|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How many sons does God have? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
nemesis_juggernaut writes: Hell is the eternal separation of God. God will no more look upon you with concern. You will simply be cast away, never to return. Ever hear of the parable of the prodigal son? The father always looks on his children with concern. He will always take them back. "Eternal separation" is a direct contradiction of what Jesus taught.
Now you get the very thing you always wanted, to be away from God, to mock His laws, to reign down invectives upon Him-- only now, it hurts. But that isn't what we've "always wanted". The son wants to exercise his free will. He wants to use his resources in his own way. If he happens to screw up, the Father is always there to bail him out. "Being away from God" is not the goal. Mocking His laws is not the goal - as we see time after time in these threads, atheists tend to have a better grasp of "God's laws" than Christians do. Raining down invective on God is not the goal. Using the faculties God gave us is the goal. There is no "discipline" for doing that. We are all God's sons, and a son is a son is a son - always. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: To become a son of God you must be born again. Let's look at the prodigal son, yet again. He was born his father's son. He wanted to exercise his free will, to use his inheritance in his own way - and his father allowed it. He screwed up - but he went to his father for help and his father received him back, as a son. The son began a new life - effectively, he was "born again". But he had always been his father's son. Being "born again" is not some magic trick that changes your father. It's the realization - not once but on a daily basis - that you are a son of God, with all the privileges and responsibilities. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: You have to be a son before you can be a prodigal son. Exactly. The prodigal son was his father's son - he didn't "become" his father's son when he repented. From birth, he was always his father's son.
If everyone is a son of God by the fleshly birth, why did Jesus say man needed a spiritual birth to see, or enter the kingdom of God? What does spiritual birth have to do with being adopted by a different father? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: You receive the adoption by the birth from above which is the spiritual birth Jesus was talking about. That makes no sense. Birth has nothing to do with adoption. Spiritual rebirth is about what happens to the person. It has nothing to do with the father. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes: The text presents the new birth as an event which is necessary for entry into God's kingdom. Tenses notwithstanding, Jesus made it clear elsewhere (e.g. Matthew 25) that entry into heaven depends on day-to-day behaviour. Whether event or process, "rebirthing" is not mystical, it's practical. But the topic is "How many sons does God have?" Being "born again" is not particularly relevant. We have to be careful not to mix up the imagery. The father/son metaphor is used throughout the Bible and maybe most directly in the parable of the prodigal son. Some posters here don't seem to be able to understand the simple concept that a son is a son is a son - from birth, always and forever, no matter what. There is no hint whatsoever in the parable that the son "became" a son (in a single event or in a process). He was always a son. If the parable isn't a picture of God's relationship with His sons, what is it's purpose? Another simple concept that seems to escape understanding is the fact that fathers don't give birth. Neither fleshly birth nor spiritual rebirth have anything to do with the father. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Probably true in Mt 25, but this is far from any context of "sonship" or "children". On the contrary, that's the exact context. Jesus was speaking of "all nations", i.e. everybody:
quote: And He refered to them as His "brethern":
quote: There isn't much room for error in that passage. Jesus said pretty clearly that "all nations" are His "brethern", which makes them all the sons of God. Any interpretation of John has to fit within that context. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes: ... note that there's a difference between "son" and "child". No. There isn't. See Message 70. All nations are Jesus brethern, hence God's sons. I'm tempted to say "QED". Instead I'll say In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: Jesus was clearly talking about someone other than those that were standing before Him. If it's so clear, show us in the text.
I do know that there is a religion that teaches that everyone is born with a spark of divinity and all you have to do is fan it and it will grow you into the position of son. That's not what I'm saying - there's nothing about "growing into the position of son". Having to "earn" the position would completely negate the whole father/son idea. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: Since Jesus plainly states that some are the children of the devil that means physical birth does not make you a son of God. "Children of the devil" is obviously figurative, since "the devil" is nobody's father, either by creation or sperm donation. It's like calling our own earthly children "little monsters". It doesn't negate what Jesus said in Matthew 25. All nations are gathered before Him for judgement. He refers to all of them as "these my brethern". You have claimed that there are exceptions. Show us in the text. Edited by Ringo, : No reason given. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: If you are serious about debating Matt. 25 I suggest you start a thread to discuss the different judgments of Christ. I have asked you twice now to back up your claim that Jesus was not speaking to "all nations" when He spoke of "these my brethern". If ya got anything, roll it out. We don't need a whole new thread to cover one small point. I've made my case pretty clear. You have said nothing to refute it. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes: So there are at least five different ways that the phrase "child of God" or "son of God" is used in the Bible. A person might say "my children" in the sense of "my biological children" - as opposed to "my second husband's biological children". Or she might say "my children" in the sense of "all the children I have raised" - biological, adopted and foster. The context is relevant in individual statements, but if we want to know who the person really counts as her children, we have to look at the broadest statement. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: How do you get the ones being spoken to and the ones spoken about to be the same people? Jesus is speaking to the individuals that He is judging. When He speaks about "these my brethern", there is no other "these" that He could be referring to. There is no group singled out from "all nations". No matter how exclusive you want to be, the text simply does not support your notion that "these my brethern" are different from "all nations". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
You're being silly.
Jesus said, "these my brethern". He didn't say, "this group, starting with this guy and ending with that guy - all the others are excluded." When there are no specific exclusions the word "these" applies to all present. Unless you can actually point out in the passage which group is excluded from "all nations", you have no case. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes: Unless you can actually point out in the passage which group is excluded from "all nations", The group that came with Jesus. What part of "point out in the passage" do you not understand? There is no "group that came with Jesus". There is only "all nations" and "these my brethern". No distinction is ever made between the two - there is one group only. Your horse is dead. I see no reason to pulverize it further. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes: The truth is that there is no one "real" meaning, no one single biblical meaning of "son of God". Of course there's more than one usage. My point is that you can't take the narrowest meaning and exclude the broadest. If Jesus even once included "all nations" as "His brethern", you are not entitled to prefer an alternate usage. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024