throne, O God, is [NOT] forever and ever.'
ONE and the same
Not three
Just ONE
It’s the same spirit
ONE god
Are you getting it yet?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@divegeester
I wrote that the understanding, I suspect of being under the influence of a doctrine of demons.
And now I have opened a thread to see if there is a connection between two strong tendencies you have:
Hell-shaming by telling of Christians who LOVE the concept of eternal judgment AND the effort to rid the Bible of an Eternal Son of God.
I am curious to see if these two concepts are two sides of one complaint or related to each other.
@sonship saidSo you don’t think that I am “under the influence of demons”?
@divegeester
I wrote that the understanding, I suspect of being under the influence of a doctrine of demons.