Begotten

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

There are many people who just don't get it. They just can't accept the notion that "The Word was made flesh."

For them, the word simply took on an envelope of flesh, he never stopped being God, he never stopped having the mind of God, the soul of God, the power of God. This is paganism. God flitting between heaven and earth. No way. This is not what the bible says at all.

When John said "The word was God" he was referring to his status "in the beginning." Then the Word became flesh. Flesh is flesh.

If Jesus was God, why would he need the Holy Spirit? Makes no sense.

I think this all boils down to what YOU think the word GOD means.

 

[Tintin]

Gjolll, your argument is just silly. If God became flesh was only human that means Jesus sacrifice was in vain because a human can't pay for the sins of the world. The Bible is all about God bridging the gap between Heaven and Earth!

 

[posthuman]

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

I will declare the decree:
the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
(Psalm 2 KJV)

​

 

[zone]

Nearly all theologians and bible translators these days are heretics and represent heretical churches. I wouldn't trust any of them. Everyone knows that all translators translate to fit scripture with their own theology. Goes for all translators, even the KJV - to a point. See the use of "Messiah" in Daniel, where elsewhere the same word is translated as "anointed." See also its use of the word "church" for congregation.


There are many people who just don't get it. They just can't accept the notion that "The Word was made flesh."

For them, the word simply took on an envelope of flesh, he never stopped being God, he never stopped having the mind of God, the soul of God, the power of God. This is paganism. God flitting between heaven and earth. No way. This is not what the bible says at all.

When John said "The word was God" he was referring to his status "in the beginning." Then the Word became flesh. Flesh is flesh.

If Jesus was God, why would he need the Holy Spirit? Makes no sense.

Luke 1:35
The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 43
Israel's Only Savior
10"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. 11"I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. 12"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And I am God.

 

[zone]

Nearly all theologians and bible translators these days are heretics and represent heretical churches. I wouldn't trust any of them. Everyone knows that all translators translate to fit scripture with their own theology. Goes for all translators, even the KJV - to a point. See the use of "Messiah" in Daniel, where elsewhere the same word is translated as "anointed." See also its use of the word "church" for congregation.


There are many people who just don't get it. They just can't accept the notion that "The Word was made flesh."

For them, the word simply took on an envelope of flesh, he never stopped being God, he never stopped having the mind of God, the soul of God, the power of God. This is paganism. God flitting between heaven and earth. No way. This is not what the bible says at all.

When John said "The word was God" he was referring to his status "in the beginning." Then the Word became flesh. Flesh is flesh.

If Jesus was God, why would he need the Holy Spirit? Makes no sense.

Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

 

[NWL]

// "He was begotten, not made, one in being with the father." <--- That's right,*Lovepink! This quote means that God has always been around!//

According to Scripture, when was the Son begotten by the Father.

Hi Lovepink, what a good topic you have here,

Firstly you are in-corrected in your acceptance that Jesus was begotten at the time of his Earthly birth for scripture shows that he was begotten before the world was;

(1 John 4:9) "...By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him..."

Notice that God sent his only-begotten son into the world, if however you were correct with your assumption then the scripture would read that God simply sent his son who then became begotten at his human birth.

It was a rhetorical question. Is Jesus God, well, is He our Saviour?

This foolish reasoning, just because Jesus is our savior doesn't imply that he is God, the scripture I just used is a perfect example of this. Notice that Jesus is sent to Earth so that we can gain live through him. Who is the source of life which we gain through Jesus? Well its the same source Jesus got his life from, the true God Jehovah/Yahweh

(John 6:57) "...Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me..."

(Psalm 36:9) "...For with you [Jehovah] is the source of life; By light from you we can see light..."

Jude himself summed this concept up in jude 1:25.

(Jude 25) "...to [the] only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen..."

God Jehovah is our savior and source of all life, including Jesus life which he made/begot as the start of all things, Jesus Christ too can be called savior because he's the agent which we all gain through.

 

[LovePink]

I find it interesting that one of your threads you claim Paul is not qualified to be an apostle and here you are quoting him.

Well, this board is chalk full of people misunderstanding posts, so that is okay that you and actually most on that other thread seem to gloss over my very clear statements, second sentence of op I plainly said, oh forget it, have a nice today.

 

[oldhermit]

When do you believe the Son was begotten by the Father?

What I believe on the matter is quite irrelevant. What is important is when does scripture say he was begotten.

Hebrews 1:5 “You are My Son. Today I have begotten you.”

1. “Today” is considered by many scholars and commentators to refer to what is called “the eternal generation of the Son" and his eternal sonship and cannot in any way speak of his humanity. Origen, believed that “today” is that timeless ever-present, eternal day which Christ inhabits. That since time has no boundaries with God, it is thus always “today.” While Jesus is indeed the eternal self-existing One without beginning and without end, this is not the point made by the Hebrew writer in verse five. The context of verse five is not to establish the eternal existence of Jesus but to declare through the Psalmist the enthronement of Zion's King. “Today” does not speak of Jesus timeless, eternal existence but points to a definitive point in linear time. Verse five is not presenting Jesus as God in eternity but as man in his mediatorial role. A.W. Pink in his “Exposition of Hebrews” pp. 50-51 properly regards “today” as a fixed point in linear time but then misapplies the point of time. Pink points to the virgin birth as the “today” in which Jesus was called begotten. He then appeals to Luke 2:11 which reads “Unto
you is born this day in the city of David a savior which is Christ the Lord.” But, as in all cases, it behooves us to allow scripture to interpret its own terminology. In Acts 13:31-38, Paul addresses the Jewish officials in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch and shows that Jesus is the divinely appointed King who is David's heir to the throne. The fact that Jesus is raised from the dead is the fulfillment of Psalms 2:7, “Today I have begotten you.” So, “today,” according to Paul's inspired interpretation, refers not to Jesus' eternal sonship, not to his incarnation but, to his resurrection from the dead. “God has fulfilled this...in that he RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD as it also says in the second Psalm 'Today I have begotten you.'” If Paul confirms “today” as the specific point in time this renders all other interpretations to the contrary null and void. “Today,” in the context of Hebrew chapter one points to the four temporal indicators which overturn all other speculations about the use of the term “today.” After Jesus accomplished all these things by means of his death, burial, and resurrection, the declaration is made by the Father, “You are my Son, Today have I begotten you.”

2. “Begotten”- γεγέννηκά – a metaphor meaning to engender, to cause to rise. As we saw in our exposition of the word “today,” this refers to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Jesus is not begotten by virtue of creation but by virtue of his victory over sin and death.

 

[LovePink]

Nice post, I almost posted the verses after my last post, but that is a nice write up. The verses that testify are few, but excellent. I was very happy when I came to see & understand this one day doing my own studying and that wasn't even what I was thinking on, but sometimes I see things and if I have time I follow it through & study it out with great profit. The word study for begotten is fairly short, but wonderful.. I have always believed day means day. It is a hard thing to have so much of what ... nvrmind. I am a Creationist.

 

[Gjolll]

1. “Today” is considered by many scholars and commentators to refer to what is called “the eternal generation of the Son" and his eternal sonship and cannot in any way speak of his humanity.

The concept of the "eternal son" comes from Babylon. DUMU.ZI or Tammuz means "faithful or true son." He is the son of Inanana, Sumerian goddess of sexual love, fertility, and warfare.

Heb 1;5,6 set the context of the prophecies concerning Jesus' sonship. Heb 1;6 "And again when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world."

Heb 1;2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,"

Fact is, the notion of a son living in heaven is pure invention and a fabrication designed to promulgate the notion of the Babylonian "eternal son" deity.

American scholars and commentators should always preface anything they say with "I come from the nation with (almost) the highest divorce rate in the world ....." Lol!

 

[oldhermit]

The concept of the "eternal son" comes from Babylon. DUMU.ZI or Tammuz means "faithful or true son." He is the son of Inanana, Sumerian goddess of sexual love, fertility, and warfare.

Heb 1;5,6 set the context of the prophecies concerning Jesus' sonship. Heb 1;6 "And again when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world."

Heb 1;2 "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,"

Fact is, the notion of a son living in heaven is pure invention and a fabrication designed to promulgate the notion of the Babylonian "eternal son" deity.

Nonsense. You just do not have any regard for the biblical text nor for the inspired interpretation of Psalms 2:7 given in Acts 13.

 

[BananaPie]

The Scripture is my Authority and standard.

Girl, be honest with yourself.

If the Holy Bible were your "Authority" you wouldn't be arguing lame stuff about the Apostle Paul. ...just sayin'

 

[2Thewaters]

Doesn't matter when
when might not even apply
God doesn't lie though.

 

[stonesoffire]

Begotten means a new beginning or a new creation, a re-creation as in genesis... A whole new race of man. Is different than just being born.

His birth, His baptism, and His resurrection. The plan of Father implemented at His birth, begun at His baptism and completed at His resurrection. That plan was to bring many sons to the "birth" through the Son.




G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
Thayer Definition:
1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Part of Speech:
adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number:
from
G3441 and G1096
Citing in TDNT:
4:737, 606

 

[Gjolll]

Nonsense. You just do not have any regard for the biblical text nor for the inspired interpretation of Psalms 2:7 given in Acts 13.

You appeal to unknown bible commentators and scholars, many of whom have themselves no belief in the authority of the bible. Some bible commentators and scholars even doubt that a person called Jesus existed, and far more doubt that the Israelites ever came out of Egypt. It's a poor argument that appeals to what bible commentators and scholars say. I remind you that Jesus never appealed to anyone to vouch for his own interpretation of scripture.

As for Acts 13, the context is manifest. The Son is Jesus, and the name Jesus was never given to anyone prior to Jesus' birth.

[SUP]32 [/SUP]“We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors [SUP]33 [/SUP]he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“‘You are my son;
today I have become your father.’[SUP][b][/SUP]

In the eternal scheme, God rested on the seventh day. "Today" is therefore the seventh day. Not the first, but the seventh.

 

[oldhermit]

You appeal to unknown bible commentators and scholars, many of whom have themselves no belief in the authority of the bible. Some bible commentators and scholars even doubt that a person called Jesus existed, and far more doubt that the Israelites ever came out of Egypt. It's a poor argument that appeals to what bible commentators and scholars say. I remind you that Jesus never appealed to anyone to vouch for his own interpretation of scripture.

As for Acts 13, the context is manifest. The Son is Jesus, and the name Jesus was never given to anyone prior to Jesus' birth.

[SUP]32 [/SUP]“We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors [SUP]33 [/SUP]he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“‘You are my son;
today I have become your father.’[SUP][b][/SUP]

In the eternal scheme, God rested on the seventh day. "Today" is therefore the seventh day. Not the first, but the seventh.

You must not have read my post very closely. I was not agreeing with the commentators. I was showing how they have misrepresented the text in light of the inspired interpretation given by the apostle Paul in Acts 13.

 

[Gjolll]

You must not have read my post very closely. I was not agreeing with the commentators. I was showing how they have misrepresented the text in light of the inspired interpretation given by the apostle Paul in Acts 13.

Of course, the Son pre-existed as the Word. Of course, "he" was around at the beginning. But "he" was not in the nature of a "son" in the beginning, but in the nature of God.

I repeat, the notion of a "heavenly" son is absurd. It is a pagan concept deriving from Babylon.

 

[oldhermit]

Of course, the Son pre-existed as the Word. Of course, "he" was around at the beginning. But "he" was not in the nature of a "son" in the beginning, but in the nature of God.

I repeat, the notion of a "heavenly" son is absurd. It is a pagan concept deriving from Babylon.

So, you're suggesting that Paul got it wrong?

 

[iamsoandso]

It's a word of interest. Ever do a word study on it? When I first became a saved person I set down all my major religious beliefs, for self examination. I did not reject my beliefs or take on new ones until I could clearly see my error and the truth in Scripture by the help & teaching of the Holy Spirit. Creeds, I came to reject the man-made creeds of the worldly religious system influencing the theology of men. Begotten, is a beautiful word. Scripture says this, well, I should ask;

When do you believe the Son was begotten by the Father?

im curious how you will see this,,,in matt.4;3 and matt. 4;6,,,the devil ask Jesus a direct question,,,,"if thou be the son of god",,,,now contemplate it in job the devil speaks to god,he was punished in the garden by god,,,,,,,why all of the sudden does he say to Jesus "if thou be the son of god",,as if he does not recognize him?,,,,,

 

[stonesoffire]

It was temptation and Yeshua had not eaten anything....was in a weak state, and He answers all questionings with scripture.

Our pattern.

Satan knew who He was.