How do later Gentile views of "the Word" in John 1 differ from the original Jewish-Christian understanding, and what are the theological implications?

[Free]

The idea that the Word is “eternally begotten” as the “Son of God” can be challenged by emphasizing that Scripture teaches a singular, indivisible God

Yes, there is only one God who is indivisible. That agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
11.And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten,but proceeding.
24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal,and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

who became incarnate as the Son of God in time, not in eternity. The concept of “Sonship” can be understood as a role or office that began with the incarnation—when the eternal Spirit of God (the Father) was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The title “Son” thus pertains specifically to God’s redemptive work and His incarnation, rather than to an eternal, distinct person within the Godhead.

And, yet, as I pointed out, having Christ's Sonship begin at the incarnation is problematic. Jesus said that the Father loved him before the foundation of the world. Who, exactly, was it that the Father loved prior to creation?

In John 1:1, “the Word” (Greek: Logos) is not a separate, eternally begotten Son but the self-expression of God, His divine reason and plan.

Here is the main problem with such an idea: if the Word is merely God's "divine reason and plan," if the Word has no "personhood" to begin with, then Jesus is merely a creation of God, no different from any other creature. Right? The divine nature in Jesus becomes no different than God saying '"Let there be light," and there was light.' Jesus could not even be the Father come in the flesh, since it was the non-person Word that became flesh.

When John writes, “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), he is describing the moment when God’s eternal Word—His plan and purpose—became a reality in the man, Jesus Christ. The term “Son” is applied only to Jesus’ role in the flesh, not to the Logos in eternity past. Therefore, the Son was not eternally begotten but “begotten” in the sense of a unique, historical act of God in the incarnation. I would maintain that Scripture affirms the Son’s existence within the framework of time, emphasizing that Jesus Christ, as God manifest in flesh, fully reveals the Father rather than existing as a second, eternally begotten person.

So, God loved "His plan and purpose" before the foundation of the world? Does that really make sense? Again, the idea of a God who is love is an impossibility in Oneness theology, as it is in all unitarian theologies. It makes God less than he is.

The Sonship of Jesus only "within the framework of time" simply does not fit the biblical evidence.

 

[Free]

It is interesting to think you don't believe the Word was with God from the beginning.

No idea how you came to that conclusion. That certainly is not my position.

The Word has always been, but Jesus has only been since the year one.

Of course, but you're fallaciously begging the question by first assuming that the Son came into being in the person of Jesus.

Correct.
He couldn't be a son until being born of a woman.

Who "couldn't be a son until being born of a woman"?

Better make up your mind.

Please pay closer attention to the wording of things so you don't setup straw men.

Generated/begotten infers a beginning.

Not in the case of the Son. Monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” and does not refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time. Monogenes really just means "unique," "only," "one and only." Each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting.

Jesus had a beginning.

The physical person, yes.

 

[Randy]

In 1John, John referred to Jesus as the Word of life. The eternal life with the Father in the beginning. That life appeared who they saw, heard and touched. (Same person)

 

[JLB]

Yes Absolutely!

Begotten here only in the sense that God had the son in mind before the world began. We have to remember God is Omniscient and outside of time and sees ALL future, otherwise He is not Omniscient. But He was not physically begotten until being born through Mary. The foundation of the world was laid by Him. (The Word not The Son) Remember God spoke (The Word) the world into existence.

Firstborn over creation in the sense He is the only Firstborn Sinless God born of a virgin to ever exist.

These statements seem to exclude the Son in His role as Creator.

If God became flesh, then obviously He was involved in creation.


But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Hebrews 1:8-10


JLB

 

[JLB]

Neither.
An angel is an angel.
When Moses turned to look at the burning bush, he saw the angel, (Ex 3:2-3): and when God saw that Moses looked at the bush, and angel, God spoke to Moses. (Ex 3:4)

Sorry but the text refers to the Angel of the LORD as God.

There is no getting around that truth.

The Angel of the LORD appeared to Moses, not Someone else.

The scripture plainly and irrefutably states that Moses saw and was afraid to look upon God.

So was Moses seeing the Father or the Son?

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

• And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire
• And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

Do you believe the Angel of the LORD is the Father or the Son?

 

[My Rock]

And, yet, as I pointed out, having Christ's Sonship begin at the incarnation is problematic. Jesus said that the Father loved him before the foundation of the world. Who, exactly, was it that the Father loved prior to creation?

Begotten and Loved here only in the sense that God had the Son in mind before the world began. We have to remember God is Omniscient and outside of time and sees ALL future, otherwise He is not Omniscient. But He was not physically begotten until being born through Mary. The foundation of the world was laid by Him. (The Word not The Son) Remember God spoke (The Word) the world into existence.

Here is the main problem with such an idea: if the Word is merely God's "divine reason and plan," if the Word has no "personhood" to begin with, then Jesus is merely a creation of God, no different from any other creature. Right? The divine nature in Jesus becomes no different than God saying '"Let there be light," and there was light.' Jesus could not even be the Father come in the flesh, since it was the non-person Word that became flesh.

Identifying the Word as God’s “divine reason and plan” does not imply that Jesus is merely a creation like any other creature. Rather, John 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here, the Word is not merely an abstract plan or impersonal force; it is God Himself in expression. The term "Word" (Greek: Logos) signifies God’s self-revelation, His expression and intention that existed from the beginning within God’s own being. When John 1:14 states, "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us," this means that the one true God took on flesh, manifesting Himself as Jesus Christ. Oneness theology affirms that Jesus is indeed the Father come in the flesh (as Isaiah 9:6 calls Him, "The Everlasting Father" and "Mighty God"). The Word did not become a separate “person” from God but rather took on a visible, physical form. This understanding holds that God the Father was not creating a separate being but rather was stepping into creation Himself, fulfilling His eternal purpose and becoming our Savior (Isaiah 43:11, "I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.") in a genuine human experience. Therefore, Jesus is fully divine and fully human, the one God made visible, rather than a secondary creation or subordinate person within God.

So, God loved "His plan and purpose" before the foundation of the world? Does that really make sense? Again, the idea of a God who is love is an impossibility in Oneness theology, as it is in all unitarian theologies. It makes God less than he is.

The Sonship of Jesus only "within the framework of time" simply does not fit the biblical evidence.

God's love before the foundation of the world was not directed merely toward an abstract plan or purpose but toward humanity, whom He would redeem and reconcile to Himself. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that God “chose us in Him before the foundation of the world,” indicating that God’s love and desire for a relationship with humanity existed before creation itself. The Sonship of Jesus, then, is God’s tangible expression of His love and commitment to humankind, brought to fulfillment within time through the incarnation. Rather than seeing Jesus as an eternally separate “Son” in a relational love within the Godhead, I view the Sonship as the manifestation of God’s own love for His creation, expressed fully when He entered human history to save us.

In this framework, God’s love is not diminished but magnified, as He did not send another but came Himself, experiencing all that humanity endures. The Bible describes Jesus as “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8), indicating that the redemptive work of God was purposed in His heart before time began. The “Sonship in time” does not reduce God’s love but emphasizes His active, self-sacrificial nature, as God took on flesh to relate to, redeem, and draw humanity to Himself. This understanding aligns with 2 Corinthians 5:19: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” This is not a limitation but an expression of love that fulfills God’s plan personally and intimately, without the need for distinct, eternal persons.

 

[Hopeful 2]

It quite plainly states in the first chapter of John that the Word is Begotten.

The Word wasn't begotten by God.
Jesus was begotten by God, with Mary.
Jesus was the Word, before taking on flesh and being begotten of Mary.

God has eternally Spoken His Word forth. That is how the Word is Begotten of the Father.

You are mixing the spoken word with the Word that was God.
They are two distinct things.

The Word is how the Father Created the Cosmos. He Spoke the Cosmos into existence.
That is why the Word was "in the beginning" and why the Son is "The Beginning and the End".
This thread is an examination of the terms John used in his Gospel.
You fail to place John 1 in the context of the culture it was written in and to.
The Greek Christians whom John was writing would have immediately understood that John was likening Jesus with the Logos and the Father with the Monad Who eternally produces the Logos. This is why the term "Begotten" cannot be in reference to the Nativity. Not to mention the extremely blasphemous implications of asserting that the Father "Begot" the Son WITH Mary.

Isn't Luke 1:35 true ?
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
It is true.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No idea how you came to that conclusion. That certainly is not my position.

It seems that you believe that the Word had a starting date.
If He had a birthday, He did not exist from the beginning.
Gods don't get born.

Of course, but you're fallaciously begging the question by first assuming that the Son came into being in the person of Jesus.

When the Word put on skin and bones, The Word became Jesus.

Who "couldn't be a son until being born of a woman"?

Jesus could not be a son, or The Son, without being born of a mother.

Please pay closer attention to the wording of things so you don't setup straw men.
Not in the case of the Son. Monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” and does not refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time. Monogenes really just means "unique," "only," "one and only." Each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting.

Luke 1:35 describes the conception of Jesus, with Mary..."And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

The physical person, yes.

The physical person was Jesus !
Until He was born of a woman, and took on skin and bones, He was the Word who was with God and was God.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Sorry but the text refers to the Angel of the LORD as God.

You are misreading it.

There is no getting around that truth.
The Angel of the LORD appeared to Moses, not Someone else.

The Lord's angel appeared to Moses, then God took over.

The scripture plainly and irrefutably states that Moses saw and was afraid to look upon God.
So was Moses seeing the Father or the Son?

After the angel initiated contact, Moses saw what was declared to be God.

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. Exodus 3:1-6

• And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire
• And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

Do you believe the Angel of the LORD is the Father or the Son?

The Lord's angel, is just an angel.

 

[Free]

It seems that you believe that the Word had a starting date.

No, not at all. Again, there is no way to conclude this from what I have stated.

If He had a birthday, He did not exist from the beginning.
Gods don't get born.

Exactly.

When the Word put on skin and bones, The Word became Jesus.

That has never been something I've disputed. But, again, you're fallaciously begging the question by assuming that the Son came into existence with the person of Jesus.

Jesus could not be a son, or The Son, without being born of a mother.

So, you don't believe God? You don't want to take the full revelation into account?

Luke 1:35 describes the conception of Jesus, with Mary..."And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

Okay. And?

The physical person was Jesus !

Yes, I know. But, he had two natures.

Until He was born of a woman, and took on skin and bones, He was the Word who was with God and was God.

Again, you're not taking the full revelation into account. John is the only one to refer to the preincarnate Christ as the Word; no one else. In John's writings and all the other NT writings, it is the Son who is spoken of as being eternal. So, that should cause you to ask why only John would use the Word of the preincarnate Christ--he must have had a specific reason that doesn't preclude the Son from being the preincarnate Christ.

 

[Hopeful 2]

No, not at all. Again, there is no way to conclude this from what I have stated.

If the Word was born, doesn't that necessitate a starting date ?

Exactly.

So Jesus did not exist from the beginning.

That has never been something I've disputed. But, again, you're fallaciously begging the question by assuming that the Son came into existence with the person of Jesus.

You are calling the Word "Jesus", before a Jesus was born of a woman.

So, you don't believe God? You don't want to take the full revelation into account?

Show me, from the OT, where God spoke to Jesus; or where Jesus spoke at all.

Okay. And?

That was the beginning of Jesus.

Yes, I know. But, he had two natures.

At the risk of derailing the thread, why do you think Jesus had two natures ?

Again, you're not taking the full revelation into account. John is the only one to refer to the preincarnate Christ as the Word; no one else.

That doesn't matter to me.

In John's writings and all the other NT writings, it is the Son who is spoken of as being eternal.

Jesus was the Word, before being born as a human.
Together, their life spans are eternal.

So, that should cause you to ask why only John would use the Word of the preincarnate Christ--he must have had a specific reason that doesn't preclude the Son from being the preincarnate Christ.

There was no Christ, until a Christ was born of Mary.
The Word had to put on skin and bones to be Jesus.
Before taking on "flesh", the Word was just the Word.

 

[JLB]

You are misreading it.

The Lord's angel appeared to Moses, then God took over.

After the angel initiated contact, Moses saw what was declared to be God.

The Lord's angel, is just an angel.

Yes of course, I’m misreading it.

I see that now.

Let me fix it, so I can see it the way you see it.


Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD angel saw that he turned aside to look, God the angel called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God the angel. Exodus 3:1-6


Ok, that should do it.

Thanks for bring this to my attention.





JLB

 

[Free]

If the Word was born, doesn't that necessitate a starting date ?

Again, there is no way to conclude from what I posted that the Word was born. It's the complete opposite of what I'm saying.

So Jesus did not exist from the beginning.

Again, that is what I have been saying.

You are calling the Word "Jesus", before a Jesus was born of a woman.

No, I haven't. You keep equating "Son" with "Jesus," but the Son has always existed, he is the Word. It is the Son who became flesh.

Show me, from the OT, where God spoke to Jesus; or where Jesus spoke at all.

No relevant.

That was the beginning of Jesus.

Clearly.

At the risk of derailing the thread, why do you think Jesus had two natures ?

Because that has always been the Christian teaching, based on Scripture--he is the God-man; divine nature and human nature.

That doesn't matter to me.

That's obvious; it's why your theology isn't quite correct.

Jesus was the Word, before being born as a human.
Together, their life spans are eternal.

And the Word was the Son; they are eternally one and the same.

There was no Christ, until a Christ was born of Mary.
The Word had to put on skin and bones to be Jesus.
Before taking on "flesh", the Word was just the Word.

My wording was a bit ambiguous, but I don't know if I can clarify it. Why would John use the Word (ho Logos) to refer to the divine nature of Jesus before he became flesh, when everyone else just uses "the Son"? That is, in John's prologue, he refers to the second person of the Trinity as the Word, but everyone else refers to the second person as the Son. Of course, throughout his gospel, John also uses "the Son" to refer to the eternal, divine nature of Jesus as well, mainly in recording what Jesus says of himself.

This goes back to my previous point: Why would Jesus speak of himself as the Son of God and as having an eternal, divine nature, but some 60 years later, John refers to that nature as the Word? That would be very misleading of Jesus if he wasn't actually always the Son, without clarifying that he was actually the Word who became the Son.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Yes of course, I’m misreading it.

I see that now.

Let me fix it, so I can see it the way you see it.


Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”
So when the LORD angel saw that he turned aside to look, God the angel called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God the angel. Exodus 3:1-6


Ok, that should do it.

Thanks for bring this to my attention.





JLB

 

[Hopeful 2]

Yes of course, I’m misreading it.

I see that now.

Let me fix it, so I can see it the way you see it.


Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”

Perfectly discerned to this point.

So when the LORD angel saw that he turned aside to look, God the angel called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”

This part should have stayed without your editing.
God saw that Moses "turned aside to look", and God took over from there.

Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God the angel. Exodus 3:1-6

Again, no changes were necessary by you.
The angel was first to appear in the fire, but when God saw Moses' interest, God took over.

Ok, that should do it.
Thanks for bring this to my attention.

You are very welcome.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Perfectly discerned to this point.

This part should have stayed without your editing.
God saw that Moses "turned aside to look", and God took over from there.

Again, no changes were necessary by you.
The angel was first to appear in the fire, but when God saw Moses' interest, God took over.

You are very welcome.

What do you mean "God took over"?
Are you saying that at first it was an angel, but then after God saw that Moses looked and "God took over" that it was no longer an angel there, but rather God Himself and that Moses was looking at God or rather refraining from looking at God?
Seriously, just trying to clearly understand you.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Again, there is no way to conclude from what I posted that the Word was born. It's the complete opposite of what I'm saying.

In post #26, we had this exchange...

I know Jesus was born of a woman, but who was the Word born of ?

God, don’t you know?

Again, that is what I have been saying.

We are then on the same page, concerning Jesus having a "starting date".

No, I haven't. You keep equating "Son" with "Jesus," but the Son has always existed,

Back to the top of the post...

he is the Word. It is the Son who became flesh.

That is not what is written.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John1:14)

No relevant.

If the "Son" has always existed, there must be a record of it somewhere.

Clearly.

You are putting forth conflicting positions.
First, that the Son always existed, and then, that the Son had a beginning.

Because that has always been the Christian teaching, based on Scripture--he is the God-man; divine nature and human nature.

I guess that proves that human nature isn't necessarily evil.

That's obvious; it's why your theology isn't quite correct.

What other testimony counters John's ?

And the Word was the Son; they are eternally one and the same.

The Word became the Son, at His birth from Mary.
The Word had to take on flesh in order to be born of a woman.

My wording was a bit ambiguous, but I don't know if I can clarify it. Why would John use the Word (ho Logos) to refer to the divine nature of Jesus before he became flesh, when everyone else just uses "the Son"?

Context would determine whether or not one refers to the Word pre, or post birth, from Mary.
Post-birth He is always referred to as Jesus.
With the exception of Rev 19:13..."And He, ( He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True), was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God."

That is, in John's prologue, he refers to the second person of the Trinity as the Word, but everyone else refers to the second person as the Son. Of course, throughout his gospel, John also uses "the Son" to refer to the eternal, divine nature of Jesus as well, mainly in recording what Jesus says of himself.

Of course.
The Word became the Son at birth.

This goes back to my previous point: Why would Jesus speak of himself as the Son of God and as having an eternal, divine nature, but some 60 years later, John refers to that nature as the Word?

Jesus, before taking on skin and bones, was the Word; who was with God and was God from the beginning .
Where does Jesus say He has an eternal, divine nature ?

That would be very misleading of Jesus if he wasn't actually always the Son, without clarifying that he was actually the Word who became the Son.

John did that for Him, no doubt at the behest of the Holy Ghost.

 

[Hopeful 2]

What do you mean "God took over"?
Are you saying that at first it was an angel, but then after God saw that Moses looked and "God took over" that it was no longer an angel there, but rather God Himself and that Moses was looking at God or rather refraining from looking at God?
Seriously, just trying to clearly understand you.

The angel was in the fire at first, but when God saw Moses' interest, He took over.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

The angel was in the fire at first, but when God saw Moses' interest, He took over.

So, God WAS "in the fire"? Just not until Moses looked? Is that what you mean by "God took over", or do you mean something else? You are not being clear. In saying "God took over" you could be saying that it was still an angel that was in the fire but that God was then somehow animating the angel like a pupett or something. Is that the case, or do you mean that God actually TOOK THE PLACE of the angel? That at first the angel was there, then left, and God actually took the angel's place? Is that what you mean?

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

In post #26, we had this exchange...

God, don’t you know?

We are then on the same page, concerning Jesus having a "starting date".

Back to the top of the post...

That is not what is written.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John1:14)

If the "Son" has always existed, there must be a record of it somewhere.

You are putting forth conflicting positions.
First, that the Son always existed, and then, that the Son had a beginning.

I guess that proves that human nature isn't necessarily evil.

What other testimony counters John's ?

The Word became the Son, at His birth from Mary.
The Word had to take on flesh in order to be born of a woman.

Context would determine whether or not one refers to the Word pre, or post birth, from Mary.
Post-birth He is always referred to as Jesus.
With the exception of Rev 19:13..."And He, ( He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True), was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called The Word of God."

Of course.
The Word became the Son at birth.

Jesus, before taking on skin and bones, was the Word; who was with God and was God from the beginning .
Where does Jesus say He has an eternal, divine nature ?

John did that for Him, no doubt at the behest of the Holy Ghost.

Do you believe that the Word "in the beginning" was a Person? Or do you view the Word, pre-incarnate, as just the inanimate, impersonal "Words" that the Father speaks?