praise_yeshua
Active Member
Sure I can. I have been. You have a schizophrenic concept of Jesus. You refuse to engage to the point of learning that you do. This is what happens when your imagination doesn't meet reality.
Open Debate on the "Eternal Sonship vs Incarnate Sonship which is biblical?"
- Thread starter FreeInChrist
- Start date
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I've been trying to tell you Unitarian Jesus Only advocates this is what happens when you embrace what you believe. @Red Baker @Jim @101G
Last edited:
@praise_yeshua
The Word which is God is eternal both ways! The Son of God was born in time, we have the record of his birth recorded for us in Luke's gospel. The Word was not born, God's Son was born. By the very fact God was Jesus' Father makes him equal to God, he was the express image of God in Human flesh. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemned sin in the flesh, which only God's Son could do. The Word was manifest in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus was God, but God was not Jesus. The mystery of Godliness.
praise_yeshua
Active Member
You say the Word is eternal but you insist the Son isn't. The son became flesh.....the Word became flesh but only the Son is temporal. Now watch your friends deny the Deity of the Son using the same disconnected arguments you're using.
So let's get into the son having a Father but reality not having a Father.
So tell me how the son is derived from the father.
I have, by them denying Jesus' Deity is on them. The truth is in the middle between what they believe and what those who teach the eternal Sonship doctrine.
The incarnate Sonship position protect Jesus' Deity where they (Unitarians) just flat out reject it, and those who hold to the eternal Sonship ends up with Jesus being a begotten god just as the Jehovah Witnesses teach!
praise_yeshua
Active Member
What middle? There isn't a middle to be found in this.
You're there right at begotten god. Tell me the difference?
The relationship of the Father and Son is Eternal or it isn't. Some of this confusion revolves around understanding what the Incarnation brought to Divinity. Your view on Election forces you to make many mistakes in this. You create a necessity that is self serving in your view of the Son.
No, the Son did not become flesh! The Word was made flesh in the person of Jesus God's Son born of Mary! The Word was NOT born, Jesus God's Son was born. Mary did not give birth to God, but to God's Son. Jesus was indeed Immanuel, but Immanuel was NOT conceived and born. By the very fact Jesus was God's only begotten Son, in the manner in which he was begotten made him equal to God.
God had NO SON, "until" Jesus was conceived and born! Jesu was NOT the second person of the Godhead, he was God of Genesis 1:1. There are no first, second, and third person of the Godhead, there are ONE LORD God, manifest as three according to the salvation of God's elect.
Man's creeds have corrupted the biblical teaching of the Godhead, and destroyed Jesus' Deity as the I AM THAT I AM.
Heading to bed....later
civic
Active Member
There it is a denying of the True Eternal God who is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
A modalist
praise_yeshua
Active Member
I must say that I can't see how you create a separation between word and son. There is schizophrenic double talk in everything you said.
Your desire to see yourself chosen is clouding your judgement. You're projecting your own desire upon a proper view of love and relationship. You can't comprehend the Unity that exists in Persons being One. You must rule everything. Satan loves this.
I bet you think your son is lesser than you. Right? Or maybe your wife? Your fellowman? What is the Unity of the faith to you?
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
So many things are lost in your flawed position.
@civic
Question: "Who is called the Everlasting father in the scriptures? Isaiah 9:6?" And why is he called this?
Would not Isaiah 9:6 been the perfect place to call Jesus the Eternal Son? Of course it would have been. Why did Isaiah not do so? I'll answer this for you since you refuse to answer others post fearing you cannot or it would expose your false position.
It would be a denying of Christ's Deity as the eternal God that he is.
You have yet even try to prove my post are wrong, all you are doing is occasionally taking a free shot at me. Not totally sure what you mean by this statement, I can surmise, but, with your eternal Sonship position I'm not totally sure, care to explain what you are meaning? And why you are at this I have a question for you:
Question: "Who is called the Everlasting father in the scriptures? Isaiah 9:6?" And why is he called this?
Would not Isaiah 9:6 been the perfect place to call Jesus the Eternal Son? Of course it would have been. Why did Isaiah not do so? I'll answer this for you since you refuse to answer others post fearing you cannot or it would expose your false position.
It would be a denying of Christ's Deity as the eternal God that he is.
I am saying that the "Word" that was eternally existing Spirit took on the flesh and blood of the human being when he was born of the woman Mary. That is the time when the Word "became the Son".
@praise_yeshua
It boils down to....... which view protect Jesus' Deity as the Everlasting God. It is clear that only the Incarnated Sonship position does.
None of what you saying has one thing to do with the doctrine of Eternal Sonship vs the Incarnate Sonship.
It boils down to....... which view protect Jesus' Deity as the Everlasting God. It is clear that only the Incarnated Sonship position does.
@praise_yeshua
The scriptures reveals to us "how" this came about by reading Luke's account in Luke 1:35.
Now, will you and @civic @Duane @Obadiah @Eternally-Grateful @Rowan @Richard provide for us how Jesus is the eternal Son of God? A son must have a mother to begin with. A son must have a Father to be a son. Both are before the son. I'll wait to get your answer along with @civic and @FreeInChrist if she think she can provide an answer to this question.
That's the very question that must be answer by those who hold to the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ.
The scriptures reveals to us "how" this came about by reading Luke's account in Luke 1:35.
Luke 1:35
“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”Now, will you and @civic @Duane @Obadiah @Eternally-Grateful @Rowan @Richard provide for us how Jesus is the eternal Son of God? A son must have a mother to begin with. A son must have a Father to be a son. Both are before the son. I'll wait to get your answer along with @civic and @FreeInChrist if she think she can provide an answer to this question.
Last edited:
I just read this from the writings of Samuel Richardson written back in 1643, in a debate with a certain Dr.
Also the Doctor saith, that Christ is the Son of God, not only in respect of His temporal generation, but also in respect of his eternal generation, p.3, and that the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, because he proceeds from the Father originally; and that the Spirit hath a dependence from both, p.23. But if Christ, as he was God had a beginning, he could not be God if he had such a beginning. How can Christ, as he is God, be the Son of God in respect of His eternal generation any more than the Father is His Son by eternal generation? Secondly, if the Spirit of God be God, {as he is,} equal with the Father and the Son, all Three infinite, without beginning, each having the whole divine essence and yet there is but one essence; how can the Spirit proceed from the Father originally, any more than the Father from the Spirit? And how can the Spirit of God have any more dependence upon the Father and the Son, then they have upon Him, seeing whatsoever is infinite, can have no dependence upon anything? Therefore the Doctor’s words contain in them the nature of blasphemy; and to define how one can be three, and three but one, &c., always so remains, is above the reach of any man. I may say to him as Luke 6:41-42, “and why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
Also the Doctor saith, that Christ is the Son of God, not only in respect of His temporal generation, but also in respect of his eternal generation, p.3, and that the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, because he proceeds from the Father originally; and that the Spirit hath a dependence from both, p.23. But if Christ, as he was God had a beginning, he could not be God if he had such a beginning. How can Christ, as he is God, be the Son of God in respect of His eternal generation any more than the Father is His Son by eternal generation? Secondly, if the Spirit of God be God, {as he is,} equal with the Father and the Son, all Three infinite, without beginning, each having the whole divine essence and yet there is but one essence; how can the Spirit proceed from the Father originally, any more than the Father from the Spirit? And how can the Spirit of God have any more dependence upon the Father and the Son, then they have upon Him, seeing whatsoever is infinite, can have no dependence upon anything? Therefore the Doctor’s words contain in them the nature of blasphemy; and to define how one can be three, and three but one, &c., always so remains, is above the reach of any man. I may say to him as Luke 6:41-42, “and why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.
Runningman
Active Member
Denial really isn't a good look for you. You know, there are smarter people here than you. There are people here you can't gaslight and fool. Better you develop some humility and accept that.
Even though Jesus has been proven to not exist in the Old Testament under any name or title, you just simply reject the Bible and commentators. Ok. This isn't what a debate is. What you are doing is called arguing. Do you know the difference?
Runningman
Active Member
Jesus is a prophet who spoke the words God commanded him to speak. Don't over think it. It's very simple.
Deuteronomy 18
17Then the LORD said to me, “They have spoken well. 18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19And I will hold accountable anyone who does not listen to My words that the prophet speaks in My name.
FreeInChrist
Active Member
I should start a new thread with the title....
The Death of the Godhead ... and who killed it?
For if you do not believe that Christ was from eternity past that is exactly what you have done.
RB told me not to write/respond to him because we are acting like fighting brothers and sisters.
So this is NOT to @Red Baker .
For those who do not believe in the eternity of the son , are you all anti-trin believers?
It is certain that if Jesus is not considered the eternal Son, it challenges the traditional understanding of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet co-eternal persons because central to the doctrine of the Trinity is that it was from before time.
And necessitates a brand new bible under this belief because much of what is in the current one
will necessitate being replace.
The very phrase that John uttered, 1:3... All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being......The "him" through which all things were made refers to the Living Word, who is Jesus. Here, John makes a powerful declaration: everything was created through Jesus.
Then John went on to state in 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
If , as John 1 states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Is something John taught...And you can prove that not only was Jesus not in the begining with God but Jesus as the Word was not either you can pretty much discount John's teachings and the book should be gone from the bible, because if false, his teachings are heretical and border on blaspheme.
Thus making the opening statement of this true, and everyone should maybe call them the dynamic duo because the third one in the Trinity did not exist but the duo did.
It certainly then had to be the HS with God when God said let us.
I had to be the HS who met moses on the mountain.
and on and on and on...........
So lets get rid of the book of John @Red Baker and all other anti trin people... and also, lets get rid of the book of James.
The Death of the Godhead ... and who killed it?
For if you do not believe that Christ was from eternity past that is exactly what you have done.
RB told me not to write/respond to him because we are acting like fighting brothers and sisters.
So this is NOT to @Red Baker .
For those who do not believe in the eternity of the son , are you all anti-trin believers?
It is certain that if Jesus is not considered the eternal Son, it challenges the traditional understanding of the Trinity, which holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct yet co-eternal persons because central to the doctrine of the Trinity is that it was from before time.
And necessitates a brand new bible under this belief because much of what is in the current one
will necessitate being replace.
The very phrase that John uttered, 1:3... All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being......The "him" through which all things were made refers to the Living Word, who is Jesus. Here, John makes a powerful declaration: everything was created through Jesus.
Then John went on to state in 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
If , as John 1 states "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Is something John taught...And you can prove that not only was Jesus not in the begining with God but Jesus as the Word was not either you can pretty much discount John's teachings and the book should be gone from the bible, because if false, his teachings are heretical and border on blaspheme.
Thus making the opening statement of this true, and everyone should maybe call them the dynamic duo because the third one in the Trinity did not exist but the duo did.
It certainly then had to be the HS with God when God said let us.
I had to be the HS who met moses on the mountain.
and on and on and on...........
So lets get rid of the book of John @Red Baker and all other anti trin people... and also, lets get rid of the book of James.
