The Eternal Son of God

@divegeester said
There is no “eternal son” anywhere in the Bible.

😀

Above Divegeester wrote:

He is eternal even as the son because he is the same one person.

And I responded:

So you are now saying what I have been saying which you previously fought against it seems. The Son is eternal.

You mentioned "no eternal Son mentioned in the Bible". But now you appear to ACKNOWLEDGE the FACT Of an eternal Son of God.

So were you wrong then or wrong now?
Which is your position ?

There is no “eternal son” anywhere in the Bible.

OR

He is eternal even as the son because he is the same one person.

@sonship said
So were you wrong then or wrong now?
Which is your position ?

There is no “eternal son” anywhere in the Bible.

OR

He is eternal even as the son because he is the same one person.

I was wrong then. Well not wrong as such, I just didn’t explain myself well. Let me try again (for the umpteenth time) as you’re obviously having difficulty...

There is no eternal son
The son is a temporary “office” or manifestation of the one (person) God
They are the same person
Three is bad, one is good
Four is out of the question
Five is just silly

Jesus is the Revelation of God as a man, deity wrapped in flesh
He died for us...not another separate person, there is only one person

Jesus said “when you have seen me, you have seen the Father”
Plain and simple

Too simple for some who like to make it complicated and who pretend they don’t understand the simple version

How’s that coming through now?

@sonship said
@divegeester

“I haven’t always been your father, but from today onwards you will always be my son.”

From the book:
Spiritual Parenting in a Temporal Environment

By who ?

by whom

@ghost-of-a-duke said
While you tend to dilute a question and then answer that, rather than the one I asked you.

It's a little vexing.

Reasoning together tends to do that since we are disagreeing from different world
views, the foundations of each are not the same. Questions may not get answered
the way we want or expect due to the different perspectives. Follow up questions
should come, and they need to be very specific. You have seen how some after a
round or two of questions people tend to get frustrated, and then go into
personal attacks with claims of stupidity on some level, intellectual dishonesty, or
some other personal slights, instead of just accepting people can agree to
disagree. Some just go straight into attacks, and don't even bother attempting to
get much out of questions and answers.

Different perspectives are defined by people viewing things differently, so looking
at the same data or hearing what someone else says may not be enough, no
matter what authorities are invoked on any given topic to alter another’s thinking.

So, first round unless you plan on leaving after this.

Logically speaking: Nothing is the only thing that can come from nothing. Nothing
can create anything for there is nothing there to change. Nothing can be altered
since there is nothing there to alter. Nothing can get hotter or colder since there is
nothing there to change temperature, and even temperatures are something, so
they too couldn’t be there. Nothing has no causes or effects. So, if this universe
had a beginning it wasn't nothing that caused it.

What I believe all of this shows is that the universe didn’t create itself, if it wasn’t
here before it couldn’t change to create itself, going back to the problem of
something coming from nothing. The universe had to have been created by
something outside of it, so the creator/cause must transcend time, space, energy
all of which are part of this universe. To push this off on multiple universes only
pushes the beginning out father without ever addressing the beginning, begging
the question what started it all still.

Both theology and science say this universe had a beginning, so before that the
cause had to be here before time, space, matter, and energy were. This puts the
creator beyond the limitations found within the universe itself, and it is also the
reason it is maintained as it is. Every law, force, matter and so on owe their very
existence to the who or what made the universe, even how it is maintained is also
totally dependent on the author of its design.

This doesn't presuppose that the cause also had a beginning, only that from
nothing can anything arise. If you want to discuss why this isn't an eternal universe
we can. If you want to discuss why the cause of the universe had to be something
other than nothing we can. If you want to discuss why I believe the cause is eternal
and not finite, we can.

@kellyjay said
Logically speaking: Nothing is the only thing that can come from nothing.

That is not Logic.
We do not know that.

@kellyjay said
Different perspectives are defined by people viewing things differently, so looking
at the same data or hearing what someone else says may not be enough, no
matter what authorities are invoked on any given topic to alter another’s thinking.

How do you think your god figure handled this facet of human nature?

@divegeester said
The post made no sense to you, to the extent that you accuse me of drunkenness... because I typed an “L” instead of a “P”?

No. Because you said, "SecondJosephw just really really holes I’m going to hell because I deserve it."

It's an idiotic thing to say, and is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Along with virtually every post you make. You're projecting into the discussion a subjective attitude based on feelings rather than objective thought relative to rational discourse with regards to the topic of discussion.

@kellyjay said
Reasoning together tends to do that since we are disagreeing from different world
views, the foundations of each are not the same. Questions may not get answered
the way we want or expect due to the different perspectives. Follow up questions
should come, and they need to be very specific. You have seen how some after a
round or two of questions people tend to get frustr ...[text shortened]... n nothing we can. If you want to discuss why I believe the cause is eternal
and not finite, we can.

Sorry Kelly, can you clarify that you understand what I mean by an uncreated universe? You really do see to be struggling with this. (If it helps, this is not the same as saying the universe came from nothing).

And again you have ignored the main point I was making. If a finite mind can't comprehend the idea of an infinite God, why can't the same be true of an infinite universe? (A universe that had no beginning, a truth that a finite mind simply can't grasp).

@wolfgang59 said
That is not Logic.
We do not know that.

So you think if nothing is there, with no cause of nothing, something can happen?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Sorry Kelly, can you clarify that you understand what I mean by an uncreated universe? You really do see to be struggling with this. (If it helps, this is not the same as saying the universe came from nothing).

And again you have ignored the main point I was making. If a finite mind can't comprehend the idea of an infinite God, why can't the same be true of an infinite universe? (A universe that had no beginning, a truth that a finite mind simply can't grasp).

Oh I completely agree our finites minds on their own cannot understand the
infinite God, unless!

Unless we were designed too and God enlightens us.
And if there is more to us than just meets the eye in this material world too.

@fmf said
How do you think your god figure handled this facet of human nature?

I don't own or have a god figure.

@secondson said
No. Because you said, "SecondJosephw just really really holes I’m going to hell because I deserve it."

It's an idiotic thing to say, and is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. Along with virtually every post you make. You're projecting into the discussion a subjective attitude based on feelings rather than objective thought relative to rational discourse with regards to the topic of discussion.

Wow, you seem really upset Josephw.

@kellyjay said
I don't own or have a god figure.

Have you become atheist in the last 20 minutes?

@wolfgang59 said
That is not Logic.
We do not know that.

@kellyjay said
Logically speaking: Nothing is the only thing that can come from nothing.

@wolfgang59 said
That is not Logic.
We do not know that.

Whether we know that or not it's not logical to think that "nothing" can, or does, come from "nothing".

Seems there must be a higher logic that explains how "something" exists from "nothing". Assuming it does.

Logic appears to dictate that what exists came from something. Evolution seems to be a viable option based on that logic.

Then there's the apparent illogical option that a creator created everything from nothing, as it says in the Bible.

The question is then, which is the correct reality? That everything in existence existed in one form or another in eternity past? Or is/was everything in existence brought into existence from nothing?

Another question is: is the logic viable that everything in existence was in another form prior to its existence in the form we see now?

I think that's presumptive logic. Science can't prove it, and the Bible knows nothing about it.

I think that the idea of the creation of everything, from nothing, by an omniscient creator destroys logic altogether. The idea doesn't fit with any human contrived model of logic.