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

[My Rock]

Find me one passage that says the Son is eternal. I know The Word is but I never knew we had eternal Flesh (Son). If that is not the case show me how The Self Expressive Eternal Word had a body (2nd Person of the Godhead according to Trinitarians)

The Bible does not use the phrase “God the Son” even one time. It is not a correct term because the Son of God refers to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Bible defines the Son of God as the child born of Mary, not as the eternal Spirit of God (Luke 1:35). “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.

“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 death of Jesus is a particularly good example. His divine Spirit did not die, but His human body did. We cannot say that God died, so we cannot say “God the Son” died. On the other hand, we can say that the Son of God died because “Son” refers to humanity.

 

[Fish153]

Greetings Fish153,

Could you first please explain the three quotations that I mentioned: Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1-14. Was Jesus a human, a creature?

Kind regards
Trevor

Trevor---- Yes----Jesus Christ was very man of man, and very God of God. He was the God-man. The point I was making that Jesus was not a created being is that each of us are finite. We are not "incarnated" beings. We are CREATED BEINGS. Jesus Christ had "a body prepared for Him" (as the Psalms say). But the being who lived inside that body was the SON OF GOD (THE WORD OF GOD). His body was created by God for the WORD to dwell in ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"(John 1:14). He was the INCARNATE SON OF GOD. He was God in the flesh or "God with us" as the Bible states. It is interesting, (and Runningman should take heed to this) that the Apostle John tells us the Spirit of Antichrist:

On Denying the Incarnation​

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (John 4: 1-3)

Now---if you read that clearly John is not saying the person who denies Jesus ever lived on earth has the spirit of antichrist. Read it again: "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist". What John is stating is that everyone who believes that the WORD BECAME FLESH is of God. Those who DENY the incarnation have a spirit of antichrist. And we know this because John himself wrote in John 1: 1 "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was GOD". If you deny that fact you are NOT OF GOD. John is VERY CLEAR.

That is why we can say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are heretics. They deny Jesus is God. That is the spirit of antichrist already at work in the world. It is actually a very EASY test: just ask someone if Jesus is God. The one who acknowledges that has been taught of God. The one who denies it has the spirit of antichrist. John says that---not me.

 

[Runningman]

So Moses who was talking and worshipping God through a burning bush (tangible representation of God) that was Idol worship?

Why do you suppose that?

 

[Runningman]

Luke 4:8, "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

Please tell me plainly, without any running around, why those people were not rebuked for worshipping and serving Christ.

Because they were not bowing down to Christ and believing he's God. Go look at the examples of Jesus being bowed to again, they all refer to him being the Son of God, not God.

 

[My Rock]

So Moses who was talking and worshipping God through a burning bush (tangible representation of God) that was Idol worship?

Why do you suppose that?

Because of your statement here "Some of the verses you quoted rightly pointed out how God is invisible so therefore any tangible representation of God would be an idol"

So according to your own statement Moses is Idol worshipping.

 

[Runningman]

Because of your statement here "Some of the verses you quoted rightly pointed out how God is invisible so therefore any tangible representation of God would be an idol"

So according to your own statement Moses is Idol worshipping.

The burning bush wasn't a representation of God. I have never heard anyone say that. Please explain.

 

[My Rock]

The burning bush wasn't a representation of God. I have never heard anyone say that. Please explain.

Who was talking through the Bush? If God, than very much a tangible representation. If not God, than who was Moses talking to?

 

[Runningman]

Who was talking through the Bush? If God, than very much a tangible representation. If not God, than who was Moses talking to?

Your claim was the burning bush was a tangible representation of God and I don't agree with that. Are you talking about Exodus 3? Verse 2 says "And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush..."

Question, do you believe the angel of the LORD is the LORD or a messenger of the LORD?

 

[My Rock]

Your claim was the burning bush was a tangible representation of God and I don't agree with that. Are you talking about Exodus 3? Verse 2

No I am talking about verses 4 and 6 Notice verse six 4 x's the voice from the bush said "God"

Exodus 3:4, "And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I."

Exodus 3:6, "Moreover he said, I am the God of thy 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."

 

[Hopeful 2]

False.


The only begotten Son of God created all things and then became flesh.

God created everything by the Word, who later took on flesh and was born of a woman as Jesus.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Jesus the Son was the only begotten Son before creation.

Who was His mother, before creation ?

Long before the earth and long before there was Mary.
The only begotten Son of God created all things.

• by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth

By Him, who was still the Word, before taking on flesh.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:15-16

Yep.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Fish153,

Trevor---- Yes----Jesus Christ was very man of man, and very God of God. He was the God-man. The point I was making that Jesus was not a created being is that each of us are finite. We are not "incarnated" beings. We are CREATED BEINGS.

Jesus as a human was a created being. He was truly man, not a flesh body frame with God the Son embodied in him. As a child he learnt wisdom. His mind was not fully Deity.
Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Jesus Christ had "a body prepared for Him" (as the Psalms say). But the being who lived inside that body was the SON OF GOD (THE WORD OF GOD). His body was created by God for the WORD to dwell in ("the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"(John 1:14).

The WORD was made flesh, and this does not say that the WORD added flesh.

What John is stating is that everyone who believes that the WORD BECAME FLESH is of God. Those who DENY the incarnation have a spirit of antichrist.

You reflect the spirit of Antichrist as you claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh but that he came as Deity and the flesh, a god-man. John was speaking about the start of the development which you have now fully espoused.

John himself wrote in John 1: 1 "In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD was GOD". If you deny that fact you are NOT OF GOD. John is VERY CLEAR.

I understand the WORD of John 1:1 is not God the Son but is a personification similar to the Wise Woman WISDOM in Proverbs 8.

hat is why we can say that the Jehovah's Witnesses are heretics. They deny Jesus is God.

I am not a JW, but you should not throw the heretic label around. My perspective is also available in my thread "The Yahweh Name". By comparison I find the Trinity concepts contradictory, confusing and impossible. I am reticent to get into a full Trinity debate with you.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Runningman]

No I am talking about verses 4 and 6 Notice verse six 4 x's the voice from the bush said "God"

Exodus 3:4, "And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I."

Exodus 3:6, "Moreover he said, I am the God of thy 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."

God isn’t the angel of the LORD. So just means either they were both present or that God was delivering a message through the angel who was using the burning bush. In any case, I see nothing there about the burning bush being a tangible representation of God.

 

[My Rock]

burning bush being a tangible representation of God.

The burning bush is undeniably a tangible representation of God. To dismiss it as anything less is to overlook the profound significance of this divine encounter in Exodus 3. When Moses approached the bush, it was not merely a natural phenomenon; it was the very manifestation of God's presence. The fire that burned without consuming the bush was a physical, visible sign of God's holiness and power, communicating that He is both immanent and transcendent. God explicitly identifies Himself from within the bush, saying, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." To suggest that the burning bush was not a tangible representation of God is to miss the very point of the narrative: God chose to reveal Himself in a form that Moses could see, hear, and respond to. This encounter was not abstract or symbolic alone; it was a concrete and direct interaction with the living God. To argue otherwise is to undermine the weight and reality of God's self-revelation in the physical world.

 

[Runningman]

The burning bush is undeniably a tangible representation of God.

Not according to anything in Scripture. A bush on fire does not represent God.

To dismiss it as anything less is to overlook the profound significance of this divine encounter in Exodus 3. When Moses approached the bush, it was not merely a natural phenomenon; it was the very manifestation of God's presence.

Not according to Scripture. It says nothing about the burning bush being a manifestation of God's presence. I believe this comes from a misunderstanding of how God communicates. He was using the fire as a medium or channel through which to speak through.

The fire that burned without consuming the bush was a physical, visible sign of God's holiness and power, communicating that He is both immanent and transcendent. God explicitly identifies Himself from within the bush, saying, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."

God wasn't in the bush. The one in the bush was the angel of the LORD while God was using the angel as His messenger.

Exodus 3
2And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

To suggest that the burning bush was not a tangible representation of God is to miss the very point of the narrative: God chose to reveal Himself in a form that Moses could see, hear, and respond to.

So it's safe to say you believe a picture of a burning bush is sufficient to represent God? I believe that's a dangerous belief to hold because it reduces God to something material and created and He has made it bluntly clear He isn't and that such would be idolatry.

Exodus 20
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This encounter was not abstract or symbolic alone; it was a concrete and direct interaction with the living God. To argue otherwise is to undermine the weight and reality of God's self-revelation in the physical world.

It was a communication with God through an angel who in turn spoke through a bush. Angels are same way God often communicates through today, but the burning bush was not a direct interaction with God. God was using the bush as a channel to communicate with. This is already stated in the passage. Your idea that the burning bush represents God is not the idea in Exodus 3.

 

[JLB]

God created everything by the Word, who later took on flesh and was born of a woman as Jesus.

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16

• For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth

Who does “by Him” refer to? God the Father or God the Son?

Jesus created all things as God’s only begotten Son.

He stretched out the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth.

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 1:18-10

Surely you know this, right?




JLB

 

[My Rock]

Not according to anything in Scripture. A bush on fire does not represent God.

It’s truly enlightening to consider the idea that a miraculous, self-sustaining flame engulfing a bush in the middle of the wilderness—without consuming it, mind you—doesn't actually signify anything about God’s presence. I mean, who could possibly make the connection between an unearthly fire and the Almighty, especially when He explicitly speaks from within it? And let’s not forget, Moses, who was divinely appointed to lead Israel out of Egypt, was just having a casual chat with some shrubbery that happened to be burning. I’m sure the whole thing was just an ordinary occurrence in the desert, and not at all a profound encounter with the God of Israel. After all, it’s not like the Scriptures go out of their way to emphasize the holy ground on which Moses stood, or the awe and reverence he felt in that moment. Clearly, we must be mistaken in thinking that anything extraordinary was happening there. Yeah whatever?

He was using the fire as a medium or channel through which to speak through.

Of course! Because it’s completely absurd to think that the Creator of the universe would choose something as mundane as fire—a symbol used throughout Scripture to represent His presence, power, and purification—as a medium to communicate with His people. I mean, why would God use a dramatic, attention-grabbing method like a burning bush to get Moses’ attention and deliver a message that would change the course of history? Surely, it’s far more logical to assume that God would opt for a less memorable approach, perhaps a polite knock on a tree or a whisper in the wind. After all, what’s so special about fire anyway? It’s not like it represents God’s holiness or His ability to consume sin without being diminished Himself. No, the idea that God might use something so striking and symbolic as a channel for divine communication is clearly too far-fetched to consider!

Exodus 3
2And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

It was a communication with God through an angel who in turn spoke through a bush. Angels are same way God often communicates through today (But they would never say they are The God, but would say thus saith the LORD), but the burning bush was not a direct interaction with God. God was using the bush as a channel to communicate with. This is already stated in the passage. Your idea that the burning bush represents God is not the idea in Exodus 3.

Do a deeper word study of "angel of the LORD" Angels tried Once to self identify as God and got kicked out of Heaven. God will not allow that again. So when the bush said "I am The God" then that is who is in the midst of the Bush.

So it's safe to say you believe a picture of a burning bush is sufficient to represent God? I believe that's a dangerous belief to hold because it reduces God to something material and created and He has made it bluntly clear He isn't and that such would be idolatry.

Ah, yes, because clearly, acknowledging the burning bush as a representation of God’s presence is equivalent to worshiping a shrub. It’s fascinating to think that anyone would conflate recognizing a divine encounter with God’s manifest presence in a miraculous event with reducing Him to a mere material object. Of course, Moses must have been dangerously close to idolatry when he removed his sandals and hid his face in reverence before this supernatural sight. How reckless of him to respond with such awe to what was obviously just a mundane piece of foliage on fire! It’s almost as if understanding the difference between recognizing a symbol of God’s presence and actually worshiping that symbol is lost on some. But yes, let’s equate centuries of theological reflection on God revealing Himself through tangible means—burning bushes, pillars of fire, and even the Incarnation—with the grave sin of idolatry. How wonderfully absurd!

 

[Hopeful 2]

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:16

• For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth

Who does “by Him” refer to? God the Father or God the Son?

It refers to the Word.

Jesus created all things as God’s only begotten Son.
He stretched out the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth.
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 1:18-10
Surely you know this, right?

I know it.
I also know that until the Word put on flesh and was born of a woman, that there was no "Jesus".

 

[Runningman]

It’s truly enlightening to consider the idea that a miraculous, self-sustaining flame engulfing a bush in the middle of the wilderness—without consuming it, mind you—doesn't actually signify anything about God’s presence. I mean, who could possibly make the connection between an unearthly fire and the Almighty, especially when He explicitly speaks from within it? And let’s not forget, Moses, who was divinely appointed to lead Israel out of Egypt, was just having a casual chat with some shrubbery that happened to be burning. I’m sure the whole thing was just an ordinary occurrence in the desert, and not at all a profound encounter with the God of Israel. After all, it’s not like the Scriptures go out of their way to emphasize the holy ground on which Moses stood, or the awe and reverence he felt in that moment. Clearly, we must be mistaken in thinking that anything extraordinary was happening there. Yeah whatever?

Of course! Because it’s completely absurd to think that the Creator of the universe would choose something as mundane as fire—a symbol used throughout Scripture to represent His presence, power, and purification—as a medium to communicate with His people. I mean, why would God use a dramatic, attention-grabbing method like a burning bush to get Moses’ attention and deliver a message that would change the course of history? Surely, it’s far more logical to assume that God would opt for a less memorable approach, perhaps a polite knock on a tree or a whisper in the wind. After all, what’s so special about fire anyway? It’s not like it represents God’s holiness or His ability to consume sin without being diminished Himself. No, the idea that God might use something so striking and symbolic as a channel for divine communication is clearly too far-fetched to consider!


Do a deeper word study of "angel of the LORD" Angels tried Once to self identify as God and got kicked out of Heaven. God will not allow that again. So when the bush said "I am The God" then that is who is in the midst of the Bush.

Ah, yes, because clearly, acknowledging the burning bush as a representation of God’s presence is equivalent to worshiping a shrub. It’s fascinating to think that anyone would conflate recognizing a divine encounter with God’s manifest presence in a miraculous event with reducing Him to a mere material object. Of course, Moses must have been dangerously close to idolatry when he removed his sandals and hid his face in reverence before this supernatural sight. How reckless of him to respond with such awe to what was obviously just a mundane piece of foliage on fire! It’s almost as if understanding the difference between recognizing a symbol of God’s presence and actually worshiping that symbol is lost on some. But yes, let’s equate centuries of theological reflection on God revealing Himself through tangible means—burning bushes, pillars of fire, and even the Incarnation—with the grave sin of idolatry. How wonderfully absurd!

Sorry, I am not trying to suggest there is anything absurd about it and if God wants to do something He's free to do it without restriction of course. I am not trying to place limitations of God, but simply stating what I believe the Scripture is trying to say to us.

So I will just begin with a foundation of what I believe in regards to Exodus 3. In the context, Moses was actually in the wilderness on the mountain and for sure there were miscellaneous plants growing about. There was a bush and it was already on fire. While it's possible to single this verse out and interpret the element of fire as a symbol to describe God, the more likely fit with the context is the Moses was actually looking at a real bush with real fire.

It says in Ex. 3:2 "the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush..."

I have heard the argument many times the angel of the LORD (AOTL) = the LORD in Scripture. I don't believe that's the argument you're trying to make, (if I have misunderstood you please let me know) but just to clarify the AOTL is not the LORD.

In Zechariah 1:7-17, the we can see a few different things concerning the AOTL and the LORD because we get a rare chance to put them side-by-side and compare:

1. The word of the LORD came to Zechariah. (v.7)
2. An angel begins speaking the word of the LORD (v.9)
3. The AOTL speaks to the LORD (v.12)
4. The LORD speaks to the AOTL (v.13)
5. The AOTL proclaims something the LORD said (v.14-17)

So as the name already suggests, the AOTL is indeed a messenger of the LORD and in Zech. 1:7-17 the AOTL is acting as a messenger for the LORD and is distinct from the LORD because they are speaking to each other.

So back to Exodus 3. When the AOTL appeared in the bush and began saying this and that, while it may seem like the LORD is talking, actually the messenger is the one doing the talking, even though the LORD is still present and observing, while relaying the messages the LORD was giving. That's how God does things. Speaking from my own personal experience, it has been confusing at first, but Scripture confirms this to be the case.

 

[RandyK]

Let us delve into scripture, engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold different views, and prayerfully consider the implications of these concepts for our worship and daily lives. Whether Jesus is described as "begotten" or "eternal," the core message remains: He is the divine Son of God, who bridges the gap between humanity and God, offering us salvation and a restored relationship with the Creator. Through an active pursuit of understanding, we can deepen our faith and more effectively share the love of Christ with the world.

It depends on how one defines "created" or "begotten." God creates revealtion via His Word. But the revelation of His Son as a human being was a unique "creation." It did not mean he was only part of creation, but he was made a part of creation out of a divine revelation--one that emerged from eternity, from God Himself. He was a revelation of God's Person in the form of a human person.