Open Debate on the "Eternal Sonship vs Incarnate Sonship which is biblical?"

@praise_yeshua
Pagan teachings often loosely mirror what God has said about Himself. For example,
First, let me thank you for your boldness and love for God's word by willing to discuss this difficult subject with me and without controversy it is according the apostle Paul, who knew more than all of us put together. Maybe some, including ourselves, will learn as we continue searching into the depths of this blessed mystery....."God was manifest in the flesh"!

1st Timothy 3:16​

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
Pagan teachings often loosely mirror what God has said about Himself. For example,
How well we all know, even when one considers Islam, and thousands of other religions in the world they all stole some of their beliefs from those true worshippers of the one and true God, that goes without saying very much concerning this thievery.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Notice the narrative while focusing upon verse #23. They CHANGED the Truth of God into a lie. It wasn't a dramatic change. Those people began to worship the creature that Adam was and not the Creator.
Agreed~but, there's something more here that we all should ponder carefully, and it is this: to keep this and all posit relative short, I highlighted the word GOD above.

The Godhead (some called it the trinity but God calls it the Godhead ~Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9.... even though trinity is acceptable in the sense in which God describes the working of His eternal purposes through His Son, Jesus Christ. ) is ONE LORD God~1st Corinthians 8 and Jesus Christ is the God that we shall see in that day, per Matthew 5:8.

1st Corinthians 8:6​

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
It is why we must separate the context of the fleshy aspects of Christ in Adam from the preexisting Nature and Character of Jesus Christ. I'm not preposing that we separate the Person of Jesus Christ. I am simply preposing that we see the manifestation of flesh in Jesus Christ and the manifestation of the Eternal Character of Jesus Christ confined by that flesh.

In other words, Jesus Christ was more than just flesh. His flesh was at a minimum a manifestation. However, it was somewhat more than this. We can get into the details. I enjoy discussing them. Just come my way a little if you don't mind. Take the journey with me.
I'm not sure what you are proposing, so if I do not understand what you are saying then correct me.

You said: "we must separate the context of the fleshy aspects of Christ in Adam from the preexisting Nature and Character of Jesus Christ."
First, Christ was not in Adam He was the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, Adam was from this earth! 1st Corinthians 15:47.

Secondly, the Word which was made flesh, was God without qualification. Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind.

You said: "In other words, Jesus Christ was more than just flesh"

Oh, I agree. Maybe you can explain what you are proposing if I misunderstood you. Finished for today. Later............RB
 
@praise_yeshua

First, let me thank you for your boldness and love for God's word by willing to discuss this difficult subject with me and without controversy it is according the apostle Paul, who knew more than all of us put together. Maybe some, including ourselves, will learn as we continue searching into the depths of this blessed mystery....."God was manifest in the flesh"!

1st Timothy 3:16​

“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

How well we all know, even when one considers Islam, and thousands of other religions in the world they all stole some of their beliefs from those true worshippers of the one and true God, that goes without saying very much concerning this thievery.

Agreed. I decided a long time ago to challenge what I consider to be wrong regardless of who does it. It has cost me "friends". but it has freed me from the expectations of others.

Agreed~but, there's something more here that we all should ponder carefully, and it is this: to keep this and all posit relative short, I highlighted the word GOD above.

The Godhead (some called it the trinity but God calls it the Godhead ~Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9.... even though trinity is acceptable in the sense in which God describes the working of His eternal purposes through His Son, Jesus Christ. ) is ONE LORD God~1st Corinthians 8 and Jesus Christ is the God that we shall see in that day, per Matthew 5:8.

1st Corinthians 8:6​

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

Tyndale promoted the use of Godhead. I would personally credit Tyndale with the very choice of the word from Godhede. I would NOT insert "Trinity" in those verses. The word simply means Divine. The first use of the form of the source is found in Exodus 31

As is translated in the KJV it reads.... "God".

Exo 31:3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,

I'm not sure what you are proposing, so if I do not understand what you are saying then correct me.

You said: "we must separate the context of the fleshy aspects of Christ in Adam from the preexisting Nature and Character of Jesus Christ."
First, Christ was not in Adam He was the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, Adam was from this earth! 1st Corinthians 15:47.

Secondly, the Word which was made flesh, was God without qualification. Self-existence, Infinity, Independence, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Immutability, eternal both ways, and Infinite in every way possible that is imaginable to the human mind.

You said: "In other words, Jesus Christ was more than just flesh"

Oh, I agree. Maybe you can explain what you are proposing if I misunderstood you. Finished for today. Later............RB

No problem. Talk to you soon. Do you believe the "Word" changed or "came into being"? Either description indicates a change of essence. The "flesh" that was birthed in the seed of Mary/women, did not change the preexisting state of the "Word". I would start to describe that process by using the English word "clothed".

Gen_3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. KJV

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks

--- I've edited this several times to get it like I want it.--- Sorry. PY.
 
Last edited:
Biblical interpretation, or hermeneutics, involves understanding the meaning of scripture through context, authorial intent, and various interpretive principles.

Key Principles of Biblical Interpretation​

 
@praise_yeshua
I decided a long time ago to challenge what I consider to be wrong regardless of who does it. It has cost me "friends". but it has freed me from the expectations of others.
Agreed, same here.

Tyndale promoted the use of Godhead. I would personally credit Tyndale with the very choice of the word from Godhede. I would NOT insert "Trinity" in those verses. The word simply means Divine. The first use of the form of the source is found in Exodus 31

As is translated in the KJV it reads.... "God".
Godhead ~ Webster 1828: Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God.... A deity in person. The divine nature or essence of God. EOD

Acts 17:29​

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.”

Romans 1:20​

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

Colossians 2:9

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

The only three places the word Godhead is mentioned in the scriptures.
Do you believe the "Word" changed or "came into being"? Either description indicates a change of essence. The "flesh" that was birthed in the seed of Mary/women, did not change the preexisting state of the "Word".
If I understand John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, then when the Word was made flesh, the essentials of the Godhead, that which made him the express image of God dwelt IN HIM, making him a complex person, with two distinct natures, one flesh of the seed of David through which he was born into, and the Godhead attributes dwelt in his body in their fulness according to Colossians 2:9. John 1:48, etc. by the very fact he was begotten of God in the manner in which he was begotten. Jesus was the Son of God, but God was not Jesus, since he is a Spirit that inhabited eternity, always has, always will, and that can never change.
 
Last edited:
@praise_yeshua

Agreed, same here.


Godhead ~ Webster 1828: Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God.... A deity in person. The divine nature or essence of God. EOD

Acts 17:29​

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.”

Romans 1:20​

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

Colossians 2:9

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

The only three places the word Godhead is mentioned in the scriptures.

If I understand John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, then when the Word was made flesh, the essentials of the Godhead, that which made him the express image of God dwelt IN HIM, making him a complex person, with two distinct natures, one flesh of the seed of David through which he was born into, and the Godhead attributes dwelt in his body in their fulness according to Colossians 2:9. John 1:48, etc. by the very fact he was begotten of God in the manner in which he was begotten. Jesus was the Son of God, but God was not Jesus, since he is a Spirit that inhabited eternity, always has, always will, and that can never change.
The word "Godhead" is a contrived word, meant to suggest something that is not really there to begin with. I consider it to be similar to the Old English expression of "Holy Ghost" for the Holy Spirit. It probably derives from a bit of the superstition that existed in those olden days.

I think the descriptions in Hebrews 2, specifically verse 14, reveal the real meaning of verses like John 1:14.

Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things.......

You only need to know and understand who was the "he" that likewise partook of the same things, i.e., flesh and blood. Clearly the "he" was a pre-existent being. John1 calls or identifies that pre-existent being as "the Word". And however you might wish to think of it, it is clear that the intention was to present that "he" as distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit and yet as God. That seems clear to me from event surrounding the baptism of Jesus.
 
Thought for the day.

For those with having trouble and needing a further explanation, Gary Whittenberger says it with unmistakable understanding.

"This Trinity business is getting boring. The best interpretation is this: God (the Father), Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit are three different persons who work together on a team, called the Trinity, period."
 
Last edited:
I will not be posting mush because I am being taught by @praise_yeshua and @101G and I will just be reading only because
they have decided they alone know the Bible and they are going to teach me.
GINOLJC, to all,
To FreeinChrist. understand, 101G, nor anyone else know everything in the bible or about God. 101G will not sit here and say, "101G knows all of God". no, nor do anyone else. only God knows God, but we all have his Spirit in us. 101G is learning just as everyone else.... BUT DON'T STAY IN DARKNESS ....LEARN. 101G suggest, ask questions, this is what these forums are for....... test the spirit by the Spirit. and as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 clearly states, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good". in order to prove , or find out about something, is to do as you suggest, "LISTEN" first.. as our brother James said in his book, "Eager to hear and slow to speak", and in doing so, one will learn. always ask God about things, look up words, find out what they mean. be like those of Berea. Acts 17:10 "And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews." Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

and 101G's motto which God gave unto him says it all. "WHERE THERE IS KNOWLEDGE, STAY NOT IGNORANT".

so, yes, listen, but ASK QUESTION, and see if the answers LINE UP with what God has said in his Word .............. LEARN by God's Holy Words. for the Holy Spirit is not called the HELPER for nothing, and if one is not doing anything, then the helper has nothing to do. so get busy, as you said, listen, but ask questions.

be blessed, in the name of the Lord JESUS.

101G
 
Godhead ~ Webster 1828: Godship; deity; divinity; divine nature or essence; applied to the true God.... A deity in person. The divine nature or essence of God. EOD

Acts 17:29​

“Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.”

Romans 1:20​

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

Colossians 2:9

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”

The only three places the word Godhead is mentioned in the scriptures.

English translations are just that. Translations. Not the Scriptures themselves. I deal with manuscripts. Not what King James wanted others to have so that he could rule them properly. I once asked you to compare the Geneva Bible to the KJV in Hebrews chapter 13. If you did, then you would notice that James's archbishop mistranslated your preferred bible incorrectly to benefit King James's belief in the Divine Right of Kings. James believed that he spoke for God. He didn't. Your natural skepticism should bring you to the conclusion that you shouldn't trust what evil man's hands have touched. You need to dig deeper beyond taking what THEY say at face value.

Webster was a good man. He had good intentions but he had an impossible task. He desired that the entire English speaking world communicate the same way with the same understanding of words. His dictionary was flawed and extremely reckless in the sense of trying to undo what God did at Babel. God forced men to put forth the effort to know and seek Him. Just reading Webster's dictionary and using it as the answer for such questions isn't faithfully seeking God. It is seeking Webster. Sometimes he is right. Sometimes he is wrong. Just like every man that has ever lived on this earth. Myself included. In this situation, he is right. At other times he is not. Webster is webster. God is God. The writers of the Geneva Bible did the same things. They just got Hebrews 13 right.

Godhead is a early modern English word. Some say it is derived from Godhede from Wycliffe. I don't entirely believe that is true. Those who say such conflate similar vocalizations. Etymology is not an exact field of study. Don't get me wrong. I love the study but like most anything today, most people see what they want to see.

The roots of "Godhead" in the English language come from Hebrew, Greek, and are mixed with Dutch/German. As such is found first in "form" in Exodus 31. It is directly related exactingly to Theos / θεός

If I understand John 1:14, Colossians 2:9, then when the Word was made flesh, the essentials of the Godhead, that which made him the express image of God dwelt IN HIM, making him a complex person, with two distinct natures, one flesh of the seed of David through which he was born into, and the Godhead attributes dwelt in his body in their fulness according to Colossians 2:9. John 1:48, etc. by the very fact he was begotten of God in the manner in which he was begotten. Jesus was the Son of God, but God was not Jesus, since he is a Spirit that inhabited eternity, always has, always will, and that can never change.

Just want to make sure that I understand you. I'm clearly stating that the Son preexisted and was clothed in flesh as referenced in the words you referenced about the "Word". His Eternal state and Character never changed in this process. He took upon Himself a body.

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

I mentioned how God clothed the first Adam in the skins of the first Adam's servants. The servants (help meet) died to cover Adam. The first Adam was robbed in the death of his friends/servants. That very "creature" was unwillingly subjected together "in hope" with Adam.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

The "Word" became flesh. Indicating the "Word" preexisted.

I think you are saying that there is no part of Jesus that preexisted until He became flesh and dwelt among us? Either that or the Father was manifest in what we reference as the "Son" now.

Just trying to understand. Thanks
 
The word "Godhead" is a contrived word, meant to suggest something that is not really there to begin with. I consider it to be similar to the Old English expression of "Holy Ghost" for the Holy Spirit. It probably derives from a bit of the superstition that existed in those olden days.

I think the descriptions in Hebrews 2, specifically verse 14, reveal the real meaning of verses like John 1:14.

Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things.......

You only need to know and understand who was the "he" that likewise partook of the same things, i.e., flesh and blood. Clearly the "he" was a pre-existent being. John1 calls or identifies that pre-existent being as "the Word". And however you might wish to think of it, it is clear that the intention was to present that "he" as distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit and yet as God. That seems clear to me from event surrounding the baptism of Jesus.

I would agree that it is somewhat contrived.
 
Thought for the day.

For those with having trouble and needing a further explanation, Gary Whittenberger says it with unmistakable understanding.

"This Trinity business is getting boring. The best interpretation is this: God (the Father), Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit are three different persons who work together on a team, called the Trinity, period."

It is more than this. Teams can work together and then not work together. Such isn't true of the Holy Trinity. You have Perfection in Unity. Perfect agreement. When God doesn't something all of God does it. There is no division in the Trinity. Just distinctions. Though they are different Persons, that doesn't create any sense of actual separation. They are perfectly joined. All equal and all in agreement.
 
English translations are just that. Translations. Not the Scriptures themselves. I deal with manuscripts. Not what King James wanted others to have so that he could rule them properly. I once asked you to compare the Geneva Bible to the KJV in Hebrews chapter 13. If you did, then you would notice that James's archbishop mistranslated your preferred bible incorrectly to benefit King James's belief in the Divine Right of Kings. James believed that he spoke for God. He didn't. Your natural skepticism should bring you to the conclusion that you shouldn't trust what evil man's hands have touched. You need to dig deeper beyond taking what THEY say at face value.

Webster was a good man. He had good intentions but he had an impossible task. He desired that the entire English speaking world communicate the same way with the same understanding of words. His dictionary was flawed and extremely reckless in the sense of trying to undo what God did at Babel. God forced men to put forth the effort to know and seek Him. Just reading Webster's dictionary and using it as the answer for such questions isn't faithfully seeking God. It is seeking Webster. Sometimes he is right. Sometimes he is wrong. Just like every man that has ever lived on this earth. Myself included. In this situation, he is right. At other times he is not. Webster is webster. God is God. The writers of the Geneva Bible did the same things. They just got Hebrews 13 right.

Godhead is a early modern English word. Some say it is derived from Godhede from Wycliffe. I don't entirely believe that is true. Those who say such conflate similar vocalizations. Etymology is not an exact field of study. Don't get me wrong. I love the study but like most anything today, most people see what they want to see.

The roots of "Godhead" in the English language come from Hebrew, Greek, and are mixed with Dutch/German. As such is found first in "form" in Exodus 31. It is directly related exactingly to Theos / θεός



Just want to make sure that I understand you. I'm clearly stating that the Son preexisted and was clothed in flesh as referenced in the words you referenced about the "Word". His Eternal state and Character never changed in this process. He took upon Himself a body.

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

I mentioned how God clothed the first Adam in the skins of the first Adam's servants. The servants (help meet) died to cover Adam. The first Adam was robbed in the death of his friends/servants. That very "creature" was unwillingly subjected together "in hope" with Adam.

Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

The "Word" became flesh. Indicating the "Word" preexisted.

I think you are saying that there is no part of Jesus that preexisted until He became flesh and dwelt among us? Either that or the Father was manifest in what we reference as the "Son" now.

Just trying to understand. Thanks
yes but @Red Baker thinks the Word pre-existed as the singular ( 1 Person ) Lord/God of the O.T. In that sense since he believes God is a singular person/entity/ being he is espousing unitarianism. Then in the N.T. he becomes a modalist. In all my years of debating non trinitarians ( which @Red Baker ) definitely qualifies as, I have never met one with his beliefs. Its a hybrid then on top of that compounded with calvinism. Quite an unusual set of beliefs for a person to espouse. Everything about God is doctrinally incorrect.
 
I've heard that claim my entire life. I understand what you mean by it.

However, the Holy Spirit works with your own voice. You have your own voice. Most people only hear their own voice. The voice of the Spirit often speaks and we often ignore Him.

Claiming that the Holy Spirit is leading you is the same argument anyone can use if they have the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God doesn't treat you any differently that "He" treats me.

When you read the English of the KJV and you read the wrong word that was inserted by a cor, YOU will listen to the translator. Not the Spirit of God. Everyone does it. You know English... right? Who do you think you're going to actually listen to?
Looking at one word in one translation is very bad hermeneutics.

The study of the Bible encompasses various scholarly and devotional pursuits aimed at understanding Scripture’s message, context, linguistic nuances, and theological significance. Sometimes referred to as “Biblical Studies,” “Bibliology” (the doctrine concerning the Bible itself), or even “Hermeneutics” (the principles and methods of interpretation), this discipline provides a systematic approach to exploring the Bible’s historical, literary, and spiritual dimensions.

 
Thought for the day.

For those with having trouble and needing a further explanation, Gary Whittenberger says it with unmistakable understanding.

"This Trinity business is getting boring. The best interpretation is this: God (the Father), Jesus Christ (the Son), and the Holy Spirit are three different persons who work together on a team, called the Trinity, period."
To, ALL. Consider this thought ... FROM GOD HIMSELF, Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

STOP, and consider what is said here. "Is there a God beside me?" here God is saying that he is ONE PERSON. but this one Person have said that he's a ..... plurality. but do this one person say how he's a plurality? YES, of, of, of, of, .... HIMSELF. keeping in mind, "Is there a God beside me?" this plurality of HIMSELF is clearly seen in Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Clearly, "US", and "OUR" are plural in form. but the MILLION DOLLAR question is this..... "plural HOW?" in separate and distinct persons? NO, for the very next verse eliminates this kind of thinking. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

after reading this, one with common sense must be asking the question, "How can God go from a US and OUR to a HE and a HIM in just one verse." and remember the Lord Jesus confirms this himself by saying this in, Matthew 19:3 "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" Matthew 19:4 "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," the Lord Jesus just said that God is a "he". the Lord Jesus don't lie. so, this forces us to go back to Genesis 1:26 and re-think, and FIND OUT why God "one" person say US and OUR in Genesis 1:26, and then say, HE and HIS in the very next verse?

let's see this from the scriptures themselves. Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" STOP, we need not go any further, we have our answer. QUESTION, "How can a IMAGE exist before it's SOURCE?" and Source means, "a place, person, or thing from which something comes or can be obtained:". read that definition real good. understand, if 101G takes a picture of you, then there is an IMAGE. meaning in order to have an IMAGE one must have a SOURCE for the IMAGE to exist. well, if man is God IMAGE, then at some time God was a man. and time is the KEY, LISTEN to God. Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" there is our answer.

where have we seen these words at before? "beginning and end", or First and Last".... let's see, Revelation 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
WHAT? the Lord is the the beginning and the end. and what did Isaiah 46:10 say, "Declaring the end from the beginning". if God declared the end .... from the beginning, (meaning Genesis 1, when he made man), now we KNOW how the IMAGE, man, is establish before the SOURCE, God, who is a Spirit., later, in time, showed up in Flesh and bone..... (a MAN), his, God own IMAGE. this is called the First and Last Adam. how is this expressed? answer, FIRST and LAST. scripture proof. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the First .... "WITH" ... the Last,? as in John 1:1, the Word was ... "WITH" ... God. yes, let's see if this is the same one person as 101G said. scripture, back to Isaiah at chapter 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." BIN GO, there is the answer to God's plurality. the term "ALSO" which means, "in addition; too". in addition to being the First/Father, (SOURCE), God, he JESUS is also the Last/Son, (IMAGE), Man... the Last Adam. now KNOWING this, how can one Person in the DIVERSITY or the EQUAL SHARE of himself be in TIME, (O.T. and N.T.), ORDER, (First and Last), PLACE, (Father in heaven, (Spirit) and Son on Earth, (flesh and blood), a man), and RANK, (LORD, Source, Spirit and Lord, IMAGE, spirit). do the bible answer this? yes, 1st. in the term Beginning, Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Beginning: H7225 רֵאשִׁית re'shiyth (ray-sheeth') n-f.
1. the first, in place, time, order or rank.
2. (specifically) a firstfruit.
[from the same as H7218]
KJV: beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.
Root(s): H7218
THERE is our ANSWER, definition #1 .... the first, in place, time, order or rank. Let's back this up in scripture. in the term "ONE". Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:"
"ONE" is the Hebrew word,
H259 אֶחָד 'echad (ech-awd') adj.
1. (properly) united, i.e. one.
2. (as an ordinal) first.
[a numeral from H258]
KJV: a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any(-thing), apiece, a certain, (dai-)ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together.
Root(s): H258

an ordinal first? yes, let's go back to Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
that sealed the deal, God who is First, (Source), Spirit was to come in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK, as a Man, (his OWN ... "IMAGE". this is why God said .... Let US . for he was to come in flesh and blood, his own IMAGE, see John 1:1-14. question, is there scripture to back this up, the coming in flesh? yes read the Incarnation, listed in the gospels. but 101G will show it clearly ... Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
Figure: G5179 τύπος tupos (tï '-pos) n.
1. a die (as struck).
2. (by implication) a stamp or scar.
3. (by analogy) a shape, i.e. a statue.
4. (figuratively) style or resemblance.
5. (specially) a sampler (“type”), i.e. a model (for imitation) or instance (for warning).
[from G5180]
KJV: en-(ex-)ample, fashion, figure, form, manner, pattern, print

there is our answer again, in definition #3. the analogy for a shape or a FIGURE is an "IMAGE"..... oh my God. that man, Jesus the Christ, is that IMAGE to come, the Last Adam.... God himself shared in flesh and blood..

that US and OUR in Genesis was to come, in TIME, PLACE, ORDER, and RANK, just as God said in his WORD. Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

hope this help someone.

101G
 
I'm trying to recover from a very bad case of the cold, that came out of nowhere. Hope to post later.

@civic, you need to address my post to you, or do not label me base on what YOU BELIEVE since you cannot even defend your doctrine of Eternal Sonship, or at least you have not even attempted to prove my points wrong, which you must before you can think you are correct in yours understanding.
In all my years of debating non trinitarians ( which @Red Baker ) definitely qualifies as, I have never met one with his beliefs. Its a hybrid then on top of that compounded with calvinism. Quite an unusual set of beliefs for a person to espouse. Everything about God is doctrinally incorrect.
Then you have not studied this out as much as you think you have I can give you a long list of men who believe as I do. Actually John MacArthur did until he lost many friends then he recanted! Later, I'll post a list of good men that believe just as I do.

I'm reading this at the moment:
 
I'm trying to recover from a very bad case of the cold, that came out of nowhere. Hope to post later.

@civic, you need to address my post to you, or do not label me base on what YOU BELIEVE since you cannot even defend your doctrine of Eternal Sonship, or at least you have not even attempted to prove my points wrong, which you must before you can think you are correct in yours understanding.

Then you have not studied this out as much as you think you have I can give you a long list of men who believe as I do. Actually John MacArthur did until he lost many friends then he recanted! Later, I'll post a list of good men that believe just as I do.

I'm reading this at the moment:
Mac believed in the Eternal Son, early on he did not. My beliefs were exactly like his until I left Calvinism a few years ago. I have all his books, commentaries etc….. I’ve listened to more of his sermons than all others combined in my life. I know what he believed and why he believed his theology.

He died believing in the exact same Trinity as I believe and you deny.

hope this helps !!!
 
yes but @Red Baker thinks the Word pre-existed as the singular ( 1 Person ) Lord/God of the O.T. In that sense since he believes God is a singular person/entity/ being he is espousing unitarianism. Then in the N.T. he becomes a modalist. In all my years of debating non trinitarians ( which @Red Baker ) definitely qualifies as, I have never met one with his beliefs. Its a hybrid then on top of that compounded with calvinism. Quite an unusual set of beliefs for a person to espouse. Everything about God is doctrinally incorrect.
(y)
 
I'm trying to recover from a very bad case of the cold, that came out of nowhere. Hope to post later.

@civic, you need to address my post to you, or do not label me base on what YOU BELIEVE since you cannot even defend your doctrine of Eternal Sonship, or at least you have not even attempted to prove my points wrong, which you must before you can think you are correct in yours understanding.

Then you have not studied this out as much as you think you have I can give you a long list of men who believe as I do. Actually John MacArthur did until he lost many friends then he recanted! Later, I'll post a list of good men that believe just as I do.

I'm reading this at the moment:

I would have to agree with @civic

I believe there are details missing that might change this but it doesn't appear to be so at the moment.

Ultimately, I don't believe your thoughts are complete in this. You may have reasoned somewhat through this but I don't believe your belief is mature. I hope to show you where it isn't. Which is why I'm asking you what I'm asking you.

Take care. Get well soon!
 
Mac believed in the Eternal Son, early on he did not. My beliefs were exactly like his until I left Calvinism a few years ago. I have all his books, commentaries etc….. I’ve listened to more of his sermons than e tune ride combined in my life. I know what he believed and why he believed his theology.

He died believing in the exact same Trinity as I believe and you deny.

hope this helps !!!

I briefly read the first page of the link.....I always find it interesting how people use that good ole phrase "old paths" for their own benefit.....

Puritanism isn't very old at all. :)

Marketing is something else today...... I told a friend of mine one time that he had a good marketing campaign but not a ministry. Needless to say that didn't go over well. If we could just only see ourselves for what were are...
 
Has it ever occurred to a single solitary soul that while there are as many varied beliefs in what scripture is actually saying, that there is one in every forum where said beliefs are portrayed that if you do not believe this way you will not, nor cannot be saved, then comes another person who happily points to another scripture.

How confusing that a newbie to faith must find things if they perchance stumble into such a diversified collection of thoughts.

Would it be enough to send a fledgling away, perhaps to even forgo what they were trying to build upon.

I wonder?

Of course I know that few if any actually ever listen to anything I say or post. Certainly @Red Baker does not. So I can post this and no one will know... but I do, and so do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But I came into my beliefs from reading and hearing a very wide assortment of ministers, coupled with the Holy Scriptures and while I had been born into a "Calvin" believing church, and dutifully did the requirements they expected for church membership
to be allowed to partake of the Holy Elements in the Communion it was after that it kept nagging at me.... "How did those who taught such thing know that. Oh it was all very official . Officially explaining away any doubts or questions one might have, but still leaving a doubt as to why the Heavenly Father would pre-pick people for salvation and then would have them come to the faith.

You see, I did not exactly believe that but I actually did believe in the blood and cross of Jesus. No one ever said directly to me that I was picked and now I was learning about the required faith.

That pre stuff was never talked about at home, it was just assumed that once you were accepted into the church you were heaven bound.

And I knew that just could not be right and so I started to read my bible..... Not bits and pieces but from front to back .
I was allowed to do so at my work when there was time and I was not busy, but then my ummmmmm balloon buster, yes that will be alright here.... boss told me I was wasting my time first because if I was not reading every verse with a concordance then I could not possibly know what was being said, and I would misunderstand.

And this person, who also happened to be a member in my church told me that I should not worry so much about Hell because everyone in the end will be saved. Likely even Hitler. (This was his Calvin beliefs) (None of that double stuff for him)

And I kept thinking "How do they know?" "How did he know" Did every church believe this?

And he believed what "he" taught to the horrible point of serving communion when it was his time.... ( though complaining he had to buy the elements himself) but at the same time was not exactly faithful to his wife.... but he was certain that he was heaven bound.... I hope so....

So as my life was moving on and I was learning. I had such a hunger to learn but never once thought or felt it was the Heavenly Father ''controlling" me, I just felt it was my own wish to learn because I was in my early 20s and a baby boomer... and while I am not making a confession by any means.... I discovered that F word.... No not the one we cannot type here or say into out cells or
it gets corrected but fornication and a fear shot through me ... so badly, yet my boss would say "Don't let it bother you"

And I knew there was something wrong with his thought processes, and therefore there had to be something wrong with predestination, be it Calvin's style or Luther's style there had to be more about it.

So I started to listen to other preachers s... assorted..... and I came to the understanding free will was alive and well.

And that it was through God's foreknowledge that God knew who would be willing.. who would be seeking the saving faith and be willing to repent. Not just saying it, but actually doing it with out a soul other then oneself and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit knowing. And I learned about being born again. which was not an immediate understanding but over time, until I knew definitively through my spirit I had been, and the Holy Spirit lives in me.

Well, I have gone on far too long and I hope y'all did not waste your time reading to the end. I only felt to write these things because if you have made it this far my beliefs are solid. As solid as they can be,

Blessings

Amen amen.
 
Has it ever occurred to a single solitary soul that while there are as many varied beliefs in what scripture is actually saying, that there is one in every forum where said beliefs are portrayed that if you do not believe this way you will not, nor cannot be saved, then comes another person who happily points to another scripture.

How confusing that a newbie to faith must find things if they perchance stumble into such a diversified collection of thoughts.

Would it be enough to send a fledgling away, perhaps to even forgo what they were trying to build upon.

I wonder?

Of course I know that few if any actually ever listen to anything I say or post. Certainly @Red Baker does not. So I can post this and no one will know... but I do, and so do the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

But I came into my beliefs from reading and hearing a very wide assortment of ministers, coupled with the Holy Scriptures and while I had been born into a "Calvin" believing church, and dutifully did the requirements they expected for church membership
to be allowed to partake of the Holy Elements in the Communion it was after that it kept nagging at me.... "How did those who taught such thing know that. Oh it was all very official . Officially explaining away any doubts or questions one might have, but still leaving a doubt as to why the Heavenly Father would pre-pick people for salvation and then would have them come to the faith.

You see, I did not exactly believe that but I actually did believe in the blood and cross of Jesus. No one ever said directly to me that I was picked and now I was learning about the required faith.

That pre stuff was never talked about at home, it was just assumed that once you were accepted into the church you were heaven bound.

And I knew that just could not be right and so I started to read my bible..... Not bits and pieces but from front to back .
I was allowed to do so at my work when there was time and I was not busy, but then my ummmmmm balloon buster, yes that will be alright here.... boss told me I was wasting my time first because if I was not reading every verse with a concordance then I could not possibly know what was being said, and I would misunderstand.

And this person, who also happened to be a member in my church told me that I should not worry so much about Hell because everyone in the end will be saved. Likely even Hitler. (This was his Calvin beliefs) (None of that double stuff for him)

And I kept thinking "How do they know?" "How did he know" Did every church believe this?

And he believed what "he" taught to the horrible point of serving communion when it was his time.... ( though complaining he had to buy the elements himself) but at the same time was not exactly faithful to his wife.... but he was certain that he was heaven bound.... I hope so....

So as my life was moving on and I was learning. I had such a hunger to learn but never once thought or felt it was the Heavenly Father ''controlling" me, I just felt it was my own wish to learn because I was in my early 20s and a baby boomer... and while I am not making a confession by any means.... I discovered that F word.... No not the one we cannot type here or say into out cells or
it gets corrected but fornication and a fear shot through me ... so badly, yet my boss would say "Don't let it bother you"

And I knew there was something wrong with his thought processes, and therefore there had to be something wrong with predestination, be it Calvin's style or Luther's style there had to be more about it.

So I started to listen to other preachers s... assorted..... and I came to the understanding free will was alive and well.

And that it was through God's foreknowledge that God knew who would be willing.. who would be seeking the saving faith and be willing to repent. Not just saying it, but actually doing it with out a soul other then oneself and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit knowing. And I learned about being born again. which was not an immediate understanding but over time, until I knew definitively through my spirit I had been, and the Holy Spirit lives in me.

Well, I have gone on far too long and I hope y'all did not waste your time reading to the end. I only felt to write these things because if you have made it this far my beliefs are solid. As solid as they can be,

Blessings

Amen amen.

I read it. All of us will be ashamed of what effort we've wrought to know God. It is the duty of man to seek God. It isn't the duty of man to attend college and build a career. It isn't the duty of man to attend a church once a week or every how many times anyone prefers. It isn't the duty of man to let ANYONE ELSE define God to them without themselves partaking in the struggles to know God.

All of that is part of this world system that distracts humanity from serving God. I have many regrets in life and the more I live the more regrets I live to discover. If we can understand that God wants ALL... or ALL of us, then we'll find peace in what actually matters to Him.

I actually have a very wide tolerance of beliefs because I believe people are just like you say they are. I try to change that condition but I know it doesn't work most of the time. I wish it did. Not trying to be the center of anything. Just doing my little part.

Often life is a discover of things that have always been there. We just didn't take the time to know it or we didn't really want to know it.
 
Back
Top Bottom