Eternal Sonship - Revision history

Admin: /* John the Baptists recognized this */

2021-09-05T12:58:40Z

John the Baptists recognized this

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 5 September 2021
Line 71:		Line 71:
	:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>		:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>

	==John the ~~Baptists~~ recognized this==		==John the Baptist recognized this==

	In John 1:15, we read of John the Baptist:		In John 1:15, we read of John the Baptist:

Admin: /* The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position */

2021-09-05T12:58:22Z

The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 While William Branham also ridicules those that rely on the Greek language for their understanding of the Bible, the plain truth is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and, therefore, those that rely on an English translation are relying on the ability of the translators to convey the appropriate meaning of the Greek words in their context.
 :''IN THE beginning'' [before all time] ''was the Word'' (Christ), ''and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself''. [Isa. 9:6.] ''He was present originally with God''. <ref>The Amplified Bible, John 1:1–2 (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1987).</ref>
@@ Line 68: / Line 70: @@
 :''His goings forth are from long ago,
 :''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>
 '''The major problem with William Branham's reasoning is that he puts God into time and space and, therefore, assumes that the Son had to have a beginning.  But based on the proof's above that the Son is eternal, then he exists outside of time and space, in fact, he created time and space and exists outside of both.  Beginnings and endings make no sense either in reference to God in the context of the Father or the Son.'''

Admin at 03:20, 23 August 2015

2015-08-23T03:20:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:20, 23 August 2015
Line 75:		Line 75:
	For Q&A on this issue, please see our article - [[Q&A on the Godhead]]		For Q&A on this issue, please see our article - [[Q&A on the Godhead]]

	~~=References=~~		{{Bottom of Page}}
			[[Category:Doctrines]]
	~~<References/>~~		[[Category:Godhead]]

Admin: /* The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position */

2013-05-31T08:39:35Z

The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:39, 31 May 2013
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>		:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>

	The major problem with William Branham's reasoning is that he puts God into time and space and, therefore, assumes that the Son had to have a beginning. But based on the proof's above that the Son is eternal, then he exists outside of time and space, in fact, he created time and space and exists outside of both. Beginnings and endings make no sense either in reference to God in the context of the Father or the Son.		'''The major problem with William Branham's reasoning is that he puts God into time and space and, therefore, assumes that the Son had to have a beginning. But based on the proof's above that the Son is eternal, then he exists outside of time and space, in fact, he created time and space and exists outside of both. Beginnings and endings make no sense either in reference to God in the context of the Father or the Son.'''

	=Questions & Answers=		=Questions & Answers=

Admin: /* The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position */

2013-05-31T08:38:55Z

The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 31 May 2013
Line 68:		Line 68:
	:''His goings forth are from long ago,		:''His goings forth are from long ago,
	:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>		:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>

			The major problem with William Branham's reasoning is that he puts God into time and space and, therefore, assumes that the Son had to have a beginning. But based on the proof's above that the Son is eternal, then he exists outside of time and space, in fact, he created time and space and exists outside of both. Beginnings and endings make no sense either in reference to God in the context of the Father or the Son.

	=Questions & Answers=		=Questions & Answers=

Admin: /* William Branham believe the Father was Eternal */

2013-05-31T08:34:39Z

William Branham believe the Father was Eternal

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:34, 31 May 2013
Line 27:		Line 27:
	This would be illustrated as follows:		This would be illustrated as follows:

	==William Branham ~~believe~~ the Father was Eternal==		==William Branham believed the Father was Eternal==

	:''Grant it, immortal and '''eternal Father God'''. <ref>THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ INDIANAPOLIS.IN THURSDAY_ 57-0613 </ref>		:''Grant it, immortal and '''eternal Father God'''. <ref>THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ INDIANAPOLIS.IN THURSDAY_ 57-0613 </ref>

Admin: /* The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position */

2013-05-30T20:40:32Z

The Scriptural Reasons for the Church's Historical Position

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:40, 30 May 2013
Line 68:		Line 68:
	:''His goings forth are from long ago,		:''His goings forth are from long ago,
	:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>		:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>

			=Questions & Answers=

			For Q&A on this issue, please see our article - [[Q&A on the Godhead]]

	=References=		=References=

	<References/>		<References/>

Admin: /* William Branham's Position */

2013-05-30T20:38:36Z

William Branham's Position

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 30 May 2013
Line 3:		Line 3:
	=William Branham's Position=		=William Branham's Position=

	He ridiculed the idea throughout his ministry as being a Catholic doctrine:		William Branham ridiculed the idea throughout his ministry as being a Catholic doctrine:

	:''Not eternal Sonship, 'cause the words don't go good together. That's Catholic doctrine, but... Eternal, how could it be a Sonship and be eternal? If He's a Son, he'd had to have a beginning of time. Eternal's forever. See? So eternal Sonship, there's no such a word to make that sensible. But it was the Logos that went out of God. And there He was playing out there in space just like a child before the door. I can see Him draw the whole picture in His mind of the Kingdom and what it might be.'' <ref>SHOW.US.THE.FATHER.AND.IT'LL.SATISFY.US_ CONNERSVILLE.IN WEDNESDAY_ 53-0610</ref>		:''Not eternal Sonship, 'cause the words don't go good together. That's Catholic doctrine, but... Eternal, how could it be a Sonship and be eternal? If He's a Son, he'd had to have a beginning of time. Eternal's forever. See? So eternal Sonship, there's no such a word to make that sensible. But it was the Logos that went out of God. And there He was playing out there in space just like a child before the door. I can see Him draw the whole picture in His mind of the Kingdom and what it might be.'' <ref>SHOW.US.THE.FATHER.AND.IT'LL.SATISFY.US_ CONNERSVILLE.IN WEDNESDAY_ 53-0610</ref>

Admin: /* William Branham believe the Father was Eternal */

2013-05-30T01:10:44Z

William Branham believe the Father was Eternal

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:10, 30 May 2013
Line 29:		Line 29:
	==William Branham believe the Father was Eternal==		==William Branham believe the Father was Eternal==

	:''Grant it, immortal and eternal Father God. <ref>THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ INDIANAPOLIS.IN THURSDAY_ 57-0613 </ref>		:''Grant it, immortal and '''eternal Father God'''. <ref>THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ INDIANAPOLIS.IN THURSDAY_ 57-0613 </ref>

	:''We're so thankful for this, that You are a universal Father to all of us, an eternal Father. <ref>ABRAHAM_ LONG.BEACH.CA SATURDAY_ 61-0211</ref>		:''We're so thankful for this, that You are a universal Father to all of us, an '''eternal Father'''. <ref>ABRAHAM_ LONG.BEACH.CA SATURDAY_ 61-0211</ref>

	:''God became, from God, to become me, to take my sin upon Him, that He might make me Him, amen, back to His great purpose of sons and daughters of God, for He is the Eternal Father. <ref>CHRIST.IS.THE.MYSTERY.OF.GOD.REVEALED_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0728 </ref>		:''God became, from God, to become me, to take my sin upon Him, that He might make me Him, amen, back to His great purpose of sons and daughters of God, for '''He is the Eternal Father'''. <ref>CHRIST.IS.THE.MYSTERY.OF.GOD.REVEALED_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0728 </ref>

	O Eternal Father, send the Gospel Light across this city, through this coming week of convention. <ref>ONE.IN.A.MILLION_ LA.CA V-18 N-1 SATURDAY_ 65-0424 </ref>		'''O Eternal Father''', send the Gospel Light across this city, through this coming week of convention. <ref>ONE.IN.A.MILLION_ LA.CA V-18 N-1 SATURDAY_ 65-0424 </ref>

	==How can a Father be Eternal?==		==How can a Father be Eternal?==

Admin at 01:09, 30 May 2013

2013-05-30T01:09:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 30 May 2013
Line 61:		Line 61:
	The reference here is before creation, before the beginning. The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in John 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton theon).<ref>Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes, Jn 17:5 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).</ref>		The reference here is before creation, before the beginning. The use of παρά (para) twice in this verse looks back to the assertion in John 1:1 that the Word (the Λόγος [Logos], who became Jesus of Nazareth in John 1:14) was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, pros ton theon).<ref>Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes, Jn 17:5 (Biblical Studies Press, 2006).</ref>

			This is also echoed in the Old Testament:

	~~<ref> </ref>~~		:''But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
	~~<ref> </ref>~~		:''Too little to be among the clans of Judah,
	~~<ref> </ref>~~		:''From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.
			:''His goings forth are from long ago,
	~~Is there such a thing~~ as ~~eternal sonship?~~		:''From the days of '''eternity'''.”<ref>New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update, Mic 5:2 (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995).</ref>

	~~Every son has a beginning. Jesus could not~~ be ~~a son without being born, just as he could not be a saviour without dying. A son has no knowledge of his father's experiences, and Jesus had no understanding~~ of ~~God at his birth, but "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52)~~


	~~Why did Jesus say "before Abraham was~~, ~~I am", if he was not the eternal son?~~

	~~God made Jesus "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2~~:~~36). "Lord" refers~~ to ~~the word "Jehovah", which is the self-existent one. Jesus was Jehovah~~ in ~~flesh, born of a woman~~. ~~"Christ" is the Greek word for Messiah, which means "anointed" Messiah by God. There~~ are ~~examples in the Bible of when God had entered flesh before~~, ~~but never as the son of God. Here are two examples:~~

	~~When King Nebuchadnezzar threw three Hebrews into a furnace, he saw four "men" walking around, and declared that the fourth man was "like the Son of God" (Daniel 3~~:~~25). This man was "like"~~ the ~~Son~~ of ~~God as he was God in the flesh, but he was not the Son of God as he was not born of a woman~~.
	~~Melchizedek ate bread and drank wine with Abraham, just like Jesus had communion with his disciples (Genesis 14:18). The~~ Bible ~~says that Melchizedek was made "like unto the Son of God" and was without beginning or end (Hebrews 7~~:~~3). Melchizedek was also God in flesh~~, ~~but he was not the Son of God as he was not born of a woman.~~

	~~When Jesus said "before Abraham was, I am" (John 8~~:~~58) and referred to the glory he had with the Father "before the world was"~~ (~~John 17:5)~~, ~~he was revealing that he was the possessor of the soul and spirit of God. Jesus' body was the temple of God (John 2~~:~~19) made of a woman, but inside he was the invisible God, Jehovah, of the Old Testament. His body was irrelevant to his existence~~, ~~but relevant to the process of our redemption. Those who believe are also called the temple of the living God (II Corinthians 6:16~~). ~~Just as the Woman was from the flesh of Man, those who believe are from the Spirit of God, and are eternal.~~

	=References=		=References=

	<References/>		<References/>