What is the proof Jesus is eternally begotten son?

[wattie]

The Learner has been posting in CC for a long time... look at their profile for posts.

Most of their posts i've seen have been well thought out and biblically based.

Its tempting to jump on posters who start threads and dont contribute alot to them...but this is someone who has been posting in cc a long time.

Be fair.

 

[PaulThomson]

We already been over this with John 1:1-2 and 14. You can also add verses 3, 4, 15, 18, 30, 34, 49, 51. You can also add all the other chapters and verses that have been quoted or cited by others as well. Jesus Christ, same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Believe that Jesus is the only eternally begotten Son of God to be saved for it is the only way to be saved.

You claim that the following verses say that Jesus was eternally begotten.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God....

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Verse 1 and 2 say the Word "in the beginning existed", and the Word "in the beginning was existing with God"; and the Word was "in the beginning God". In the beginning of what? In the beginning of eternity? Or in the beginning of the creation of the world? "In the beginning of eternity" makes no sense. Eternity had no beginning. These two verses are describing the relationship between the Word and God at the time when the world began to be created. It is not describing the origin of the Word in eternity past. To enlist it into service as a proof-text for a claim that the Word was generated from God in eternity past, when the text is not even referring to eternity past, is delusional.

Verse 14 says "only-begotten Son", not "eternally begotten Son". Only-begotten son (monogenEs huios) means the only son generated from the father or mother who has the father's or mother's character, what we might call "a chip off the old block", Jesus is the only human generated from God who has God's character. Jesus is the express image (charaktEr) of God's person (hupostasis) according to Hebrews 1:3, or what the Jews would called "God's only-begotten Son". Luke 1:35 describes how the human baby Jesus was generated by God Jesus was generated by God.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Jesus the human being perfectly expressed God's character: He was God's only-begotten Son. The disciples observed that character, as of the only-begotten of God., full of grace and truth. There is nothing in John 1: 14 that refers us back to Jesus being begotten in eternity past. Jesus was begotten of God in 1 AD in the way Luke describes, when the Word became a human being who from 1 AD perfectly expressed God's character, as John 1:14 describes. There is no mention of Jesus being generated or begotten in eternity past or of Jesus continually being begotten in some eternal realm. That idea simply is nowhere in John 1.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.”

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 “Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life. 6 And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city.

7 “‘This is the Lord’s sign to you that the Lord will do what he has promised: 8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.

Your claims do not match up with scripture. Clearly, God did not know Hezekiah would repent, and changed Hezekiah's future when He did.

What scripture are you citing to show that "God the Father being a father to the Son eternally". What scripture can you cite that would show that "your/my/our Father God" always in all contexts means only one Person of the Trinity. It seem to me that sometimes the Son is called Father, and sometimes the Father and Holy Spirit working together are called Father, and sometimes all three are together called Father. A father is the one who generates children. If a committee can father an agenda or a charter or a constitution, the trinity can father, and be the Father of, Jesus of Nazareth.

verb: father; 3rd person present: fathers; past tense: fathered; past participle: fathered; gerund or present participle: fathering

1. (of a man) cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth of (a child).
   "he fathered three children"
   
   Similar:
   be the father of, sire, engender, generate, bring into being, bring into the world, give life to, spawn, procreate, reproduce, breed, beget
   • treat with the protective care associated with a father.
   • be the source or originator of.
     "a culture which has fathered half the popular music in the world"
     
     Similar:
     establish, institute, originate, initiate, put in place, invent, found, create, generate, conceive
     
     
   • assign the paternity of a child or responsibility for a book, idea, or action to.
     "a collection of Irish stories was fathered on him"
   • archaic
     appear as or admit that one is the father or originator of.
     "a singular letter from a lady, requesting I would father a novel of hers" (Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages)

Well, I was not speaking exhaustively (See: Matthew 15:21-28). Sometimes there are exceptions to the rule on what God says will happen. There are some things that God says that can change based on certain conditions. Obviously the Ninevites repented and did not face destruction in 40 days because they cried out to the Lord and forsaken their evil ways. However, that does not mean there are unconditional things God states will happen in the future, though. The events in Revelation will happen, and they are not conditional future statements that could potentially change. Revelation will happen. So when God says that the second person of the Trinity is the Son, that is not a conditional statement that would have changed. God could clearly see it was going to happen. The Lamb was slain since the foundation of the world. That statement was a declaration of certainty whereby nothing could have changed it. Isaiah 46:10 says God declares the end from the beginning.


....

 

[Dino246]

We already been over this with John 1:1-2 and 14. You can also add verses 3, 4, 15, 18, 30, 34, 49, 51. You can also add all the other chapters and verses that have been quoted or cited by others as well. Jesus Christ, same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Believe that Jesus is the only eternally begotten Son of God to be saved for it is the only way to be saved.

Wrong. That's not what Scripture says.

 

[SonJudgment]

Wrong. That's not what Scripture says.

Wrong again, frankly John 1:1-2 already proves that Jesus is the one and the only eternally begotten Son of God and the entirety of the Creeds and true Christian religion.

 

[TheLearner]

Isaiah 38:1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, “This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.”

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, 3 “Remember, Lord, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Then the word of the Lord came to Isaiah: 5 “Go and tell Hezekiah, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will add fifteen years to your life. 6 And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city.

7 “‘This is the Lord’s sign to you that the Lord will do what he has promised: 8 I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.’” So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.

Your claims do not match up with scripture. Clearly, God did not know Hezekiah would repent, and changed Hezekiah's future when He did.

What scripture are you citing to show that "God the Father being a father to the Son eternally". What scripture can you cite that would show that "your/my/our Father God" always in all contexts means only one Person of the Trinity. It seem to me that sometimes the Son is called Father, and sometimes the Father and Holy Spirit working together are called Father, and sometimes all three are together called Father. A father is the one who generates children. If a committee can father an agenda or a charter or a constitution, the trinity can father, and be the Father of, Jesus of Nazareth.

verb: father; 3rd person present: fathers; past tense: fathered; past participle: fathered; gerund or present participle: fathering

1. (of a man) cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth of (a child).
   "he fathered three children"
   
   Similar:
   be the father of, sire, engender, generate, bring into being, bring into the world, give life to, spawn, procreate, reproduce, breed, beget
   • treat with the protective care associated with a father.
   • be the source or originator of.
     "a culture which has fathered half the popular music in the world"
     
     Similar:
     establish, institute, originate, initiate, put in place, invent, found, create, generate, conceive
     
     
   • assign the paternity of a child or responsibility for a book, idea, or action to.
     "a collection of Irish stories was fathered on him"
   • archaic
     appear as or admit that one is the father or originator of.
     "a singular letter from a lady, requesting I would father a novel of hers" (Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages)

huh

 

[TheLearner]

Yup exactly, all the saints official believe Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God. That's why denying either the trinity doctrine or denying the apostle's creed, which is basically the summary of the Gospel account of Jesus is the fountanhead of all the damnable heresies, all the damnable heresies attack these two points because these two points are the pillar of Christianity. Without these two points one is not a Christian.

In the Nicene Creed, the Greek word translated as eternally "begotten" is "monogenes" which can be translated as unique.

 

[TheLearner]

Whatever, man. I'll stick with what Scripture actually says... and it doesn't say "eternally begotten" anywhere.

John 3,16
CJB
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.

If the creed meant unique, this is how they match or line up

 

[TheLearner]

I just jumped into this thread because of the OP question. I read it and thought, like many of you, this question does not make any sense. Then I read for 5 pages of debate and discussion and found the original poster had not shown back up, not until the end of the 5th page and this above is his whole contribution to everything you guys have said. To be very honest this seems like the Muslim apologist approach to asking questions. He seems to be zooming into a single phrase that I have not ever heard a Christian use. "Eternally Begotten", what does this even mean? I know that Islam has major problems with Jesus being the "ONLY" begotten Son of God, but Eternally Begotten is not a phrase I've EVER heard a Christian use.

"The Learner", can I ask you what it is that you believe? I'm not trying to "getcha" or be ugly toward you, but if you are in fact wanting to learn in truth, then we have to be honest with each other. I shared my suspicion, and please understand it does not matter at all, I could be WAY off and I am not making "accusations", only sharing the perspective I'm seeing it from. I'm just as open to talking with Muslim's as I am atheist, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, or Satanist. I just read a Islamic apologist style approach in the way you're asking things and phrasing things, but again, I could be wrong, but that's why I feel this could be the case.

Anyway I do see in the Nicaean Creed where is says that, but #1 I don't hold to the Nicaean Creed and it holds no authority over me. #2 I do not like the phrase and personally find it a bit inaccurate to be honest. While Jesus is eternal and has always been, as well is He the begotten Son of God, I do not believe He was "Eternally Begotten", I believe the begotten came with the incarnation of God on earth when He was born. I'm not sure how the men who wrote the Nicaean Creed meant this exactly, but I just see it as an inaccurate phrase for those reasons. How do you see it Learner?

I am a historical christian.

 

[TheLearner]

boss wife will kick me off

 

[Dino246]

Wrong again, frankly John 1:1-2 already proves that Jesus is the one and the only eternally begotten Son of God and the entirety of the Creeds and true Christian religion.

Does getting the last word make you feel better?

 

[SonJudgment]

In the Nicene Creed, the Greek word translated as eternally "begotten" is "monogenes" which can be translated as unique.

There's no point in even prying at translations the words and the concept are well fleshed out by this point in history and translated faithfully and certified by true saints official. Indeed this long history of the doctrines and the heresies has already been touched upon because it has to be since this is no like new issue. Eternally begotten and eternal generation is the correct doctrine and woven into the Bible and the three holy Creeds Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostle's Creed. Furthermore the holy Creeds which the heretics of hell attempt to wrest but fail eternally to do so the Creeds hold true and faithful and accurately reflect the Holy Bible and contain the true faith and belief in the one and only eternally begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Does getting the last word make you feel better?

Not at all, just replying to notifications in the first place, I believe where you first entered to me it was over from my first post was even the replies to one other that replied to me, everything has been a reply since. Believe in the one and only eternally begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ or perish in hellfire eternal no matter what anyone says you, me or anyone, that is the holy faith of Christianity and there is no other way to attain salvation.

 

[Dino246]

Believe in the one and only eternally begotten Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ or perish in hellfire eternal no matter what anyone says you, me or anyone, that is the holy faith of Christianity and there is no other way to attain salvation.

Your adherence to the wording of the creed over the words of Scripture is concerning, but you are free to choose your own errors.

You are also free to refrain from replying.

 

[SonJudgment]

Your adherence to the wording of the creed over the words of Scripture is concerning, but you are free to choose your own errors.

You are also free to refrain from replying.

Well then I am free to reply to your reply still abit longer before bed. That's where your wrong again, and fatally so you should abandon the heretics leading you to hell and their errors and believe in the eternally begotten Son of God Jesus Christ or you will certainly go to the hellfire even if I were stupid enough to say okay and abandon the truth and join you. There is no other way to salvation besides faith in the eternally begotten Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ for he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

 

[glf]

Re 1JN 5:20: The disciples knew Jesus personally, but they "believed" He was the Son of God per Peter's confession in MT 16:16-17. Of course, they later experienced Christ's resurrection personally, and Jesus showed his nail-scarred hands as proof to Thomas, but even though Paul had the experience with Christ in a vision on the road to Damascus, most Christians do not have such "proof", so we must walk by faith and should not try to prove our faith, even though part of us wants to do so by praying for the sight of miracles.

What verse tells us not to believe in the Lord's word as proof of what is true? Miracles can be counterfieted. I'm not sure how 1 Jn 5: 20 refers to praying for the sight of miracles? Scripture is clear though, faith is how we obtain our prayer requests!
Jn 14: 13-14:
And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Mk 11: 23-24:
For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
1 Jn 3: 19-23:
And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
Heb 11: 6:
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
2 Pet 1: 3-5:
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge...

God said it, that settles it and I believe it.

 

[Jimbone]

I am a historical christian.

What does that mean exactly? You were a Christian in History?
You used to be a Christian?

Or you adhere to the teachings and doctrine of historical Christianity?

I was just playing around with the first two questions, but I am honestly asking what you mean exactly by that. I assume it's something closer to the third question, the serious one, , but I am interested in what it is exactly YOU mean by that?

I am also sorry for the "assumptions", I was not trying to accuse at all, it just felt like that kind of style of laying something out.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

What is the proof Jesus is eternally begotten son?

He's not the eternally begotten son. He's the eternal word, the uncreated image of the invisible God, ie, the father, that was clothed with flesh and begotten into the world as the son of God.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In the Nicene Creed, the Greek word translated as eternally "begotten" is "monogenes" which can be translated as unique.

John 3,16
CJB
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only and unique Son, so that everyone who trusts in him may have eternal life, instead of being utterly destroyed.

If the creed meant unique, this is how they match or line up

The interpretation of the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) as "unique" is a relatively modern development that emerged later in the Modern Bible Movement started by Westcott and Hort. Prior to this movement, monogenēs was historically understood within the context of Scripture to mean "only begotten." Mono (μόνο) = "one. " Genes (γενής) = "begotten," "generated," or "brought forth."

The term "only begotten" captures the uniqueness of Christ's Incarnation, underscoring that He was physically begotten only once in history (e.g., John 1:14, John 3:16). This miraculous event was the fulfillment of prophecy and a pivotal link in the chain in God's plan of redemption of mankind. Thus, replacing "only begotten" with "unique" waters down the doctrine of the Incarnation in the Bible. This reinterpretation, which began to gain momentum slightly later during the Westcott and Hort Movement, reflects a dangerous new trend. It risks reducing Christ's significance to being merely special or unparalleled, rather than affirming Him as the literal, physical manifestation of God in human form.

The reinterpretation of μονογενής (monogenēs) as "unique" rather than "only begotten" was popularized through Volume IV of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). While the TDNT began publication in 1933, with its goal of being a multi-volume set, the article on monogenēs that presented this specific argument was authored by Friedrich Büchsel and published in 1942, which ended up in Kittel's dictionary (TDNT). In his entry, Büchsel systematically argued that the term conveys the sense of "one of a kind" or "unique" rather than emphasizing the "begotten" aspect. Although Gerhard Kittel, as editor, oversaw the project and facilitated the dissemination of its ideas, it was Büchsel’s analysis that became the definitive source for this reinterpretation. This academic shift paved the way for modern translations, such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), first published in 1946, which adopted this new rendering in John 3:16.

So, you’re the new kids on the block, bringing along your new and never-before-seen interpretations that only emerged with the arrival of the Westcott and Hort Movement.

....


....

 

[Dino246]

The interpretation of the Greek word μονογενής (monogenēs) as "unique" is a relatively modern development that emerged later in the Modern Bible Movement started by Westcott and Hort. Prior to this movement, monogenēs was historically understood within the context of Scripture to mean "only begotten." Mono (μόνο) = "one. " Genes (γενής) = "begotten," "generated," or "brought forth."

The term "only begotten" captures the uniqueness of Christ's Incarnation, underscoring that He was physically begotten only once in history (e.g., John 1:14, John 3:16). This miraculous event was the fulfillment of prophecy and a pivotal link in the chain in God's plan of redemption of mankind. Thus, replacing "only begotten" with "unique" waters down the doctrine of the Incarnation in the Bible. This reinterpretation, which began to gain momentum slightly later during the Westcott and Hort Movement, reflects a dangerous new trend. It risks reducing Christ's significance to being merely special or unparalleled, rather than affirming Him as the literal, physical manifestation of God in human form.

The reinterpretation of μονογενής (monogenēs) as "unique" rather than "only begotten" was popularized through Volume IV of Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT). While the TDNT began publication in 1933, with its goal of being a multi-volume set, the article on monogenēs that presented this specific argument was authored by Friedrich Büchsel and published in 1942, which ended up in Kittel's dictionary (TDNT). In his entry, Büchsel systematically argued that the term conveys the sense of "one of a kind" or "unique" rather than emphasizing the "begotten" aspect. Although Gerhard Kittel, as editor, oversaw the project and facilitated the dissemination of its ideas, it was Büchsel’s analysis that became the definitive source for this reinterpretation. This academic shift paved the way for modern translations, such as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), first published in 1946, which adopted this new rendering in John 3:16.

So, you’re the new kids on the block, bringing along your new and never-before-seen interpretations that only emerged with the arrival of the Westcott and Hort Movement.

It's quite unfortunate that you felt it necessary to blame everything on Westcott and Hort instead of focusing on the relevant information. Instead of examining the evidence without preconceptions blinding you, you seem to assume from the outset that "unique" is incorrect because of the source of the information. That's called a genetic fallacy and it makes your argument completely invalid.

This new understanding did not "pave the way for modern translations"; this is one single word. You're free to disagree with Büchsel's analysis, but at least point the finger in the right direction instead of at your favourite scapegoats. W&H is not a "movement", by the way. As for "never before seen", I guess you don't believe there is anything to discover about Scripture.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

It's quite unfortunate that you felt it necessary to blame everything on Westcott and Hort instead of focusing on the relevant information. Instead of examining the evidence without preconceptions blinding you, you seem to assume from the outset that "unique" is incorrect because of the source of the information. That's called a genetic fallacy and it makes your argument completely invalid.

This new understanding did not "pave the way for modern translations"; this is one single word. You're free to disagree with Büchsel's analysis, but at least point the finger in the right direction instead of at your favourite scapegoats. W&H is not a "movement", by the way. As for "never before seen", I guess you don't believe there is anything to discover about Scripture.

While I am not against finding new discoveries in Scripture, this is not in any way related to the point I made with Büchsel. Instead, his work among others that is a chain reaction from Westcott and Hort's work highlights gross incompetence in basic Greek, failure to read passages in context, and the acceptance of doctrinal error. Why else would Westcott and Hort have a Unitarian on their Revised Version committee? In fact, we see a pattern of evidence of other wrong interpretations that emerge around the time of Westcott and Hort and in the decades that followed them. When we observe a consistent pattern of changes that worsen rather than improve, it becomes clear to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

In truth, it is your side that refuses to acknowledge the evidence and connect the dots. Take, for example, the case of the Comma in 1 John 5:7. Your side dismisses any evidence from Latin manuscripts supporting the Comma for no good reason, despite compelling examples like the La Cava Bible. This 9th-century codex, a copy of an earlier manuscript, not only includes the Comma in 1 John 5:7 but also features a commentary addressing Arius directly, as if he were alive, urging him to take notice of this verse. Notably, Arius lived between AD 250 and 336.

...