The word is often use in regard to birth or conception. God did not give birth to Jesus. You see this word uses in a different form repeatedly in Matt 1 in the genealogical record of Jesus. In that entire genealogical record, every name that is mentioned is someone who did not exist prior to his conception. This cannot be said of Jesus. True, Mary did give birth to Jesus but Jesus as an eternal being is not the offspring of God. He did not begin at conception. This is not the way Paul is using this word in Acts 13. Here is his relaying a concept of preeminence and he is limiting it here to his resurrection, NOT to his physical birth. meaning has to be understood from its use in a given context.
POLL: The Deity of Christ
- Thread starter p_rehbein
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The word is often use in regard to birth or conception. God did not give birth to Jesus. You see this word uses in a different form repeatedly in Matt 1 in the genealogical record of Jesus. In that entire genealogical record, every name that is mentioned is someone who did not exist prior to his conception. This cannot be said of Jesus. True, Mary did give birth to Jesus but Jesus as an eternal being is not the offspring of God. He did not begin at conception. This is not the way Paul is using this word in Acts 13. Here is his relaying a concept of preeminence and he is limiting it here to his resurrection, NOT to his physical birth. meaning has to be understood from its use in a given context.
I reckon you missed your calling as a political spin-doctor, Hermit.
Words can always be manipulated to suit whatever one's preconceived convictions are.
To the point where words no longer have meaning.
Did YHWH intend that we all need to become theologians and linguists in order to comprehend any of this stuff ?
Or ... did the hotchpotch of writers, centuries apart, contradict themselves ?
"The softly spoken words of the wise are to be heard rather than the shouts of a ruler of fools."
whisper, whisper ....................
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary etc etc
Does "begotten" mean "begotten" in the above ?
1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary etc etc
Does "begotten" mean "begotten" in the above ?
S
senzi
Guest
Pumicestone; Words can always be manipulated to suit whatever one's preconceived convictions are. To the point where words no longer have meaning. Did YHWH intend that we all need to become theologians and linguists in order to comprehend any of this stuff ? ?[/QUOTE said:
S
senzi
Guest
At that time, Jesus full of joy through the Holy Spirit said
I praise you Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, for this was your good pleasure
Luke10:21
I praise you Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and revealed them to little children. Yes Father, for this was your good pleasure
Luke10:21
S
senzi
Guest
The greatest power and most rapid growth seen in the christian church was before the emergence of the scholar and theologian with his immense academic mind, not after. All those theological doctrines tha came about after the first century, by scholars pouring of the scriptures coincided with a diminishing of the power of the holy spirit seen in NT times. Coincidence?
Last edited by a moderator:
1 John 5:20 New International Version
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
It meant the same as it meant in Scripture, the only true Son of the same nature as the Father
You don't think that Paul was a scholar and a theologian with an immense academic mind?
And Peter certainly did not think Paul's writings simple for a child to understand. For he said of Paul's letters,
3.16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unstedfast wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
Yes in fact it was a coincidence. Surely you don't really think that a few scholars affected the churches in the whole of the known world?
S
senzi
Guest
What in Paul's view did learning spiritual truth rely on, the academic mind or the holy spirit?
In what strength did Paul preach, his own or the holy spirits?
1cor1:19-22. 1cor3:19-22
The problem is not in having a great academic mind, but relying on it to learn spiritual truth 1cor2:12-14
In what strength did Paul preach, his own or the holy spirits?
1cor1:19-22. 1cor3:19-22
The problem is not in having a great academic mind, but relying on it to learn spiritual truth 1cor2:12-14
-no Coincidence, told through the bible in mysterys, revieled only to those he choices.
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land,
not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord:
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain:
let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh,
for it is nigh at hand;
- I believe he is opening the bible , unsealed to understanding now
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end:
many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh;
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams,
your young men shall see visions
S
senzi
Guest
Spiritual truth is learnt from the holy spirit. The holy spirit could reveal to a child-if he chose to do so the truth of what Paul wrote, or do you deny this?
It was Jesus who said God had revealed these things to children and hidden them from the wise and learned. Jesus also said unless you come as children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven
Yes most certainly a few scholars and theologians affects the majority of churches in the known world. But Paul warned us of such didn't he 1cor1:19-21
S
senzi
Guest
BTW
The ignorant and unsteadfast are those who rely on their own ability to learn of the spiritual, rather than relying on the holy spirit to reveal truth to them
It is clear that you are having some trouble trying to get your mind wrapped around this text in Acts 13 so why don't we just start here at the beginning and take a look at this verse to just see what the language of the text has to tell us. Forget about what is considered "orthodox", forget about what you may have read in commentaries and let's just look at what the text says. Truth is in the grammatical structure of the inspired text, not in the "orthodoxy" of theological history.
“When they had carried out all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead; and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people. And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.’ “As for the fact that He raised Him up from the dead, no longer to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I WILL GIVE YOU THE HOLY and SURE blessings OF DAVID.’ “Therefore He also says in another Psalm, ‘YOU WILL NOT ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.’ “For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay."
The topic of Paul's oration is the death and resurrection of Jesus as he offers his defense to the Jew in the synagogue at Antioch. Notice, Paul says that the crucifixion marked the fulfillment of "ALL that was written concerning Him." He then speaks of the promise that was made to the fathers. Although he does not specifically say it here the promise he is speaking of is, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." This promise could not be fulfilled except in the resurrection of the Lord, "in that He raised up Jesus". Paul covers this in Gal 3 and in verses 13-14 he says. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”— in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." He then adds the second Psalm, "as it is also written in the second Psalm...." Here God makes a declaration to the Son that is time bound as is designated by the use of "today". This marks a specific point in linear time in which the fulfillment of this declaration would become reality but, there is no way for us to know what "today" points to by just a reading of this Psalm. It is Paul who gives us the revelation from the Holy Spirit that explains for us the application of this Psalm. Paul then reveals what was to happen on that day, "I have begotten you." This brings us to two questions.
1. What is the specific point in linear time that this was fulfilled? And Paul says it was indeed fulfilled.
2. What does he mean when he says "I have begotten you" within the limitations of time established by Paul?
Both questions are answered in the very next two application of OT scriptures. “I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David," and “You will not let your Holy One see corruption." Paul links both of these tests to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead just like he did the two previous passages for the Psalmist. He is not talking about Jesus birth, he is not talking about Solomon, and he is not talking about David. Paul is showing us that the RESURRECTION OF JESUS is the fulfillment of all of the passages he presents. It is the resurrection that satisfies the point in linear time that was veiled in the Psalm.
Now Let me see if I can help you understand the word begotten as it is used on this text. Here are all the definitions of γεγέννηκά regardless of the form of the verb. The word is from the root γεννά meaning to bear children, to father, to conceive, to engender, to cause to rise, to give birth, or to produce. These represent the basic definitions of the word and are used in both the literal sense and in the metaphorical sense in scripture. γεγέννηκά, used here by Paul is perfect, indicative, active form of γεννά and means "I have begotten." Now, we have already established that Paul is not talking about Jesus' birth or any other point in his life so this means that the literal definition cannot be applied which means that the only other option for understand γεγέννηκά has to be in the metaphorical sense. Now, I am simply going to ask you the question and let you think about this for a moment, in what sense then could the metaphorical use of this verb apply to the resurrection of Jesus?
I said, "The softly spoken words of the wise." You need not bother. This will be my final response to ANY post you make so rave on as you will.
Last edited:
If the man Jesus existed prior to his conception, would he have then been conceived in time?
The spirit of Jesus (the Holy Spirit--Ro 8:9, who proceeds from the Son) is an eternal being and did not die, as our spirit does not die.
The man Jesus died and is an "eternal" being after his resurrection, as we are "eternal."
As you can see, it seems to me there is more than one way to understand "today" in Ac 13:33, and I am not seeing why the verse cannot be understood in that way; viz, the resurrection as a powerful declaration (statement, announcement) proving that Jesus is the eternally (continually) begotten Son of God.
In light of its use in Mt 1:20, how do we know gennao in Ac 13:33 is a concept of preeminence rather than birth, and that Paul is not saying in Ac 13:33, as he said in Ro 1:4, that the (continually eternally begotten) Son of God was declared (announced) with power by the resurrrection to be such, as opposed to just declared with voice, as he was by the angel Gabriel and by the Father at his baptism?
Last edited:
I do not know how to make this any clearer Elin. Obviously you are going to need some time to digest all of this.
"Little children" not being literal, but figurative of the believing, trusting, submissive and obedient ones.