The Eternal Kingdom/Reign of Jesus Christ

[for_his_glory]

Hopefully this will help clear things up.

What are God ordained authority structures?

The orderliness we find in structures of authority reflects the order of God's own nature. God is a Trinity, the Father, Son Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Father sent His Son into the world as Savior and redeemer, 1 John 4:9. Jesus was obedient to the Father, John 5:19-29.

When Jesus returned to heaven, He and the Father sent the Holy Spirit to comfort Jesus' disciples, lead them into all truth, remind them of the words of Jesus and empowered them to carry out Jesus' commission to spread the Gospel, John 14:26; 15:26; Acts 1:8.

Each member of the Trinity works within the structure of authority and fulfills a specific role, perfectly complementing the others and demonstrating God's glory. The members are not independent of one another, but God the Father is recognized as the authority who directs and empowers the Son and Holy Spirit to carry out His will. This structure does not express superiority of inferiority as it expresses the fullness of God.

 

[Quantrill]

You wish

Does Jesus have the same body now in Heaven that He had when He was resurrected? If so, how long will He have it?

(Ex. 21:6) "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

(Ps. 40:6) "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened:

(Heb. 10:5) "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"

Quantrill

 

[SolaScriptura]

Does Jesus have the same body now in Heaven that He had when He was resurrected? If so, how long will He have it?

(Ex. 21:6) "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

(Ps. 40:6) "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened:

(Heb. 10:5) "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"

Quantrill

it is very clear, that you cannot grasp the Truth of the Bible on the Holy Trinity. You are trying to use human logic to understand the Eternal God of the Bible, which is a waste of time. The Holy Spirit is the best Person to help you here, as I cannot get through. I will pray for this for you.

 

[Quantrill]

it is very clear, that you cannot grasp the Truth of the Bible on the Holy Trinity. You are trying to use human logic to understand the Eternal God of the Bible, which is a waste of time. The Holy Spirit is the best Person to help you here, as I cannot get through. I will pray for this for you.

I gave you nothing but Scripture. It is not I that is trying to introduce my own logic.

Your refusal to answer my questions and calling it 'human logic' is a confession that the Scriptures are teaching that the Son shall be subject to the Father forever.

Save your prayers for yourself.

Quantrill

 

[SolaScriptura]

the Son shall be subject to the Father forever.

and yet there is not even ONE Bible verse, in 66 Books, that teaches this HERESY! The passage in 1 Corinthians does NOT support this. What you suggest is Biblically IMPOSSIBLE. End of.

 

[JLB]

There are also Scriptures that very clearly Teach, the coequal Reign of Jesus Christ with God the Father.

Jesus is co-equal with God the Father, in that He is God.


Jesus is subject to His Father just as any Son is subject to their Father.


A husband and wife are co-equal as they are both human, however the wife is subject to the husband as head of the household, and the husband serves the wife and protects her, and provides for her.



JLB

 

[Quantrill]

and yet there is not even ONE Bible verse, in 66 Books, that teaches this HERESY! The passage in 1 Corinthians does NOT support this. What you suggest is Biblically IMPOSSIBLE. End of.

You are in denial. Many verses have been given you to support the eternal servitude of Jesus Christ the Son. And you have not dealt with them. You simply ignore them and go on about the Trinity....which no one is denying.

What I suggest is what Scripture is saying. You have problems with what the Scripture is saying, because you cannot reconcile the the doctrine of the Trinity with the doctrine of Christ's eternal servitude.

Which is fine. But don't say the Scriptures don't teach it because many have been shown you that they do. The best answer from you would be that you see the Scriptures are saying that, but you can't see how that is possible in relation to the Trinity. So you therefore are not going to accept it.

Just as when you point out your argument for the Trinity, I can't say there is not one verse that teaches the Trinity. There are many verses that do. The same with equality within the Trinity that are Three Persons are God. There are many verses that teach it also.

My point being: Don't say there are no Scriptures that teach the eternal servitude of Christ when many, which you ignore, have been given.

Quantrill

 

[SolaScriptura]

Jesus is co-equal with God the Father, in that He is God.


Jesus is subject to His Father just as any Son is subject to their Father.


A husband and wife are co-equal as they are both human, however the wife is subject to the husband as head of the household, and the husband serves the wife and protects her, and provides for her.



JLB

you are trying to use our human understaning for the Eternal Person in the Godhead. I do not believe that Jesus' "Sonship", is eternal, but rather Incarnational

 

[Quantrill]

you are trying to use our human understaning for the Eternal Person in the Godhead. I do not believe that Jesus' "Sonship", is eternal, but rather Incarnational

You are full of strange statements.

The Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, has always existed in eternity. (Is. 9:6) The Son was 'given', Who is Jesus Christ.

The Father declared the Sonship of Jesus at the beginning of Christ's ministry. (Luke 3:21-22) This was Jesus as the Son incarnate.

But it was at the Resurrection that the Son, and His humanity became literally born of God. (Ps. 2:7) "I will declare the decree...Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

And what day was that? (Acts 13:33) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." The resurrection was the declaration from God of Jesus being the begotten Son of God. Not the Incarnation.

In other words, your statement that Jesus Sonship is only incarnationl is false. The Son always existed as the Son in the Godhead. The Son became a man at the Incarnation. The Son became born of God at the Resurrection. The God Man.

Quantrill

 

[for_his_glory]

I do not believe that Jesus' "Sonship", is eternal, but rather Incarnational

Why do you believe this and can you give us scripture for this?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Why do you believe this and can you give us scripture for this?

Psalm 2:7, "I will tell of the decree: Yahweh said to Me, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father"

Which, as can be seen from Herbrews 1:6, is speaking of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which is in the future

"For to which of the angels did he say at any time, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father?” and again, “I will be to him a Father, and He will be to Me a Son?”

Isaiah 9:6, also confirms this, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace". These words in bold are in the future tense.

As does Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God". Note, not IS "called", but the future tense, "κληθήσεται", SHALL BE CALLED, referring to the Birth of Jesus Christ.

John 1:1 does not say, "In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was God", which is the eternal relationship between the Father and Jesus Christ.

Likewise, in John 1:18, the reading with the strongest textual evidence reads, "No one has seen God at any time. The Unique God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him.

Only in about 2 places Jesus Christ is referred to as "Son" in the Old Testament, as in Psalm 2:7, but always in Prophecy. We never read of the term, "God the Father" in the Old Testament.

The main description for Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, is "Malakh YHWH", which is often translated as "The Angel of Yahweh"; or "The Messenger of Yahweh"; Who, as can be seen from Exodus 3, is Himself "Yahweh", "Elohim" and "Ehyeh ’ăsher ’ehyeh". Showing Jesus' absolute equality with the Father and Holy Spirit!

 

[Quantrill]

To @Sola Scriptura

Again, (Ps. 2:7) is addressing the Resurrection of Christ, not the Incarnation.

Scripture is clear. (Acts 13:30) "But God raised him from the dead:"

(Acts 13:33-34) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead,...."

(Acts 13:37) "But he whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

(Heb. 1:5) is also addressing (Ps. 2:7) Which means it is addressing the Resurrection, not the Incarnation.

Concerning (Is. 9:6) the birth of Christ was a future event for Isaiah. But it is addressing the incarnation. The Child was born, but the Son was given. The Son, the Second Person of the God head was given by the Father at the incarnation, not born by the Father.

Mary bore a son to her. But she did not begot God the Son to the Father. The child was born, yes. But Scripture is clear, the Son was given. At the incarnation, the act of God was God giving the Son. At the Resurrection the act of God would be birthing the Son by the unionizing, or welding, for lack of a better word, of the Son with His resurrected body, by the Holy Spirit. The Resurrection is the birthing room. Not the incarnation.

Concerning (Luke 1:35), That which is born of Mary is called that 'holy thing'. But that 'Holy Thing' shall be called the Son of God. At the Incarnation He is God the Son as a Man. The Incarnation is the time when God the Son is brought into the world, given. But the Son would not be born of God until the Resurrection.

Concerning (John 1:1) and (John 1:18) what exactly are you saying by changing the words. I don't see how it changes anything, but rather confuses everything.

Concerning the Son in prophecy...So?

Concerning equality between God the Father and God the Son,...So? No one has said any different. Except you.

Quantrill

 

[SolaScriptura]

To @Sola Scriptura

Again, (Ps. 2:7) is addressing the Resurrection of Christ, not the Incarnation.

Scripture is clear. (Acts 13:30) "But God raised him from the dead:"

(Acts 13:33-34) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead,...."

(Acts 13:37) "But he whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

(Heb. 1:5) is also addressing (Ps. 2:7) Which means it is addressing the Resurrection, not the Incarnation.

Concerning (Is. 9:6) the birth of Christ was a future event for Isaiah. But it is addressing the incarnation. The Child was born, but the Son was given. The Son, the Second Person of the God head was given by the Father at the incarnation, not born by the Father.

Mary bore a son to her. But she did not begot God the Son to the Father. The child was born, yes. But Scripture is clear, the Son was given. At the incarnation, the act of God was God giving the Son. At the Resurrection the act of God would be birthing the Son by the unionizing, or welding, for lack of a better word, of the Son with His resurrected body, by the Holy Spirit. The Resurrection is the birthing room. Not the incarnation.

Concerning (Luke 1:35), That which is born of Mary is called that 'holy thing'. But that 'Holy Thing' shall be called the Son of God. At the Incarnation He is God the Son as a Man. The Incarnation is the time when God the Son is brought into the world, given. But the Son would not be born of God until the Resurrection.

Concerning (John 1:1) and (John 1:18) what exactly are you saying by changing the words. I don't see how it changes anything, but rather confuses everything.

Concerning the Son in prophecy...So?

Concerning equality between God the Father and God the Son,...So? No one has said any different. Except you.

Quantrill

ACTS 13:33

Here we have Paul addressing his audience in a synagogue, when he says: "God had fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus; as it is written in the second Psalm: 'Thou art My Son, this day I have begotten thee'" There are some who seen in these words, a reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because of the use of the words "raised up". But, this is incorrect, as in verse 22 we read of God raising up David (same Greek word), which can only refer to his birth, as David has not yet been raised from the dead! In fact, in verses 30 and 34 of this same chapter in Acts, we read the words: "raised Him ("up". ver34)from the dead", where it clearly speaks of our Lords resurrection. Verse 34 begins with the words: "and as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead..."; which clearly shows that verse 33 cannot be a reference to Jesus' resurrection. (see, F F Bruce; The Acts of the Apostles; Greek Text, p.269; and, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. II, pp.295-296). I am aware of the reading of verse 33 in the King James Version, where it has it: "In that He raised up Jesus again"; where "again" has no corresponding word in the Greek!

HEBREWS 1:5

"For unto which of the Angels said He at any time: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee...and again when He brings forth the First-born..." (also verse 6a).
Here verse six holds the answer to the words in verse five (This day...). Here Paul says "again, when He brings forth the First-born". By using the Greek παλιν, Paul meant, "once more" (E Robinson; Greek-English Lexicon, p.586; J Parkhurst Greek-English Lexicon, p.453). Verse six clearly refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a fact that no one one will dispute. With παλιν Paul wishes to connect verse six (the Second Coming), with verse five, which teaches the First Coming, or else the use of παλιν in verse six is superfluous. There can be no doubt that verse five refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Quantrill]

ACTS 13:33

Here we have Paul addressing his audience in a synagogue, when he says: "God had fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus; as it is written in the second Psalm: 'Thou art My Son, this day I have begotten thee'" There are some who seen in these words, a reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because of the use of the words "raised up". But, this is incorrect, as in verse 22 we read of God raising up David (same Greek word), which can only refer to his birth, as David has not yet been raised from the dead! In fact, in verses 30 and 34 of this same chapter in Acts, we read the words: "raised Him ("up". ver34)from the dead", where it clearly speaks of our Lords resurrection. Verse 34 begins with the words: "and as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead..."; which clearly shows that verse 33 cannot be a reference to Jesus' resurrection. (see, F F Bruce; The Acts of the Apostles; Greek Text, p.269; and, The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. II, pp.295-296). I am aware of the reading of verse 33 in the King James Version, where it has it: "In that He raised up Jesus again"; where "again" has no corresponding word in the Greek!

Are any of these your words or are they all anothers?

No, some see the Resurrection in (Acts 13:33) because the Resurrection of Christ is what is being addressed. In Paul's address to the Jews at Antioch, (13:16) he is going over the history of God with His people Israel. He addresses the Crucifixion and burial of Christ in (13:28-29).

In (Acts 13:30-37) Paul address the next stage, which is the Resurrection of Christ. Which is where (13:33) falls. And to this he quotes from (Psalm 2:7)

In (Acts 13:22) the 'raising up of David' doesn't speak of his birth. It speaks of the whole process of God with David to be King over Israel.

The interpretation to being raised is to be taken from the context. And, as I said, the context is the Resurrection of Christ. (Acts 13:30-37)

(Acts 13:34) proves (33) is addressing the Resurrection. Paul brings up the Resurrection in (33). He then more fully expounds on it in (34-37)

Again, (Acts 13:30) begins the subject of the Resurrection. Not (34).

So, whomever I am speaking to, (Ps. 2:7) addresses the Resurrection. And (Acts 13:33) clearly proves it.

Quantrill

 

[SolaScriptura]

Are any of these your words or are they all anothers?

No, some see the Resurrection in (Acts 13:33) because the Resurrection of Christ is what is being addressed. In Paul's address to the Jews at Antioch, (13:16) he is going over the history of God with His people Israel. He addresses the Crucifixion and burial of Christ in (13:28-29).

In (Acts 13:30-37) Paul address the next stage, which is the Resurrection of Christ. Which is where (13:33) falls. And to this he quotes from (Psalm 2:7)

In (Acts 13:22) the 'raising up of David' doesn't speak of his birth. It speaks of the whole process of God with David to be King over Israel.

The interpretation to being raised is to be taken from the context. And, as I said, the context is the Resurrection of Christ. (Acts 13:30-37)

(Acts 13:34) proves (33) is addressing the Resurrection. Paul brings up the Resurrection in (33). He then more fully expounds on it in (34-37)

Again, (Acts 13:30) begins the subject of the Resurrection. Not (34).

So, whomever I am speaking to, (Ps. 2:7) addresses the Resurrection. And (Acts 13:33) clearly proves it.

Quantrill

Can you give one verse from the Old Testament that talks about the Father and the Son?

 

[Quantrill]

Can you give one verse from the Old Testament that talks about the Father and the Son?

Yes, I believe I can but what is the point of that?

You have claimed that you hold to the Trinity. What is your Trinity composed of if not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Do you not see God The Son, as the Son?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

HEBREWS 1:5

"For unto which of the Angels said He at any time: 'Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee...and again when He brings forth the First-born..." (also verse 6a).
Here verse six holds the answer to the words in verse five (This day...). Here Paul says "again, when He brings forth the First-born". By using the Greek παλιν, Paul meant, "once more" (E Robinson; Greek-English Lexicon, p.586; J Parkhurst Greek-English Lexicon, p.453). Verse six clearly refers to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a fact that no one one will dispute. With παλιν Paul wishes to connect verse six (the Second Coming), with verse five, which teaches the First Coming, or else the use of παλιν in verse six is superfluous. There can be no doubt that verse five refers to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

The emphasis of (Heb. 1:5-6) is to show the superiority of the Son over the angels. The 'agains' used in (5-6), are to show there is again another verse to prove this.

(Heb. 1:5) quotes from (Ps. 2:7) which (Acts 13:33) identifies as the Resurrection.

Whether or not (Heb. 1:6) speaks to the Incarnation or the Resurrection is immaterial. The term 'Firstbegotten' would apply either way.

Quantrill

 

[JLB]

you are trying to use our human understaning for the Eternal Person in the Godhead. I do not believe that Jesus' "Sonship", is eternal, but rather Incarnational

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:13


My understanding comes from scripture.



When do you believe Jesus stopped being the Son?


Please share with us the scripture that teaches us that Jesus stopped being the Son of God, and became something else.



Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God before the foundation of the the heavens and the earth.


He as the Son of God created the heavens and the earth.


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10



JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

Yes, I believe I can but what is the point of that?

You have claimed that you hold to the Trinity. What is your Trinity composed of if not the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Do you not see God The Son, as the Son?

Quantrill

The fact that there is no reference to "Father and Son" in the OT, as it very clearly taught in the NT, shows that before His Incranation, when Jesus Christ became the God-Man, He was not the "Son".

There have always been Three Persons in the Godhead, in the OT we have the Three as YHWH, Jesus Christ as the Angel of the YHWH, or God and YHWH. And the Father, is known as God and YHWH. Then the Holy Spirit is also known as YHWH, etc.

As it says in Luke 1:35, "The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God". Not IS called.

 

[SolaScriptura]

These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:13


My understanding comes from scripture.



When do you believe Jesus stopped being the Son?


Please share with us the scripture that teaches us that Jesus stopped being the Son of God, and became something else.



Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God before the foundation of the the heavens and the earth.


He as the Son of God created the heavens and the earth.


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And:
“You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10



JLB

Read through my replies here, you will see that I do not deny that Jesus Christ is the Son AFTER His human Birth, as Scriptures tell us. Prior to this time, in the OT, He is mostly called "The Angel of the Lord", Who is also YHWH, and distinct from the Father and Holy Spirit, Who are also YHWH.

The Greek for "only-begotten", is "μονογενής", which literraly is "one of a kind", or "unique"; and has nothing to do with any "begetting", as the KJV wrongly renders the Greek. The correct Greek word of "only-begotten", is "μονογέννητος"