@kellyjay saidOK 🙂
I've seen you make claims about others, myself included, in how you look at them as if you know when you don't. So you telling me he was scared is as meaningful to me as you making claims about my church allowing me to teach. You have no idea, but it doesn't stop you from putting words and motives in others' mouths as if you know when you most certainly don't.
@divegeester saidFrom Proverbs 30
Like the word “trinity” the phrase “eternal son” does not appear anywhere in the bible.
For the doctrine of the trinity to be correct, Jesus must be an “eternal son”. But Jesus is not an “eternal son” this concept is man made and deeply erroneous.
Jesus as a “son” was born in the flesh. His role as a “son” had a beginning and therefore it has an end. Therefore th ...[text shortened]... ng God who came and dwelt among us.
There is NO “eternal son” and therefore there is no trinity.
The words of Agur son of Jakeh. The oracle.
The man declares, I am weary, O God; I am weary, O God, and worn out.
Surely I am too stupid to be a man.
I have not the understanding of a man.
I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One.
Who has ascended to heaven and come down?
Who has gathered the wind in his fists?
Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment?
Who has established all the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his son's name?
Surely you know!
Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.
“And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.”
— Luke 5:36-39, KJV
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Why did you alert my posts sonship? 🙂
If by "alert" your post you mean you suspect that I pushed the exclamation mark to notify the webmaster of your post - I did not do that.
If you suspect that I was the reason why your post was removed, I WAS NOT THE CAUSE.
I have more important things to be involved with (if that is what you are talking about).
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Divegeester,
I would ask you a question about your belief in a non-eternal Son of God.
Why, if the Son of God was no longer needed, did not God just leave Him DEAD when He was crucified?
Expressed in other words - when the Son died accomplishing redemption, WHY not God just leave Him DEAD? What was the need for Him to be resurrected ?
@sonship saidI welcome this assertion by you, if it is true, and I do believe you.
@divegeesterWhy did you alert my posts sonship? 🙂
If by "alert" your post you mean you suspect that I pushed the exclamation mark to notify the webmaster of your post - I did not do that.
If you suspect that I was the reason why your post was removed, I WAS NOT THE CAUSE.
I have more important things to be involved with (if that is what you are talking about).
Furthermore then, I apologise for assuming it was you.
It means that the person who did do it, and there will be only one other, it is up to their usual tricks and would rather see this forum descend into the childish “alerting” chaos which we see elsewhere in other forums, than remain the hotbed of interesting discourse which it is.
@sonship saidLook sonship, if you are not prepared to read the statement (which someone keeps trying to remove) carefully, then I don’t see much point in us debating this.
Divegeester,
I would ask you a question about your belief in a non-eternal Son of God.
Why, if the Son of God was no longer needed, did not God just leave Him DEAD when He was crucified?
Expressed in other words - when the Son died accomplishing redemption, WHY not God just leave Him DEAD? What was the need for Him to be resurrected ?
My statement on this topic is not meant to be complete but it should give you at the very least a clear understanding of what I believe. And yet you won’t even address it, you just ignore it.
THIS IS NOT SPAM.
Here it is again , please read it and let’s discuss it.
There is only one god and that god is one entity; his name is Jehovah in the Old Testament.
Jehovah came to earth in bodily form
His flesh had a beginning at his conception and his given human name is Jesus
Jesus was Jehovah in bodily form; his spirit was the spirit of Jehovah
Jesus accomplished his task as a son and returned to heaven where his flesh had been transfigured for that purpose
His spirit, the spirit of Jehovah returned to him as a whole and the position the fleshly part of him held as a son was finished with.
The son was again the father. The son “handed over all things to the father”.
None of this interferes with the deity of jesus, the lordship of jesus the names of Jesus. We still access the father through jesus because that is the given name by which we are saved.
But the essence of god is ONE. Jesus and Jehovah are the same spiritual entity. The one god.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I welcome this assertion by you, if it is true, and I do believe you.
Furthermore then, I apologise for assuming it was you.
Thankyou. I have nothing against the summary in and of itself.
I mean the form or style of you expressing your thoughts in that way is fine with me.
I can freely refer back to each line of that creedal like paragraph if I need to.
Right now I want to know what your thoughts are about "Well, once Jesus died for our redemption, WHY couldn't God just leave Him dead, if a Son was no longer necessary?"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
None of this interferes with the deity of jesus, the lordship of jesus the names of Jesus. We still access the father through jesus because that is the given name by which we are saved.
Okay, you highlight this as the crucial point.
I got it.
But you have the name remaining but the Person behind the name goes away ??
@sonship saidFirstly because what I believe about the oneness of God does not in any way contradict or detract from the plan and finished work of God in Christ.
@divegeester
Right now I want to know what your thoughts are about "Well, once Jesus died for our redemption, WHY couldn't God just leave Him dead, if a Son was no longer necessary?"
Secondly, if the body, the flesh, of Jesus who was genetically a son of man and spirituality the son of God, had not risen, then nor would we. We are crucified in Christ and rise with him. The purpose of calvary was to overcome not just the curse of physical death, to impute or at least give access to, spiritual life.. it was also (as it is written) to overcome hades and the abomination of the alternative future timeline for mankind as depicted in Revelation.
@sonship saidNO! good grief. Please try to read what my statement said. Step away from your own belief for a moment and look at it objectively.
@divegeester
But you have the name remaining but the Person behind the name goes away ??
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.
Therefore he cannot “go away”. Jesus is an aspect, a projection of Jehovah in the flesh. 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.
This is what I believe.