We've been taught as Christians that the Son was eternally begotten before the foundations of the world. We know that when the Son became incarnate he was called Jesus. What are your ideas on WHAT the Son is, always was, and always will be outside of time, and from eternity? Imagination, philosophy, and metaphysics welcome as well as Christian theology.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is the Son?
- Thread starter bhar
- Start date
Knee V
It's phonetic.
- Sep 17, 2003
- 8,417
- 1,741
- 43
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. He's the only-begotten Son of the Father. "Light of Light, True God of True God". Is there something else you're looking for?
Upvote
0
AHJE
& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp;
Dear bhar,
Peace be with you,
What is the Son?
Well, the simplest answer to this question is: God.
This is so, because once you ask WHAT it is an inquiry with regard to the NATURE of the Son, which is Divine. Hence, the Son is God.
The Son, as to His Personhood (WHO is the Son?) is the Eternal Word of the Father. What does that mean? It means that He is the Eternal and Uncreated Wisdom/Knowledge of the Father Personified, who dwells in the Bosom of the Father.
What does that mean? It means that the Father knows something from all Eternity. What does He know? All ... Himself. And the Father's Self-Knowledge is so perfect and so complete, that it is as if, in this Self-Reflection, God were looking into a Mirror. Hence, the Son is called the Image of the Invisible (incomprehensible) God.
And as St. John 1:18 says: "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (St. John 1:18, DRB)
No man has comprehended God at any time.
This INTERIOR KNOWLEDGE of the Father, this WORD IN HIS BOSOM, is the Son. He is the Radiance of His Glory, and the Figure of His Substance (see Hebrews 1:3)
God bless you.
_________________________________________________________
The Roman Catholic Church is not a denomination.
Blessed are those who hear the voice of the Good Shepherd.
"And how shall they preach unless they be sent, ..."? (see Rom. 10:15)
Upvote
0
dayhiker
Mature veteran
- Sep 13, 2006
- 15,561
- 5,305
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
Ya, to me its who is the Son. While the physics of things can be really interesting, I don't worship things. When it comes to worship, I much prefer the person of God/man over things. I really find things don't talk back to me no matter how much I appreciate their beauty, etc. 
Upvote
0
IisJustMe
He rescued me because He delighted in me (Ps18:19)
- Jun 23, 2006
- 14,270
- 1,888
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
One, not "eternally begotten" but simply "eternal." He is God, always has been, always will be, part of the triune God who created the universe. There is no need for further explanation, conjecture, flight of fancy or other description of Him.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
elopez
Well-Known Member
When I think of the Son as an eternal, atemporal, person, I think of the Word. Without the universe I believe the Son was co - existent with the Father eternally and timelessly.
Once creation began the Son become temporal as to create, while the Father remained atemporal. While I believe the Son was temporal as to create I don't think that necessarily denotes any material aspect to the Son. Only with the incarnation does the Son become physical.
Upvote
0
Harry3142
Regular Member
Some, including myself, accept that when Abraham spoke with the person he called "Lord" in Genesis 18, he was speaking with the person who later became Jesus Christ. The New Testament identifies Christ as having reigned as part of the Godhead prior to his taking human form:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not see equality with God as something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11,NIV)
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God, did not see equality with God as something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11,NIV)
Upvote
0
It was Jesus who started using the terms "Father", "Son", and "Spirit". Do we all agree that these three words used as descriptors of an eternal relationship among the Triune Godhead which created beings will never come close to grasping? What those 3 persons actually are, what they consist of in their essence is an eternal reality beyond words. To beings having language, Father, Son, and Spirit metaphorically approximate what is relationally happening within the Godhead forever and ever. We are not pagans or Mormons, so we don't believe in a really big Daddy, Boy, and Haze in bodies. The words assist finite beings in making the unknowable knowable through relationship - something we all can identify with. In "His" eternal essence, that essence called the Son cannot be strictly male, or any gender. The eternal Essence called the Son is unknown to all but the Father.
p.s. really enjoyed the response by the Catholic.
p.s. really enjoyed the response by the Catholic.
Upvote
0
To understand eternally begotten you need some context. First, it is the logos who is involved. Obviously the human was begotten at a specific point in history. Some writers thus say that Christ was begotten twice, once in eternity and once in history.
The logos is, as noted in John 1, somewhat distinct from "God" (I'd say the Father) but himself God. Not quite the Trinity, but at least the ground from which the Trinity sprang. In later theology, it was said that what characterized the Son was that we was begotten. Because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, most characteristics of them are the same. They are all invisible, spirit, omniscient, etc. But there's got to be some difference or they wouldn't be three separate things. So many thinkers said that the key difference between Father and Son is that the Son originated from (was "begotten by") the Father, and thus was dependent on the Father and obeys him.
Unfortunately human language arises out of describing human things. To describe God, we have to use words in new ways that aren't always ideal. The early church decided to speak of the Son as begotten. Obviously they didn't mean that the Father had actual seed or participated in an act of sex, even though those are normally part of the meaning of "begotten." Rather, that term came out of controversies in which some people claimed that the Logos was an inferior being, not fully God. As in some modern debates, certain words become "code words" for one side of a debate. In this case, the people who thought that the Logos was inferior to God said that he was "created." The ones who thought that he was equally God said he was "begotten". They used that because humans beget other humans, but create non-human things. So it was a way of saying that the Son comes from the Father, but is equally God.
As for "eternally." One of the other items for debate was whether the Son came to be at a particular time or always existed. If he's truly God, then of course he is also eternal. That means that he wasn't begotten at a single time, they way humans are. The term "eternally begotten" thus implies that the Son comes from the Father, but that this "coming" isn't something at a specific time. You can think of it like a river coming from a spring. The Father is, on a continuing basis, the source of the Son.
Of course all of this goes somewhat beyond Biblical language. But many Christians thought that passages such as John 1 and a few other Christological passages implied it.
The logos is, as noted in John 1, somewhat distinct from "God" (I'd say the Father) but himself God. Not quite the Trinity, but at least the ground from which the Trinity sprang. In later theology, it was said that what characterized the Son was that we was begotten. Because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, most characteristics of them are the same. They are all invisible, spirit, omniscient, etc. But there's got to be some difference or they wouldn't be three separate things. So many thinkers said that the key difference between Father and Son is that the Son originated from (was "begotten by") the Father, and thus was dependent on the Father and obeys him.
Unfortunately human language arises out of describing human things. To describe God, we have to use words in new ways that aren't always ideal. The early church decided to speak of the Son as begotten. Obviously they didn't mean that the Father had actual seed or participated in an act of sex, even though those are normally part of the meaning of "begotten." Rather, that term came out of controversies in which some people claimed that the Logos was an inferior being, not fully God. As in some modern debates, certain words become "code words" for one side of a debate. In this case, the people who thought that the Logos was inferior to God said that he was "created." The ones who thought that he was equally God said he was "begotten". They used that because humans beget other humans, but create non-human things. So it was a way of saying that the Son comes from the Father, but is equally God.
As for "eternally." One of the other items for debate was whether the Son came to be at a particular time or always existed. If he's truly God, then of course he is also eternal. That means that he wasn't begotten at a single time, they way humans are. The term "eternally begotten" thus implies that the Son comes from the Father, but that this "coming" isn't something at a specific time. You can think of it like a river coming from a spring. The Father is, on a continuing basis, the source of the Son.
Of course all of this goes somewhat beyond Biblical language. But many Christians thought that passages such as John 1 and a few other Christological passages implied it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
