- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
JA,
When you say God is spirit
Spirit here is a body type, one without flesh and bones. imoLuke 24:39
39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
NASUQuote (shimmer @ Aug. 01 2010,18:12) 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
Hi Shimmer,
Here are several translations of John 3:16:John 3:16
NET ©
For this is the way 1 God loved the world: He gave his one and only 2 Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish 3 but have eternal life. 4NIV ©
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.NASB ©
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.NLT ©
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.MSG ©
“This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life.BBE ©
For God had such love for the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever has faith in him may not come to destruction but have eternal life.NRSV ©
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.NKJV ©
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.There is a big debate on here whether the wording should be 'only' or 'only begotten.' It could make ya crazy but I have decided that John meant it as begotten especially since John's disciple, Ignatius uses the term 'begotten son.'
Quote Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, [667] while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, [668] and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, [669] pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality. [670] Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, [671] while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, [672] was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end,” [673] says Daniel the prophet. Let us all therefore love one another in harmony, and let no one look upon his neighbour according to the flesh, but in Christ Jesus. Let nothing exist among you which may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, being through him subject to God in Christ.
from: http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor….sp?pg=6Quote These things , my beloved, not that I know any of you to be in such a state; [708] but, as less than any of you, I desire to guard you beforehand, that ye fall not upon the hooks of vain doctrine, but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works. [709] He who knows these things with a full assurance, and believes them, is happy; even as ye are now the lovers of God and of Christ, in the full assurance of our hope, from which may no one of us [710] ever be turned aside! Quote But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,537537 Or, “before the ages.” but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.”538538 John i. 14. Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts. from: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.vii.html
I wish Ignatius was on HN. He could straighten us all up and unify us
I find him in agreement with the scriptures and the understanding that God has given me before I even knew about Ignatius.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 01 2010,19:00) JA, When you say God is spirit
Spirit here is a body type, one without flesh and bones. imoLuke 24:39
39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
NASU
This helps further explain:
Ignatius speaks of a passible body and a impassible body.Quote Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts. Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 02 2010,10:12) 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
Hi Shimmer,The Greek word translated is “mono genes”. “Mono” is simple enough to understand. It means “only” or “sole”, etc. “Genes” comes from the Greek word “ginomai”, which means “generated” or “caused to exist”. So the Greek word used, “monogenes” literally means “only begotten”.
But that doesn't sit well with the trinitarian scholars who translate most of the Bibles known to man, because it implies that Jesus had a beginning. So they try to come up with new definitions for the word, such as simply “only” or “only one after it's own kind” (which, if you ask me, is just a sneaky way of saying only begotten), and “only one of it's kind”.
One translation even says “God, the One and only” which is wierd considering they're listing him as someone other than God in the first place.John 1:18 NIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.Now in this verse, the Greek actually says, “the only begotten god”, not “God the One and Only”. But this is just an example of how far they're willing to go to avoid any possibility that someone might read the Bible and see that Jesus was begotten by God.
Every time I read that one I think to myself, “Really guys? No one has seen God, but God, who is at God's side, has explained God?
“What will be next? Will they find a new alternate definition of “Son”, so they can say Jesus wasn't really God's Son, but instead, in the Greek it really meant “God's equal partner”?
Anyway, I know this is a lot to take in, but that is the reason behind the “yalad” discussion we've been having. Because while meaning of the Greek word for “begotten” varies and doesn't always refer to “child birth”, the Hebrew word “yalad” does not vary, and always means to “bring forth”. So if the word “yalad” is combined with “You are my Son”, there is no chance it is talking about anything but a literal child birth.
peace and love,
mikeps I'll check out the Wisdom book………thanks.
Which reminds me JA,
I got side tracked for a minute. Now that we both understand that “yalad” has to do with begetting, and not any of the alternate things that the Greek word “gennao” can imply (like when you “begot” me), why do you think God would use that word about His Son knowing full well how the Hebrews would understand it?
mike
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,19:00) JA, When you say God is spirit
Spirit here is a body type, one without flesh and bones. imoLuke 24:39
39 “See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
NASU
Hi LU,He also said that spirit doesn't eat.
Lightenup, Mike,
There are things we do not know,
We have Scripture, it fulfills what Jesus spoke, that this good news of the coming kingdom will be spread through all the world and then the end will come, everything we need to know is there, all else came later,
Ignatius – some are spurious, only those with Internet can read and the Early Church Fathers disputed on things, [yes, iv read them all]
Which day was this day, what is begotten,
There are two main thoughts it seems,
“The first school of thought suggests that the “day” of the begetting is using descriptive terminology from ancient Middle Eastern enthronement ceremonies. While the son of the King was always the King's Son, the coronation day, or day on which the son assumes the control of the royal throne from the father, is said to be the day in which the son is begotten of the father. In this sense it's symbolic of the enthronement”.
“The second view relates theologically to the day in which it was proven — or, perhaps, more accurately, demonstrated — by the resurrection from the dead that the son is shown to be begotten”.
“Neither of these views suggest that there was no eternal begetting, only that there came a day on which the begetting was vested in a specific event that was knowable to men”.[unquote]
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,06:53) JA,
What do you think the Son was before He came into being?
He existed in the form of God, or with divine nature.
So we just need to understand what the form of God is or what divine nature is IMO.New International Version (©1984)
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,New Living Translation (©2007)
Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to.English Standard Version (©2001)
who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,New American Standard Bible (©1995)
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,International Standard Version (©2008)
In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.King James Bible
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:He then emptied himself and came in the form of man.
So we know what the form of man is, what is the form of God?Spirit?
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 02 2010,05:37) Lightenup, Mike, There are things we do not know,
We have Scripture, it fulfills what Jesus spoke, that this good news of the coming kingdom will be spread through all the world and then the end will come, everything we need to know is there, all else came later,
Ignatius – some are spurious, only those with Internet can read and the Early Church Fathers disputed on things, [yes, iv read them all]
Which day was this day, what is begotten,
There are two main thoughts it seems,
“The first school of thought suggests that the “day” of the begetting is using descriptive terminology from ancient Middle Eastern enthronement ceremonies. While the son of the King was always the King's Son, the coronation day, or day on which the son assumes the control of the royal throne from the father, is said to be the day in which the son is begotten of the father. In this sense it's symbolic of the enthronement”.
“The second view relates theologically to the day in which it was proven — or, perhaps, more accurately, demonstrated — by the resurrection from the dead that the son is shown to be begotten”.
“Neither of these views suggest that there was no eternal begetting, only that there came a day on which the begetting was vested in a specific event that was knowable to men”.[unquote]
ShimmerExactly, yet they think that their opinion is unambiguous that “God” brought birth to a God” before time (which is an oxymoron BTW) and contradicts that the “Word” was there in the beginning of all things with the Father. If Jesus was born in any point of “time” then he couldn't have been there in the beginning before time for he would have become the beginning.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 01 2010,20:43) Which reminds me JA, I got side tracked for a minute. Now that we both understand that “yalad” has to do with begetting, and not any of the alternate things that the Greek word “gennao” can imply (like when you “begot” me), why do you think God would use that word about His Son knowing full well how the Hebrews would understand it?
mike
You see everybody Mike thinks he knows more than the writers of the NT in which Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews who had access to the LXX used the word “gennaō” which is the Greek word for “Yalad”, in ways that did not mean “literraly Born” which also is in line with the Hebrew scriptures which have examples of “Yalad” used in other ways besides being “litterally born”.So Mike claims that he knows more than the inspired writers of the NT who also used the term “Only Begotten (gennaō) Son in context of Jesus ressurection!
WJ
Just as a side not WJ, the Trinity Doctrine states that the son was begotten from eternity in some kind of eternal begotten state. I take it that you disagree with that part of your doctrine, in which case the RCC police and even many Protestant police would charge you with heresy. How to you plead?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 02 2010,13:40) Just as a side not WJ, the Trinity Doctrine states that the son was begotten from eternity in some kind of eternal begotten state. I take it that you disagree with that part of your doctrine, in which case the RCC police and even many Protestant police would charge you with heresy. How to you plead?
t8I can readily accept that the Father viewed Jesus as the Begotten Son of God from eternity. The question is did the Trinitarians believe that meant there was a point back in eternity that Jesus was “begotten” or “literrally born” as having a beginning.
Its obvious that the Forefathers didn't believe that.
“This day I have begotten you” means that Jesus was begotten when time already existed, yet we know that he was there in the beginning of all things with the Father.
As Shimmer has pointed out concerning the way a Hebrew viewed the begetting of a Kings Son…
Quote The first school of thought suggests that the “day” of the begetting is using descriptive terminology from ancient Middle Eastern enthronement ceremonies. While the son of the King was always the King's Son, the coronation day, or day on which the son assumes the control of the royal throne from the father, is said to be the day in which the son is begotten of the father. In this sense it's symbolic of the enthronement”. There are obvious scriptures that show Jesus was begotten after the resurrection and that there are cases in the scriptures where “begotten” or “firstborn” does not always mean offspring of a Father and Mother.
Based on these facts it is ambiguous to say that Jesus was “literrally born” as in “God brought birth to a god”.
WJ
WJ said:
Quote I can readily accept that the Father viewed Jesus as the Begotten Son of God from eternity. The question is did the Trinitarians believe that meant there was a point back in eternity that Jesus was “begotten” or “literrally born” as having a beginning. Isn't a better question what the original disciples of John thought John was saying? Ignatius used the term ''unbegotten God'' and ''begotten God.'' That should be sufficient to say that one self-existed and one did not self-exist but was made to exist by the self-existent one. I think the real controversy was about the substance of the Son…was He of the same substance or of foreign substance as God. Was He from substance that was self-existent or was He made from nothing (like earth, trees, the sun, etc.). The difference here is procreation vs. creation, imo. Both produce separate persons but one (procreation) produces a separate person of the same kind as God and the other (creation) produces a separate person that is a foreign kind to God.
WJ, do you admit that the 'second person of the trinity doctrine' was at one time, before the ages, not a separate person to the Father?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:20) Isn't a better question what the original disciples of John thought John was saying? Ignatius used the term ''unbegotten God'' and ''begotten God.'' That should be sufficient to say that one self-existed and one did not self-exist but was made to exist by the self-existent one.
But that is your opinion assuming that Ignatius believed that Jesus had a beginning or that the words begotten means “to be literraly born” from the Father.For John doesn't use the term “Monogenes” in John 1:1, but in fact it was used n relation to his coming in the flesh.
I believe that is why Ignatius refers to Jesus as “begotten”, and the Father unbegotten.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:20) WJ, do you admit that the 'second person of the trinity doctrine' was at one time, before the ages, not a separate person to the Father?
Of course not. He was always with the Father before the ages or time which means he was eternally with the Father as Calvin puts so well…“…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,02:10) You see everybody Mike thinks he knows more than the writers of the NT in which Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews who had access to the LXX used the word “gennaō” which is the Greek word for “Yalad”, in ways that did not mean “literraly Born” which also is in line with the Hebrew scriptures which have examples of “Yalad” used in other ways besides being “litterally born”.
Hi WJ,Why is this so hard for you to understand?
1. The Hebrew word “yalad” ONLY had to do with “bringing forth” decsendents.
2. The Greek words “gennao” and “ginomai” also had to do with bringing forth decsendents.
3. But the Greek words had other alternate meanings also, so they could be about birth, but didn't necessarily HAVE to be about birth.
4. The Hebrew word did not have any other alternate meanings like the Greek words.
5. It is the HEBREW word that Paul quotes from Psalm 2. How could it mean one of these alternate meanings the Greek words have, when the actual word he quoted did not have those meanings?
mike
“To which of the Angels did he ever say 'You are my Son,Today i have begotten you'!”
Jesus was a MAN when this was said to him, so yes, to “to No Angel did God ever say these words”
As Shimmer quoted and WJ concurred (as i concur) Jesus' begetting was a Spiritual and Symbolic begetting.
Every verse surrounding that verse speaks of Jesus at or after the resurrection. There is not one verse that speaks of Pre birth as Man.
The verse is directly analogous with the 'Figurative Begetting' of Isaac by Abraham:
– Isaac was the figurative human Sacrifice.
– Jesus was the real human sacrifice.– Adam – Ismael
– Adam – firstborn Son of God – (became a son-slave to sin)
– Ishmael firstborn of Abraham – (became sin being the son of a slave [girl])– Isaac was figuratively reborn to Abraham, his Father, as his ONLY SON, his only 'Begotten Son' (How many sons did Abraham have?)
– Jesus was physically reborn to God, his Father, as his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON (How many Sons does God have?)“When He again brings his Son into the world, he says 'Let all the Angels do obesiance to him'!”
When was the first time that God brought Jesus 'Into the World' – Was it not at his Birth as Man? (Tip: The WORLD – not 'existence')
When did God bring Jesus BACK into the World? Was it not at his resurrection?
When did the Angels do obesiance to Him before he came to earth as Man? Why would it be after he was raised in glory and established as king – would it not be when he became SUPERIOR to his brethren angels?
If he was already Superior to them before he came to Earth as man why would God instruct the Angels to worship him – surely they would have already known to do this.
God certainly LOVED 'Jesus' more than the OTHERS before he came to earth, that's why he was chosen, because he was MORE RIGHTEOUS than the others. And now he has his Reward for his Righteousness and for conquering Sin And Death.
One part of that reward is to be “Begotten Son of God”, as Mankind who “overcome the flesh and subsists in God” will also become “Begotten Sons of God”.
Jesus is Man, Begotten in the Spirit to God.
Man, who overcomes, will also be begotten in the Spirit to God, Brethren to Christ, heirs of god.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:47) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:20) Isn't a better question what the original disciples of John thought John was saying? Ignatius used the term ''unbegotten God'' and ''begotten God.'' That should be sufficient to say that one self-existed and one did not self-exist but was made to exist by the self-existent one.
But that is your opinion assuming that Ignatius believed that Jesus had a beginning or that the words begotten means “to be literraly born” from the Father.For John doesn't use the term “Monogenes” in John 1:1, but in fact it was used n relation to his coming in the flesh.
I believe that is why Ignatius refers to Jesus as “begotten”, and the Father unbegotten.
WJ
Then why does Ignatius claim that He was begotten “before the ages?”Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 02 2010,15:50) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2010,15:20) WJ, do you admit that the 'second person of the trinity doctrine' was at one time, before the ages, not a separate person to the Father?
Of course not. He was always with the Father before the ages or time which means he was eternally with the Father as Calvin puts so well…“…WHEN IT IS EVIDENT THAT THREE PERSONS HAVE SUBSISTED IN ONE GOD FROM ETERNITY…“
WJ
Well, the early Christians knew better. They knew that the Son was in the Father, then when begotten, came forth from the Father. It is SOOOOO obvious!Hi Shimmer, JA, WJ and All,
Psalm 2:7 NASB
“I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.
Shimmer asked:
Quote Which day was this day, what is begotten, You are right in your thought that it all boils down to these two things, along with the “You are my Son” part.
Your first question, “Which day was this day?” The Hebrew word is “yowm”, which can mean:
1) day, time, year
A) day (as opposed to night)
B) day (24 hour period)
1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
C) days, lifetime (pl.)
D) time, period (general)
E) year
F) temporal references
1) today
2) yesterday
3) tomorrowNotice letter “D” above. This Psalm should probably read, “At this time I have begotten you”, not “Today” or “This day”. Why?
We know this decree was NOT made AFTER God created the “day” and “night” we are familiar with, because according to Paul, everything came into existence FROM God the Father, THROUGH the Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 8:6) I assume that would include “day” and “night”, at least as we understand them, right? So by this, we know that Jesus had to have been “caused to exist” by at least that time. But even as an unknown time period, would it really mean anything if God explained it to us as “Today” or “This day”, since He knew we would understand that language?
But IMO, the more important question is: How was Jesus “caused to exist”? Psalm 2:7 says he was “begotten”. But how do we know this was meant as a literal “begetting”?
The Hebrew word God chose to use was “yalad”. Yalad means:
1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
A) (Qal)
1) to bear, bring forth
a) of child birth
b) of distress (simile)
c) of wicked (behaviour)
2) to beget
B) (Niphal) to be born
C) (Piel)
1) to cause or help to bring forth
2) to assist or tend as a midwife
3) midwife (participle)
D) (Pual) to be born
E) (Hiphil)
1) to beget (a child)
2) to bear (fig. – of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
F) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
G) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)
You'll notice the Hebrew used many “forms” of the same word to mean different things. The form of yalad used in Psalm 2:7 is the Qal form. So that narrows it down to meaning only one of 3 things. Which one of the following 3 do you think Jesus was saying his Father did to him? Did He:1. Beget, bear or bring forth a child?
2. Beget, bear or bring forth distress?
3. Beget, bear or bring forth wickedness?I hope you'll agree, that since the first part of the Psalm says, “You are my Son”, #1 is the obvious choice.
That's really all there is to it, you guys. These trinitarians and people who think Jesus didn't pre-exist his flesh will have you going on wild goose chases about “How could there be a 'today' back then?” and “The Greek word for begotten has other meanings than begotten”.
But right here in this post is all you need to know. Jesus was literally begotten and became God's Son during a “time period” unknown to mankind, for as Jude says, it was “before all the ages”.
If you still have doubts, see this site:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang….&page=1If you scroll down and look to the left, you'll see every instance of the word “yalad” being used in the Bible. There are 499 occurrences of this word. Start reading the listed scriptures and see how many times you can find “yalad” used in reference to anything but child birth. There are a couple, but see if you can fit those meanings into what God decreed to Jesus in Psalm 2:7. And while you're seeing if any of the other uses will fit in Psalm 2:7, don't forget that the first part of the Psalm says “You are my Son“, so any meaning you find must connect to that, right?
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
