Jesus the Man Before John !

[Free]

If you can’t be convinced of something by your own intelligence and reasoning, and therefore to understand, I don’t know what else I can say.
My understanding is drawn from the Scriptures. And my intelligence and reasoning confirm my understanding.

I would not expect someone to understand the Scripture who lacked intelligence or the ability to reason from them.

If someone tries to inform my understanding of the Scripture but speaks not of what the word says but but also is against reason I reject it.

I believe it is not necessary to make up words and ideas that are not found in scripture. The RCC is notorious for it.

The words that are already found in scripture teach the truth. This is what is meant by comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
The words of the scripture are given by the Holy Spirit of God and when rightly divided inform the understanding.

A red flag ought automatically go up when people speak words that are neither found in scripture and that will contradict them. But you need intelligence and reasoning for it.

I already know you neither lack intelligence or the ability to reason. But what I don’t understand is why you allow your intelligence and reason to be overruled by words that are neither found in scripture but also contradict them. And stranger still, they ought be rejected by reason.

This is a pointless post, as I could say the same about you. I also believe my understanding is based directly on Scripture, but also more than that--the witness of the early church, which has held from the beginning that Jesus is in some way truly God in human flesh, equal with but distinct from the Father.

I have given sound arguments that have gone unaddressed. Just as with your above post, you and other anti-Trinitarians respond without actually addressing my points. It's a deflection tactic so that one can avoid the arguments, despite them being based on the use of reasoning from the Scriptures.

Even the argument that certain words aren't found in Scripture can be fallacious, and almost certainly is in this case. It would be a lack of proper reasoning to suggest that because "Trinity" isn't in the Bible that the idea of it is false. So, be careful in claiming who is allowing their reason to be overruled by things contradictory to Scripture.

 

[LeviR]

This is a pointless post, as I could say the same about you. I also believe my understanding is based directly on Scripture, but also more than that--the witness of the early church, which has held from the beginning that Jesus is in some way truly God in human flesh, equal with but distinct from the Father.

I have given sound arguments that have gone unaddressed. Just as with your above post, you and other anti-Trinitarians respond without actually addressing my points. It's a deflection tactic so that one can avoid the arguments, despite them being based on the use of reasoning from the Scriptures.

Even the argument that certain words aren't found in Scripture can be fallacious, and almost certainly is in this case. It would be a lack of proper reasoning to suggest that because "Trinity" isn't in the Bible that the idea of it is false. So, be careful in claiming who is allowing their reason to be overruled by things contradictory to Scripture.

You cannot say the same about me.
My claim is that the Father alone is God. But they are not my words, they are the direct clear unambiguous words of Jesus.
They are also the direct clear unambiguous words of Paul and the other writers of Scripture.
And you can’t show even one single verse that says God is 3.
You can’t show even one single writer who believed there were 3 who are the one God.
Case closed.

 

[LeviR]

What is your take on Acts 13:32,33 saying that the prophecy concerning Jesus being the begotten Son of God was fulfilled by his resurrection from the dead? Wouldn't that mean there was a point that Jesus became the Son of God and not something that has always been his status?

Acts 13
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The text very clearly says that upon the resurrection of God’s son he was begotten.
But that’s not the only one who very clearly says the same thing. Paul says the same exact thing in Rom 1:4
This slams right into the face of false doctrine that claims Jesus is begotten from all eternity.
Aside from that, the Bible never anywhere says he was begotten from all eternity.
They are false teachers.

 

[Free]

You cannot say the same about me.
My claim is that the Father alone is God. But they are not my words, they are the direct clear unambiguous words of Jesus.
They are also the direct clear unambiguous words of Paul and the other writers of Scripture.
And you can’t show even one single verse that says God is 3.
You can’t show even one single writer who believed there were 3 who are the one God.
Case closed.

Case in point.

 

[LeviR]

Case in point.

Who is the God of the son of God?

 

[Free]

The text very clearly says that upon the resurrection of God’s son he was begotten.
But that’s not the only one who very clearly says the same thing. Paul says the same exact thing in Rom 1:4

Once again, the two of you ignore context, both the immediate and the larger context of Scripture.

Act 13:32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
Act 13:33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’
Act 13:34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’
Act 13:35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, “‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’
Act 13:36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption,
Act 13:37 but he whom God raised up did not see corruption. (ESV)

Note the repeated use of "corruption" and the mention of "raising Jesus" in the context of "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." What is Paul talking about? That Jesus is the "firstborn" from the dead.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (ESV)

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

You should also consider this context:

Act 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Act 3:16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. (ESV)

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (ESV)

Among those "twisted things" would be the denial that God purchased the church "with his own blood."

Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (ESV)

"Declared to be the Son of God" is for our benefit, especially for those who denied and still deny that Jesus is the Son of God. It does not mean that at that point, at his resurrection, he became the Son of God, otherwise Jesus is a liar for referring to himself as such during his ministry.

This slams right into the face of false doctrine that claims Jesus is begotten from all eternity.
Aside from that, the Bible never anywhere says he was begotten from all eternity.

Except that it doesn't. This is where sound reasoning comes in.

They are false teachers.

Be careful.

 

[LeviR]

Once again, the two of you ignore context, both the immediate and the larger context of Scripture.

Act 13:32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
Act 13:33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’
Act 13:34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, “‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.’
Act 13:35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, “‘You will not let your Holy One see corruption.’
Act 13:36 For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep and was laid with his fathers and saw corruption,
Act 13:37 but he whom God raised up did not see corruption. (ESV)

Note the repeated use of "corruption" and the mention of "raising Jesus" in the context of "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." What is Paul talking about? That Jesus is the "firstborn" from the dead.

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (ESV)

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (ESV)

You should also consider this context:

Act 3:14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you,
Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Act 3:16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all. (ESV)

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
Act 20:29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Act 20:30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. (ESV)

Among those "twisted things" would be the denial that God purchased the church "with his own blood."

Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (ESV)

"Declared to be the Son of God" is for our benefit, especially for those who denied and still deny that Jesus is the Son of God. It does not mean that at that point, at his resurrection, he became the Son of God, otherwise Jesus is a liar for referring to himself as such during his ministry.


Except that it doesn't. This is where sound reasoning comes in.


Be careful.

You can’t see that “today I have begotten you”
Slams against the idea that he was begotten from all eternity?

Jesus was born from the dead. That’s what it means.

He was first born of a woman as son of God. Called “son of the Highest”, “Son of the living God”

The son of The living God and son of the Highest, was then killed.
The son of the living God was put in a tomb. He was then raised from the dead and declared to be the son of God with power by being raised from the dead to die no more.
Today…the day he was raised from the dead he was begotten from the dead.

But no they say. They say he was begotten from all eternity.
Be careful.
Because the Bible nowhere says he was begotten from all eternity. That’s a man made doctrine.

 

[brightfame52]

Runningman

What is your take on Acts 13:32,33 saying that the prophecy concerning Jesus being the begotten Son of God was fulfilled by his resurrection from the dead?

Thats speaking of His Resurrection from the Dead, however He was the Only Begotten Son prior to that, even before He came into the world.

Jn 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.

This was before He died and resurrected

Also 1 Jn 4:9

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

He was the Only Begotten before He was sent into the world

 

[Free]

You can’t see that “today I have begotten you”
Slams against the idea that he was begotten from all eternity?

No, it doesn't. By your own reasoning Jesus wasn't the Son of God until he was resurrected, which means he lied and deceived everyone:

Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

(The Jewish leaders rightly understood this as blasphemy and based their condemnation of him upon that.)

Mat 27:43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

Luk 22:70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.”
Luk 22:71 Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.”

(Again, to claim to be the Son of God was blasphemy, deserving of death.)

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

(All ESV.)

Do you need more passages that clearly show Jesus claimed to be the Son of God during his ministry, prior to his death and resurrection? That shows that your understanding of Acts 13:33 and Rom 1:4 are incorrect, which is what my previous post showed and you, once again, didn't address much of it.

Jesus was born from the dead. That’s what it means.

In those two contexts, yes. That is clearly what I stated.

He was first born of a woman as son of God. Called “son of the Highest”, “Son of the living God”

The son of The living God and son of the Highest, was then killed.
The son of the living God was put in a tomb. He was then raised from the dead and declared to be the son of God with power by being raised from the dead to die no more.
Today…the day he was raised from the dead he was begotten from the dead.

The fact that he was the Son of God prior to his death, shows that he was begotten as the Son prior to his death, and therefore the two verses you are relying on are saying something different than what you think they are.

But no they say. They say he was begotten from all eternity.
Be careful.
Because the Bible nowhere says he was begotten from all eternity. That’s a man made doctrine.

Given the above, you now know that Jesus was the begotten Son of God at some point in time prior to his death. At a minimum it would have been at his conception. All the passages that prove his absolute existence you either ignore or twist to suit your position. Regardless, since he existed prior to being born and prior to creation, and yet we can clearly see that he is the only begotten (John 1:14, 18), the logical conclusion is that he was indeed "begotten from all eternity." Which is to say, there never has been a time when the Son did not exist.

 

[LeviR]

No, it doesn't. By your own reasoning Jesus wasn't the Son of God until he was resurrected, which means he lied and deceived everyone:

Mat 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Mat 26:63 But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”
Mat 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

(The Jewish leaders rightly understood this as blasphemy and based their condemnation of him upon that.)

Mat 27:43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

Mar 15:39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”

Luk 22:70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am.”
Luk 22:71 Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips.”

(Again, to claim to be the Son of God was blasphemy, deserving of death.)

Joh 1:49 Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

(All ESV.)

Do you need more passages that clearly show Jesus claimed to be the Son of God during his ministry, prior to his death and resurrection? That shows that your understanding of Acts 13:33 and Rom 1:4 are incorrect, which is what my previous post showed and you, once again, didn't address much of it.


In those two contexts, yes. That is clearly what I stated.


The fact that he was the Son of God prior to his death, shows that he was begotten as the Son prior to his death, and therefore the two verses you are relying on are saying something different than what you think they are.


Given the above, you now know that Jesus was the begotten Son of God at some point in time prior to his death. At a minimum it would have been at his conception. All the passages that prove his absolute existence you either ignore or twist to suit your position. Regardless, since he existed prior to being born and prior to creation, and yet we can clearly see that he is the only begotten (John 1:14, 18), the logical conclusion is that he was indeed "begotten from all eternity." Which is to say, there never has been a time when the Son did not exist.

Ah, you didn’t read my post. I said he was first the son of the Highest and son of the living God by being born of a woman.

And talking about reason. People who have the ability to reason properly know that “eternally begotten” Is a term that contradicts itself. That’s why Jesus’ God never taught such nonsense.

 

[Randy]

Randy



Who said anything about Him being a Flesh and Blood Man ?

A man is a human being. Man was created by God from the dust of the earth. The Logos became flesh. How do you say then that the Son who was is defined as a "man"? Perhaps I don't understand your message then.

 

[Randy]

One of the main problems for the Trinitarian is the idea that God died. The RCC claims that God died, while a great majority of others who claim to be orthodox disagree with the RCC.
It seems to me that the belief in whether or not the son died is vitally important. Wouldn’t you think?

Put to death in the "flesh". Alive in the Spirit. Jesus never dies.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman



Thats speaking of His Resurrection from the Dead, however He was the Only Begotten Son prior to that, even before He came into the world.

Jn 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.

This was before He died and resurrected

Also 1 Jn 4:9

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

He was the Only Begotten before He was sent into the world

Since they wrote these books and letters often decades after Jesus was already taken to heaven, they were just speaking in past tense about something that already happened using their updated knowledge of Jesus to refer to him. Acts 13:33 is clear about the prophecy of Jesus being begotten being fulfilled at his resurrection.

So if Jesus was already begotten before this, then how does Acts 13:33 make sense any other way?

 

[LeviR]

Put to death in the "flesh". Alive in the Spirit. Jesus never dies.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

The text says he was “made alive by the Spirit”. .
This is saying the same thing Paul says about him being begotten again by resurrection from the dead.
Except this time he dies no more.

 

[LeviR]

Since they wrote these books and letters often decades after Jesus was already taken to heaven, they were just speaking in past tense about something that already happened using their updated knowledge of Jesus to refer to him. Acts 13:33 is clear about the prophecy of Jesus being begotten being fulfilled at his resurrection.

So if Jesus was already begotten before this, then how does Acts 13:33 make sense any other way?

Because we are born first of woman and then born again from the dead by resurrection.
We become sons of God when baptized into Christ and are heirs according to the promise as he was. Then we are born from the dead by the Spirit and receive the inheritance as saints.

 

[Free]

Ah, you didn’t read my post.

It appears to be the other way around.

First, Runningman stated: "What is your take on Acts 13:32,33 saying that the prophecy concerning Jesus being the begotten Son of God was fulfilled by his resurrection from the dead? Wouldn't that mean there was a point that Jesus became the Son of God and not something that has always been his status?"

You replied: "The text very clearly says that upon the resurrection of God’s son he was begotten.
But that’s not the only one who very clearly says the same thing. Paul says the same exact thing in Rom 1:4"

What Romans 1:4 says is: "and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,"

You also stated: "He was first born of a woman as son of God. Called “son of the Highest”, “Son of the living God”

The son of The living God and son of the Highest, was then killed.
The son of the living God was put in a tomb. He was then raised from the dead and declared to be the son of God"

So, you completely avoided calling Jesus the Son of God until he was resurrected.

In other words, you are equating Jesus's being begotten with becoming the Son of God and stating that neither of those things happened until he was resurrected.

So, my point stands: your argument contradicts Scripture because you are using Scripture to say that Jesus wasn't the Son until he was resurrected, despite Jesus referring to himself, and allowing others to refer to him, as the Son of God. Either you can be right or Jesus can be right, not both of you.

And talking about reason. People who have the ability to reason properly know that “eternally begotten” Is a term that contradicts itself. That’s why Jesus’ God never taught such nonsense.

Only to those who don't properly study Scripture, especially when they take verses one at a time and divorce them from both the immediate context and the greater context of Scripture. The Son of God preexisted creation of time and space. Also, sons are always the same nature as their fathers. Both of those imply that the Son is both with God and is God in nature, yet not the Father, as John 1:1-3, 10, 14 state. This means the Father has always been the Father, generating or begetting the Son, and the Son has always been the Son, being generated or begotten by the Father.


"The doctrine of eternal generation essentially teaches that God the Father eternally and by necessity generates or begets God the Son in such a way that the substance (the divine essence) of God is not divided. In other words, there is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the exact representation (or express image) of God the Father. There is still one divine essence that eternally exists in two persons through eternal generation."

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-generation.html


"Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is both one with the Father and yet distinct from the Father. The doctrine of the “eternal generation” plays an important role in securing both points. This doctrine teaches that the Father eternally communicates the divine essence to the Son without division or change so that the Son shares an equality of nature with the Father (sharing all the attributes of deity) yet is also eternally distinct from the Father."

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea/

 

[LeviR]

It appears to be the other way around.

First, Runningman stated: "What is your take on Acts 13:32,33 saying that the prophecy concerning Jesus being the begotten Son of God was fulfilled by his resurrection from the dead? Wouldn't that mean there was a point that Jesus became the Son of God and not something that has always been his status?"

You replied: "The text very clearly says that upon the resurrection of God’s son he was begotten.
But that’s not the only one who very clearly says the same thing. Paul says the same exact thing in Rom 1:4"

What Romans 1:4 says is: "and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,"

You also stated: "He was first born of a woman as son of God. Called “son of the Highest”, “Son of the living God”

The son of The living God and son of the Highest, was then killed.
The son of the living God was put in a tomb. He was then raised from the dead and declared to be the son of God"

So, you completely avoided calling Jesus the Son of God until he was resurrected.

In other words, you are equating Jesus's being begotten with becoming the Son of God and stating that neither of those things happened until he was resurrected.

So, my point stands: your argument contradicts Scripture because you are using Scripture to say that Jesus wasn't the Son until he was resurrected, despite Jesus referring to himself, and allowing others to refer to him, as the Son of God. Either you can be right or Jesus can be right, not both of you.


Only to those who don't properly study Scripture, especially when they take verses one at a time and divorce them from both the immediate context and the greater context of Scripture. The Son of God preexisted creation of time and space. Also, sons are always the same nature as their fathers. Both of those imply that the Son is both with God and is God in nature, yet not the Father, as John 1:1-3, 10, 14 state. This means the Father has always been the Father, generating or begetting the Son, and the Son has always been the Son, being generated or begotten by the Father.


"The doctrine of eternal generation essentially teaches that God the Father eternally and by necessity generates or begets God the Son in such a way that the substance (the divine essence) of God is not divided. In other words, there is a communication of the whole, indivisible substance of the Godhead so that God the Son is the exact representation (or express image) of God the Father. There is still one divine essence that eternally exists in two persons through eternal generation."

https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-generation.html


"Scripture teaches that Jesus Christ is both one with the Father and yet distinct from the Father. The doctrine of the “eternal generation” plays an important role in securing both points. This doctrine teaches that the Father eternally communicates the divine essence to the Son without division or change so that the Son shares an equality of nature with the Father (sharing all the attributes of deity) yet is also eternally distinct from the Father."

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-the-eternal-generation-of-the-son-a-biblical-idea/

Again, I said , and you even quoted me saying, “He was first born of a woman as son of God. Called “son of the Highest”, “Son of the living God”

Then you claim that I avoided calling Jesus son of God until his resurrection.

If you read what you quoted me saying you’ll see that when Jesus was born of Mary he is called son of the Highest and son of the living God.

When Paul speaks of him being declared son of God with power by the Spirit who raised him from the dead, he refers to the condition of Jesus after his resurrection.
When Jesus was first born of Mary(and called son of God)he was crucified in the weakness of the flesh.
And when he was raised again from the dead, the promise made to the fathers was fulfilled for their children.
IOW, the promise that was made to the fathers God fulfilled by raising Jesus from the dead.
In order for the promise to the fathers be fulfilled, Jesus had to be first to be raised. Because no one could inherit the promises until after Jesus. And will together with him.
So, now Abraham, Isaac and Jacob can be partakers of the promise of inheritance. Along with anyone else who has the faith of Abraham.

 

[LeviR]

Given the above, you now know that Jesus was the begotten Son of God at some point in time prior to his death. At a minimum it would have been at his conception. All the passages that prove his absolute existence you either ignore or twist to suit your position. Regardless, since he existed prior to being born and prior to creation, and yet we can clearly see that he is the only begotten (John 1:14, 18), the logical conclusion is that he was indeed "begotten from all eternity." Which is to say, there never has been a time when the Son did not exist.

When you read the entire gospel of John you will notice that Jesus is identifying himself as the Father(God), but makes it absolutely clear that he is the son of Him.
The fact that Jesus was identifying himself as the Father and only true God, caused many of the Jewish leaders to accuse him of making himself God. But Jesus basically says, No you are wrong, I am the son of God. Everything I have or can do belongs to the Father, and He gives it to me.
The idea is that in the son you are complete. This is what is meant by “in him dwells all the fullness of the deity”. Or all the fullness of the word.
Jesus has come to fulfill all the word of God. And that’s why he is called the Word of God. It’s the name he was given and represents all that can be attributed to the Word.

 

[LeviR]

John also says, “For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure.”

He was given the Spirit in an unlimited and boundless measure of time.

The word was made flesh and given the Spirit without any limits.

If the word is spoken by God, by His Spirit, and existed in the beginning, and Jesus is that word and given that Spirit without limit, then what can be attributed to the word and Spirit abide in Jesus. In his flesh. “The Lord is that Spirit”

Pre-existence is not necessary. All God needs to do is give him the name The Word of God, and given him the boundless measure of His Spirit.
And there you have it. God manifest in the flesh.

 

[brightfame52]

A man is a human being. Man was created by God from the dust of the earth. The Logos became flesh. How do you say then that the Son who was is defined as a "man"? Perhaps I don't understand your message then.

Pre-Creation-Glory Im dont think the Man Christ Jesus had flesh and bones yet, that didnt occur until His Incarnation. A Person doesnt have to be flesh and bones in heaven to exist, do you believe Angels in heaven have flesh and bones ?