Begotten of the Father before all ages.

[37818]

Let us discuss this:
Begotten of the Father before all ages.
The only Bible passage generally presented to defend this is John 1:2.

The main Bible verse which explicitly does not teach this is Psalms 2:7, where the term "begotten" is explictily used explicitly in regards to our Lord's bodially resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

I explicitly hold that Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and co-equal being the One and the same God, Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 6:4. The three Persons are the One LORD God.

As for John 1:2 this signifies the eternal Son was always the Son being also someone beside God. Yes other than God, but John 1:1 makes it explicit that the Son always also "was God," while always being someone else.

 

[Yeshua1]

Let us discuss this:
Begotten of the Father before all ages.
The only Bible passage generally presented to defend this is John 1:2.

The main Bible verse which explicitly does not teach this is Psalms 2:7, where the term "begotten" is explictily used explicitly in regards to our Lord's bodially resurrection, Acts of the Apostles 13:33.

I explicitly hold that Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and co-equal being the One and the same God, Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 6:4. The three Persons are the One LORD God.

As for John 1:2 this signifies the eternal Son was always the Son being also someone beside God. Yes other than God, but John 1:1 makes it explicit that the Son always also "was God," while always being someone else.

he was always God period, before the Incarnation!

 

[37818]

he was always God period, before the Incarnation!

If you understood my OP you would have known that is not at issue here.

 

[Yeshua1]

If you understood my OP you would have known that is not at issue here.

What is the :issue?"

 

[37818]

What is the :issue?"

The word of God no place teaches: Begotten of the Father before all ages. The main Bible verse which explicitly does not teach this is Psalms 2:7.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have always taken the 'decree' of Psalms 2:7 to be the Decree of God, spoken in eternity. If the Lord Jesus is 'the same yesterday, today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8), I don't see how there could have been a time when He was not the only begotten Son.
Jesus as Son of God before His incarnation appears in Proverbs 30:4, alluded to by our Lord in John 3:13. If He is not eternally begotten, in what sense is He the Son?

However, I acknowledge the force of your allusion to Acts 13:33. These things are very difficult.

 

[timtofly]

The problem is using the term "Pre." Christ was begotten first. All the appearances of Christ was Post incarnation.

 

[37818]

I have always taken the 'decree' of Psalms 2:7 to be the Decree of God, spoken in eternity. If the Lord Jesus is 'the same yesterday, today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8), I don't see how there could have been a time when He was not the only begotten Son.
Jesus as Son of God before His incarnation appears in Proverbs 30:4, alluded to by our Lord in John 3:13. If He is not eternally begotten, in what sense is He the Son?

However, I acknowledge the force of your allusion to Acts 13:33. These things are very difficult.

Few things to note. Hebrews 13:8 was not true until Jesus' bodily resurrection when He became the first immortal man. Psalms 2:7 speaks of a day, which can never refer to eternity. In order for there to be a day, it would always have to be a finite event or it would never be. The eternal Son from eternity past was never not the Son. He was never not God. Begotten of the Father before all ages, ts nonsense. The eternal Son is uncaused by reason He has always been with God. God being uncaused, requiring the Son to be uncaused. To be the same as God, to be uncaused the very same God. God is One. Distinct Persons, One and the same God.

 

[37818]

The problem is using the term "Pre." Christ was begotten first. All the appearances of Christ was Post incarnation.

He was born to be become human, John 1:14, Luke 1:35. He was always the Son (John 1:18, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 6:5), as the Son He was given, Isaiah 9:6.

 

[timtofly]

He was born to be become human, John 1:14, Luke 1:35. He was always the Son (John 1:18, Proverbs 30:4, Isaiah 6:5), as the Son He was given, Isaiah 9:6.

None of those verses prove Jesus was born before he was born. Jesus Christ was only known as The Word as presented in the OT. However we do know that the body of the crucified Christ appeared at times to Abraham. Jesus told his disciples, "before Abraham was, I am." It was the post crucified body that ate and talked with Abraham in person. Abraham had faith in the resurrection of Jesus Himself. That is why Abraham obeyed in the task of sacrificing Isaac. Abraham knew the risen Christ in the risen body, and knew that if Isaac died, God would also raise Isaac from the dead, just like God raised Jesus from the dead.

Abraham told Isaac that God would provide Himself as the sacrifice. Abraham did not tell Isaac that Isaac would die, and God would bring him back to life. So if Abraham knew of the resurrection did he get that from pagan activity? No! The only way Abraham had proof of a bodily resurrection was to actually know that Jesus had died and was resurrected. That would not be possible if a pre-incarnate body appeared to Abraham. It was only possible when the Post glorified body having the nail prints and sword wound in the side appeared to Abraham.

 

[37818]

None of those verses prove Jesus was born before he was born.

Huh? No such claim was ever made by me.

Jesus Christ was only known as The Word as presented in the OT.

Nowhere in the OT is the Word presented as the Word. That is found solely in the prologue of John 1:1-14.

However we do know that the body of the crucified Christ appeared at times to Abraham. Jesus told his disciples, "before Abraham was, I am."

That is not how. Rather as the preincarnate Son per John 1:18, the Son being the LORD God, in Genesis 12:7, and Genesis 17:1.

It was the post crucified body that ate and talked with Abraham in person.

You are making stuff up. The word of God teaches no such thing.

 

[timtofly]

Huh? No such claim was ever made by me.
Nowhere in the OT is the Word presented as the Word. That is found solely in the prologue of John 1:1-14.
That is not how. Rather as the preincarnate Son per John 1:18, the Son being the LORD God, in Genesis 12:7, and Genesis 17:1.
You are making stuff up. The word of God teaches no such thing.

As pointed out the Bible does not teach Pre-incarnation either, that is false interpretation. If John presents The Word to those who only had the OT text, how would they not know that John was relating Jesus Christ to what they already accepted from the OT text? The second person of the Godhead in the OT, was the Word. It was the OT Word that became the NT person of Jesus Christ.

So, no, I am not making stuff up any more than humans have made up the false notion of 'pre'. The correct term would be "post". That is the point of this thread, as stated in the OP.

You cannot have a pre condition. Not that it is not a miracle of God. The post glorified body is not a miracle, but the literal truth. We have accepted an impossibility for too long. Nor does the truth change much. Any importence will be left in the past as not relevant at all.

 

[37818]

As pointed out the Bible does not teach Pre-incarnation either, that is false interpretation. If John presents The Word to those who only had the OT text, how would they not know that John was relating Jesus Christ to what they already accepted from the OT text? The second person of the Godhead in the OT, was the Word. It was the OT Word that became the NT person of Jesus Christ.

So, no, I am not making stuff up any more than humans have made up the false notion of 'pre'. The correct term would be "post". That is the point of this thread, as stated in the OP.

You cannot have a pre condition. Not that it is not a miracle of God. The post glorified body is not a miracle, but the literal truth. We have accepted an impossibility for too long. Nor does the truth change much. Any importence will be left in the past as not relevant at all.

You are making claims, giving your interpretation.
Not dealing with points argument, thinking a mere denial refutes an argument.

Eor the record, are you denying that in Genesis 12:7, ". . And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . ," to be the preincarnate Son per John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."? Yes or no. Then please give an explanation for that answer.

 

[timtofly]

You are making claims, giving your interpretation.
Not dealing with points argument, thinking a mere denial refutes an argument.

Eor the record, are you denying that in Genesis 12:7, ". . And the LORD appeared unto Abram, . . ," to be the preincarnate Son per John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."? Yes or no. Then please give an explanation for that answer.

The glorified body of Jesus Christ appeared to Abraham. Otherwise it would be a mirage (Pre-incarnate) which could not eat or drink. Genesis 18:7-8

7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.
8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

The glorified body (post) ate and drank.

One view is speculation, the other literal.

 

[37818]

The glorified body of Jesus Christ appeared to Abraham.

You did not answer my yes or no question. Instead you give some wild explanation. You also fail to note ". . . they did eat."

 

[timtofly]

You did not answer my yes or no question. Instead you give some wild explanation. You also fail to note ". . . they did eat."

Your question had too many variables. I gave you my explanation. Is it the same Lord in both chapters?

I do deny the interpretation that states "pre". You can deny "post" all you want. Post is the only literal and logical view that makes sense. Can you explain a literal body before one was even born?

 

[37818]

Is it the same Lord in both chapters?

The same LORD God? Yes. In all three, Genesis 12:7, Genesis 17:1 and Genesis 18:1 who appeared to Abraham per John 1:18.

Your question had too many variables.

List each issue, so we can deal with each issue separately.
One issue at a time. Not all in one post..

I do deny the interpretation that states "pre". You can deny "post" all you want. Post is the only literal and logical view that makes sense. Can you explain a literal body before one was even born?

This problem as you present it has more variables than you are taking into account. For example, Adam, the first man, was not born.

 

[timtofly]

The same LORD God? Yes. In all three, Genesis 12:7, Genesis 17:1 and Genesis 18:1 who appeared to Abraham per John 1:18.

This problem as you present it has more variables than you are taking into account. For example, Adam, the first man, was not born.

We are not talking about Adam. We are talking about the glorified body of Jesus Christ after death and resurrection.

Jesus was born to Mary and grew up as all humans do.

Those are the only variables.

 

[37818]

We are not talking about Adam. We are talking about the glorified body of Jesus Christ after death and resurrection.

Jesus was born to Mary and grew up as all humans do.

Those are the only variables.

The Son of God made Adam before He, the Son Himself became a man.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Few things to note. Hebrews 13:8 was not true until Jesus' bodily resurrection when He became the first immortal man. Psalms 2:7 speaks of a day, which can never refer to eternity. In order for there to be a day, it would always have to be a finite event or it would never be. The eternal Son from eternity past was never not the Son. He was never not God. Begotten of the Father before all ages, ts nonsense. The eternal Son is uncaused by reason He has always been with God. God being uncaused, requiring the Son to be uncaused. To be the same as God, to be uncaused the very same God. God is One. Distinct Persons, One and the same God.

Thanks for your reply. I can't agree with your dismissal of Hebrews 13:8 and Psalms 2:7. but I need to come back at a later stage when I have considered a little more fully.
For now, may I ask: leaving aside for the moment, the term 'begotten,' do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God before His incarnation?