|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 9:47:38 GMT -5
Jesus is the only begotten son of God because Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit while she was a virgin, thus He is God and man. Adam is referred to in Luke 3:38 as the son of God, but not a begotten son. He was created out of dust. Thus, the scholars so-called are taking away from the full meaning.
These "scholars," and I use the word loosely, have not returned to the original anything. Herein is the deception. Justin said many of the early manuscripts don't mention only begotten. Those are those incomplete manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are only older because the original paper had been preserved. The text is not older. That is why I must defend the words as written in the KJV Bible. I am not the least bit taken in by this mess, and I heavily advise that everyone stop worrying that things were removed or changed in the KJV Bible and take it as written. So what if cults twist the Bible in knots. Do you think believing these scholars will stop them? On the contrary! It gives them more ammunition.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 9:57:03 GMT -5
Speaking of biblical balance... this is another area where a discerning balance is necessary. False teachers who want to downplay Jesus’ divinity have many tricks up their sleeve. They say Jesus was miraculously “begotten” at the time Mary conceived Him, but He didn’t necessarily exist before. Some (including Joyce Meyer) say He was the first “born again” person when He was resurrected, which can lead to saying He was “begotten” at that time. False teachers are hard at work to keep “begotten” in the confines of the New Testament.
On the other extreme are those who say that anyone “born again” is begotten of God, Jesus just happened to be the first, and we may thus spiritually evolve to become His equal.
I know it’s difficult to fathom how these people ignore explicit passages elsewhere in the NT, but they do.
We’ve spoken here before (on other topics) about the need for a robust understanding of Scripture. We can’t just say the verses we prefer are literally true while the verses we don’t care for are irrelevant. These tactics don’t grow fruit of good doctrine.
False teachers make much hay of verses about the concept of “little gods” in the OT. Instead of dismissing these verses, or trying to sidestep their meaning, perhaps it would do us good to hammer out a cohesive doctrine. Churches do not teach on this at all. Not even the so-called good old fashioned churches.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 9:59:32 GMT -5
Jesus is the only begotten son of God because Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit while she was a virgin, thus He is God and man.
Ahhh... see this is where I’ve always had a different understanding. It seems to me that Jesus was the begotten Son of the Father since eternity. Begotten did not start with Mary.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 10:11:12 GMT -5
Jesus is the only begotten son of God because Mary conceived Christ by the Holy Spirit while she was a virgin, thus He is God and man.
Ahhh... see this is where I’ve always had a different understanding. It seems to me that Jesus was the begotten Son of the Father since eternity. Begotten did not start with Mary. Begotten implies coming about through conception. Jesus as God always existed. He has no beginning. He was always the Son of God, but Jesus as God-man was begotten.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 10:15:36 GMT -5
Ahhh... see this is where I’ve always had a different understanding. It seems to me that Jesus was the begotten Son of the Father since eternity. Begotten did not start with Mary. Begotten implies coming about through conception. Jesus as God always existed. He has no beginning. He was always the Son of God, but Jesus as God-man was begotten.
I see. I just thought begotten means Son of the same nature. I didn’t know female conception was required for begotten.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 10:27:28 GMT -5
Begotten implies coming about through conception. Jesus as God always existed. He has no beginning. He was always the Son of God, but Jesus as God-man was begotten.
I see. I just thought begotten means Son of the same nature. I didn’t know female conception was required for begotten. When you think about all the begetting in the Bible, it is always about reproduction. Adam is called the son of God, but not begotten. In one since, I can see a way one can see Jesus as eternally the only begotten son of God, and that is because of foreknowledge. That is why He would be the son of God in the first place. It was ordained all along what he would do.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 10:36:35 GMT -5
I see. I just thought begotten means Son of the same nature. I didn’t know female conception was required for begotten. When you think about all the begetting in the Bible, it is always about reproduction. Adam is called the son of God, but not begotten. In one since, I can see a way one can see Jesus as eternally the only begotten son of God, and that is because of foreknowledge. That is why He would be the son of God in the first place. It was ordained all along what he would do.
Please don’t think I’m arguing. I’m trying to work this out. Man was made lower than the angels, thus as part of limited physical creation he needs a female helpmeet to give him sons... but even then Scripture says conception is a gift from God. The Lord may shut or open a womb at His discretion, leaving men powerless to “beget” outside of His will. So it seems that begetting is a supernatural event all around. Think about Jesus in Daniel when Nebuchadnezzar said the fourth man was like the Son of God. Which Son? We can’t say Jesus was merely God’s “only son” at this time because Adam was a son of God by then. What made Jesus different from Adam as a son? Was it the not the fact that He’s a Son of God’s own nature? What other word do we have to explain “Son of His own nature” if not begotten? What other word is there? I just don’t see how the begotten part could have been added to Jesus. If there was a time when He wasn’t begotten, then there was a time when He wasn’t “really” God’s Son, and I see this as a huge doorway to deny His eternal existance.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 10:55:18 GMT -5
When you think about all the begetting in the Bible, it is always about reproduction. Adam is called the son of God, but not begotten. In one since, I can see a way one can see Jesus as eternally the only begotten son of God, and that is because of foreknowledge. That is why He would be the son of God in the first place. It was ordained all along what he would do.
Please don’t think I’m arguing. I’m trying to work this out. Man was made lower than the angels, thus as part of limited physical creation he needs a female helpmeet to give him sons... but even then Scripture says conception is a gift from God. The Lord may shut or open a womb at His discretion, leaving men powerless to “beget” outside of His will. So it seems that begetting is a supernatural event all around. Think about Jesus in Daniel when Nebuchadnezzar said the fourth man was like the Son of God. Which Son? We can’t say Jesus was merely God’s “only son” at this time because Adam was a son of God by then. What made Jesus different from Adam as a son? Was it the not the fact that He’s a Son of God’s own nature? What other word do we have to explain “Son of His own nature” if not begotten? What other word is there? I just don’t see how the begotten part could have been added to Jesus. If there was a time when He wasn’t begotten, then there was a time when He wasn’t “really” God’s Son, and I see this as a huge doorway to deny His eternal existance. I didn't take this as an argument. We should be able to discuss things like this.
I know Jesus is God and has existed eternally. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is I AM. I am agreeing that Jesus was always the Son of God, but why that title in OT times? I believe it was because Jesus becoming God-man was known from the beginning. It wasn't something God had to think up. Thus, Jesus was always the Son of God, and you could even say the only begotten Son of God, but based on what He would do, leave heaven to be born of a woman. You would have to be ignoring a lot of scripture to suggest Jesus hasn't always existed.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 10:58:19 GMT -5
Please don’t think I’m arguing. I’m trying to work this out. Man was made lower than the angels, thus as part of limited physical creation he needs a female helpmeet to give him sons... but even then Scripture says conception is a gift from God. The Lord may shut or open a womb at His discretion, leaving men powerless to “beget” outside of His will. So it seems that begetting is a supernatural event all around. Think about Jesus in Daniel when Nebuchadnezzar said the fourth man was like the Son of God. Which Son? We can’t say Jesus was merely God’s “only son” at this time because Adam was a son of God by then. What made Jesus different from Adam as a son? Was it the not the fact that He’s a Son of God’s own nature? What other word do we have to explain “Son of His own nature” if not begotten? What other word is there? I just don’t see how the begotten part could have been added to Jesus. If there was a time when He wasn’t begotten, then there was a time when He wasn’t “really” God’s Son, and I see this as a huge doorway to deny His eternal existance. I didn't take this as an argument. We should be able to discuss things like this.
I know Jesus is God and has existed eternally. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is I AM. I am agreeing that Jesus was always the Son of God, but why that title in OT times? I believe it was because Jesus becoming God-man was known from the beginning. It wasn't something God had to think up. Thus, Jesus was always the Son of God, and you could even say the only begotten Son of God, but based on what He would do, leave heaven to be born of a woman. You would have to be ignoring a lot of scripture to suggest Jesus hasn't always existed.
Do you think Jesus was an actual person in the Trinity Godhead during the OT?
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 10:59:31 GMT -5
I didn't take this as an argument. We should be able to discuss things like this.
I know Jesus is God and has existed eternally. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is I AM. I am agreeing that Jesus was always the Son of God, but why that title in OT times? I believe it was because Jesus becoming God-man was known from the beginning. It wasn't something God had to think up. Thus, Jesus was always the Son of God, and you could even say the only begotten Son of God, but based on what He would do, leave heaven to be born of a woman. You would have to be ignoring a lot of scripture to suggest Jesus hasn't always existed.
Do you think Jesus was an actual person in the Trinity Godhead during the OT? Yes.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 11:16:16 GMT -5
Do you think Jesus was an actual person in the Trinity Godhead during the OT? Yes.
Ok brother. Me too. I’ve always used begotten to explain the eternal trinity. Father God begat Himself a Son of His own name, and through this begotten Son comes the creation/adoption of many more children. I see His entrance through Mary as a human formality to show Him as the only begotten. It sounds like we are mostly debating semntics.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 11:55:47 GMT -5
Ok brother. Me too. I’ve always used begotten to explain the eternal trinity. Father God begat Himself a Son of His own name, and through this begotten Son comes the creation/adoption of many more children. I see His entrance through Mary as a human formality to show Him as the only begotten. It sounds like we are mostly debating semntics. It is a very minor difference. I think it is difficult for those of us who live in a world where everything has a beginning to fully grasp a God that exists outside of the confines of time. There is also the issue of God being all knowing. That is why a lot of people don't understand how I can believe in free will and pre-destination, or how I can say I make my own decisions and are accountable for them while saying free will is really an illusion. There is our reality and our norms, and they are different from God's reality and God's norms.
Take the trinity. God has always existed in 3 persons: The Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit or The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Word and the Son are two names given to the second person of the Holy Trinity. God, because He is all knowing, knew from the beginning of time that one day He would create man, that man would fall, and that the second person in the Holy Trinity would be born into this world and be the only begotten Son of God. In that sense, Jesus always has been the only begotten Son of God. He has always been the Son of God.
Where this becomes hard for some to grasp is when I take God's being all knowing and apply it to his creation. That is where I got into trouble at WCF. My explanation destroyed all of George's OSAS arguments. He knew that what I said took what was a battle between two opposing views with scriptures for and against to the place where OSAS was toast. What I was saying is that God, because he is our creator and is all knowing, really set our course. Our story is written in God's book. He already knows who will endure to the end and who will fall away, as he knows those who will never come to the faith. In that way, you have the elect. In our world, we are making our own decisions. I am not a robot, but I am choosing to serve God and even to reply in this post. At the same time, my free will choices are an illusion in the sense that God created me knowing all I would ever do. If I am one that he created knowing I would endure till the end, I am of the elect, and nothing can change that. The problem is, I am not all knowing, and don't have the knowledge of how I will finish my race. Eternal security is reality for God's elect according to His knowledge, but not for us, which is why we must make our calling and election sure. It is not that God will cast away a person who is serving Christ faithfully till the end. He will not, but if we do that, it means we were of the elect.
Going back to the Holy Trinity, from the beginning of time, God has existed in 3 persons. God the Son has always been God the Son. He wasn't known to us as Jesus Christ, but of course, God knew what he would be called on earth and thus for eternity. What it amounts to is that it was always the plan of God to create the human race in His image. It was always God's plan to create Lucifer, and of course God knew that Lucifer would fall and tempt man and that man would give into the temptation and fall. If this wasn't by design, it wouldn't have happened because God is all knowing. There had to have been iniquity hidden on the inside of Lucifer from the start for it to come out later. There is no great mystery here. God is all powerful. If He didn't have a reason for this to happen, it wouldn't have happened. God knew from the start that the second person in the Holy Trinity would come to this world to redeem fallen man, and would be known as God's only begotten Son because he was conceived by a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit, making Jesus God and man, or God among us.
Even now, as I am saying all of this, I am not sure how many reading will really understand what I am saying. I think you get it, but I am not sure about others. But this is how free will and predestination exist side by side. This is not Calvinism, because Calvinists believe that if we have a heart for God we are the elect and others have twisted Calvinism to say that if we said a sinner's prayer, we are the elect and eternally secure by our decision. I am not saying that at all. I am saying we are making our own decisions, but God already knew what they would be before he made us. Our beginning and end is already known, so when we choose to turn away, that is no shock to him, or when we are obedient children, that doesn't take him by surprise. Even though some don't want to accept it, Lucifer's transgression didn't come as a surprise to God. Yes, Lucifer did make the choice based on free will, but God knew what Lucifer would choose before he rebelled.
|
|
|
Post by justinadams on Aug 29, 2019 12:16:08 GMT -5
I didn't take this as an argument. We should be able to discuss things like this.
I know Jesus is God and has existed eternally. He is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is I AM. I am agreeing that Jesus was always the Son of God, but why that title in OT times? I believe it was because Jesus becoming God-man was known from the beginning. It wasn't something God had to think up. Thus, Jesus was always the Son of God, and you could even say the only begotten Son of God, but based on what He would do, leave heaven to be born of a woman. You would have to be ignoring a lot of scripture to suggest Jesus hasn't always existed.
Do you think Jesus was an actual person in the Trinity Godhead during the OT? Before Abram, I AM. The second Yahweh is well recognized in the Tanach, working right alongside Yahweh many times. Hebrew scholars refer to Him as the 'second Yahweh'. He is many, many times mentioned. He is also many times referred to as 'one like the son of man' and In Daniel, he actually says 'human'. Often 'the word' appears in substantial form, see Jeremiah 1. And by HIM (Yeshua) were all things created. See Gideon's account and the Burning bush. There were two members of the Godhead in both those examples. See Samuel where The Word stood right next to him. Yeshua was in 'man form' often in the Tanach. The Aramaic says 'Truly unique - One of a kind' to describe Him, before and after His Advent Only after about AD 200 did the Hebrew scholars remove their previous references to 'the second Yahweh' in their contemporary writings because it looked too much like they were supporting Yeshua's advent. (Christians)
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on Aug 29, 2019 12:17:17 GMT -5
Of course there is a symbiotic relationship between free will and foreknowledge. We have discussed that before. And I know the plan was for Jesus to be crucified from the foundation of the world. However I cannot find this notion of God knowing He would one day beget a son by Mary. That’s a distinctly Catholic doctrine – this idea that Mary is the actual, literal mother of the Son of God. That Father God somehow needed a woman to beget a Son to Himself. This is why Catholics worship Mary.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 29, 2019 12:25:57 GMT -5
Of course there is a symbiotic relationship between free will and foreknowledge. We have discussed that before. And I know the plan was for Jesus to be crucified from the foundation of the world. However I cannot find this notion of God knowing He would one day beget a son by Mary. That’s a distinctly Catholic doctrine – this idea that Mary is the actual, literal mother of the Son of God. That Father God somehow needed a woman to beget a Son to Himself. This is why Catholics worship Mary. Just because the RCC happens to believe something doesn't make them wrong in all cases. They hold to the virgin birth too, but that happened.
Why would the Bible have to state that God knew he would one day beget a son by Mary? To me, this is obvious because God is all knowing. If God didn't know that, then it stands to reason he is not all knowing. He had to know from the beginning of time he would beget a son by Mary. Mary is the actual, literal mother of the Son of God in human form, not the actual, literal mother of the Son of God. There is a difference. In addition to that, this does not excuse them making an idol of Mary. She was always just a mortal woman. Most trace Mary worship back to when the RCC was trying to unite all religions, and she replaced Diana as a female deity.
|
|