Is the concept of the "Eternal Son" true?

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

- 1st Timothy 3:16

The greatest confession ever told, "God Manifest in the flesh". This reality will always be proclaimed by men and women going back to the time's of the Messiah, till today in our fast pace "let me see the proof" society. WOW! God became flesh! How can we deny this truth, how can we debate this proof, how can we argue this glorious doctrine. It was a mystery to all. But now that we have become new and alive in Christ, we can understand that God is a Spirit and was manifested in the flesh so you and I can be saved from our wages and our yokes for they are unto death. Praise the Lord somebody, there's no controversy here, there's no question about it! "God was manifested in the flesh"; the invisible God became visible and His name is Jesus.

The concept of “eternal sonship” is inconsistent with the language of the prophets. Isaiah declared that the virgin would “conceive” and “bear a son,” whose name would be called Immanuel (7:14; Matthew 1:22-23). The “son” status is said to follow Mary’s conception. If “conception” is the equivalent of “begotten,” and Christ was “eternally begotten,” would not this suggest that he was “eternally conceived”? Later Isaiah prophetically declared, “a child is born, a son is given” (9:6). Does not this connect the role of being “son” with that of the birth of the child? If not, how can one ever have confidence in the meaningful interpretation of language? And if the “son” of this text is an “eternal son,” would this also imply that the “child” is an “eternal child”?

gatita

Apostolic Believer In One God, Jesus

NO.

John 3:16 calls Jesus the only begotten Son of God. However, many people use the phrase "eternal Son." Is this latter phrase correct? No. The Bible never uses it and it expresses a concept contradicted by Scripture. The word begotten is a form of the verb beget, which means "to procreate, to father, to sire." Thus begotten indicates a definite point in time - the point at which conception takes place. By definition, the begetter (father) always must come before the begotten (offspring). There must be a time when the begetter exists and the begotten is not yet in existence, and there must be a point in time when the act of begetting occurs. Otherwise the word begotten has no meaning. So, the very words begotten and Son each contradict the word eternal as applied to the Son of God.

"Son of God" refers to the humanity of Jesus. Clearly the humanity of Jesus is not eternal but was born in Bethlehem. One can speak of eternality - past, present, and future - only with respect to God. Since "Son of God" refers to humanity or deity as manifest in humanity, the idea of an eternal Son is incomprehensible. The Son of God had a beginning.

A=Apostolic

B=Believer

I=In

O=One

G=God

JESUS

No!

Christ Jesus the man was born at Bethlehem. He did not pre-exist as the eternal son of God. The single greatest difference between what we believe and what Trinitarians believe relates to the pre-existence or non-pre-existence of the Son of God. The Trinitarian doctrine holds that Jesus pre-existed, that is, lived before Bethlehem, as the eternal Son of God, the second person in the Godhead. But we find no eternally existent Son of God in scripture. Certainly not in what God teaches us in the Old Testament. An Eternal Son and the corresponding eternal generation of the son are phrases coined by Origen. Walter Martin, former head and founder of the Christian Research Institute, stated on the nationally televised John Ankerberg Show that Origen's statements were heretical, even though they are believed by most Trinitarians. Jesus was not in Old Testament times, nor is he now the second person in the Godhead. He is simply God, the God of the Bible, who manifest himself to creation as a man.

Its really a "red herring" issue. The concept of the "eternal Logos/Word" is true (John 1:1-2) and it is the Logos/Word who "became flesh" (John 1:14). So whatever you prefer to call him (Logos/Word/Son, etc.), he existed from the beginning both WITH God and AS God. Semantics aside, the conclusion is the same.

The distinctions within the Godhead are not temporal and functional but rather eternal and intrinsic.

The scriptures speaks of the "Son of God" and the "only begotten Son," whereas the terms God the Son and 'eternal Son' are non biblical. The Son was begotten by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary, having a beginning, namely, at the incarnation (Luke 1:35; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:5-6). The title of Son refers to God's Incarnation, and Christ the man was conceived by the Spirit of God . Therefore he was the Son of God (Matthew 1:18-20; Luke 1:35).

The title of Son at times focuses solely on the humanity of Christ, as in 'the death of his son' (Romans 5:10). At other times it encompasses both His deity and His humanity, as in, "Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). It is never used apart from God's incarnation, but, it never refers to deity alone. Therefore, Jesus is the Father incarnate and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit that was incarnated in Jesus and it is Jesus in Spirit form (Isiah 9:6; and 63:16; John 10;30; and 14:9-11, 16-18; Rev 21:6-7; Romans 8:9-11; Phil. 1:19; Col. 1:27).

The real distinction between God and Son. is one that most people do not understand and are not willing to accept the truth according to the scriptures. It is not a distinction of two divine persons. but a distinction between the eternal Spirit of God, which has no beginning and no ending, and the authentic human being in whom the eternal Spirit of God was without controversy, fully incarnate. Now, Jesus was both God and man at the same time, and sometimes He spoke or acted from the divine viewpoint and at other times from the human viewpoint. He spoke from His divine self -awareness at times, as Father. He also at other times spoke from His human self-awareness, as Son. As a man, He related, prayed and submitted himself to God just as you and I and all the human family should do. At the same time God dwelt in and also revealed Himself in the Man (Jesus) with His undiminished character, nature, power and authority.

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,..."(Luke 24:45). The revelation of Oneness and its understanding is given to those of whom Christ has chosen. In John chapter 1 we understand that the Word is God's own-revelation, own-expression, or own-disclosure. The Word was the absolute thought, reason, plan, or mind of God, before the Incarnation. In the beginning, the Word was with God, not as a separate and distinct person but as God Himself. In the fullness of time God put flesh on the Word; God revealed Himself in flesh. The word was made flesh, in the person of Jesus Christ,(John 1:14). And God was manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16). What has been said is this: The eternal Word was revealed in the only begotten Son.

Apostolic Believer in One God, JESUS

Absolutely!! He is also God The Son! <')))><

If you go back in a time machine, Fck you mom and father yourself than it would be absolutely true.

nope. But athiest sure is.