- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,02:49) Quote (shimmer @ July 28 2010,12:14) JustAskin, I think you know what I mean, if you say a word over and over in three different threads, begotten, begotten, begotten, what does it mean, begotten, it gets really strange, Hi Shimmer,
And at what point do we give up any chance whatsoever that it still means what it's definition actually says it means?
Is there anyone out there that thinks begotten actually means procreated?
How about if I remind Jack that the “begotten” that Paul quotes from Psalm 2 in the NT is the Hebrew word “yalad”, and that word NEVER meant anything except “procreated” or “birthed”?
Why would God use a word in Psalm 2 that the Hebrews had no chance of taking any way except “procreated”? Was God out to confuse them……..and us?
Was Jesus proclaiming the decree that God begat him using a Hebrew word that didn't even have the other “slang” uses that Greek word “gennao” would eventually have, to say he would eventually be “appointed” as God's Son in the future? How could the Hebrews have possibly understood this? And if Jesus wasn't literally begotten by God, then in what sense was he God's Son before he came as flesh? Was he God's “created” Son? His “hatched” Son? His test-tube baby? Was he just one of many of God's Sons?
Why did he tell Nicodemus he was God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON?
peace and love,
mike
I agree with JustAskin and others, you have to see the Spiritual side, sometimes things aren't clear in scripture, some things just have to be taken in Faith, assuming things gets too complex Mike, just have trust,Take care.
Hi JA,
Welcome to the club! You have done some research to gain an understanding of what Hebrew words actually meant in an effort to gain an even more thorough understanding of what a certain scripture meant! I am so proud of you! You see, to research is NOT to say you need MORE than scripture, it is just to say you want to understand completely what that scripture could have meant 1000's of years ago when it was actually written.
This is why I used Eusebius and Ignatius……not to say we must believe the way these mere men did, but to show how the actual words in the Bible were understood closer to the time they were written down. You blew off Eusebius and Ignatius because they weren't actually “scripture”…….and their understanding of when Jesus was begotten agrees with mine, not yours. Yet you now feel free to use secular information because you think the info might support YOUR belief. Let's see if it does.
You didn't post the very first thing written about “yalad” from your source:
The Hebrew word “yalad” (Strong's number H3205) is another word found very frequently in the Old Testament Bible, one that is usually translated to English using some form of “begat”. This word is used particularly in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, and therefore a correct understanding of it's meaning is very important. Consider the following verse from Genesis 11,
Genesis 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat [H3205] Salah:
The word “begat” means to produce, and in this verse specifically means to produce offspring. Thus, this verse is teaching that Salah was a descendant of Arphaxad. Unfortunately, many theologians assume this verse teaches much more than simple descendancy because they claim it is always indicative of a direct or immediate offspring, as father-son or father-daughter. To see why this is so, consider Genesis 11:12 shown above. It is often taught that Salah was the immediate son of Arphaxad because Arphaxad begat Salah. However this conclusion can be shown to be incorrect by a consideration of Luke 3:35-36,Luke 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
In these verses of Luke, we find that the line of descent from Noah goes through Shem, then Arphaxad, then Cainan, then Salah, then Heber. Thus, we learn from Luke's genealogy that there was another generation between Arphaxad and Salah, that of Cainan, which means Salah could not possibly be the immediate son of Arphaxad. This then clearly shows that it would have been incorrect to assume that the use of “begat” in Genesis 11:12 was indicating that Salah was the immediate son of Arphaxad, or that Arphaxad was the parent or immediate father of Salah.So we've learned that the word “yalad” DOES mean to produce offspring, or beget. And because of YOUR diligent research, I have come to know that I, like the “many theologians” mentioned above, assumed it referred to ONLY a direct father/child begetting. Although, in all fairness, I'm not a theologian at all, and came to know of the existence of the word “yalad” just 3 weeks ago.
So what does this all prove? Well, read through the OT and see how many times a certain person is called “the SON of so-and-so”, when in reality, that person was really the GRANDSON or GREAT GRANDSON of “so-and-so”.
So the word “yalad” most definitely means “beget”, it's just that in Hebrew culture, they didn't use the words “grandson” or “great grandson” or “great great grandson” etc.
So, not only was Abraham the father of Isaac, but he was also the “father” of Jacob, Judah, and the whole nation of Israel. Abraham “begat” the nation of Israel. And when you consider the fact that they all eventually came from the seed of Abraham, it is a true statement about a true begetting, right?
So the bottom line is this: “Yalad DOES refer to a literal begetting. And while it is most commonly used in referrence to a direct father/child begetting in the Bible, it is also used in referrence to a person's lineage of offspring, or more distant descendants.
Now we only have to decide which makes more common sense in relation to Jehovah/Jesus, in light of the other scriptures. Was this relationship one of the more common uses of “yalad”, and as such refers to a direct father/son begetting? Or was Jehovah actually Jesus' “grandfather” or “great grandfather”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 01 2010,08:54) will show him in my next post in the debate examples of the Heb word Yalad where it is obvious it is used without a “Litteral birth” or to be born. Jack has already shown him one example but he continues to ignore it. The Apostle Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews uses the equivalant word which is “gennaō” which is Yalad translated in the Greek LXX which is what Paul and Jesus had access to, in a way that is obvious that it is not a “litteral birh”.
Hi WJ,Well, I hope your example is better than Jack's. His was about the sea “begetting” someone. And as I tried with all my might to explain to him: Just because the word “yalad” is used in a obvious metaphor is not to say the word itself is only “figurative” from there on out.
For example:
Henry Ford gave birth to streamlined automobile manufacturing.
Because the words “gave birth” are used in a metaphor does NOT mean the those words no longer actually mean to literally “give birth”. So if I told you guys that my wife just “gave birth” to my second son, it would still, in that context, mean she literally “gave birth” to a child.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 01 2010,10:14) I would have thought that after – how many months now – and how many threads – it would have got through to Mike, but it seems not. He did say he would give in of he was shown proof …!
Hi JA,I said it, and I meant it. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for that “proof”.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 01 2010,10:21) Hey JA, Pretty good! Mike needs for words to mean what he wants them to mean. It's like the word “all.” Mike takes it literally in Colossians 1:15. But in verse 23 he says that “all” is an “exaggeration.” He denies also that “all” means “all” in reference to Christ having “all authority.”
Hi Jack,That's right. “All” means “all the authority that his God has given him”. It does NOT mean “all authority to the point that his God has none anymore”.
You must learn to use the immediate context IN LIGHT OF THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 01 2010,10:22) EPHESIANS 1:20-23 shows God “begetting” Jesus to his raised position – would it not be at this point that Jesus was offered “The Nations as an inheritance and the ends of the earth as a possession”? Certainly not when he was born/created/begotten – he had not done anything yet… and there were no Nations nor Earth to have ends of, just as there was no DAY when Jesus was Born/Created/begotten. Time is only for the sake of Mankind because we have a limited amount of it – otherwise it would be Eternity: “You are my Son, From Eternity I have Begotten you”!
JA,Can you imagine an arrogant, agressive conquering king telling his newborn son, “You are my only son, and I will give you the nations of the earth as your inheritence someday!” Now that son hadn't done a thing at that point, yet his father is already planning the great things he will give to him JUST BECAUSE HE IS HIS SON.
Only, in this scriptural instance, it is not some mere mortal man saying it in eager anticipation of conquering the whole world to give to his son as his future kingdom, but God Almighty who already knows how things will turn out.
mike
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 01 2010,20:34) I agree with JustAskin and others, you have to see the Spiritual side, sometimes things aren't clear in scripture, some things just have to be taken in Faith, assuming things gets too complex Mike, just have trust, Take care.
Hi Shimmer,That's a pretty vague statement. Oxy and barley and Gene think Jesus was begotten when he was born of Mary.
Nick thinks it was a figurative begetting when he was baptized at the Jordan.
And WJ, KJ and JA (the three J's) think it was a figurative begetting when he was raised from the dead.
And Kathi, Irene and I think that since he was the “firstborn of all creation” and the “only begotten Son of God” “before all the ages” that he was literally begotten by God before the creation of the world.
We know that God created everything through His only begotten Son, so which theory is more in line with scripture?
Anyway……..do tell. When do YOU think he was begotten?
mike
Mike,
But don't you believe that Jesus was literally created by God, not begotten. Was Adam 'yalad' by God, I don't think so. Were the angels begotten or created? What do you think is the difference between how the angels came into being and how the Son came into being?
Thanks,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,04:41) Mike,
But don't you believe that Jesus was literally created by God, not begotten. Was Adam 'yalad' by God, I don't think so. Were the angels begotten or created? What do you think is the difference between how the angels came into being and how the Son came into being?
Thanks,
Kathi
Kathi,What do you want me to say?
Paul calls Jesus the “firstborn of every creature”. Jesus proudly says he's the “beginning of the creation of God”. And we know he is God's “only begotten Son”.
Since Jesus was directly caused to exist by God Himself, while everything else came to be FROM God THROUGH Jesus, I agree that Jesus is more directly linked to his God than the angels and men are.
You must search the scriptures for an answer to why Jesus was said to be both “begotten” and “created”. Or ask for understanding from God, not me. I'm an idiot.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2010,11:36) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 01 2010,20:34) I agree with JustAskin and others, you have to see the Spiritual side, sometimes things aren't clear in scripture, some things just have to be taken in Faith, assuming things gets too complex Mike, just have trust, Take care.
Hi Shimmer,That's a pretty vague statement. Oxy and barley and Gene think Jesus was begotten when he was born of Mary.
Nick thinks it was a figurative begetting when he was baptized at the Jordan.
And WJ, KJ and JA (the three J's) think it was a figurative begetting when he was raised from the dead.
And Kathi, Irene and I think that since he was the “firstborn of all creation” and the “only begotten Son of God” “before all the ages” that he was literally begotten by God before the creation of the world.
We know that God created everything through His only begotten Son, so which theory is more in line with scripture?
Anyway……..do tell. When do YOU think he was begotten?
mike
Mike,I appreciate your study and bringing up the word Yalad.
That wasn't one of the words I've studied in the past but it is an interesting word. I read the posts, thought and researched the English and we have a difference between the verbs begetting and bearing. Begetting is the fathering and bearing is the mothering act in the production of an offspring.Yalad is one verb, depending on who is doing the action. The verb is bringing forth; the male's part is siring and the female's part is the berthing….with the final action being the same; bringing forth an offspring.
Jesus was brought forth literally as an offspring twice.
Firstborn of all creation: Son of God
Born thru Mary: Son of ManAgain, thanks Mike for your insight, and research.
Mike,
I only researched 'yalad' because i had never heard of it.
As it turns out it was not any revelation because Scriptures shows the relationship you mention: Abraham is the FATHER of nations…did Abraham literally beget a 'Nation'? What a mother that must have been.
Of course, it meant, 'his children and his children's children, ad nauseum…'The Jews and the Samaritans both claim that they were 'Yalad'ed from Abraham…
Mike, It was clear to me from the start but I didn't know what 'yalad' was. I saw the discussion a long time ago and thought it was pointless to join in as the answer was clear and obvious.
But all the same, all truth is good knowledge and i now know what 'yalad' means should i ever have the mischance to come across it again. Thanks for bringing it to the discussion floor.In terms of Psalm 2, There was no nation nor any earth to offer to 'Jesus' before there was an Earth and Nations created.
Further, there was no 'Day' in which God could say 'This Day…'. Days and time are for human measure. An immortal, eternal Spirit being has no use for 'days' nor time.
What is the comparative against which 'time and 'days' would be measured in an immortal world?
This is why the word 'Everlasting' also needs careful understanding…God exists from 'all eternity'…there never was a time when he did not exist.
Jesus, 'was begotten from eternity'…begotten, came into being from a before there was a time measure. Clearly not 'was everlasting' because it says he 'came into being'.Similarly, Jesus, after being raised to Spirit in Heaven, is 'Everlasting'. This means, 'from the time that he was until no-ending', not that he was somehow 'Always Everlasting'.
Mike, not all of the above is pointed at you. It's just couched in that way. Pick out what you feel may be relevant.
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 02 2010,05:33) Mike, I appreciate your study and bringing up the word Yalad.
That wasn't one of the words I've studied in the past but it is an interesting word. I read the posts, thought and researched the English and we have a difference between the verbs begetting and bearing. Begetting is the fathering and bearing is the mothering act in the production of an offspring.Yalad is one verb, depending on who is doing the action. The verb is bringing forth; the male's part is siring and the female's part is the berthing….with the final action being the same; bringing forth an offspring.
Jesus was brought forth literally as an offspring twice.
Firstborn of all creation: Son of God
Born thru Mary: Son of ManAgain, thanks Mike for your insight, and research.
Thanks David,It feels good to be appreciated.
And I think there were three begettings, not two.
Firstborn of all creation: Son of God
Born thru Mary: Son of man
Firstborn from the dead: Son of God through resurrectionmike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2010,04:36) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 01 2010,20:34) I agree with JustAskin and others, you have to see the Spiritual side, sometimes things aren't clear in scripture, some things just have to be taken in Faith, assuming things gets too complex Mike, just have trust, Take care.
Hi Shimmer,That's a pretty vague statement. Oxy and barley and Gene think Jesus was begotten when he was born of Mary.
Nick thinks it was a figurative begetting when he was baptized at the Jordan.
And WJ, KJ and JA (the three J's) think it was a figurative begetting when he was raised from the dead.
And Kathi, Irene and I think that since he was the “firstborn of all creation” and the “only begotten Son of God” “before all the ages” that he was literally begotten by God before the creation of the world.
We know that God created everything through His only begotten Son, so which theory is more in line with scripture?
Anyway……..do tell. When do YOU think he was begotten?
mike
Mike, Ecclesiastes 12:12 “For the writing of many books there is no end, my son, much study is weariness to the flesh”Begotten Id rather not assume things when it's not crystal clear on it, I believe God takes up any who He loves, Scripture says the Lord was begotten from the dead from what I see, I dont know,
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,06:53) JA,
What do you think the Son was before He came into being?
Quick JA! Run for your life and sanity! Don't bite into this one brother.Kathi is now on a kick where Jesus DID always exist as a “seed” in God's loins or whatever. Therefore, she thinks, he IS Co-Eternal with God.
mike
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 02 2010,09:29) Mike, Ecclesiastes 12:12 “For the writing of many books there is no end, my son, much study is weariness to the flesh” Begotten Id rather not assume things when it's not crystal clear on it, I believe God takes up any who He loves, Scripture says the Lord was begotten from the dead from what I see, I dont know,
Hi Shimmer,Jesus also told Nicodemus that God had sent His only begotten Son into the world. He said this long before he died. It's in the most famous scripture of all time…….John 3:16.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 02 2010,05:57) In terms of Psalm 2, There was no nation nor any earth to offer to 'Jesus' before there was an Earth and Nations created. Further, there was no 'Day' in which God could say 'This Day…'. Days
Hi JA,First, answer to my “arrogant king and his newborn son” analogy. Tell me why this couldn't happen within the realms of logic……….
THEN
I will be happy to discuss the “Today” part with you.
mike
Mike I just looked, the word begotten is missing in my Bible, it's not there in John 3:16,
Have you ever read the book of Wisdom [part of cannon in many Bibles]
Lu,
Ha ha, what a question!
Is that what you really meant to ask?
Ok, first, what is God? God is Spirit.
What is Spirit? An invisible force.
God, as Spirit is invisible force with intelligence.
Not only intelligence but also Power, Energy, Force.
In fact, endless Power, Energy and Force.
Unbounded Power, Energy and Force.
Power, Energy and Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed.
Unbounded energy. How does Revelation describe God? Seated on a throne bathed in indescribable light.
Throne is 'seat of power'
Indescribable light is unbounded energy.
Force is the exercising of power with energy.So this is God. An all powerful Spirit with unbounded energy and irresistable force.
This intelligent, all powerful Spirit being devises a plan to create a 'visible' and 'physical' world, a wonderful creation. He devises a heirachial structure to his creation from Himself, through others of a Spirit nature down to the visible, physical world because his all powerfulness would be too overpowering.
God therefore takes if his intelligence and energy and creates other Spirit forces with limited bounded energy and power, limited but still immense Force.
These are Angels.
'Jesus' was one of these.
All creation with God's 'Spirit' are his children, therefore he calls them 'Sons'. They have energy and power, like their Father.
God conveys his great plan to them and apportions them tasks to perform according to their heirachial standing: They have varying levels of energy and power.
The highest ones are 'marshallers' making sure the others are doing exactly as God has requested. Some do better than others and so do the marshallers. 'Jesus' proves to be the most capable…the most righteous of them and is beloved the most by the Father.
And then it is all done. The great creation is 'complete' and the marshallers singa song together telling of the creation and praising the Father for his greatness. The other angels shout with joy, exultation for witnessing the coming together of such a great work.
So, LU, what was 'the son' before he came into being?
He was in the power and energy of God, as were all other things.
And so, this is why it is said, 'God is in all things, and all things are in God'.
(Understand the term 'all things' is contextual.)
Mike, mine says –
“Yes, God loved the world so much
that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who believes in him, may not be lost,”[JB or Jerusalem Bible popular edition]
Book of Wisdom [of Solomon] –
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3905445
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
