Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How many sons does God have?
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 151 (407027)
06-23-2007 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Hyroglyphx
06-23-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Eternal separation
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-23-2007 12:59 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 06-26-2007 1:08 AM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 151 (407404)
06-26-2007 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ICANT
06-26-2007 2:19 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ICANT, posted 06-26-2007 2:19 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-26-2007 12:53 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2007 9:16 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 151 (407876)
06-28-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
06-28-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Re Son
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2007 9:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2007 11:45 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 52 of 151 (407880)
06-28-2007 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by ICANT
06-28-2007 11:45 PM


Re: Re Son
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2007 11:45 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 61 of 151 (407894)
06-29-2007 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by kbertsche
06-29-2007 1:49 AM


Re: Unrelated irrelevant nonsense.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by kbertsche, posted 06-29-2007 1:49 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 06-29-2007 6:35 AM ringo has replied
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 3:25 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 70 of 151 (407944)
06-29-2007 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by kbertsche
06-29-2007 6:35 AM


Re: Sonship and New Birth
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:
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
And He refered to them as His "brethern":
quote:
Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 06-29-2007 6:35 AM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 3:51 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 151 (408088)
06-30-2007 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by kbertsche
06-30-2007 11:47 AM


Re: We are all Sons of God according to the Bible.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by kbertsche, posted 06-30-2007 11:47 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 81 of 151 (408113)
06-30-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
06-30-2007 3:51 PM


Re: Sonship and New Birth
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 3:51 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 7:09 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 84 of 151 (408123)
06-30-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
06-30-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Sonship and New Birth
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 7:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by anastasia, posted 06-30-2007 10:36 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 11:33 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 93 of 151 (408162)
07-01-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
06-30-2007 11:33 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 06-30-2007 11:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 2:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 97 of 151 (408225)
07-01-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by kbertsche
07-01-2007 2:43 AM


Re: Strange hermeneutic
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 07-01-2007 2:43 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2007 12:10 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 100 of 151 (408268)
07-01-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by ICANT
07-01-2007 2:10 PM


Re: Re All Nations
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 2:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 3:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 103 of 151 (408286)
07-01-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by ICANT
07-01-2007 3:10 PM


Re: Re All Nations
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 3:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 4:17 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 151 (408300)
07-01-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
07-01-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Re All Nations
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 4:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 07-01-2007 10:09 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 112 of 151 (408365)
07-02-2007 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by kbertsche
07-02-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Strange hermeneutic
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2007 12:10 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2007 6:27 AM ringo has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024