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.

 

[Selah]

And a mortal body can not be the same as an immortal body.

A mortal soul is subject to death; it is not immortal.

An immortal soul is not subject to death; it is everlasting (eternal).

1 Corinthians 15:54-55 (NKJV) 54 So when this corruptible (body) has put on incorruption, and this mortal (soul) has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55 “O Death, where [is] your sting? O Hades, where [is] your victory?”

s e l a h

 

[Red Baker]

@civic

I will let the Renown Calvinist John MacAurthur who once held to your present ERROR and how he repented from the view you espouse known as Incarnational Sonship, whereas the biblical one it Eternal Sonship.

You should take correction from your own teachers, pastors, theologians. You are not above them in your knowledge of God as Triune. Pridecomes before a fall. Confess your error and hold to the Biblical/historical Trinity.

I do desire to say more on this posit by you concerning John F. MacArthur's changing his position from Incarnate Sonship to eternal Sonship position.

I do not know him on a personal level and truly have not read anything much from him, having known his more liberal views on the scriptures, his popularity, and being as wealthy as he is being a minister, kept myself at bay from him. He actually went to school within less than ten minutes where I once lived and still do, just a little farer out. He went to Bob Jones university back in the late fifties. (57-59) a very conservative school, mostly Fundamentalist school of thoughts, a school that even Billy Graham attended back in the days when the founder was there in charge. I might add this: Bod Jones senior came from a family of Hardshell Baptist from Alabama, that would agree much along the lines that I hold to on regeneration, yet the school would consider me a rank heretic and would ask me not to come on their campus, the holy grounds of the today's Fundamentalist.

I'm willing to listen to anyone, and that person does not need to be a renown person; I would consider carefully anyone who has a word to say concerning the word of God, especially so the nobodies, misfits of this world. I truly prefer them over the men who world loves and admires and looks up to as a voice coming from Moses' seat. I'm looking for that Publican who is standing a far off and smoothing upon his/her breast saying, God be merciful to us a sinner and guide us into the truths of the word of God, we are but a little child and have no power on our own to see and know the truth.
John MacArthur is still confused as to what he see and understands to be the truth concerning Jesus' Sonship. He confused on the verse of scripture, that he said converted him to the eternal Sonship position. I quote:

2. It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“this day have I begotten thee”), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal. Most theologians recognize this, and when dealing with the sonship of Christ, they employ the term “eternal generation.” I’m not fond of the expression. In Spurgeon’s words, it is “a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance.” And yet the concept itself, I am now convinced, is biblical. Scripture refers to Christ as “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14; cf. v. 18; 3:16, 18; Heb.11:17). The Greek word translated “only begotten” is mono genes. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ’s utter uniqueness. Literally ,it may be rendered “one of a kind”--and yet it also clearly signifies that He is of the very same essence as the Father. This, I believe, is the very heart of what is meant by the expression “only begotten. ”To say that Christ is “begotten” is itself a difficult concept. Within the realm of creation, the term “begotten” speaks of the origin of one’s offspring. The begetting of a son denotes his conception--the point at which he comes into being. Some thus assume that “only begotten ”refers to the conception of the human Jesus in the womb of the virgin Mary. Yet Matthew 1:20 attributes the conception of the incarnate Christ to the Holy Spirit, not to God the Father. The begetting referred to in Psalm 2 and John 1:14 clearly seems to be something more than the conception of Christ’s humanity in Mary’s womb. And indeed, there is another, more vital, significance to the idea of “begetting” than merely the origin of one’s offspring. In the design of God, each creature begets offspring “after his kind” (Gen. 1:11-12;21-25). The offspring bear the exact likeness of the parent. The fact that a son is generated by the father guarantees that the son shares the same essence as the father. I believe this is the sense Scripture aims to convey when it speaks of the begetting of Christ by the Father. Christ is not a created being (John1:1-3). He had no beginning but is as timeless as God Himself. Therefore, the “begetting” mentioned in Psalm 2 and its cross-references has nothing to do with His origin But it has everything to do with the fact that He is of the same essence as the Father. Expressions like “eternal generation,” “only begotten Son,” and others pertaining to the to the filiation of Christ must all be understood in this sense: Scripture employs them to underscore the absolute oneness of essence between Father and Son. In other words, such expressions aren’t intended to evoke the idea of procreation; they are meant to convey the truth about the essential oneness shared by the Members of the Trinity.

My source of information: https://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/jmreexam.pdf The bold highlighted areas are done by myself for discussion.

1) Mr. MacArthur wrote: "It is now my conviction that the begetting spoken of in Psalm 2 and Hebrews 1 is not an event that takes place in time. Even though at first glance Scripture seems to employ terminology with temporal overtones (“this day have I begotten thee”), the context of Psalm 2:7 seems clearly to be a reference to the eternal decree of God. It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal.

civic, Mr. MAcAruthur did not get converted he departed from the truth into error, the love of being accepted blinded his eyes to the truth as it is in Jesus Christ, allow me to prove what I am saying is true. Speaking of begetting (which he only used it in one sense, and THEN used it wrong, when it is without question used in two senses, which is easily proven) he flipped his own position on the sense of beggeting and applied it to eternity right after saying these words: "It is reasonable to conclude that the begetting spoken of there is also something that pertains to eternity rather than a point in time. The temporal language should therefore be understood as figurative, not literal. Most theologians recognize this, and when dealing with the sonship of Christ, they employ the term “eternal generation.” I’m not fond of the expression. In Spurgeon’s words, it is “a term that does not convey to us any great meaning; it simply covers up our ignorance. ” And yet the concept itself, I am now convinced, is biblical." Amazing! He's not found of the expression eternal generation, and quoted Spurgeon who said the phrase does not convery any real meaning, yet, in light of this, he said ne now is conviced that it is biblical. He's dead wrong since he is even in more darkness than before. Consider:

Psalms 2:7​

“I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”

How did Paul and the apostles understand Psalms 2:7, much different than Mr. MacArthur, for sure, not even close?

Acts 13:32-35~"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

civic, is this clear? THIS DAY have I begotten you has reference to Christ's resurrection from the dead, NOT his eternal genearation as the eternal Son of God, (as one well said, a phrase that carries not true meaning!) that is so clear to see, that if one refuses to see this truth then he deserves to be blinded! Mr. MacAruthur did not get converted he left the truth, what truth he had.
2) Mr. MacAruthur writes: "Scripture refers to Christ as “the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14; cf. v. 18; 3:16, 18; Heb.11:17). The Greek word translated “only begotten” is mono genes. The thrust of its meaning has to do with Christ’s utter uniqueness. Literally ,it may be rendered “one of a kind”--and yet it also clearly signifies that He is of the very same essence as the Father. This, I believe, is the very heart of what is meant by the expression “only begotten"
I agree with him here, that the meaning of the only begotten signifys Jesus' utter uniquenss in the manner in which he was begotten. Thus, the word begotten is used in at two senses in the NT, one concerning Christ'd resurrection from the dead, the other, concerning the manner in which he was begotten, being born of a virgin by the power of the Highest alone being present. I also agree by the truth taht Jesus was he begotten by God in the womb of Mary, this proves that Jesus is of the very same essence as God, even teh his eneimies understood this truth.

John 10:30-33~I and my Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

I'm stopping and coming back to finished keep from this being too long, which maybe it is already.

 

[FreeInChrist]

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?

At His incarnation Jesus took on human flesh, and at His resurrection His body was glorified.

This was not the same body as he was on earth in.

You do know that when you die you also will eventually get a new "glorified" body. We await the resurrection at Christ's second coming when we will be transformed into our glorified bodies... because our mortal human bodies are described in 1 Corinthians 15:42-53 as perishable, dishonorable, and weak, all due to sin.

This #1, was not the case with Jesus, for although he was in a body that could die, that body, in some way, became His glorified one as it could because it never was dishonorable, and weak, all due to sin.

Once he had His glorified body, then his human nature was gone and He returned to His divine nature.

It was this glorified body He had that allowed Him to pass through closed doors, that a mortal one could not. And can you imagine if His body was left behind? How many would cast lots for it? How many believers even would gladly carve it up for "relics" . He, Jesus, even told Mary Magdalene to stop clinging to Him. It is in John... I cannot, at the moment remember the exact verse, but want to say the common reason all have said for this is not my belief.

Anyway... If you were a believer in the Trinity, I would suggest the following considerations.

Is it not true that we both believe in One God? But here our beliefs are divided. I believe that this One God is Three Persons. Although each Person of the Trinity equally shares One and the same Essence, each Person is distinct in role. The Father is not The Son (we cannot say The Father became man), The Son is not The Spirit (we cannot say The Son descended like tongues of fire upon the Apostles), and The Spirit is neither The Father nor The Son. So, at the risk of a tragic oversimplification, we can affirm that The Father is The Source and Cause, The Son is The Incarnate Logos, and The Spirit is The Seal.

As I have said ad nauseum...Each Person of The One God has a distinct function.

We have been told Mary Magdalene arrived at the tomb very early Sunday morning. Was she the first one? There are differing accounts for this but there is no doubt she loved Jesus! When she found the tomb empty, she ran to find help and to share the surprising news. It was with Peter and John she returned to the tomb, and when they had left, she stayed behind. While she wept, she began to have a short dialogue with two angels, and shortly after, Jesus calls to her.

Now, I could never understand how she does not recognize Him throughout the beginning of the dialogue, but as soon as He calls her by name, “she turned and said to Him, ‘Raboni!’ (which means, Teacher).

Have you ever wondered why the John, who is writing this account in Greek, makes an effort to first state the original Hebrew word, ‘Raboni’ followed by its translation? Was this for a reason. He returns to mention the original word ‘Raboni,’ followed by its translation, but to emphasize Mary’s response. To her, Jesus was “Raboni,” He was “Teacher” (simply that).

Jesus’s response, “do not cling on to Me,” is therefore in response to her understanding of Him.

Don’t forget that the other Mary’s ‘held Him by the feet and worshiped Him’ .

Matt 28:9-10:
9And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

10 Then Jesus *said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”
He permitted them to cling to Him because they understood Him as God and as One to be worshiped. But Mary Magdalene, who without a doubt did love Jesus, only understood Him as “Teacher,” nothing more.

And so, His response “do not cling to Me,” is to say, “Do not hold on to this idea of Me as ‘Teacher’ only. Do not think of me as only that. Yes, I am your Teacher, but I am so much more. I am your God and Savior.”

What is more interesting is the latter part of Christ’s response, “…for I have not yet ascended to My Father” Here, one must ask, “what does Christ ascending to His Father have anything to do with this situation?” It’s almost as if He is telling her that the very reason she cannot cling to Him is because He has not yet ascended to His Father. It’s as though He is saying “Wait until I ascend to My Father, then I’ll let you cling to Me. But until then, you cannot cling to Me.” So, what does His ascension have to do with this situation?

Although, it seems out of context, here is where the puzzle pieces start to fall into place and we enter into the depth of "practical" Theology.

I spoke earlier of the distinctness of each Person of the Trinity. The Father is the Source or Cause. The Son is Begotten from The Father, and The Spirit proceeds from The Father.

If we meditate on Christ’s response “do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father,” we will recall the words of Christ
John 16:7 “Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you”
John 15:26 "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,"

Christ Jesus must ascend first—in order to deliver The Spirit to us. The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, are inseparable. This is The Trinity revealed! “The Father never works without His two hands—The Son and The Spirit The Trinity is always mystically working together in perfect harmony. This is condensed from Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Augustine, and Saints Irenaeus and Gregory the Theologian.

And why is it necessary for Christ Jesus to deliver The Spirit to her? Because The Spirit reveals Christ!

John 15:26 When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, namely, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, He will testify about Me,

Unless we have The Spirit we can not know who Christ is.

1 Cor 12:3 ..... and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit. Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed"

John 16: 13-14
13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.

It is The Spirit who reveals the Truth – Christ Himself.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude..... For this reason Christ tells Mary “…for I have not yet ascended to My Father.” In other words, “I have not yet sent you The Spirit, who will reveal to you who I really am.” He is telling her, not to hold on to Him with this misconception, and that once He ascends, He will take The Spirit, who proceeds from The Father, and deliver Him to her, that she may understand who He really is. Only then can she hold on to Him!

​

 

[civic]

This thread is needed to defend the historical, orthodox and biblical doctrine of the Eternal Son of God.

John 17:1, 5
“Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You,

And now, Father, glorify Me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

Notice above its the Son with the Father sharing the same glory together with Hm before creation, before the world came into existence. The same below. The Word who was God is the Son. Scripture interprets scripture. Hermeneutics 101.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

Verse 2 is talking about the son and it says that God made the universe through him, (in the context of him being a son).

Hebrews 1:8-12
But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9;You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
10He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.

Colossians 1:15-19

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.


And Here Jesus who is both God and man says that the Father sent the Son. This shows the Son existing before becoming man.

John 3:17
"For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him.

John tells us the same below:

1 John 4:9
This is how God’s love was revealed among us: God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we might live through Him.

1 John 4:10
10In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son as the atoning sacrifice for our sins.

1 John 4:14
And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent His Son to be the Savior of the world.

As does Paul below:

Romans 8:3
For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh,

Galatians 4:4-5
But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, / to redeem those under the law, that we might receive our adoption as sons.

You cannot send Someone who does not exist, ie the Son.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

1 John 4:9. toward us—Greek, "in our case."

sent—Greek, "hath sent."

into the world—a proof against Socinians, that the Son existed before He was "sent into the world." Otherwise, too, He could not have been our life (1Jo 4:9), our "propitiation" (1Jo 4:10), or our "Saviour" (1Jo 4:14). It is the grand proof of God's love, His having sent "His only-begotten Son, that we might live through Him," who is the Life, and who has redeemed our forfeited life; and it is also the grand motive to our mutual love.

1 John 1:1-4
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:8- The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.



We clearly see the Father in the O.T.

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Deu 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

And the Son

Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like the son of god

Psalm 2:12
Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended into heaven and descended?Who has gathered the wind in His fists?Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?Who has established all the ends of the earth?What is His name or His son’s name?

Daniel 7:13
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like the son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.

Matthew 11:27: “All these things have been given to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father and anyone to whom the Son of Man decides to reveal him.”

“Matthew’s use of ‘know’ ([epiginōskō is pronounced eh-pea-gih-noh-skoh, and the “g” is hard as in “get”] the present tense is gnomic, knowledge shared in eternal past, present, and eternal future) here is critical … it is likely that there is perfective force in the prefix [epi] –with the meaning ‘know exactly, completely, through and through’ (BAGD, 291), with the added idea of recognizing and acknowledging” (comment on 11:27).

The bottom line is that the Greek present tense is timeless and supports the notion that the Father and Son knew each other intimately for eternity, in the past, present and future—forever. Jesus did not become the Son at his birth or baptism (Matthew: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Zondervan, 2010], p. 440). https://drjimsebt.com/2023/04/17/when-did-jesus-become-the-son-of-god/



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

This grant cannot be temporary because the Father also has life in himself eternally. Therefore the Son also has life in himself eternally–just as the Father has this.


John 17:24:
24 Father, those whom you have given me, I want them to be with me where I am, so that they may see my glory which you have given me because you have loved me before the foundation of the world. (My translation)

Being a Father implies a Son. What was the Father doing before the foundation or creation of the world? He was loving his Son.

John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” Jesus more fully reveals their status and nature–Father and Son–beyond God and Logos. Therefore the Father was in heaven with his Son before the incarnation and birth.

Jesus says that he was in the presence of the Father: “I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence” […] (John 8:38). The term “presence” can be translated as “alongside” or “next to” the Father. The point: they were in close relationship as we see in John 1:1-2, 14 and 17:5. This relationship in the Father’s presence happened before the incarnation. To be the Father, he had to have at least one son in his presence. That Son is Jesus.

Hebrews 1:2 says: “but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” That verse says that the Son was the person through whom God made the universe. He was the Son before creation, long before his birth. That verses also identifies who the Logos was in John 1:1-4.

Hebrews 1:3:
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being […] (Heb. 1:3)

God’s radiance and his being are eternal because light that does not radiate is not light, and God’s being is not temporary with a beginning; therefore the Son is also eternal

Lets discuss the Eternal Son of God.

hope this helps !!!

The OP still stands irrefutable since the testimony of scripture with many different authors including the Father, Son and several Apostles and OT Prophets testify to the Sons eternal nature as Son. The OP walks through so many passages declaring the Sons existence prior to coming to this earth and comments on each of them. The comments come straight from the passages. This is exegesis, not eisegesis.

What I find rather disturbing is I'm witnessing the same logic/reasoning from the Trin camp to deny the Son is Eternal as with the unitarians same logic/reasoning to deny the Sons deity. In both cases there is presuppositions being read into scripture and eisegesis being used to deny the Son has always been the Son and there was never a time when He was not the Son, the 2nd Divine Person of the Trinity.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Runningman]

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.

As Revelation says, "every eye shall see him" (Rev. 1:7) but the Bible also says "the only God" is invisible (1 Tim. 1:17)

 

[DavidTree]

The OP still stands irrefutable since the testimony of scripture with many different authors including the Father, Son and several Apostles and OT Prophets testify to the Sons eternal nature as Son. The OP walks through so many passages declaring the Sons existence prior to coming to this earth and comments on each of them. The comments come straight from the passages. This is exegesis, not eisegesis.

What I find rather disturbing is I'm witnessing the same logic/reasoning from the Trin camp to deny the Son is Eternal as with the unitarians same logic/reasoning to deny the Sons deity. In both cases there is presuppositions being read into scripture and eisegesis being used to deny the Son has always been the Son and there was never a time when He was not the Son, the 2nd Divine Person of the Trinity.

hope this helps !!!

the Father, Son and several Apostles and OT Prophets testify to the Sons eternal nature as Son.

No, they testify that the Word was God and when HE came to earth as a man HE became the only begotten SON of God.

The OT Prophets prophesy of a Coming Savior whose beginnings are from Eternity

The Apostles are declaring that the LORD Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was of/in/One with the FATHER before His Incarnation.

Therefore everything that pertains to the Father pertains to the Son and the Holy Spirit concerning Eternal BEING/Eternity.

The Word was not created BUT a Body YOU have prepared for ME = Hebrews 10:5

To the SON HE Says: Your Throne oh GOD

TWO Dynamics are Expressed here in Hebrews 1:3-9

“You are My Son;
today I have begotten You?

Or again:

“I will be His Father,
and He will be My Son”?

6And again, when God brings His firstborn into the world, He says:
“Let all God’s angels worship Him.”
7Now about the angels He says:
“He makes His angels winds,
His servants flames of fire.”
8But about the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever,
and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness
and hated wickedness;
therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
above Your companions with the oil of joy.”g

 

[FreeInChrist]

The OP still stands irrefutable since the testimony of scripture with many different authors including the Father, Son and several Apostles and OT Prophets testify to the Sons eternal nature as Son. The OP walks through so many passages declaring the Sons existence prior to coming to this earth and comments on each of them. The comments come straight from the passages. This is exegesis, not eisegesis.

What I find rather disturbing is I'm witnessing the same logic/reasoning from the Trin camp to deny the Son is Eternal as with the unitarians same logic/reasoning to deny the Sons deity. In both cases there is presuppositions being read into scripture and eisegesis being used to deny the Son has always been the Son and there was never a time when He was not the Son, the 2nd Divine Person of the Trinity.

IMO there always was a Trinity. But I refuse to hint that those who do or don't believe The Son was from eternity past
would in anyway somehow not be Trinitarians.

I will admit to believing that the Father and Son existed in eternity past but I bet my reasons are different from yours @civic

The Old Testament tells is God was referred to as Father... but only scant references to a son.

Many Christians believe that calling the Creator of Heaven and Earth, with the title “Father” is only seen in the New Testament. Some believe and teach that God Almighty was distant to His people in the Old Testament, but came into a ‘Father-Son’ relationship only after the appearance of Yeshua (Jesus’ true name). Are these claims true? Was calling God by the title “Father” a new teaching?

Let’s look at the eye-opening evidence in the Scriptures, and what they point to.

Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

Isa 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Isa 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Deu 32:6 Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?

Jer 3:19 But I said, How shall I put thee among the children, and give thee a pleasant land, a goodly heritage of the hosts of nations? and I said, Thou shalt call me, My father; and shalt not turn away from me.

Mal 1:6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

Mal 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Pro 3:12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Psa 103:13 Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

Not only is God Almighty known as the “Father”, He calls His people as “Children”

Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Isa 1:2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

Exo 4:22,23 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.

Deu 14:1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Hos 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Conclusion
Calling God as “Our Father”, is not a new idea only seen in the New Testament. It is a recurring depiction of the close relationship between the Creator and His people, commonly seen in the Old Testament. Yeshua and the New Testament writers did not invent this idea. Rather they built upon the thought of having such a loving Creator, who was willing to call His creation “His Children”. Our Heavenly Father has, and will not change. He has always seen the ones who love Him as Children, and His people have also understood their Creator to be a loving Father from ancient times. I hope you are empowered with Scripture, to show the truth to people who say, that God has changed and that He came into a “Father – Son” relationship only in the New Testament.

Added on 25th July 2016
As there has been some objections raised against the view that “Our Father” was used before and after Yeshua’s Ministry on earth (even by Jews who did not believe in Yeshua as Messiah) – I present the following references. The reason for such is not to demean the ministry or teachings of Yeshua, but to remove the misconception that the Jewish people have never viewed or spoken of God as their Father.

“Our Father” is common place in the Jewish Extra-biblical writings. (references are also provided)


1. Babylonian Talmud written in 3rd to 5th Centuries AD, Ta’anit 25b it says “Our Father, our King, we have no king but you! Our Father, our King, on your own account have mercy on us!”. This prayer was recited on the 10 days of Awe (leading to the Day of Atonement).


2. The Mishnah which contains the teachings of the early rabbis, relates that before the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70AD Jews used to pray “Upon whom shall we depend? Upon Our Father who is in heaven”. (Mishnah Sotah 9:15)

3. Another Jewish Prayer says “May it be the will of our Father in Heaven” (Midrash Psalms 25:13 – Buber edition Page 214)

4. The Jewish sage Ben Sira, 200 years before Yeshua, prayed “O Lord, Father and Master of my life… O Lord, Father and God of my life” (Ben Sira 23:1,4). Also “Lord you are my Father; do not forsake me in the days of trouble, when there is no help against the proud” (Ben Sira 51:10)

5. In a fragment of The Dead Sea Scrolls (written hundreds of years before Yeshua) was found the title “Our Father” (4Q511 fragment 127 line 1)

So, I will close for now with the comment that I can see and understand why, with the love God showed in the old testament and calling them HIs children and they called Him Father that that most likely had to have been with everything in eternity past.

Even to the point of God calling the Word his Son before the incarnation of Jesus.

I will accept this, until I find differently.

Certainly this explains why Jesus referred to the Father as the Father so often, because it appears to have been the
thing to do and he was carrying the idea forward to the Gentiles as they were being incorporated with the Jews.

hope this helps !!!

 

[DavidTree]

IMO there always was a Trinity. But I refuse to hint that those who do or don't believe The Son was from eternity past
would in anyway somehow not be Trinitarians.

I will admit to believing that the Father and Son existed in eternity past but I bet my reasons are different from yours @civic

The Old Testament tells is God was referred to as Father... but only scant references to a son.

Many Christians believe that calling the Creator of Heaven and Earth, with the title “Father” is only seen in the New Testament. Some believe and teach that God Almighty was distant to His people in the Old Testament, but came into a ‘Father-Son’ relationship only after the appearance of Yeshua (Jesus’ true name). Are these claims true? Was calling God by the title “Father” a new teaching?

Let’s look at the eye-opening evidence in the Scriptures, and what they point to.


Not only is God Almighty known as the “Father”, He calls His people as “Children”


Conclusion
Calling God as “Our Father”, is not a new idea only seen in the New Testament. It is a recurring depiction of the close relationship between the Creator and His people, commonly seen in the Old Testament. Yeshua and the New Testament writers did not invent this idea. Rather they built upon the thought of having such a loving Creator, who was willing to call His creation “His Children”. Our Heavenly Father has, and will not change. He has always seen the ones who love Him as Children, and His people have also understood their Creator to be a loving Father from ancient times. I hope you are empowered with Scripture, to show the truth to people who say, that God has changed and that He came into a “Father – Son” relationship only in the New Testament.

Added on 25th July 2016
As there has been some objections raised against the view that “Our Father” was used before and after Yeshua’s Ministry on earth (even by Jews who did not believe in Yeshua as Messiah) – I present the following references. The reason for such is not to demean the ministry or teachings of Yeshua, but to remove the misconception that the Jewish people have never viewed or spoken of God as their Father.

“Our Father” is common place in the Jewish Extra-biblical writings. (references are also provided)


1. Babylonian Talmud written in 3rd to 5th Centuries AD, Ta’anit 25b it says “Our Father, our King, we have no king but you! Our Father, our King, on your own account have mercy on us!”. This prayer was recited on the 10 days of Awe (leading to the Day of Atonement).


2. The Mishnah which contains the teachings of the early rabbis, relates that before the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70AD Jews used to pray “Upon whom shall we depend? Upon Our Father who is in heaven”. (Mishnah Sotah 9:15)

3. Another Jewish Prayer says “May it be the will of our Father in Heaven” (Midrash Psalms 25:13 – Buber edition Page 214)

4. The Jewish sage Ben Sira, 200 years before Yeshua, prayed “O Lord, Father and Master of my life… O Lord, Father and God of my life” (Ben Sira 23:1,4). Also “Lord you are my Father; do not forsake me in the days of trouble, when there is no help against the proud” (Ben Sira 51:10)

5. In a fragment of The Dead Sea Scrolls (written hundreds of years before Yeshua) was found the title “Our Father” (4Q511 fragment 127 line 1)

So, I will close for now with the comment that I can see and understand why, with the love God showed in the old testament and calling them HIs children and they called Him Father that that most likely had to have been with everything in eternity past.

Even to the point of God calling the Word his Son before the incarnation of Jesus.

I will accept this, until I find differently.

Certainly this explains why Jesus referred to the Father as the Father so often, because it appears to have been the
thing to do and he was carrying the idea forward to the Gentiles as they were being incorporated with the Jews.

Gospel of John chapters 5 & 6

#1 - JESUS Says no one from the OT has seen the FATHER's form
AND
#2 - JESUS Says no one has ever heard the FATHER's Voice

Do you believe His straight forward declaration?

 

[Selah]

Woe. Why must we endlessly complicate the simplicity of God’s Word? God is called by many names. Also, notice the Trinity in this one verse:

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isn’t this a Wonderful verse to pause and meditate and ponder upon?
s e l a h

 

[DavidTree]

Woe. Why must we endlessly complicate the simplicity of God’s Word? God is called by many names. Also, notice the Trinity in this one verse:

Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV) For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isn’t this a Wonderful verse to pause and meditate and ponder upon?
s e l a h

@FreeInChrist

Can you and Selah and @civic give your thoughts on these words from the Lord.

#1 - JESUS Says no one from the OT has seen the FATHER's form
AND
#2 - JESUS Says no one has ever heard the FATHER's Voice