Perhaps the term does appear but not together. "He was in the beginning (meaning at the eternal commencement in the Greek) with God" (John 1:2). Christ was begotten (Psalms 2:7). So one has to conclude Christ was eternally begotten because it is in scripture. While the terms may not be linked, they most certainly are scriptural as one can plainly see.
But BB your verse in Isaiah is most wonderful. His name (Christ) shall be called 1) Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, 3) The everlasting Father, 4) The Prince of Peace. One has to wonder how could our Lord Jesus be called the "everlasting Father" if it were not for the Father and the Son being one.
**Perhaps the term does appear but not together.**
So you put them together anyway in this fashion....
**eternal commencement**
I saw that the Greek means commencement. Beginning means commencement.
I pointed out that your flesh is not your word, but the means to express your words.
But your words (when not speaking for someone else) are yours. They come from your mind. You are able to create words. Your words are an extension, or expression, of you. Isn’t your word with you? When you leave your house, does your word stay in the house? Of course not. Your word is IN you.
And you are IN your word. How so? You function physically in the parameters your word limits you to (such as wedding vows, promises, etc).
The Son said that his words were NOT his, but the Father’s.
The flesh of the Son is not God, but only the express image of him that is invisible.
So as you read about the Word in John 1:1-3 and 14, the Father is there as well, for the Word is his (the Son is ‘of’ God, hence the phrase: the Son OF God). And the Son said the words and doctrine wasn’t his, but was IN him, for the Son declared that Father is in him doing the works (and as I’m sure you recall, many of the miracles happened by simply speaking the word).
“IN”......let’s look at that little word....
John 1:4 “IN him was life, and the life was the light of men”.
5:26 “For as the Father hath life IN himself; so hath he GIVEN to the Son to have life IN himself.”
Matt. 3:17 (the Lord’s baptism), and 17:5 (the transfiguration), both have a voice from above, saying, “This is my beloved Son, IN whom I am well pleased”. I believe the word “IN” is literal in that case, with so much scripture that harmonizes with that fact. The voice came from elsewhere for the listeners sake, so that they could be sure that the Son wasn’t alone, and speaking for himself (John 12:28-30 “...This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes”.)
That’s how you get the mighty God in Christ: the power and words of the Father are IN Christ.
Isaiah 9:6.... do you think that God the Father is not anywhere in that verse?
You see, it wasn’t the power of the flesh that walked on water, multiplied bread and fish at the speed of light, or any of the other miracles. The flesh profiteth nothing. So when you believe that “the Word was made flesh”, you should realize that the flesh became the habitation of the Word of God.
It is the Spirit that quickeneth, not the flesh.
By assuming that because “the Word was God”, and “the Word was made flesh”, God is therefore not just Spirit, but also flesh, you justify calling the Son: God the Son, because the Son appeared in the flesh, and the Father has not appeared in the flesh. The same reasoning is why Mary is mistakenly regarded as the “Mother of God”.