Hi Shain,

Quote:

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Yet future event..



Absolutely nothing indicates this is a prophecy.

Quote:

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

There are differing opinions on this verse of scripture and what Son of God means here.



Yes, I know. I asked for your understanding and explanation.

What about your comments on the numerous verses that say God "sent his Son" (not "sent the Word who became the Son")?

Also, consider the parable of the owner of the vineyard, in Luke 20:16. Carefully consider verses 13 & 14. The owner had sent three servants, who were beaten and cast out by the husbandmen. In a last attempt he sent his son - who the husbandmen killed. Of course, this parable is about God sending prophets to Israel, and then finally sending his Son. In the parable, was the "son" only the "son" after he was sent, becoming the son when he arrived? No, he was the owner's son all along, even before he was sent.

Don't forget what started this whole discussion, Shain. You quoted Bob Ross as saying "Many "King James Onlyites" believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" because of His being incarnated in the flesh, whereas Baptists and "creedal Christianity" (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, etc.) hold that He is the ETERNAL Son of God and that He is the "Son of Man" by the incarnation."

You responded to this quote by saying "a lie from the pits of hell and the man obviously has lost it." I then spent several weeks demonstrating Ross was correct in his statement, while you continued to call Ross a liar and call me confused. Now, almost two months later, you're finally agreeing that Ruckman and the others do indeed deny eternal Sonship (i.e. that Ross was correct after all), and "seem to be leaning" towards denying it yourself. If you want to simply discuss whether eternal Sonship is correct or not, that's fine - but please don't simply pretend the last two months of debate about Ross, his statement, and my evidence about Ruckman and others didn't happen.