The Eternal Son

[praise_yeshua]

And here @Red Baker @Dizerner and whoever else denies the Eternal Sonship of Christ.

The Use in the New Testament: 1. In the NT Mono-genes occurs only in Lk, Jn. and Hb., not Mk., Mt. or Pl. It is thus found only in later writings. It means "only-begotten." Thus in Hb. Isaac is the Mono-genes, of Abraham (11:17), in Lk. the dead man raised up again at Nain is the only son of his mother (7:12). the daughter of Jairus is the only child (8:42), and the demoniac boy is the only son of his father (8:42). 2. Only Jn. uses Mono-genes, to describe the relation of Jesus to God. Mk. ... The further step taken by Jn. to describe Jesus corresponds to the fact that believers who as children of God are called [Greek] the same word as is applied to Jesus - in Mt., Pl. etc., are always called [Greek] in Jn., 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn.3:1, 2, 10, 5:2, while [Greek] is reserved for Jesus. Jn. emphasizes more strongly the distinction between Jesus and believers and the uniqueness of Jesus in His divine sonship. It is not that Jesus is not unique in this sonship for Mt., Pl. etc. also. His Messiah-ship proves this. But Jn. puts it in an illuminating and easily remembered formula which was taken up into the baptismal confession and which ever since has formed an inalienable part of the creed of the Church. To Mono-genes, as a designation of Jesus corresponds the fact that God is the [Greek], of Jesus, Jn. 5:18; for [Greek], means to be in a special relation to Jesus which excludes the same relation to others. Mono-genes occurs in Jn. 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9. What is meant is plainest in Jn. 3:16 and I Jn. 4:9. Because Jesus is the only Son of God, His sending into the world is the supreme proof of God's love for the world. On the other side, it is only as the only-begotten Son of God that Jesus can mediate life and salvation from perdition. For life is given only in Him, Jn. 5:26. But the fact that He is the only-begotten Son means also that men are obligated to believe in Him, and that they come under judgment, indeed, have done so already, if they withhold faith from Him, 3:18. Mono-genes is thus a predicate of majesty. This is true in Jn. 1:18. Here we are to read [Greek]. 14 As the only-begotten Son Jesus is in the closest intimacy with God. There is no other with whom God can have similar fellowship. He shares everything with this Son. For this reason Jesus can give what no man can give, namely, the fullest possible eye-witness account of God. He knows God, not just from hearsay, but from incomparably close intercourse with Him. In 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9, 1: 18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. Similarly in Jn. 1:14: [Greek], His glory is not just compared with that of an only child; it is described as that of the only-begotten Son. Grammatically both interpretations are justifiable. But the total usage of Mono-genes is very emphatically against taking [Greek] Mono-genes as a mere comparison. In Jn. 1: 14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 Mono-genes denotes more than the uniqueness or Incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1-14. In Jn. Mono-genes denotes the origin of Jesus. He is Mono-genes, as the only-begotten. What Jn. means by [Greek] Mono-genes [Greek] in detail can be known in its full import only in the light of the whole of John's proclamation. For [Greek] is simply a special form of [Greek] Mono-genes [Greek]. When Jn. speaks of the Son of God, he has primarily in view the man Jesus Christ, though not exclusively the man, but also the risen and pre-existent Lord. The relation of the pre-existent Lord to God is that of Son to Father. This comes out Indisputably in John 17:5, 24. Jesus is aware that He was with God, and was loved by Him, and endued with glory, before the foundation of the world. This is personal fellowship with God, divine sonship. It is true that neither In the prologue, nor 8:58, nor c. 17 does Jn. use the term "son" for the pre-existent Lord. But He describes His relation to God as that of a son. To maintain that in Jn. the pre-existent Lord is only the Word, and that the Son is only the historical and risen Lord, is to draw too sharp a line between the pre-existence on the one side and the historical and post-historical life on the other. In Jn. the Lord is always the Son. Because He alone was God's Son before the foundation of the world, because the whole love of the Father is for Him alone, because He alone is one with God, because the title God may be ascribed to Him alone, He is the only-begotten Son of God. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament", Gerhard Kittel, Buchsel, 1967, Vol. IV, p 737-741)

Also, "Mono-genes" is found in Judges 11:34 wherein we can explicitly tie Mono-genes to יָחִיד. Mono-genes also is related closely to the Greek context of a "unicorn". In Psalm 22 we can find it used in verse #10 relative to the context of "only son" in the prophecy of the Crucifixion.

On a side note, there is a context of uniqueness in this conversation that is tied to a "competition" of Quality and Character between powers represented by the uniqueness of languages surrounding the usage of "horn". Daniel is interesting. Though I don't give much thought to it much anymore.

Just my penny.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You do not know when it began.


You cannot prove that but one thing to consider....

I believe we both agree that in Genesis , the Word was there. Is that not true?

John 1 opened with talk of the Word. Is that also not true?

Then why would wording in Genesis not reflect it was the Son speaking?

Not until John 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Verse 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
And here He is not called Son yet.

In the New Testament, Jesus is first mentioned in Luke 1:32, which states "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David." This verse is significant because it marks the beginning of Jesus' role as the Son of God.

So if the was the start of Jesus being the Son of God.... something is amuiss that it was not revealed earlier to those
writing the scriptures that the Son has always been.

Luke 1:32 is an appeal to Isa 9:6 and Genesis 14:18 relative to the "Most High". Such is repeated in Psalm 82:6

I would be a "amiss" if I didn't mention one of clearest references to the Eternal Son found in Matthew 22.

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mat 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

 

[DavidTree]

Luke 1:32 is an appeal to Isa 9:6 and Genesis 14:18 relative to the "Most High". Such is repeated in Psalm 82:6

I would be a "amiss" if I didn't mention one of clearest references to the Eternal Son found in Matthew 22.

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mat 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

What the Scriptures are declaring and @FreeInChrist and myself is that Elohim did not tell us when THEY decided on:
a.) creating the earth and all things relating
b.) creating man in His Image

this is not in any way a Salvation doctrine but a enlargement of our minds in relation to the Eternal Elohim

Elohim does tell us why THEY Did what THEY Did and are still Doing

We are SEEING this = "the Heaven of heavens cannot contain THEE, much less this house..."

SHALOM

 

[praise_yeshua]

What the Scriptures are declaring and @FreeInChrist and myself is that Elohim did not tell us when THEY decided on:
a.) creating the earth and all things relating
b.) creating man in His Image

this is not in any way a Salvation doctrine but a enlargement of our minds in relation to the Eternal Elohim

Elohim does tell us why THEY Did what THEY Did and are still Doing

We are SEEING this = "the Heaven of heavens cannot contain THEE, much less this house..."

SHALOM

The preaching of Stephen....

The proper response to Stephen's sermon is not really relative to size......

It a challenge of perspective. Just like when Jesus asked Peter if he would leave Him too.... It wasn't that Jesus wanted Peter to leave.

Imagine God dwelling within the confines of our human heart........

We are His building.

2Co 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

When I was a young minister myself, I learned much from paying attention to what Stephen died for.....Acts 7.

Today, the "house of God" in the context of preaching Christ is worse than even when Stephen gave his life in condemning his generation in how they falsely viewed the "house of God".

 

[FreeInChrist]

Luke 1:32 is an appeal to Isa 9:6 and Genesis 14:18 relative to the "Most High". Such is repeated in Psalm 82:6

I would be a "amiss" if I didn't mention one of clearest references to the Eternal Son found in Matthew 22.

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mat 22:46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

I am not talking about anything in the 66 books or the added ones of the RCC.

I am talking about lets say going back 500 quintillion years before Christ.

Was there a son at that time and if so, where can I read about it.

I am not saying there is no Trinity. There is and they were around 500 quintillion years before Christ. They were around at least and additional500 quintillion years before Christ.

We were never given any records or word of mouth hand downs to know if "Son" was always or came into being when the plans
for our creation were first thought about and they may have started using Father and Son so no one would be able to question when Jesus got here.

I even went so far as to lok into the Book of Enoch.... An interesting read, but if he really got to heaven the altitude affected him

It says.... in part

Who is the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14? — David Wilber

Some confusion surrounds the Son of Man in 1 Enoch, particularly in 1 Enoch 71:14 when this figure’s identity is revealed. This article will argue in favor of the plain reading of 1 Enoch 71:14 that identifies the patriarch Enoch as this figure.

davidwilber.com

Some confusion surrounds the Son of Man in 1 Enoch, particularly in 1 Enoch 71:14 when this figure’s identity is revealed. This article will argue in favor of the plain reading of 1 Enoch 71:14 that identifies the patriarch Enoch as this figure.

According to The Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), Enoch is taken into heaven and shown prophetic visions concerning an eschatological hero known as the “Son of Man.” This figure is also called the “Chosen One,” “Anointed,” and “Righteous One,” which are all titles referring to the same Messianic figure in the narrative. The author of this section of 1 Enoch clearly draws upon Messianic prophecies from Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., to develop this figure.

According to the narrative, this Messianic figure will sit on a throne of glory and judge the deeds of the wicked people who have rejected God. Afterward, he will come to earth to dwell with the righteous (1 Enoch 45:3-6; 51:1-3). The narrative goes on to describe how he will destroy sinners and strike down kings and rulers who are against God (1 Enoch 46:4-5). It says he will be a light to the nations (1 Enoch 48:3-4). He will be worshipped by all who dwell on the earth (1 Enoch 48:5). In his name, the righteous will have salvation (1 Enoch 48:7). Finally, this Messianic figure will usher in an era of peace (1 Enoch 69:26-29).

Son of Man in Enoch

Did any texts refer to a messianic figure as “the son of man” before the Gospels? There may have been.

allenbrowne.blog

esus designated himself “the son of man” more than 80 times according to the Gospels, even though this phrase was not a messianic title in Jewish literature before his time. But there may be an intriguing exception: a book known as 1 Enoch.

This book was so popular that it has been treated as Scripture (Ethiopian church, Mormans). It’s quoted in the New Testament (Jude 9), and it was popular with some of the church fathers. It’s apocalyptic in style, and it’s part of the Pseudepigrapha.

The Book of Enoch is a compilation of five works. The oldest may date back to the Persian era (fourth century BC). The most recent section (chapters 37 – 71) is known as the Similitudes of Enoch, or Parables of Enoch. It’s generally dated to the early first century, i.e. at a similar time to the life of Jesus.

The intriguing bit is that the Similitudes refer to a messianic figure as the son of man. Here’s a sample:

1 Enoch 46:1-4 (Charlesworth translation)
1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. …
2 And I asked the one—from among the angels … “Who is this …?”
3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness …
4 This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones.

The references to the Son of Man in 1 Enoch clearly draw from Daniel 7. The “Ancient of Days” is the one who belongs before time. The one who is like a human is then called Son of Man, and the kingdom is given to him so he dethrones their enemies.

1 Enoch: the Son of Man - Livius

www.livius.org

[46.1-4] And there I saw the One to Whom belongs the time before time, and His head was white like wool. With Him was another being, whose countenance had the appearance of a man, and his face was full of graciousness, like one of the holy angels. I asked the angel who went with me [...] concerning that son of and who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the One to Whom belongs the time before time.

He answered and said to me: 'This is the son of man who has righteousness, with whom dwells righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of the spirits has chosen him, and whose lot has the pre-eminence before the Lord of the spirits in uprightness for ever. This son of man whom you have seen shall raise up the kings and the mighty from their seats and the strong from their thrones, and shall loosen the reins of the strong and break the teeth of the sinners.'

[48.2-10] And at that hour that Son of Man was named in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, and his name before the the One to Whom belongs the time before time. Yes, before the sun and the signs were created, before the stars of the heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of the spirits. He shall be a staff to the righteous whereon to stay themselves and not fall, and he shall be the light of the gentiles and the hope of those who are troubled of heart. All who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him, and will praise and bless and celebrate with song the Lord of the spirits. For this reason has he been chosen and hidden before Him, before the creation of the world and for ever more. The wisdom of the Lord of the spirits has revealed him to the holy and righteous; for he has preserved the lot of the righteous, because they have hated and despised this world of unrighteousness, and have hated all its works and ways in the name of the Lord of the spirits: for in his name they are saved, and according to his good pleasure has it been in regard to their life.

There are several links like this and of course the one I was looking for I cannot find right now.

In that one at one point Enoch believes he is the Son of Man... It also goes into explanation of how he actually went up
and saw God.

Now we know Jesus said that no one has except the Son... and If Enoch felt he was then either he became Jesus or something is wrong with Enoch.

But the prophetic similarities to what we know about Jesus are interesting.

In any event... though Enoch refers to the Son of Man before time... he is merely talking from before Genesis... which as I keep saying is not all the way back.

I should make this a signature so I dont have to redo it a lot.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I am not talking about anything in the 66 books or the added ones of the RCC.

Jerome actually removed them. They didn't add anything. The LXX preexisted Catholics and Protestants. The early church recognized a OT canon much larger than Protestants do today.

We were never given any records or word of mouth hand downs to know if "Son" was always or came into being when the plans
for our creation were first thought about and they may have started using Father and Son so no one would be able to question when Jesus got here.

Abel was a son of Adam. A son murdered. The second Adam has His own offspring that are born of faith. The Son was also murdered.

There are many parallels to be seen in the extant narratives that we have today.

I even went so far as to lok into the Book of Enoch.... An interesting read, but if he really got to heaven the altitude affected him

It says.... in part

Who is the Son of Man in 1 Enoch 71:14? — David Wilber

Some confusion surrounds the Son of Man in 1 Enoch, particularly in 1 Enoch 71:14 when this figure’s identity is revealed. This article will argue in favor of the plain reading of 1 Enoch 71:14 that identifies the patriarch Enoch as this figure.

davidwilber.com

Some confusion surrounds the Son of Man in 1 Enoch, particularly in 1 Enoch 71:14 when this figure’s identity is revealed. This article will argue in favor of the plain reading of 1 Enoch 71:14 that identifies the patriarch Enoch as this figure.

Enoch is generally considered to be the first to preach/record a written history of the Truth of God. The "collection/book" that contains his name is largely fabricated and corrupt. Not God's fault. Man's fault.

According to The Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), Enoch is taken into heaven and shown prophetic visions concerning an eschatological hero known as the “Son of Man.” This figure is also called the “Chosen One,” “Anointed,” and “Righteous One,” which are all titles referring to the same Messianic figure in the narrative. The author of this section of 1 Enoch clearly draws upon Messianic prophecies from Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc., to develop this figure.

According to the narrative, this Messianic figure will sit on a throne of glory and judge the deeds of the wicked people who have rejected God. Afterward, he will come to earth to dwell with the righteous (1 Enoch 45:3-6; 51:1-3). The narrative goes on to describe how he will destroy sinners and strike down kings and rulers who are against God (1 Enoch 46:4-5). It says he will be a light to the nations (1 Enoch 48:3-4). He will be worshipped by all who dwell on the earth (1 Enoch 48:5). In his name, the righteous will have salvation (1 Enoch 48:7). Finally, this Messianic figure will usher in an era of peace (1 Enoch 69:26-29).

Son of Man in Enoch

Did any texts refer to a messianic figure as “the son of man” before the Gospels? There may have been.

allenbrowne.blog

esus designated himself “the son of man” more than 80 times according to the Gospels, even though this phrase was not a messianic title in Jewish literature before his time. But there may be an intriguing exception: a book known as 1 Enoch.

Sure it was. "(ben adam in Hebrew) is found throughout the Talmud. Not saying that means anything. The Talmud is largely nonsense. However, it does contain competing narratives. The two heirs or "Messiahs".

Such exists throughout human history among many cultures. The book of Romans deals with this fact.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Humanity abandoned the Truth of God in the preaching of Christ. The world that then was perished in the days of Noah.

Enoch preached the Son. We know it from the little book of Jude.

Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Jud 1:15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Notice the "Lord" part.....

Luk 20:41 But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David's son?
Luk 20:42 For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
Luk 20:43 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Luk 20:44 David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?”

I could go on and on but the "moral of the story is".......

This world forgot about the Son. It only survived in a few faithful. That narrative is scattered throughout competing manuscripts for the faithful to find.......

But they must seek God to find it. Those that seek..... FIND.

Now we know Jesus said that no one has except the Son... and If Enoch felt he was then either he became Jesus or something is wrong with Enoch.

But the prophetic similarities to what we know about Jesus are interesting.

In any event... though Enoch refers to the Son of Man before time... he is merely talking from before Genesis... which as I keep saying is not all the way back.

I should make this a signature so I dont have to redo it a lot.

I love the Scriptures. I love to study and learn. However, they will never replace a meaningful relationship with God through the sole heir of God in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is alive today. Resurrected. Alive and not far from us all. If a person wants to know God, they can. Too often we get caught up in things that distract us.

Anyone want to know Jesus? He is but a helpless pleading call away from us. The real problem is all the "idols" in the way of the Son. Idols of imagination. Most people already have an image of Jesus they've gotten from someone else that competes for the REAL narrative of Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

 

[civic]

Jerome actually removed them. They didn't add anything. The LXX preexisted Catholics and Protestants. The early church recognized a OT canon much larger than Protestants do today.



Abel was a son of Adam. A son murdered. The second Adam has His own offspring that are born of faith. The Son was also murdered.

There are many parallels to be seen in the extant narratives that we have today.




Enoch is generally considered to be the first to preach/record a written history of the Truth of God. The "collection/book" that contains his name is largely fabricated and corrupt. Not God's fault. Man's fault.



Sure it was. "(ben adam in Hebrew) is found throughout the Talmud. Not saying that means anything. The Talmud is largely nonsense. However, it does contain competing narratives. The two heirs or "Messiahs".

Such exists throughout human history among many cultures. The book of Romans deals with this fact.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Humanity abandoned the Truth of God in the preaching of Christ. The world that then was perished in the days of Noah.

Enoch preached the Son. We know it from the little book of Jude.

Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Jud 1:15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Notice the "Lord" part.....

Luk 20:41 But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David's son?
Luk 20:42 For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
Luk 20:43 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Luk 20:44 David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?”

I could go on and on but the "moral of the story is".......

This world forgot about the Son. It only survived in a few faithful. That narrative is scattered throughout competing manuscripts for the faithful to find.......

But they must seek God to find it. Those that seek..... FIND.




I love the Scriptures. I love to study and learn. However, they will never replace a meaningful relationship with God through the sole heir of God in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is alive today. Resurrected. Alive and not far from us all. If a person wants to know God, they can. Too often we get caught up in things that distract us.

Anyone want to know Jesus? He is but a helpless pleading call away from us. The real problem is all the "idols" in the way of the Son. Idols of imagination. Most people already have an image of Jesus they've gotten from someone else that competes for the REAL narrative of Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

good insight

 

[civic]

For those still in denial of the Eternal Son this passage says it all.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know!

 

[DavidTree]

For those still in denial of the Eternal Son this passage says it all.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Whose hands have gathered up the wind? Who has wrapped up the waters in a cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is the name of his son? Surely you know!

For those still in denial of the Eternal Son

good lol to start my day

 

[DavidTree]

Jerome actually removed them. They didn't add anything. The LXX preexisted Catholics and Protestants. The early church recognized a OT canon much larger than Protestants do today.



Abel was a son of Adam. A son murdered. The second Adam has His own offspring that are born of faith. The Son was also murdered.

There are many parallels to be seen in the extant narratives that we have today.




Enoch is generally considered to be the first to preach/record a written history of the Truth of God. The "collection/book" that contains his name is largely fabricated and corrupt. Not God's fault. Man's fault.



Sure it was. "(ben adam in Hebrew) is found throughout the Talmud. Not saying that means anything. The Talmud is largely nonsense. However, it does contain competing narratives. The two heirs or "Messiahs".

Such exists throughout human history among many cultures. The book of Romans deals with this fact.

Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Humanity abandoned the Truth of God in the preaching of Christ. The world that then was perished in the days of Noah.

Enoch preached the Son. We know it from the little book of Jude.

Jud 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Jud 1:15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Notice the "Lord" part.....

Luk 20:41 But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David's son?
Luk 20:42 For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand,
Luk 20:43 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’
Luk 20:44 David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?”

I could go on and on but the "moral of the story is".......

This world forgot about the Son. It only survived in a few faithful. That narrative is scattered throughout competing manuscripts for the faithful to find.......

But they must seek God to find it. Those that seek..... FIND.




I love the Scriptures. I love to study and learn. However, they will never replace a meaningful relationship with God through the sole heir of God in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is alive today. Resurrected. Alive and not far from us all. If a person wants to know God, they can. Too often we get caught up in things that distract us.

Anyone want to know Jesus? He is but a helpless pleading call away from us. The real problem is all the "idols" in the way of the Son. Idols of imagination. Most people already have an image of Jesus they've gotten from someone else that competes for the REAL narrative of Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Humanity abandoned the Truth of God in the preaching of Christ. The world that then was perished in the days of Noah.

"as in the days of Noah so shall the Return of the son of Man be"

"and unless the Lord shortened those days no flesh would survive, but for the elect's sake He has shortened the days"

"because they did not receive the love of the Truth that they might be saved, God will send them a strong delusion"

 

[civic]

good lol to start my day

thats a good one to ponder.

 

[DavidTree]

thats a good one to ponder.

You know that i know and believe in the Eternal Son

"begotten" only speaks of His incarnation

 

[civic]

You know that i know and believe in the Eternal Son

"begotten" only speaks of His incarnation

ditto

 

[Duane]

What does it mean for someone to be begotten eternally? When parents beget a son or daughter in this world, the child is younger than the parent. But that’s not the case with Jesus. With Jesus, he and his Father are the same age—eternally existing.

Earthly generation requires two parents of opposite sexes, but not eternal generation. When earthly parents beget a child, the child is weak, helpless, ignorant; but the Son of God in eternity was never weak, helpless, or ignorant. He became that on earth when he was born of a baby. His earthly generation was like that, but his eternal generation was not. So, eternal generation is evidently very different from earthly generation.

 

[Dizerner]

The early church recognized a OT canon much larger than Protestants do today.

That is actually not a precise statement. The 66 canon is very early in fact. There was a recent debate on this.

 

[DavidTree]

What does it mean for someone to be begotten eternally? When parents beget a son or daughter in this world, the child is younger than the parent. But that’s not the case with Jesus. With Jesus, he and his Father are the same age—eternally existing.

Earthly generation requires two parents of opposite sexes, but not eternal generation. When earthly parents beget a child, the child is weak, helpless, ignorant; but the Son of God in eternity was never weak, helpless, or ignorant. He became that on earth when he was born of a baby. His earthly generation was like that, but his eternal generation was not. So, eternal generation is evidently very different from earthly generation.

so far so good

does there exist a single scripture that declares: "eternal generation"???

 

[FreeInChrist]

so far so good

does there exist a single scripture that declares: "eternal generation"???

Good morning @DavidTree ,

Great question so I went on a mini search.

I found something that Got Questions has posted on the subject which offers their opinion.

This is not my opinion, but just sharing what I read.

But @civic.... you are right. I am wrong. I said I needed to see it in writing... and here it is.

What is the doctrine of eternal generation and is it biblical?​

Answer

The doctrine of eternal generation harkens back to the early stages of the Christian church. This doctrine, along with the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, form the basis for the complete doctrine of the Trinity. This doctrine was codified in the Nicene Creed, which is universally accepted as an accurate statement of faith in both Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. Furthermore, this doctrine has also been included in such Reformation confessions of faith as the Belgic Confession (Articles X & XI) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter II.3). These two confessions stand as the doctrinal standard for many Reformed and Presbyterian churches worldwide.

When discussing the Trinity, we are immediately confronted with the fact that it is a doctrine clouded in mystery. As finite, created beings, we will never be able to fully comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity; it is simply beyond our ability to fully comprehend. All human analogies used to explain the Trinity break down at some level. So, we need humility as we try to explain these things. We should not attempt to go further than the Scriptures warrant. Every heresy concerning the Trinity has arisen out of an attempt to explain the inexplicable.

With that said, let’s review what is commonly believed within evangelical circles in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity makes four basic assertions:

1. There is one and only one true and living God.
2. This one God eternally exists in three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
3. These three Persons are completely equal in attributes, each sharing the same divine nature.
4. While each Person is fully and completely God, the Persons are not identical.

These four claims are universally accepted by all professing Christians whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. Each of these four claims can be defended with Scripture. If we accept these as true, then we should be able to compare the doctrine of eternal generation against these and see if it holds up.

The doctrine of eternal generation essentially teaches that God the Father eternally and by necessity generates or begets God the Son in such a way that the substance (the divine essence) of God is not divided. In other words, there is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the exact representation (or express image) of God the Father. There is still one divine essence that eternally exists in two persons through eternal generation. Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof states the doctrine of eternal generation in this way:

It is that eternal and necessary act of the first person in the Trinity, whereby He, within the divine Being, is the ground of a second personal subsistence like His own, and puts this second person in possession of the whole divine essence, without any division, alienation, or change (Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1938, p. 94).

So, we see that eternal generation is an act performed by the First Person of the Trinity. Furthermore, this act by the First Person is necessarily and eternally performed. Finally, the result of this act is the generation of the Second Person of the Trinity in such a way that the entire divine essence is communicated from the Father to the Son.

Because of this act of eternal generation, the relational terms Father and Son are used to identify the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. The Father eternally generates the Son, and the Son (having no beginning or end) is eternally generated by the Father. This is similar to human generation (which, we note, is neither eternal nor necessary) in that human fathers also “generate” or “beget” human sons in their own image.

The doctrine of eternal generation is sometimes attacked on the basis that the idea of begetting implies a creation in time or that it suggests an ontological dependence. In response, we note that all human analogies regarding the Trinity eventually break down, so we can’t carry our analogies too far. Also, the qualifiers eternally and necessarily should remove any concerns of a temporal or subordinate relationship between the Father and the Son. The qualifier eternal removes this relationship from the constraints of time and space; there was no beginning, and will be no end to the generation of the Son from the Father. The qualifier necessarily removes any ontological dependence between the Father and the Son; the Son must be generated from the Father, and the Father must generate the Son.

(Of course, Got Questions got their predestined bias into this so I'll leave the following paragraph for those of you who are.
I myself do not subscribe to this (following) as they present things)

The terms Father and Son do more than analogize the relationship between the First and Second Person of the Trinity; they also help explain a theological truth. There is a hierarchical and functional order being described here—one that defines the activity of Father and Son in the economy of creation and salvation. The Father speaks the universe into existence, and the Son is the agent of that creation. The Father elects the chosen unto salvation, and the Son provides the necessary atonement. The Father sends the Son, and not the other way around. This hierarchy of role and function in no way diminishes the ontological equality between the Father and the Son; they are both essentially God, sharing equally in the full divine essence. So, the terms Father and Son, far from being a mere anthropomorphism, go to the heart of defining this necessary and eternal relationship. As such, the doctrine of eternal generation is clearly in line with our four assertions concerning the Trinity, above.

Is this doctrine supported in Scripture? Consider the following verses:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)

“No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.” (John 1:18)

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26)

“Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.” (John 14:11)

“That they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:21)

“He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:3)

The thrust of these verses, as they apply to the Trinity, is to suggest that the relationship between Father and Son has existed for all eternity and is grounded in ontological equality. Also worth consideration are the words of the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession of Faith as they pertain to eternal generation:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. (Nicene Creed)

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. (WCF, II.3)

Based on Scripture and the witness of the creeds and confessions, we can be sure that the doctrine of eternal generation is biblical.

We should not expect every believer to have a fully mature grasp of this doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity—including the doctrine of eternal generation—is the centerpiece of orthodox theology and should be affirmed by every true believer, but it is not a requirement for a true confession of faith. In other words, salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8). As one studies the Christian faith, one will come to a more mature understanding of this doctrine.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That is actually not a precise statement. The 66 canon is very early in fact. There was a recent debate on this.

I know the subject well. You can accept this nonsense if you want but it is not true. Your friends are deceiving others.

Either way, I'm not going to derail this thread. I just mentioned it in passing to deal with the comments of another.

BTW. A 66 book canon reference would include a choice in the NT canon. I mentioned the OT canon. Pay attention and be exacting in what you say.

 

[Dizerner]

I know the subject well.

You really don't.

I recommend you watch the debate.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You really don't.

I recommend you watch the debate.

I did start watching the video. I couldn't make it past the first 10 mins or so. Shallow. Nonsensical. You don't have any idea what I know. We can debate it openly. I can prove what I know. We get into this from time to time and you run away. Always happens. You should admit you're not really informed on this subject.

The subject really should start with establishing what right any man has to exhaustive classify what God has said to humanity.

I'll invite you.