The Eternal Son

[dwight92070]

Since the concept of the Trinity is in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, history didn't have to wait until 350 A.D. to introduce it to the body of Christ.

v
To understand who first postulated the concept of the Trinity, consider the following points:

1. The term "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian in the early 3rd century. (That's the early 200's A.D.)
2. Tertullian was a Christian theologian from Carthage, North Africa.
3. He articulated the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his writings.
4. The concept was further developed by later Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Augustine.
5. The formal doctrine of the Trinity was established at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
6. The Trinity remains a central tenet of mainstream Christianity today.

Even though Tertullian may have been the first to use the term "Trinity", in the early 200's A.D., we know from the New Testament that the concept was known by the apostles, even in their lifetime, especially John. (John 1:1, 14)

 

[civic]

The Bible says Jesus was resurrected as a man, taken to heaven as a man, and makes no mention of him losing his body. Where did you get the idea Jesus doesn't have a human nature anymore?

We agree on the resurrection and human nature side. But He also has a Divine Nature being fully God as per Colossians 1:19, Colossians 2:9.

 

[civic]

I don't believe we know what body humans are resurrected with, given Jesus was the first. John didn't know, and He saw Him, but when He returns we shall know.

If they didn't know, I'm pretty sure I don't know. And a mortal body can not be the same as an immortal body.

I'm ok with not knowing, it seems more prudent to be diligent to be found by Him without spot and blameless.

Paul said whatever body God gives us, is worth the labor to be accepted if Him.

He has an immortal human body via the Resurrection as described in 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[DavidTree]

@civic

Well, face the truth, eternal sonship doctrine in essence denies Jesus' deity as the I AM THAT I AM; I do not care how you spin this, it still will come back to an eternally begotten god which is antichrist teachings, which I truly do not believe you want to go there, yet you are. You cannot escape not dealing with Jesus' deity and a eternally begotten god that does not exist in the scriptures, when addressing his Sonship. It has some very serious ramifications in believing in that false teaching, and those ramifications must be address.

I will make a post very soon, once more (not limiting myself to one) here in this thread.

You keep saying that Jesus is the SECOND person of the Trinity from eternity, yet the Word was God, period, without any qualifications. The Word was made flesh in the person of God's Son who was BORN IN TIME from Mary's womb....THAT IS GOD's very own testimony, you have no proof otherwise.

In the meantime, could you explain to me how Jesus is the everlasting Father of all things, (Isaiah 9:6) and still be a Son that was begotten in time? The incarnate Sonship doctrine has no problem in doing so, as you will soon see. Also, please explain how Jesus Christ will be the only God you and I will ever see, yet he himself will be subject unto God when all things are fulfilled! Please explain to me how Jesus was God, but God was not Jesus Christ.

I'll come back very soon.

@civic

i cannot find any Scriptures that declare of a Begotten Son from Eternity

When we say; "begotten Son from eternity"- we agree with the heresy espoused by jws and others

 

[Dizerner]

that declare of a Begotten Son from Eternity

whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Mic. 5:2 KJV)


For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, (Jn. 5:26 NKJ)

If the Son did not actually derive from his Father, he would not need his Father to grant him life in himself.

Simple as that.

 

[Studyman]

Since the concept of the Trinity is in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, history didn't have to wait until 350 A.D. to introduce it to the body of Christ.

v
To understand who first postulated the concept of the Trinity, consider the following points:

1. The term "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian in the early 3rd century. (That's the early 200's A.D.)
2. Tertullian was a Christian theologian from Carthage, North Africa.
3. He articulated the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in his writings.
4. The concept was further developed by later Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Augustine.
5. The formal doctrine of the Trinity was established at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
6. The Trinity remains a central tenet of mainstream Christianity today.

Even though Tertullian may have been the first to use the term "Trinity", in the early 200's A.D., we know from the New Testament that the concept was known by the apostles, even in their lifetime, especially John. (John 1:1, 14)

Tertullian may have been the first ancient theologian to introduce the image of a "triune God" into Christianity. But the image of a triune God had been long since observed and worshiped by pagans since Nimrod. It is true that this "triune god" has become a central tenet of modern religions who call Jesus Lord, Lord, but it clearly wasn't a central tenet in the OT nor in the Body of Christ defined in the NT. In fact, one struggles to find any real evidence at all. Jesus seems to have forgotten about the 3rd separate but equal entities of this popular triune God in almost every sentence HE spoke. It was missing in all of Moses writings, most of Paul's and is found nowhere in Revelations.

Rev. 14: 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Where is the 3rd separate and equal entity of the "Triune god" that is so zealously promoted by this world's religious system?

The council of Nicaea introduced many Traditions of men the RCC adopted and promoted, many that that Protestant Reformation later abandoned. But they adopted many as well, like her sabbaths, high days, many of her judgments, all of which transgressed God's Commandments, as well as their image of a triune god, that was also a transgression.

If the whole triune God philosophy was so important to Jesus, you would have thought that His Spirit would have inspired the the Law and Prophets to promoted it, or at least Prophesy about it. Or that the word "Trinity" or "Triune" would have been used at least once in the entire Bible.

But when I read Jesus "Sayings" HE doesn't ever promote His father, as a Triune God, with Him as one of the 3 separate but equal divine entities.

For these reasons and more, I have become skeptical of the philosophy, doctrines and judgments promoted by the "Many" who come in Christ's Name. Jesus did say to "Take Heed" that I am not deceived by them.

I just think we should be careful concerning the philosophies promoted by this world's religions.

 

[Studyman]

He has an immortal human body via the Resurrection as described in 1 Corinthians 15.

I believe everything Paul teaches.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

And John.

1 John 3: 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it "doth not yet appear" what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

If John doesn't know, who actually saw Him, then is seems highly unlikely that religious men of my time knows.

I for sure don't know. I'm OK with that.

 

[DavidTree]

\whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Mic. 5:2 KJV)


For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, (Jn. 5:26 NKJ)

If the Son did not actually derive from his Father, he would not need his Father to grant him life in himself.

Simple as that.

My Brother Dizerner

Mic 5:2 does not declare a eternal begotten Son

John 1:1 -In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God.

John 1:14 - the WORD became flesh and dwelt among us = at this point the WORD becomes the SON

JESUS in the FLESH says: For God so loved the world He sent His only begotten Son......

 

[civic]

\whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting (Mic. 5:2 KJV)


For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, (Jn. 5:26 NKJ)

If the Son did not actually derive from his Father, he would not need his Father to grant him life in himself.

Simple as that.

That’s the humanity side

On the Divine side He is the very source of life. John 1:4

 

[Dizerner]

The Holy Spirit also is generated from the Father timelessly in eternity.

Just like Eve was taken from Adam's side.

Wisdom the first of all his works.