Hi Guys,

Thanks for the concern, but I'm OK. I was just taking a break, as I had other priorities and also felt the discussion was going in circles. But I'm willing to keep going for now. :)

Quote:

What Ruckman is saying is that there was no " Flesh " until the Word was born. There was no " Internal Sonship," because the Word wasn't even born yet.



Shain, finally you got it. That's what I've been saying about Ruckman since day 1 of this conversation. He doesn't believe Jesus was "Son" until he had flesh at the incarnation. I agree that Jesus' flesh started at the incarnation, but the issue is whether or not Jesus was "Son" before he had flesh. I (and Bob Ross, and orthodox Christianity) say yes. Ruckman says no. BTW, it's "eternal", not "internal".

Quote:

Show us the scripture that says Jesus Christ was always the eternal Son of God.



Several have already been mentioned. What are your thoughts/explanations of Prov 30:4, Dan 3:25, the numerous verses that say God "sent his Son" (not "sent the Word who became the Son"), etc.?

Quote:

In order to be Son of God, there would have had to be a beginning for the Son



Why? Earlier in the discussion you said (a few times) that he was always the Son. It appears you are still confused about what is going on.

Quote:

Brian...so sorry, my server was messed up for almost a week! It is really difficult anymore to be without a computer!



No problem, MaricoG. It happens, and it's frustrating, I know. :)

Quote:

I am speaking of born, as Jesus was born of a virgin. That is what the Bible tells us, and that is what I am sticking too.



I agree Jesus was born of a virgin. The issue (I'm discussing with you, Shain's still suck on Sonship) is whether "begotten" always refers to that birth. I think it doesn't, because besides physical birth, the KJV uses it in three other senses: physical resurrection (Acts 13:33, Rev 1:5), spiritual birth (Philemon 1:10, 1 Pet 1:3, 1 John 5:1, etc.), and unique relationship (Heb 11:17). Maybe you think I'm saying "begotten" does not mean physical birth - if so, sorry for not being clearer. I *do* believe it means physical birth, I just also believe it can mean other things too, as just explained.

Quote:

Where do you find in the Scriptures that say He was eternally begotten, not as born, but as relationship. Typing that does not even make sense.



Do you agree that Jesus as Son has a unique relationship with God, similar to the unique relationship that Isaac had with Abraham (Heb 11:17)? If so, did that relationship always exist, or did it have a beginning? I know you agree he was "Son" eternally, but do you think he was ever "Son" without also having that unique special Father-Son relationship? I don't, and that's all "eternally begotten" means.

Quote:

and He sent His only begotten Son, meaning that He did not send other's as His Son into the world as other Saviours, because there is only one, and that is Jesus Christ.



That would still be the case if "begotten" didn't appear in that verse. So why is "begotten" in the verse? Because the "begotten Son", not the "yet-to-be-begotten Son", was sent.

Quote:

The distinction is that Jesus Christ is not a prophet, but the ONLY BEGOTTEN of God, His true Son. Do you understand and see that?



Of course. :) I am just saying that Jesus was not only "begotten" at his birth. He was also "begotten" from the dead (resurrection), and also has always been "begotten" (had his unique special relationship with the Father).

Quote:

That Isaac was the only begotten son of Abraham that fulfillment of the promises depended. The promises of God would not be fulfilled by Ishmael.



Exactly. Special unique relationship with Abraham that Ishmael did not have, even though Ishmael was physically born from Abraham.

Quote:

Brian, the Nicene creed also says this:

I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins.

Do you believe that you are baptized for the remission of sins?



I'm still wrestling with that issue, actually. No formal decisions yet. :) What's ironic about it, is that this statement in the Nicene Creed comes directly from Acts 2:38, which most KJV-only supporters like Shain like to point out has been "deleted" in other versions. Perhaps we should also ask Shain if he believes in being baptized for the remission of sins. :)