The Eternal Son of God

It just amuses me when me, the backslidden child of perdition, the friend of atheists, the vilest of the vile....knows his bible better than you and SecondJospeh.

Calm yourself.

Now tell me which one is wrong Daniel or Paul ?

If Paul speaks the truth (against Daniel) then the kingdom that the Son delivers up to that Father is no longer His dominion.

If Daniel speaks the truth (against Paul) then the kingdom is NEVER delivered up but remains the Son's for eternity.

How about I decide to believe both?

God's word has uttered both. So how about I believe that the Son has an "eternal dominion" that the Son of Man delivers up to His God and Father at the end of the millennium?

Then I can believe BOTH in the Son's utter submission to His Father AND I can believe in "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:11).

How about I do not use one passage to fight against the other?

@sonship said
Now tell me which one is wrong Daniel or Paul ?

How about I decide to believe both?

How about I do not use one passage to fight against the other?

You are free to believe whatever you choose sonship. I have provided you with simple instruction on this matter, it is up to you what you chose to do with it of course.

@divegeester said
You are free to believe whatever you choose sonship. I have provided you with simple instruction on this matter, it is up to you what you chose to do with it of course.

Bunko poster divegeester strikes again.

@divegeester

You are free to believe whatever you choose sonship.

I choose to believe among other things both First Corinthians 15:24 and the "eternal dominion" of the Son of Man (Daniel 7:24) and "the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11)

An eternal Son of God.

I have provided you with simple instruction on this matter,

They may have been simple. But they are wrong.

it is up to you what you chose to do with it of course.

I asked many questions in the last posts. Your choice to avoid specific answers, I think, indicates that your teaching of the Son not being eternal cannot stand up to those verses.

For example about the Word and the Son of God in John chapter one.

Was the Word Who was with God not the Son of God?
Does the Bible say that the Word was not always with God?
Was the Word Who was God at some place in eternity past not God?
Is there a place where the Son of God was not God?

John 1:1 has to mean an eternal Son of God.

But I think I understand why you don't believe in an eternal Son. I may get to that latter.

Now 1 Cor. 15:24 teaches that the Son of God will deliver up the millennial kingdom to His God and Father after all the enemies of the Son have been subdued.

Can we though, go so far as to say the kingdom of the millennium is not the Father's kingdom ALREADY? I say, No we cannot.

In Matthew 13:41-43 proves that at the beginning of the millennium when some false Christians and "stumbling blocks" and lawless ones are thrown into the furnace of fire, the sons of God will reign in their Father's kingdom

Right here:

"The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness. (v.41) And will cast them into the furnace of fire. In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. (v.42)

And the righteous will shine forth like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear." (v.43) of (Matt. 13:41-43)

As you can clearly see, the kingdom of "the Son of Man" (v.41) at that time is also "the kingdom of their Father" (v.43) .

So at the end of the thousand years we cannot say the Father JUST begins to have His kingdom.
Nor can we insist that there is no "eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11)

Am I right?

@sonship said
Now 1 Cor. 15:24 teaches that the Son of God will deliver up the millennial kingdom to His God and Father after all the enemies of the Son have been subdued.

Can we though, go so far as to say the kingdom of the millennium is not the Father's kingdom ALREADY? I say, No we cannot.

In Matthew 13:41-43 proves that at the beginning of the millennium when s ...[text shortened]... ere is no "eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:11)

Am I right?

Because the being/entity that is the Father and is also the Son, and they are in fact the same person, all those scriptures you post are of course totally in sequence with this understanding.

@divegeester

Because the being/entity that is the Father and is also the Son, and they are in fact the same person, all those scriptures you post are of course totally in sequence with this understanding.

So then the Son is the eternal Son.

If they are the same "person" or (being/entity) then the eternalness of the "eternal Father" (Isa. 9:6) and the eternalness of "the eternal Spirit" (Heb. 9:11) is also the eternalness of the Son.

So why are you arguing that the "office" of the Son is not eternal as His Person is ?

The subject is the eternal Son of God.

The words are not together "eternal" and "Son" in the Bible. But the fact is there.

Please look at the Messianic Psalm 72. It is about the King that Jehovah God set to rule.

It starts like this:

O God, give Your judgments to the king, And Your righteousness to the son of the king. (v.1)

He will judge Your people in righteousness, And Your poor with justice. (v.2)

The eternalness of the Son of God Messiah King is expressed in words like this:

"He will drop like rain upon the mown grass, Like abundant showers dripping on the earth.

In His days the righteous will flourish, And there will be an abundance of peace
Until the moon is no more. " (v.6,7)

Verse 17 says that His name will be forever.

"His name will be forever; As long as the sun endures, His name will spread." (v.17)

And though I completely agree with Divegeester that it is ONE God and the Son and the Father are one "person" / entity / being, the other side of the revelation I embrace. They are two ___________s - the Father and the Son. Two "persons" I will borrow to communicate the unutterable nature of God.

For the plural pronoun "Their" is used to speak of God upon the throne and the Lamb (the Redeemer Son) in Revelation 6.

"And I saw when He opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake, ... etc. etc.

And thy say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb;

For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (See Rev. 6:12-17)

God and the Lamb - " THEIR wrath" .
God is triune.

@sonship said
And though I completely agree with Divegeester that it is ONE God and the Son and the Father are one "person" / entity / being, the other side of the revelation I embrace. They are two ___________s - the Father and the Son. Two "persons" I will borrow to communicate the unutterable nature of God.

For the plural pronoun "Their" is used to speak of God upon the thr ...[text shortened]... 6:12-17) [/b] [/quote]

God and the Lamb - " THEIR wrath" .
God is triune.

This post By Sonship I hold up as an example of the cloudy and misdirected beliefs of corporate Christianity.

The wild accusations of the heretic cannot prove the Son is not eternal.

But the Son did pass through a kind of process. This process involved two "BECAMES" which no one can deny.

1.) The Word became flesh. (John 1:14)
2.) The last Adam became a life giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45).

His destination is to come into His saved human beings as the life giving Spirit that God may be imparted into humanity. The reason God would be dispensed into humanity is to produce many sons conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son. (Rom. 8:28,29)

Many Bible readers are shortsighted to think the Son of God is somehow reduced in office in the future.
Perhaps they think God only has a purpose to create and forgive.

But before sin even became an issue God, before the foundation of the world, predestinated to have sons. And in THE Son He marked out the destiny of some of His creatures to become sons with the Son of eternity.

Here we see the Son of God requesting that the many other sons be with Him in the eternal expression of the divine Father.

"Father, concerning that which You have given Me, I desire that they also may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory, which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:24)

Compare this "before the foundation of the world" with another mention of "before the foundation of the world" in Ephesians chapter one.

"Even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world to be holy and without blemish before Him in love, predestinating us to sonship through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will." (Eph. 1:4,5)

There is the Son of God in eternity past before the creation of the universe.
And there in the heart of the Father and the Son is the plan that He would be joined by many sons.

Think of this process line to grasp the eternal purpose of God.

Creation --> Incarnation --> Human living --> Crucifixion --> Resurrection --> Ascension --> Impartation

This is a kind of process the Triune God economically passed through to accomplish His heart's desire to be dispensed into man. The Son of God must be eternal in every way.

Divegeester, my persistent critic, understands some things. I don't think he understands the eternal God passing through or having this kind of procedure.

Creation --> Incarnation --> Human living --> Crucifixion --> Resurrection --> Ascension --> Impartation

Before Creation we have the Son of God there.
And after Impartation we also have the Son of God there.

Before Creation only a desire in the heart of the Triune God for many sons.
After Impartation there are the many sons built up as the holy city New Jerusalem.

It bares repeating - if the sons of God reign forever how can THE Son, the Firstborn not take the leadership role to reign forever and ever?

"He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to Me." (Rev. 21:7)

"And night will be no more; ... for the Lord God will shine upon them; and they will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 22:5)

Don't listen to any kind of nonsensical teaching that the sons of God reign forever and ever but the Son of God is out of an office. You can see His petition that the many sons be with Him where He is in the mighty prayer of John 17:24.

@sonship said
The wild accusations of the heretic cannot prove the Son is not eternal.

If divegeester is a "heretic" according to you, do you believe he is nevertheless "saved" by his belief in Jesus?

@sonship said
Divegeester, my persistent critic, understands some things. I don't think he understands the eternal God passing through or having this kind of procedure.

Do you believe divegeester faces "damnation"?

@FMF

If divegeester is a "heretic" according to you, do you believe he is nevertheless "saved" by his belief in Jesus?

That's not important to the OP. I'm not stuck on - "is he saved or not."
I'm just not fixated on that issue.

Whatever the case, he is teaching wrongly about the Son of God.
Christians can make mistakes, if he's a Christian.

I haven't seen you once turn the question around to him about me.