Is the Father the Son?

[Scott Hutchinson]

OK brother Sam quit trying to make us think.

[Kansas Preacher]

I'm going to have to leave for a while, but I want to post one more scripture for your consideration:

You have defined "God" as "I AM." Let us substitute this definition in Acts 7.

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God [I AM]" (Acts 7:55).

You defined later defined "I AM" as "Jesus," whom you have repeatedly defined as "the Son." Was the Son standing on the right hand of the Son? Or, is this another indiscriminate application of "God" to mean someone else?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Brother Sam in those scriptures The Lord was seen.In GEN.35 this could have possibily been a theophany ?

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

I might also add that, according to Hebrews, there was a particular DAY in which the Son was "begotten" -- "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee" (Hebrews 1:5).

Hebrews 1:5 is referring to the resurrection of Christ. As was Paul in Acts 13:33.

Paul, Act_13:33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ.

Act 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'
Act 13:34 "As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: 'I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.'



But lets keep to the context.

Heb 1:6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."

If the Son is not God also, then why would the Father allow all the angels to worship Him? Is this not the same Son we see in verse 2, that through whom He made the world?

Heb 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

[Scott Hutchinson]

KP I trust yall have good church tomorrow.

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by Believer

Define what you mean by "fullness of time has come" because to me its talking about the time God needed to send us a Savior.

...

Pastor, please tell me what this is literally telling us? Is Jesus going back to God as the scripture states?

Again, I'll deal with your question when you answer mine (and I REALLY need to go, but I'll try again).

If "the fullness of the time" means when I Am (I'm going to keep using your terms) "needed to send us a Savior," the the Son wasn't SENT OR MADE until that time. Furthermore, when He WAS made, He was "MADE OF A WOMAN."

You can't keep jumping from an "eternal Son" who was "eternally sent" to a SPECIFIC time in WHICH He was sent to an "eternal Son" who was LATER "made of a woman." That interpretation just doesn't fit.

[Kansas Preacher]

Sorry. It's been fun. I'll check back in later, but I've GOT to run.

It's been enjoyable, to say the least. I enjoy this dialog. Feel free to PM me for my email address. I want to continue this discussion.

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

I'm going to have to leave for a while, but I want to post one more scripture for your consideration:

You have defined "God" as "I AM." Let us substitute this definition in Acts 7.

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God [I AM]" (Acts 7:55).

You defined later defined "I AM" as "Jesus," whom you have repeatedly defined as "the Son." Was the Son standing on the right hand of the Son? Or, is this another indiscriminate application of "God" to mean someone else?

Stephen saw the glory of God, the shekinah, the splendor or manifestation of the Divine Majesty. And Jesus "standing" on the right hand of God. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Jesus is and always will be in His resurrected body.

Also, you misquoted me. I said that Jesus claimed to be the "I Am," and I posted the scripture where He said it. I also showed a few verses before that to show that Jesus honors the Father to prove that Jesus wasn't speaking as the Father when He said it.

Originally Posted by Kansas Preacher

Again, I'll deal with your question when you answer mine (and I REALLY need to go, but I'll try again).

If "the fullness of the time" means when I Am (I'm going to keep using your terms) "needed to send us a Savior," the the Son wasn't SENT OR MADE until that time. Furthermore, when He WAS made, He was "MADE OF A WOMAN."

You can't keep jumping from an "eternal Son" who was "eternally sent" to a SPECIFIC time in WHICH He was sent to an "eternal Son" who was LATER "made of a woman." That interpretation just doesn't fit.

LOL...I've answered all your questions. You may not have like what I said, but they were answered. I used scripture as well.

I never once said eternally sent, anyone can go back and read what I said. Please, lets not start putting words in each other mouths. I simply said that the Son was sent forth from a place...on a mission an I provided the Strongs and NASEC Greek meanings. I notice you don't respond to those. I'm trying to be as clear as I can.

The phrase "the fullness of the time" has no bearing whether the Son was sent before or after being born, it only means that the time had come, the world was ready for her savior. There isn't a hidden meaning there.




Gal 4:4 -
Fullness of the time (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου)
The moment by which the whole pre-messianic period was completed.

Gal 4:4 -
The fulness of the time (to plērōma tou chronou). Old word from plēroō, to fill. Here the complement of the preceding time as in Eph_1:10.

When the fulness of time. The time appointed by the Father.

Gal 4:4 - the fulness of the time--namely, "the time appointed by the Father"

I want to make another point concerning Gal 4:4. The first few verses before verse 4, Paul is using an analogy of a child that is be a heir. This child is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father. Paul goes on to say even we, while we were children, were help in bondage under the elemental things of the world. This analogy is speaking of a child that already exist, and the child isn’t of age for his inheritance. If we keep verse 4 in its context there isn’t any way we can conclude that the Son didn’t preexist before the time appointed by the Father…I.e. “when the fullness of time was come," as being presented in the first few verses.

Gal 4:2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Brother Sam in those scriptures The Lord was seen.In GEN.35 this could have possibily been a theophany ?

Do you think it was the Father?

Joh 6:46 "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

Exo 24:9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel,
Exo 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself.
Exo 24:11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Who did they see?