dwight92070
Active Member
I'm not sure why I am listed here. Is this supposed to be a list of those who agree with you? If so, take my name off the list.
The Eternal Son
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
civic
Active Member
Nope just those who I wanted to hear from about their views
TibiasDad
Active Member
Again, this is nothing but semantics. The person who is know as the Son and the person who is known as the Word in eternity past is the same person. In different contexts, he is known by different names. His role as the Son is necessarily known from eternity past, and thus, both Father and Son have known their roles and identities from eternity past.
The term “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” was centuries from being uttered, but the Trinity knew exactly who was being spoken of. You cannot have an omniscient God and not have an awareness of whom it is meant.
Doug
DavidTree
Active Member
This is not symantics
This is about the Fear of God and the Love of God and obedience to His Word = Proverbs 30:5-6
This is where you and @civic fall short of the glory in the Truth of the Word that was Elohim from the Beginning
There does not exist a single scripture verse that denotes of a begotten Son from God in Eternity past.
Stand upon and speak only by the Faith of and in Proverbs 30:5-6 and Matt 4:4
Last edited:
dwight92070
Active Member
John 17:1,5
You assume that because the Son is speaking here that He was also called the Son when He shared His glory before Creation. The verse does not say that. It is Christ's spirit speaking here in the body of Jesus, just as the Spirit of Christ spoke in and through the prophets. 1 Peter 1:11 The truth appears to be that He was called The Word before Creation.
Hebrews 1:1-2 In these last days, the days that Hebrews was written, Jesus was known as God's Son. However, when God made the universe through Him, which we read about in Genesis 1, we do not see the term "Son" or "Son of God". What does it say in Genesis 1? "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness; ..."
Who is US? John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Hebrews 1:8-12 In the context of verse 5, the author is speaking of the resurrected Christ, which Paul confirms in Acts 13:33. Then he goes back about 33 years in verse 6, and is speaking of the physical birth of Jesus. Then in verse 10 he refers once again to Creation, Genesis 1, where the terms "Son" or "Son of God" are not found.
Colossians 1:15-19 Jesus is called the "firstborn of all creation" and the "firstborn from the dead", which have the same meaning, i.e. the first one to be resurrected from the dead with an immortal or glorified body. Again, Paul confirms that "Today I have begotten You", from Psalm 2, is Christ's resurrection from the dead. Acts 13:33, also called here in Colossians 1 the "firstborn from the dead". Jesus was before all things, but not as "Jesus", or as the Eternal Son, but as "the Word".
John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world ..."
If my interpretation is correct, then it could be stated something like this: For God did not send the Word into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him - but that would be quite extremely confusing. Did the Word die on the cross to save the world? No, it was the "Word" that "became flesh", Jesus, the One who became the Son of God, that died on the cross. John called Him the "eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us - ..." 1 John 1:2
Or He could have said, For God did not send the Word that became flesh and Who became the Son of God into the world to judge the world - but again, very confusing. Instead He made it very simple - "God did not send the Son" making it very clear who He is referring to. It does not necessitate that the Son of God was in Heaven with God- and then God sent Him. Rather is was the Word who was with God - and God sent Him. We know that because "the Word became flesh" and He became the Son of God.
Civic, going by your interpretation, it was God sending the Son of God from heaven to BECOME the Son of God in Mary's womb. That makes no sense. The Son of God did not become the Son of God. Rather it was the Word of God that became the Son of God in Mary's womb.
So John 3:17 is stated the way it is, to make it clear Who we are speaking of. In one sense, Jesus did not pre-exist. He came into existence inside Mary's womb, as a human baby, but also as the Son of God. In another sense, Jesus did pre-exist as the eternal life or the Word, which was with the Father. The Word was miraculously transformed into human flesh - yet at the same time He did not lose His identity, nor did He cease to exist.
Civic - Please quote the verses that include the term "the Eternal Son".
Civic - Also please explain why in Luke 1:35, that Gabriel says, "... and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
For WHAT reason?
You assume that because the Son is speaking here that He was also called the Son when He shared His glory before Creation. The verse does not say that. It is Christ's spirit speaking here in the body of Jesus, just as the Spirit of Christ spoke in and through the prophets. 1 Peter 1:11 The truth appears to be that He was called The Word before Creation.
Hebrews 1:1-2 In these last days, the days that Hebrews was written, Jesus was known as God's Son. However, when God made the universe through Him, which we read about in Genesis 1, we do not see the term "Son" or "Son of God". What does it say in Genesis 1? "Let US make man in OUR image, according to OUR likeness; ..."
Who is US? John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Hebrews 1:8-12 In the context of verse 5, the author is speaking of the resurrected Christ, which Paul confirms in Acts 13:33. Then he goes back about 33 years in verse 6, and is speaking of the physical birth of Jesus. Then in verse 10 he refers once again to Creation, Genesis 1, where the terms "Son" or "Son of God" are not found.
Colossians 1:15-19 Jesus is called the "firstborn of all creation" and the "firstborn from the dead", which have the same meaning, i.e. the first one to be resurrected from the dead with an immortal or glorified body. Again, Paul confirms that "Today I have begotten You", from Psalm 2, is Christ's resurrection from the dead. Acts 13:33, also called here in Colossians 1 the "firstborn from the dead". Jesus was before all things, but not as "Jesus", or as the Eternal Son, but as "the Word".
John 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world ..."
If my interpretation is correct, then it could be stated something like this: For God did not send the Word into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him - but that would be quite extremely confusing. Did the Word die on the cross to save the world? No, it was the "Word" that "became flesh", Jesus, the One who became the Son of God, that died on the cross. John called Him the "eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us - ..." 1 John 1:2
Or He could have said, For God did not send the Word that became flesh and Who became the Son of God into the world to judge the world - but again, very confusing. Instead He made it very simple - "God did not send the Son" making it very clear who He is referring to. It does not necessitate that the Son of God was in Heaven with God- and then God sent Him. Rather is was the Word who was with God - and God sent Him. We know that because "the Word became flesh" and He became the Son of God.
Civic, going by your interpretation, it was God sending the Son of God from heaven to BECOME the Son of God in Mary's womb. That makes no sense. The Son of God did not become the Son of God. Rather it was the Word of God that became the Son of God in Mary's womb.
So John 3:17 is stated the way it is, to make it clear Who we are speaking of. In one sense, Jesus did not pre-exist. He came into existence inside Mary's womb, as a human baby, but also as the Son of God. In another sense, Jesus did pre-exist as the eternal life or the Word, which was with the Father. The Word was miraculously transformed into human flesh - yet at the same time He did not lose His identity, nor did He cease to exist.
Civic - Please quote the verses that include the term "the Eternal Son".
Civic - Also please explain why in Luke 1:35, that Gabriel says, "... and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."
For WHAT reason?
Last edited:
civic
Active Member
You mean like quote the verses that say “ Trinity “
It’s called the argument from silence fallacy you requested
dwight92070
Active Member
Is that like your silence in answering my question?
civic
Active Member
It shows it’s fallacious since you affirm the Trinity yet the word Trinity is not in the Bible. Just using your same logic and criteria
dwight92070
Active Member
I know that but enough of the word games. Why are you not answering my question?
civic
Active Member
Scripture says the Son , not Jesus or the Word was together with the Father before creation sharing the same glory together with the Father. So by default that makes the Son ETERNAL.
And once again using your logic and reasoning the Word in John 1:1 is not Eternal.
DavidTree
Active Member
The Word that was Elohim is Eternal = HE is from Eternity as Elohim
The Word became flesh AND when HE did become flesh at that moment HE became the only begotten of the FATHER.
Therefore, all of the Eternal Divinity of the Word, now/Today, once again belong to HIM who became flesh for us.
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
(John 17:1-5) = Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord/Yhwh, to the glory of God the Father.
civic
Active Member
Nope John 1:1 does not say ETERNAL.
Nice try. What’s good for the goose as the saying goes is good for the gander. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I’m using your same standards against you. I can guarantee you there is no way your will ever win the arguments because I will use your same argument against you as the standard.
DavidTree
Active Member
YES it does when we read the whole chapter AND that John 1:1 is DIRECT from Genesis 1:1-3
Just as Genesis Says THREE which is confirmed in the Gospel
You are not using the same standard that has been set, established and irrevocable by God that we are to submit to.
The Scriptures declare Elohim is eternal.
The Scriptures do not declare a begotten Son from eternity past.
SEE the difference!!!
Last edited:
civic
Active Member
Nope Eternal is not mentioned nice try. Quote it and prove it
Runningman
Active Member
Still waiting for anyone to find one verse where the Son is explicitly called "eternal" one time. 
DavidTree
Active Member
YES, you are wrong again my Brother
The eternal Elohim is your refuge, And underneath are the everlasting arms; He will thrust out the enemy from before you, And will say, ‘Destroy!’ - Deuteronomy 33:27
DavidTree
Active Member
The eternal Elohim is your refuge, And underneath are the everlasting arms; He will thrust out the enemy from before you, And will say, ‘Destroy!’ - Deuteronomy 33:27Still waiting for anyone to find one verse where the Son is explicitly called "eternal" one time.
civic
Active Member
TibiasDad
Active Member
TibiasDad
Active Member
Isa 9:6For to us a child is born,Still waiting for anyone to find one verse where the Son is explicitly called "eternal" one time.
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Doug
