The Son didn't become the Father; the Father became the Son. And He also did not cease to be the Father in doing so (John 4:23-24, John 14:7-11); but only took on the added nature of humanity.
Eternal Security
- Thread starter Rollo Tamasi
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I don't agree with this statement; the Son always was. He is eternal: 'Unto the Son he saith: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever' (Hebrews 1.8).
I don't disagree with your statement; but I would say that the origin of the Son is the virgin birth: that the Holy Spirit became a Man (Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:20). He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Romans 1:3 (kjv), Isaiah 45:11).
I don't agree: because in John 3.16, God sent His beloved Son Who already and always was. John 1.14 describes the One Whose glory at His incarnation was 'as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth', clear qualities of One Who enjoyed eternal deity.
What is it exactly that you don't agree with? What statements did I make that I did not back up with scripture?
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
The reason you only understand half of it is because the other half is not true. YHWH (God) is not a trinity and the Son is not part of the one true God. He is the Son of the one true God (John 17:3). God is one person, not three person's.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
I did not change the position of the word loving. When I clicked reply, that is how it formatted your text. He did preserve His Word, but not in any particular English translation, especially not the KJV which has many errors.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
This means that when the Son would be given his throne in the future from the writing of Psalm 45, that it would be his forever into the future. It has no relation to eternity past.
I believe you; thousands wouldn't.
Except Jesus ascended to be outside of time, Ephesians 4:10. Because time is a created thing and is only the fourth dimension; there are six above it according to the Bible codes of Genesis 1.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
Ephesians 4:10 says nothing about heaven being outside of time. Show me some verses that say heaven is outside of time and explain Revelation 8:1 as well. As for Bible codes, we can get them to say whatever we want.
Heaven does not have to be outside of time for God to be outside of time. He inhabits eternity. And this applies also after He has descended and risen to ascend.
As for Bible codes, they are just as authoritative as the rest of God's word. They are inspired and not subject to private interpretation.
Therefore we don't read into them what we want them to say. Instead, we study them to find out what the Lord intends to say by them. Of course we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit in this as with the rest of the Lord's word.
As for Bible codes, they are just as authoritative as the rest of God's word. They are inspired and not subject to private interpretation.
Therefore we don't read into them what we want them to say. Instead, we study them to find out what the Lord intends to say by them. Of course we need the illumination of the Holy Spirit in this as with the rest of the Lord's word.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
There you go mixing up verses again. First you talk about "Jesus" being outside of time, now you give me a verse (Isaiah 57:15) talkinging about Yeshua's Father to support your erroneous conclusion.
Here is an excerpt about the author of The Bible Codes, Michael Drosnin;
In 1997, in defense of his methodology, Drosnin issued this challenge: “When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in ‘Moby Dick’ I’ll believe them” (Barry/Rogers, p. 67).
Be careful about making rash challenges!
Professor Brendan McKay, of the Department of Computer Science at Australian National University, accepted Drosnin’s challenge. Running computer searches similar to those employed by Drosnin, he scanned the text of Moby Dick. By the Drosnin/Jeffrey method, he was able to construct “prophetic” messages foretelling the deaths of Abraham Lincoln, Indira Gandhi, Rene Moawad, Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, Sirhan Sirhan, John F. Kennedy, and Princess Diana! Must one now conclude that Moby Dick was inspired of God by means of the pen of Herman Melville? Those Bogus "Bible Codes" - The Christian Courier
Be careful about making rash challenges!
Professor Brendan McKay, of the Department of Computer Science at Australian National University, accepted Drosnin’s challenge. Running computer searches similar to those employed by Drosnin, he scanned the text of Moby Dick. By the Drosnin/Jeffrey method, he was able to construct “prophetic” messages foretelling the deaths of Abraham Lincoln, Indira Gandhi, Rene Moawad, Leon Trotsky, Martin Luther King, Sirhan Sirhan, John F. Kennedy, and Princess Diana! Must one now conclude that Moby Dick was inspired of God by means of the pen of Herman Melville? Those Bogus "Bible Codes" - The Christian Courier
I have already shown you conclusively that Jesus is the Father. If you continue to harden your heart against this truth, then I cannot help you to avoid your fate spoken of in John 8:24.
The man was in fact challenging God, and the Lord took him up on it by putting those things in the Codes from before the beginning of time.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
In reality, you do not know what you are showing me. In post #1969 you wrote, "And yes I do believe in the true Trinity: that Jesus is God the Son in that He is God (the Father) in human flesh through the virgin birth." Yet, here you wrote, "Jesus is the Father". However, as I showed you in previous posts, the trinitarian shield clearly shows the Son IS NOT the Father. This is why you have no basis to claim you are a trinitarian. You promote the "Oneness" doctrine, not trinitarianism.
In post #1950 you wrote, "Jesus said (Genesis 6:3), My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." (underlining mine)
Then, in post #1981 you wrote, "The Son didn't become the Father; the Father became the Son." (underlining mine).
Please explain these two CONTRADICTORY statements. How can "Jesus" be speaking in Genesis 6:3 long before the Father supposedly became the Son? You have the Son existing BEFORE the Father became the Son. If anything, your words show the Son became the Son (which, BTW, is also false). The truth of the matter is that the Father CREATED the Son via a divine miracle at his conception in Miriam's womb. The Father did NOT become the Son, nor did the Son become the Son. The "logos" (The Father's thoughts and spoken words) became the Son.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
This makes no sense. Who is "the man", Drosnin or McKay? Did the Almighty also put those "codes" in Moby Dick?
My personal opinion is that all scripture (everything written) is inspired (as an author of a book says that he was inspired to write it) and therefore profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. But that only the holy scriptures (the Bible, especially the kjv) is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. The information that you have given serves to substantiate my opinion.
I will not hide the fact that I believe in Oneness doctrine as I understand it. It should be obvious since I am also promoting elsewhere baptism in Jesus' name.In reality, you do not know what you are showing me. In post #1969 you wrote, "And yes I do believe in the true Trinity: that Jesus is God the Son in that He is God (the Father) in human flesh through the virgin birth." Yet, here you wrote, "Jesus is the Father". However, as I showed you in previous posts, the trinitarian shield clearly shows the Son IS NOT the Father. This is why you have no basis to claim you are a trinitarian. You promote the "Oneness" doctrine, not trinitarianism.
In post #1950 you wrote, "Jesus said (Genesis 6:3), My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." (underlining mine)
Then, in post #1981 you wrote, "The Son didn't become the Father; the Father became the Son." (underlining mine).
Please explain these two CONTRADICTORY statements. How can "Jesus" be speaking in Genesis 6:3 long before the Father supposedly became the Son? You have the Son existing BEFORE the Father became the Son. If anything, your words show the Son became the Son (which, BTW, is also false). The truth of the matter is that the Father CREATED the Son via a divine miracle at his conception in Miriam's womb. The Father did NOT become the Son, nor did the Son become the Son. The "logos" (The Father's thoughts and spoken words) became the Son.
However, Oneness doctrine as I see it in no way contradicts the Athanasian or Apostle's Creeds although it may contradict your Trinity shield: it is the true Trinity from what I see to be biblical understanding.
The Trinity shield cannot portray it accurately because it is a construct that requires that if something is true one way, then it must also be true the other. In other words, since the Father is not the Son, it concludes that the Son is not the Father. So it breaks down from being perfectly the truth because it is a picture of what someone thinks God is. And God cannot be shown in a picture.
However, it can be shown from scripture (to someone who is not thinking with the natural mind) that the Son is the Father although the Father is not the Son. As a matter of fact, the natural mind rejects the testimony of scripture and attempts to change the words of scripture (more than once) in order to reject the clear testimony of Isaiah 9:6.
gadar perets
Well-Known Member
I agree, but this has nothing to do with Bible Codes.
Which is your way of not dealing with how Moby Dick has similar info decoded in it. Any large volume of literature will have similar "codes".
Similar threads
