Is the Son eternal?

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

I know that better than most. but why argu the point, if Jesus is or was an eternal being. He is not going to go away anytime soon.

You need to understand the meaning of the terms ‘immortal’ and ‘eternal’ Neckstadt, as they certainly don’t mean the same thing and so until you do understand them, I can’t discuss this further with you as your simply confusing these two different terms.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Iron Bladder, when you are you going to answer about your thoughts concerning the question if "red" is an apple? Come on, man. Say something.

I prefer to stick to expositions of the Biblical text rather than to philosophical or historical speculations, so I’ve just about as much interest in your philosophical reasoning’s as you would have in a Trinitarian who argues for hours on end that God is a Trinity because water exists in three states as ice, water and steam. Please will you instead address the text of scripture as that’s the only reason why I’m in this chat room, absolutely nothing else interests me.

Secondly, you claim that the Son is not eternal. OK in that case please address four texts for me, each of which state that the Son exists as the Son and also does things as the Son from before the creation; John 17:5 and 24 re the words ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ at verse 1, also Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13 re the word ‘Son’ at verse 13. How can the Son not be eternal, when he possesses glory (John 17:5) and is loved by the Father (John 17:24) from before the creation, the Son is also the creator (as the Son) according to Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17, so please explain your denial of eternal Sonship in the light of these four verses.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I prefer to stick to expositions of the Biblical text rather than to philosophical or historical speculations, so I’ve just about as much interest in your philosophical reasoning’s as you would have in a Trinitarian who argues for hours on end that God is a Trinity because water exists in three states as ice, water and steam. Please will you instead address the text of scripture as that’s the only reason why I’m in this chat room, absolutely nothing else interests me.

Secondly, you claim that the Son is not eternal. OK in that case please address four texts for me, each of which state that the Son exists as the Son and also does things as the Son from before the creation; John 17:5 and 24 re the words ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ at verse 1, also Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:13 re the word ‘Son’ at verse 13. How can the Son not be eternal, when he possesses glory (John 17:5) and is loved by the Father (John 17:24) from before the creation, the Son is also the creator (as the Son) according to Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17, so please explain your denial of eternal Sonship in the light of these four verses.

MFblume's question is legitimate to explore grammar and in particular to show your flaw in understanding grammar and to make logical arguments....you ask the same sort of questions or make the same sort of points, yet here you are dismissing his question with an answer that just does not fit your MO up until this point

[ManOfWord]

I haven't taken time to read all these posts, however, I've dealt with this issue before as well.

The Son, is indeed eternal as the logos/plan/idea or whatever else you want to label it from the beginning. God had a plan in the beginning. The Son existed in the plan. In that respect, the Son IS eternal.

However, the Son, as the fulfillment of the plan did not come into literal existence until Mary was with child.

Anyway, that's my simple answer to the question.

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I haven't taken time to read all these posts, however, I've dealt with this issue before as well.

The Son, is indeed eternal as the logos/plan/idea or whatever else you want to label it from the beginning. God had a plan in the beginning. The Son existed in the plan. In that respect, the Son IS eternal.

However, the Son, as the fulfillment of the plan did not come into literal existence until Mary was with child.

Anyway, that's my simple answer to the question.

Is it actually "as the Son" (as Iron Bladder likes to say) that Jesus is the "logos/plan/idea"? Is it Jesus' status as the Son that makes Him the logos/plan/idea?

Originally Posted by Chan

Is it actually "as the Son" (as Iron Bladder likes to say) that Jesus is the "logos/plan/idea"? Is it Jesus' status as the Son that makes Him the logos/plan/idea?

Firstly, Jesus (the Son) is not an idea or a plan, you need to prove this claim if your going to make it by the way.

Secondly, 'plans' or 'ideas' as you've mistakenly defined the logos cannot be Yahweh God who is a single omnipresent personal and divine Spirit. The Son or logos (both terms are interchangeable) is Yahweh God, not a thought or an idea in Yahweh's mind, I can prove this. At John 1:2-3 the logos is said to have created all things, yet at Isaiah 44:24 Yahweh God creates 'all alone' and 'by myself,' so the Logos as he's the creator must in the light of Isaiah 44:24 be Yahweh God himself, not a mere impersonal thought or idea as ideas can't create the universe.

Thirdly, to answer your question, only God's Son can be his logos, as this term means the one who expresses Yahweh God to us. I've already disproven the error that logos means a thought or idea. So only the one who himself is Yahweh God (God's Son means to share God's very nature re Hebrews 1:3) is the logos or the expression of God to us.

Fourthly, the Son is said to have existed as the Son from before the creation of the universe; John 17:5: 'glory with you ((Father of verse 1)) before the world was' see also John 17:24, Hebrews 1:2 and Colossians 1:16-17, in these latter two verses the Son is said (as the Son) to be the creator of the universe. Hey how about your addressing these 4 verses each of which disprove the Oneness position that the Son didn't exist as the Son from before the incarnation.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I prefer to stick to expositions of the Biblical text rather than to philosophical or historical speculations, so I’ve just about as much interest in your philosophical reasoning’s as you would have in a Trinitarian who argues for hours on end that God is a Trinity because water exists in three states as ice, water and steam. Please will you instead address the text of scripture as that’s the only reason why I’m in this chat room, absolutely nothing else interests me.

Sorry, not good enough. I am asking you this because you claim a NATURE is a PERSON. And I showed you how YOU have an incorrect philosophy since that would be as silly as saying "red is an apple". You see, RED is part of the nature of an apple. But no one would say RED is an apple.

You must give a well-rounded involvement in a discussion, and not state zingers of statements and then refuse to 'fess up with them.

[sola gratia]

person is given to each member of the Godhead because this most well represents the interaction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I agree the distinction is more the nature

Originally Posted by sola gratia

person is given to each member of the Godhead because this most well represents the interaction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I agree the distinction is more the nature

But the English word "person" is synonymous with "being" and, so, in using "person" you'd have to say that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are individual divine beings. As for this interaction among Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I have yet to see any Biblical evidence of such interaction. All I've seen is God and His "only begotten Son" speaking to each other.

Based on terms the Nicene and Ante-Nicene fathers used, I'm inclined to use the term "persona" to describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit individually.

[KwaiQ]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

I'm puzzled as to how so many Oneness folk can say that the Son or the Sonship came into existance at bethlehem, and so they vhermently deny that the Son is eternal, yet in their next breath they'll say that the Son is Yahweh, although other Oneness folk dey this and claim that he's either just a manifestation of Yahweh or else he's a man in whom Yahweh indwells. What do the people in this room believe, do you hold to any of these three views or to another view?

For my part, as a God can' change being immutible; 'for I am God I change not' (Malachi 3:6), Yahweh God must therefore be both eternal and immutible, so if the Son is Yahweh God and I certainly do believe that, then he must be eternal and immutible. For that matter I apply every divine attribute to the Son, as I don't believe that the Son can exist as Yahweh and yet not possess every divine attributes.

Simple. God's Spirit was in Christ so therefore we say Jesus was God. The man Christ Jesus had a beginning when the Spirit overshadowed Mavy and He was born of a virgin.