Is Jesus Christ a created being (Begotten Son) or has He always existed alongside God the Father (Eternal Son)?

[My Rock]

The answer to your question is: Yes.

If only everyone seen it that way

 

[Runningman]

It is important to understand that the scriptures speaking of Jesus "in the beginning" or "before the foundation of the world" are addressing the eternal plan and purpose of God, not a pre-existent Son distinct from the Father. John 1:1-14 reveals that the "Word" (Greek: Logos) was with God and was God, and that this Word became flesh as Jesus Christ. The Word here is understood as God's divine plan or expression, which was with Him from the beginning, not as a separate person but as the very mind and purpose of God Himself.

"The beginning" doesn't necessarily have to apply back to the very beginning. It can apply to whatever the beginning of the context it's talking about in. You mentioned John 1:1-14, but the context is regarding [the beginning] of Jesus' ministry with no mentioned of the beginning of the world. There is also no mention of a person named the Word in the literal beginning with God in Genesis.

We can get a better idea of what beginning this is referring to by cross-examining other scriptural accounts. A good place to begin to understand John 1 better is 1 John 1.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

As you will observe from the above context, the Word of life is described as a thing in which the disciples were able to heard, see, and touch with their hands. Since the disciples didn't exist in the literal beginning of creation, then the beginning applies to the context of Jesus' ministry.

The Word is a thing that was manifested in Jesus. This refers to the various doctrines, teachings, and the gospel in which Jesus was taught and received from the Father (John 8:28, John 8:40) during his ministry.

When Jesus speaks in John 17:5 of the glory He had with the Father before the world was, this is seen as a reference to the glory ordained for the Messiah in God's foreknowledge and purpose, rather than a literal pre-existence of the Son as a separate being. In God's eternal plan, Jesus was always the focal point of His redemptive work, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). This is not to say that Jesus existed as a separate entity before His incarnation but that in God's sovereign plan, the incarnation and the work of Christ were foreordained.

There is a good clue in John 17 about what Jesus was referring to and it wasn't a literal pre-existence or else it would follow that Jesus somehow or another lost his glory. The glory which Jesus shared with the Father refers to God's plan and foreknowledge of anointing and empowering him to do miraculous works. Thusly, Jesus said in John 17:5 "now, O Father, glorify thou me..." So Jesus was only then, at that present time, being glorified.

After that, Jesus spoke of giving this very same glory to the disciples in John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

The glory which Jesus had with the Father before the world was also included giving that glory to the disciples. Since Jesus didn't give the disciples glory before the world was, then Jesus didn't literally pre-exist.

The key idea is that Jesus, as the incarnate Word, came into existence at a specific point in time—born of a virgin, fully God and fully man (John 1:14; Galatians 4:4). The scriptures speak of God's plan being realized in Jesus, who is the embodiment of God's eternal Word and purpose. There are no verses that depict Jesus performing actions or speaking in a pre-incarnate state because His existence as the Son of God began with His incarnation. Thus, the focus of scripture is on Jesus as the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose, made manifest in the flesh to bring about our salvation.

As we have discussed already, the word incarnate doesn't exist in Scripture nor is the idea described in Scripture. Thank you for admitting that there is nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in Scripture though. Therefore there is no proof to argue for him being God.

 

[Free]

To assert unequivocally that Jesus is not the Father incarnate, regardless of any interpretive nuances or rationalizations, fundamentally disrupts the unity of God as revealed in Scripture.

Not at all.

In Oneness theology, God is understood to be a singular, indivisible entity, and the incarnation of Jesus is seen as a profound manifestation of this one God.

And, in Trinitarianism, God is also an indivisible entity and the incarnation of Jesus is seen as a profound manifestation of this one God.

According to this perspective, Jesus embodies the fullness of the Godhead in human form, as stated in Colossians 2:9, which asserts that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." This theological view emphasizes that there is no division in the nature of God; rather, Jesus is the visible expression of the one true God.

The concept of Jesus as God incarnate means that while He assumed a fully human nature, including all its limitations and experiences, this does not imply a division in the divine essence. Rather, it illustrates the remarkable condescension of the divine to enter into human experience fully. Jesus' human limitations, such as His knowledge and physical constraints, were part of His voluntary self-limitation in the incarnation, not a reduction of His divine nature. This perspective maintains that God, in His fullness, chose to reveal Himself through Jesus, experiencing human life in all its dimensions while remaining fundamentally one in essence and purpose.

This all agrees with Trinitarianism.

Therefore, the distinction between Jesus’ humanity and divinity is not a matter of dividing God into separate persons or entities but is about understanding how the one true God chose to manifest His presence and work within the confines of human experience. This unity underscores the Oneness belief that God has revealed Himself as both transcendent and immanent, operating fully as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the singular, undivided essence of the divine.

This also agrees with Trinitarianism.

Why is it that you keep avoiding addressing my argument to the meaning of the Father and Son relationship? Can you provide just one example from nature where a father is his own son or a son is his own father? If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, how are we to understand that? What does that meaningfully communicate to us about who God is?

 

[Free]

"The beginning" doesn't necessarily have to apply back to the very beginning. It can apply to whatever the beginning of the context it's talking about in. You mentioned John 1:1-14, but the context is regarding [the beginning] of Jesus' ministry with no mentioned of the beginning of the world.

It's called context.

Looking at the first clause, "In the beginning" is clearly a reference to Gen 1:1. The word "was" is the Greek, en, which is a form of eimi (I Am), and speaks of continuous action in the past; that is, absolute preexistence before any creation. What that means is that when the beginning began, the Word was already in existence, and hence, there was never a time when he did not exist. The very same applies to the Father, who has absolute preexistence.

Verse 2 repeats that statement. Verse 3 proves without a doubt that "the beginning" can only refer to the beginning of creation. It is clearly talking about the creation of all things--everything single thing that came into being. Simple, straightforward logic tells us that since "all things were made through" the Word, and that "without him was not any thing made that was made," it necessarily follows that the Word is not something that was made (see also 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16-17). That is, there never was a time when the Word did not exist.

Your argument necessarily implies that Jesus started creating everything that came into being at the start of his ministry, which is obvious nonsense.

There is also no mention of a person named the Word in the literal beginning with God in Genesis.

This displays a serious ignorance of the doctrine of the Trinity and is fallaciously begging the question.

We can get a better idea of what beginning this is referring to by cross-examining other scriptural accounts. A good place to begin to understand John 1 better is 1 John 1.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; 2(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) 3That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

As you will observe from the above context, the Word of life is described as a thing in which the disciples were able to heard, see, and touch with their hands. Since the disciples didn't exist in the literal beginning of creation, then the beginning applies to the context of Jesus' ministry.

The Word is a thing that was manifested in Jesus. This refers to the various doctrines, teachings, and the gospel in which Jesus was taught and received from the Father (John 8:28, John 8:40) during his ministry.

This has been shown to you to be an exegetical fallacy numerous times, which you not only don't even bother to try and rebut, you continue to repeat it. That the word of life is spoken of in neuter terms has absolutely zero bearing on what John says about the Word in John 1:1. Again, this has been proven without question numerous times. You really need to start addressing arguments instead of repeating your errors. That you continually avoid addressing things shows that truth is unlikely to be on your side.

Not to mention, again, that one of Jesus's names is:

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

Without question, the preincarnate Christ is the Word that is mentioned in John 1:1.

There is a good clue in John 17 about what Jesus was referring to and it wasn't a literal pre-existence or else it would follow that Jesus somehow or another lost his glory. The glory which Jesus shared with the Father refers to God's plan and foreknowledge of anointing and empowering him to do miraculous works. Thusly, Jesus said in John 17:5 "now, O Father, glorify thou me..." So Jesus was only then, at that present time, being glorified.

No, there is simply no way that it can mean anything but Jesus, as the Son, actually shared in the glory of the Father. It makes zero sense to say that "Jesus shared with the Father refers to God's plan and foreknowledge of anointing and empowering him to do miraculous works." That is makes Jesus speak nonsense. You'll twist everything any which way to avoid the most plain and obvious statements.

And, yet again, this is based on ignoring the plain meaning of passages such as Phil 2:6-8.

After that, Jesus spoke of giving this very same glory to the disciples in John 17:22 "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:"

The glory which Jesus had with the Father before the world was also included giving that glory to the disciples.

No. There are two different things being talked about.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...
Joh 17:13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
...
Joh 17:22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
...
Joh 17:24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Notice that verses 5 and 24 are talking about the same thing, with Jesus clearly stating in verse 24 that he desires that those who belong to him "may be with [him] where [he is]," which is heaven. So, the glory he mentions in verses 5 and 24 cannot be what he means in verse 22.

Similarly, we see in other places:

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

Mat 24:30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Mat 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Luk 2:9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear.

Luk 9:29 And as he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white.
...
Luk 9:32 Now Peter and those who were with him were heavy with sleep, but when they became fully awake they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.

Those are talking about something much different than John 17:22; it is the glory Jesus mentions in John 17:5, 24. Jesus did not give that glory to his disciples, at least not even close to the full measure of it, which has yet to be revealed.

Since Jesus didn't give the disciples glory before the world was, then Jesus didn't literally pre-exist.

This is fallacious and nonsensical.

As we have discussed already, the word incarnate doesn't exist in Scripture nor is the idea described in Scripture. Thank you for admitting that there is nothing about the pre-existence of Jesus in Scripture though.

The Word incarnate absolutely does exist in Scripture. A plain reading cannot lead anyone to believe your position. Once again:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
...
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Rev 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.

(All ESV.)

Therefore there is no proof to argue for him being God.

Ample proof has been given to you, but you twist Scripture and avoid those things most difficult for your position.

 

[My Rock]

There is also no mention of a person named the Word in the literal beginning with God in Genesis.

1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

[My Rock]

Why is it that you keep avoiding addressing my argument to the meaning of the Father and Son relationship?

The relationship between the Father and the Son is foundational in understanding God's self-revelation. The terms "Father" and "Son" are different manifestations of the one God. The Father represents God's invisible, omnipresent nature—His role as Creator and Sustainer of all things. The Son, on the other hand, represents God’s incarnation—His visible manifestation in human form, born to fulfill the redemptive plan. John 14:9, where Jesus says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," reveals the unity of this relationship. It shows that in seeing Jesus, we are witnessing the full revelation of God as the same divine being expressed through different roles. Thus, the Father-Son relationship is about God revealing Himself in different aspects.

Can you provide just one example from nature where a father is his own son or a son is his own father?

In natural human experience, we don’t have a perfect analogy where a father is his own son or a son is his own father. This limitation highlights the uniqueness of God's nature, which transcends human categories. However, from a Biblical perspective, the lack of a direct analogy in nature points to the mystery of the incarnation, where the infinite God, who is Spirit, took on human flesh. This is not about biological fatherhood but about God’s self-revelation. Just as God said in Isaiah 43:10-11 that there is no God formed before or after Him, this emphasizes His unique role in creation and redemption. The Son is the means by which God, who is Spirit, entered the physical world fully engaging with humanity in a way that nature cannot fully illustrate.

If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, how are we to understand that?

Understanding that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father hinges on the concept of God manifesting Himself in different roles or offices. When Scripture speaks of the Father, it refers to God in His omnipresent, invisible, and transcendent role. When it speaks of the Son, it refers to God as He has made Himself known in the flesh—Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man. This means that God has revealed Himself in these different capacities. Colossians 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," signifying that the Son is the full embodiment of the one God. This revelation communicates that God’s plan of salvation is deeply personal—He did not send another but came Himself to redeem us, demonstrating the unity and singularity of His divine essence.

What does that meaningfully communicate to us about who God is?

The Father-Son relationship communicates the profound truth that God’s nature is unified and singular, yet He can relate to us in multiple ways. It shows that God is both transcendent (as the Father) and immanent (as the Son), fully engaged in the human experience while remaining the one true God. This understanding underscores God’s deep involvement in our lives and His willingness to bridge the gap between the divine and the human through the incarnation. It communicates that God’s love and redemption are not distant or abstract but are made real and tangible in the person of Jesus Christ, who is the complete revelation of the one God. This revelation invites us into a relationship with God where we understand Him not as distant and divided, but as near, present, and whole in His love and purpose for us.

 

[Consecrated Life]

Is Jesus Christ a created being (Begotten Son) or has He always existed alongside God the Father (Eternal Son)?​

He is both, begotten & God as the scripture testifies they both are encompassed within the GLORY OF GOD
The Glory of God by biblical definition belongs to God alone, and He shares with no other.
The Fact that Jesus has the same Glory of God the Father allows for no other explanation other than they are part and parcel eternal God.
A seemingly impossible explanation that our practical human intelligence can only grasp fragments of.
For me a Creator God that straining little mortals can fully explain would not be God.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[Runningman]

1 John 5:7,"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The jury has been out on this verse for some time now. 1 John 5:7 is a scriptural corruption and has been removed from all modern Bible versions.

 

[My Rock]

Yes I know this and I also do not believe the word is a person. just giving scriptural reference that is found in some versions without marginal notes such as: King James Version, New King James Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, Modern English Version, Third Millennium Bible and 21st Century King James Version. I do believe it to be an error just using to answer your "no mention of a person named the Word"

"The Word" (God's thoughts, mind, actions, plan, and motives, wiil, an emotion) which are inseparable from Him, just as a person’s words are inseparable from their being. If you haven't already read https://christianforums.net/threads/the-holy-spirit-must-be-a-person.107005/post-1901636

 

[Consecrated Life]

Yes I know this and I also do not believe the word is a person.

We all have the choice to believe what we want to.
The Word , having the Glory of God , Is God the Son, who also has the Glory of God, leaving no other possibility than that the Word is also God the Son, & the Son is also God the Father, & God the Word.
The fact that the Almighty Creator shares His Glory with no one is the insurmountable Spiritual pinch point, in this triadic equation where it becomes awkwardly obvious that the Spiritual insight of even the greatest saints, sages, seers has reached critical mass just as God has intended .
God's desire for straining little mortals is to be left with no self satisfying, fully explainable, final answer to our puny intellects , but to be left with something Spiritually much greater and much more satisfying.
Satisfying to us not as reasoners & scientists , but as sinners & believers .
A SENSE OF ULTIMATE MARVEL & SACREDNESS !
For me as a believer the most beautiful thing I will ever experience aside from the Love of salvation itself is the marvel of the mystic and mysterious nature of God that I believe will remain a mystery , on a higher level no doubt, even when we shed these tents of flesh for our eternal home in heaven.
John 1:14
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.

John 12:21
....... Sir, we would see Jesus.

 

[My Rock]

leaving no other possibility than that the Word is also God the Son, & the Son is also God the Father, & God the Word.

The incarnation emphasizes that the same God who is omnipresent and transcendent became visible and accessible in Jesus Christ. It signifies the act of God becoming fully human (God's Human body had a beginning, but is and always will be the Self Expressive Eternal Word (Word made flesh) while remaining fully divine.

“Son of God” may refer to the human nature or it may refer to God manifested in flesh—that is, deity in the human nature. “Son of God” never means the incorporeal Spirit alone, however. We can never use “Son” correctly apart from the humanity of Jesus Christ. The terms “Son of God,” “Son of man,” and “Son” are appropriate and biblical. However, the term “God the Son” is inappropriate because it equates the Son with deity alone, and therefore it is unscriptural. The term "God the Son" suggests a duality within the Godhead—two distinct persons or entities (God the Father and God the Son) rather than a singular divine being. Using "God the Son" could imply a division or plurality that contradicts the foundational Biblical Oneness of God. The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?

 

[Consecrated Life]

The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?

Do you believe that the Son did not exist until Mary made Him ?

 

[My Rock]

Do you believe that the Son did not exist until Mary made Him ?

It is crucial to understand that the Son did not come into existence through Mary; rather, Mary served as a vessel for the manifestation of the pre-existing divine Word. The belief is that the Word of God, is eternal and not created. John 1:1-14 affirms that the Word was with God and was God, and that the Word became (SON) flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. This means that the divine Word existed eternally and was not contingent upon Mary’s role. Mary, though a blessed and significant figure, was simply the chosen vessel through whom the Word was incarnated into human form (SON). Her role was to bring forth the already-existing Word into the world in a manner that made it possible for God to fully reveal Himself to humanity. Therefore, the notion that Mary’s involvement somehow created or initiated the existence of the Son is fundamentally at odds with the belief that the Son’s divine nature (The Word) is eternal and uncreated.

This is going to blow your mind but in one sense the Sonship will also end.

 

[hawkman]

There is no Son of God without a mother .

 

[Fastfredy0]

Gives Consecrated Life , My Rock and Runningman kudos for an articulate, intelligent, learned discussion.

 

[Consecrated Life]

It is crucial to understand that the Son did not come into existence through Mary; rather, Mary served as a vessel for the manifestation of the pre-existing divine

Why then do you ask me who was the "pre-existing" Son's mother?

The Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4); if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?

 

[My Rock]

Why then do you ask me who was the "pre-existing" Son's mother?

You said:

Do you believe that the Son did not exist until Mary made Him ?

It takes two partners together in a sexual act to make/made a baby. You indicated that mary made Jesus. She had no secual act part in His creation. Therefore, I was just pointing out that mistake is all. Of course you have to have a mother to have a Son but being virgin is a whole different ball game.

 

[Consecrated Life]

You said:

It takes two partners together in a sexual act to make/made a baby. You indicated that mary made Jesus. She had no secual act part in His creation. Therefore, I was just pointing out that mistake is all. Of course you have to have a mother to have a Son but being virgin is a whole different ball game.

I was referring to your initial question to me which implies the Son's existence in the beginning prior to taking the form of a baby would require a "mother"

if the Son was present in the beginning, who was His mother? If the Son was a spirit being, who was His spirit mother?

Your question implies you believe there could not have been a Son in heaven prior to Mary giving birth to Him on earth .
Is that what you believe ?

 

[My Rock]

I was referring to your initial question to me which implies the Son's existence in the beginning prior to taking the form of a baby would require a "mother"

You are saying there is an eternal son. I say where is His Eternal Mother? Simple question I thought?

Your question implies you believe there could not have been a Son in heaven prior to Mary giving birth to Him on earth .
Is that what you believe ?

Yes. Son can refer to the Humanity or Deity resident in Humanity never refers to deity alone. And you can't use God the Son either because then it would equate Jesus to deity alone.

 

[follower]

You are saying there is an eternal son. I say where is His Eternal Mother? Simple question I thought?

Sad, no. It may come from heresy, and certainly proceeds to heretical ideas, as seen in some of the carnal man's religion(s) ....