Jesus Christ is Almighty God

The Eternal Son!... Brother Glen:)

Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Who is ME?

 

Hebrews 1:5, "For to which of the messengers said He ever, `My Son thou art—I to-day have begotten thee?' and again, `I will be to him for a father, and he shall be (ἔσται, FUTURE tense) to Me for a son?'"

Luke 1:35, "And the angel answered and said to her, The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, and the power of the Highest will overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called (κληθήσεται, FUTURE tense) the Son of God"

Not IS, but SHALL BE.

 

Romans 1:4, "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . ." So Hebrews 1:5 says, ". . . I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son . . . ."

The mere fact that He was the Son prior to His resurrection, Psalms 2:7 does not prove His Sonship prior to His incarnation Luke 1:35.

Now the proof of Him being the Son prior to His incarnation is that it was He as the Son who appeared as God in the OT per John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Now if that text reads merely "only begotten" or "only begotten, God" eternal Sonship prior to His incarnation cannot be found.

 

John 1.18 reads in the best textual evidence. "God no one has seen at any time, the Unique God Who is in the Bosom of the Father..."

 

Which he would be either as the eternal Logos or as the Eternal Son!

 

Sincere Christians disagree on this, if Jesus was eternally the Son, but all would see Him as being God regardless!

 

Dr. Pickering's translation note: 'Instead of “the only begotten son” (as in over 99.5% of the Greek manuscripts), some five manuscripts (of inferior quality, objectively so) have “an only begotten god,” while another two (also inferior) have “the only begotten god”. Since the absence of the definite article (in Greek) can have the effect of emphasizing the inherent quality of the noun, the second reading could be rendered “only begotten god”—this alternative has appealed to many evangelicals who see in it a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. But if the God-part of the Christ was begotten in the womb of the virgin Mary, then He is not eternally pre-existent; and in that event Christ couldn’t be God the Son, one of the three persons of the Trinity. Notice the precision in Isaiah 9:6—“unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given.” Jehovah the Son was given, not born. But in any case, why follow seven manuscripts of demonstrably inferior quality against 1,700? The original and therefore true reading is certainly “the only begotten Son”.'