Featured There are three views of the Trinity.

My thought would be that once begotten the physical would always exist as seen after the resurrection. Instead of pre-incarnate which raises way more questions than answers, go with post incarnate.

It sure seems to work for the trib/second coming people. It works for post millennials.

But it sure makes more sense logically that those usages.

Pre-incarnate is literally nothing but sure sounds good. At least with pre trib or pre mill, one has the post incarnate Christ coming back in perfectly good shape.

The point though in all seriousness is that as a human 100%, Jesus had to be begotten. This just seems to be a new twist on the divinity or humanity of the Son. Jesus would not be human if He were not begotten. As God, it does not matter. But even Jesus claims:

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

If Jesus existed as a human this has to literally apply to Him. The point is that both happened in the womb for Jesus. Jesus did not have to be "born again".

We have accomplished the water/flesh part. Many have accomplished the born of the Spirit part. Yet we are still a work in progress.

Jesus went through death and Resurrection.

Any one claiming Jesus is not begotten, is denying Jesus is human, and did not spend time in the womb. And Jesus said all have to do both to exist. Jesus did literally exist, so was literally begotten, not just figuratively or as a shadow or type.

Humanity is the shadow or type. The literal image of God. That is until Adam disobeyed, and now we are a shadow of what once was. We are dead physically. We are separated from our spirit. We are only a soul in a dead body. Quickened by the Spirit to be barely adopted into God's family. Would you adopt a dead child and pretend to raise it to life?

The question should be are we begotten prior to death and resurrection.

I am not saying the post incarnate, resurrection state made Jesus more a son of God. I am just saying it makes more sense to have a literal Son that had a resurrection body, even if people fail to see the Son can exist outside of time just as easily as God. If the Trinity does not exist outside of time, then perhaps that is a totally different animal to argue over. Is the Trinity bound by the rules of creation? If not, then the Son has always existed in a resurrection body, at the same time as being begotten at one point in time. Reality does not apply to God, but to a human birth. But to make sense to the Hebrews the Son was called the Word.

 

In eternity, did the Son ever not exist?

peace to you

 

I believe the words “Father” and “Son” are used by God to speak to us in a way we can understand.

God is unique. There is nothing to compare Him with that gives a complete understanding of His being.

So He condescends to us using language we can understand. Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. Using “Father” and “Son” conveys real truth about God, just not complete truth about God which is impossible for us the comprehend.

peace to you

 

From our current limited view, how do you define, "always was"?

Certainly the begotten Son always was, the whole of creation. Even though from a physical standpoint had a physical birth. The fact the Son was a part of the Trinity demands the Son was the Word always, and the Word is still the Son, always.

My point being confusing is that; do you limit God to a Trinity in eternity? Is the Trinity all God is? That seems to limit God to what we do know and understand. The Trinity could just be the manifestation of God according to this current reality. Future realities could reveal to us even more of what God actually is.

If you are willing to move the whole Trinity into eternity, then being a begotten physical human is meaningless. The Trinity is no longer defined by current creation nor the rules of reality that we can observe. But in doing so, that is limiting God to an aspect that only deals with this current reality.

Many online point out time has no meaning to God. Then why should being begotten have any meaning if that is a point in time that is meaningless to God? If time is not important, then the Son was never begotten, but a mere formality God declared to us, that never physically happened. A made up cover story was produced, and no one can verify if it is true or not.

I think time is important to God, as He indicated time was part of the very nature of this creation itself. Genesis 1 is all about time. If God had a physical voice to say those Words, then that was the resurrected Son of God providing that physical voice. If God appeared physically to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able that was the resurrected Son of God physically interacting with them. From God's perspective the physical begotten Son, after His resurrection, was the form of God there at the very beginning. I am accused of wrongly interpreting this: "of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." What is symbolic? What is literal? The phrase is symbolism declaring the Resurrected Son of God existed since Genesis 1:1.

If one is just going with philosophy and shadows and types then nothing physical happened in the beginning. Adam just was and talking to God was just a metaphor and never happened. Some even declare Adam never happened. Just like talking to God today. We understand the concept, but it physically does not happen. Except now, you could even explain away the physical existence of Jesus, in the first century, as it never happened physically. When can one justify the end of shadows and types once they dogmatically hold to that perspective? With no rigid structure of time, this creation could go on for billions of years, just like many declare a 14 billion year old reality.

I realize that most don't go to that extreme but find a happy medium. They accept the physical may never interact with God. But the failure to see that the physical and spiritual is a single creation can lead many to a confused state. Which seems understandable and acceptable, so the truth then sounds confusing.

The image of man is body and spirit, physical and spiritual. There is one single physical and spiritual reality. We are blind to the spiritual side. The spiritual is not eternity nor even heaven. The spiritual is all around us. The physical is not just earth. Heaven is as physical as the earth. That is the point many fail to understand.

We are literally blind people trying to explain the reality we cannot "see". Yes, the Son was always begotten, and always the physical Word. Always 100% human and always 100% God. Yes there was a single point from our perspective that the Word and Son was in the womb of the virgin Mary. Thus begotten once, 100%, and at the same time always begotten, 100%. John did say the Word became flesh. After the Resurrection, the flesh became, always the Word.

 

no

 

Thought with a question not even knowing whether relevant or not.

It is stated many places in the Word of God, that only begotten Son, the One resurrected out of the dead, the firstborn, is on the right hand of God, the Father and or of power.

Does the Word state anywhere in the Word, from what position of power or otherwise, relative to God and or the Father the Word made flesh and or the Son , came?

 

I guess the following is the same condescending concept. The Almighty God who created us just could not come up with a way to speak, Word,. to us except in a concept of reality which wasn't really, reality.

Matt 1:18 Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γέννησις οὕτως ἠν· μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς, εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου

Course that's in the Greek and it may have been given in Arabic so what do I know. However I ask, just what does that Greek word in bold mean?

Obviously it can't mean what it means.

 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 1083: γέννησις

γέννησις, γεννησεως, ἡ (γεννάω), a begetting, engendering (often so in Plato); nativity, birth: Rec. in Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:14; see γένεσις,

The Genesis of His body. "A body thou has prepared for Me."

6.1.1 Intro: The CURE for DEATH #1 Intro; “Behold I bring you Good Tidings of Great Joy.”

6.1.2a.1: The CURE for DEATH #2a.1; ONCE JESUS RAISED FROM THE DEAD, JESUS’ HUMAN BODY BECAME IMMORTAL.

 

I agree.

The Word became flesh, living soul, mortal, corruptible and died; After three days that soul was resurrected out of the dead, Hades, in flesh and bone body, incorruptible. John 3:7 comes to mind.

The result being. Acts 2:32,33 'This Jesus did God raise up, of which we are all witnesses; at the right hand then of God having been exalted -- also the promise of the Holy Spirit having received from the Father -- he was shedding forth this, [The Holy Spirit] which now ye see and hear;

And that will bring about the following
and if the Spirit of Him who did raise up Jesus out of the dead doth dwell in you, He who did raise up the Christ out of the dead shall quicken also your dying bodies, through His Spirit dwelling in you.
for ye did not receive a spirit of bondage again for fear, but ye did receive a spirit of adoption in which we cry, 'Abba -- Father.'
And not only so, but also we ourselves, having the first-fruit of the Spirit, we also ourselves in ourselves do groan, adoption expecting -- the redemption of our body; for in hope we were saved, and hope beheld is not hope; for what any one doth behold, why also doth he hope for it? and if what we do not behold we hope for, through continuance we expect it
because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, [As resurrected out of the dead, Hades] [1 Cor 15:55 where, O Death, thy sting? where, O Hades, thy victory?'] that he might be first-born among many brethren;
Rom 8:11,14,23-25, 29

Rom 8:19 The manifestation of the sons of God. Luke 20:36 YLT for neither are they able to die any more -- for they are like messengers -- and they are sons of God, being sons of the rising again.

 

That is your human understanding.

Yet you limit God to a Trinity that "always was" without knowing all the facts about God.

Except the Word of God declares the Son is begotten. You certainly don't define the word as everyone else does, when you say that is an eternal state, instead of actually a begotten point in time.

Begotten:
(typically of a man, sometimes of a man and a woman) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

We can in the case of Jesus substitute the word "man" with "God". We are talking about the Son of God. Either God had a begotten Son. Or the Son was never begotten at any time. Not even in the womb of Mary. But always begotten changes the definition of the word begotten itself. The point is "always" compliments the word begotten. It does not change the definition of the word. So once in time Jesus was begotten. After that point it is always a condition.