The Word that was God, was not the Son yet, see verse below, the Father did not say, "You are the Word, Today I have begotten You." Means when the Word became the Son, the "begotten" word was used.I believe Jesus is begotten and is in the form of God in the beginning. This "begotten" being you state came from the Fathers presence yet you state the Logos was unbegotten. So your unbegotten Logos became begotten when?
Thus, the Word is unbegotten, became begotten when born as a Son. (Psa 2:7)
To understand more fully, the word "begotten" with Strong#H3205, in Hebrew "ילד yâlad" defined by Bible lexicon means as - of child birth, to be born, to beget a child, day of birth, to declare one's birth, etc.
Definition proves that the Word that was God, is uncreated, unbegotten, eternal and etc.
When became flesh, emptied Himself the form of God and take the likeness of man to die on the cross to offer salvation to all mankind in faith. Exalted, glory restored, and being worshiped together with the Father. (Rev 5:13,14)
Psa 2:7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me,'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Psa 2:7 "I will surelyH3588 tellH5608 of the N1decreeH2706 of the LORDH3068: He saidH559 to Me, 'You are R1My SonH1121, TodayH3117 I have begottenH3205 You.
H3205 (Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon)
ילד yâlad
BDB Definition:
1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to bear, bring forth
1a1a) of child birth
1a1b) of distress (simile)
1a1c) of wicked (behaviour)
1a2) to beget
1b) (Niphal) to be born
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cause or help to bring forth
1c2) to assist or tend as a midwife
1c3) midwife (participle)
1d) (Pual) to be born
1e) (Hiphil)
1e1) to beget (a child)
1e2) to bear (figuratively - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
1f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
1g) (Hithpael) to declare one’s birth (pedigree)
Part of Speech: verb
Yes, from the beginning before became a Son, as the Word, He was God, being in the nature of God doesn't ceased. He emptied Himself the form of God, that is to divest one’s self of that prerogatives.Just so you understand the church views the Sons sonship as ontological not as the Fathers offspring despite the usages of "from". As in no beginning, coeternal, coequal of one and the same substance.
The word "emptied" with Strong#G2758, in Greek "κενόω kenoō" defined by Bible lexicon, means as - to divest one’s self of one’s prerogatives, and etc.
Php 2:7 but N1 R1emptiedG2758 HimselfG1438, takingG2983 the formG3444 of a R2bond-servantG1401, and R3beingG1096 madeG1096 in the likenessG3667 of menG444.
G2758 (Mounce)
κενόω kenoō
5x: to empty, evacuate; ἑαυτόν, to divest one’s self of one’s prerogatives, abase one’s self, Php_2:7; to deprive a thing of its proper functions, Rom_4:14; 1Co_1:17; to show to be without foundation, falsify, 1Co_9:15; 2Co_9:3.
Yes, Jesus calls the Father His God, but before He became the Son, as the Word, the Word/logos did not call the Father His God as He is also possessed the nature of God.Yet Jesus calls God, His God and Father and stated He was the only true God and was greater than Him. Scripture clearly shows His God setting His Son above all and the honor, power and glory attributed to the Son was because of His service to God and not because He is God who has always been above his creation. That "God" brought the world into existence through the Son. That is the Son was the Fathers agent in the creation. From the Father through the Son.
But bear in mind, in the beginning God created all things through the Word, the Word became flesh only in the New Testament. Then the creation of all things credited to the flesh because He was the Word before.
Because Jesus as the Son called His Father His God, but the Father also testified that the Son is God.So why does a being who has always existed call another His God and Father?
Yes, then Who do you think the first word "God' refer to in that text?Why did God state , "therefore God, your God has set you above your companions"? Why the need anyway if Jesus is the true God?
How can one's own stated God not be the greater?
Now, you revised John 1:1, the Bible did not state, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word is always the God's Son."I believe this abut this about the Son but we differ in how it is so. The logos had the Fathers nature in Him. God was the Logos. The Logos was always Gods Son as in child not ontological and that is why Jesus calls God His God and His Father.
When reading the Bible, I prefer to start from the beginning, cause without it, we cannot see the whole picture.
Yes, that's it, the exact representation of the Father's nature as God.The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,
(NAS95) Heb 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Yes, I've already proven that the Word is unbegotten.God, our Father is unbegotten. The Son is begotten. Jesus is not your Father as He is your Lord. "Christ", the Lord. God's Christ. Yet the only begotten Son who came from the Fathers presence is also found in Greek manuscripts. Begotten weakens your case either way. Begotten is cohesive with my understanding in who Jesus is. Gods oldest "child". The Firstborn.
As I've said, we cannot see the whole picture when we won't start from the beginning.
Who do you think Jesus was before He became flesh?
Was the Word God or not?
Was the Word begotten or not?
Was the Word firstborn or not?
Would you care enough to answer those questions above?
If you believe Heb 13:8, as "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."In Him was pleased to dwell the fullness as opposed to being that fullness or Deity in Himself. It's the Fathers Deity and they are one in that Deity. In this context the Son is the First and Last, but the Son is also the beginning of the creation of God, the Firstborn. A like to like begotten Son of the Father or the only begotten God.
Think of Him in the beginning as the Word, and I believe you will understand.
If we skip the beginning, we will be misled.Yes, that is truth, but our discussion is more about "the Son who was"
Long journey, always start in the first step.
You state that the, "the logos was always God's Son," as the logos was God, then read Heb 13:8, as "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.I state the Son who was and the Son of Man and the Son who is now is the very same person and has always been the Gods Son. He sat down on His Fathers throne. He was not the Logos who became the Son and remained the Son. He has always been the Son. God's Firstborn.
That you will understand that Jesus/Word as God, is the same yesterday, today and forever God.
Was the Father wrong when He testified Jesus as God? (Heb 1:8)
I noticed, you always skip Who the uncreated Word. The Word is eternal being uncreated.That doesn't make Him coeternal. I believe His words.
Above you state, "like begotten Son of the Father or the only begotten God," being Deity is being God.The Son has His own spirit which cannot be Deity. The Deity of the First and Last in Him is the living Father. This glory of oneness was gifted to Him at His beginning at some point in History before the world began.
Now, I find your statements conflicting.
As lowercase "s" in "spirit," I understand it refer to the breath of life."Father into your hands I commit MY spirit"
What about the Spirit who will dwell in us?The Fathers promise, "In the last days I will pour out MY Spirit"
Acts 2 the Spirit Jesus sends He received from the Father. (From the Father given through the Son)
Is it the Spirit that when we "blasphemes" there is no forgiveness?
Unlike to the Father and Son can be forgiven.
Isn't that proves that the Spirit is a separate and distinct person to the Father and Son?
If you believe the Spirit is owned, why they differ about forgiveness?
Would you care to explain?



