Born and begotten

[Lightenup]

Good post Mike. The question that begs to be answered by you is whether or not the Son has the same nature as His Father, a nature that is not foreign to the Father, but the same nature…a nature that always existed and not a new and different nature, like the angels and mankind had.

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,13:18)

Good post Mike.  The question that begs to be answered by you is whether or not the Son has the same nature as His Father, a nature that is not foreign to the Father, but the same nature…a nature that always existed and not a new and different nature, like the angels and mankind had. Kathi

Well, let's see.

the same nature as His Father……..yes

a nature that is not foreign to the Father, but the same nature………redundant, so yes

a nature that always existed………God's nature always existed, but Jesus didn't share in that nature until he was begotten

and not a new and different nature, like the angels and mankind had………..Jesus is LIKE God, not the exact same as God

Thanks for the pat on the back about my post.    It took three hours, believe it or not.

mike

[Lightenup]

Good answers Mike,
Now let's look at this comment and let's get a little into that:

Quote

Jesus is LIKE God, not the exact same as God

Is He like God like one nickel is like another nickel but they are not the same nickel?
or
Is He like God with a perfect nature also but is not the God He is like?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,05:59)

Based on these facts it is ambiguous to say that Jesus was “literrally born” as in “God brought birth to a god”.

So you agree at least these facts COULD mean Jesus was literally born?

Excellent.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,13:59)

1. Is He like God like one nickel is like another nickel but they are not the same nickel? or 2. Is He like God with a perfect nature also but is not the God He is like?

I vote for candidate #2 with a “but”. He is definitely not the God he is like, which is his Father and his God. But……..does scripture ever say Jesus was “perfect”?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,07:47)

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

So you think Ignatius meant that since Jesus was the person in the godhead who became flesh, he was the “begotten” one?  

By that assertion, you actually confirm that the meaning of “begotten” Kathi and I get from Ignatius is the same as the one you get.  You are just trying real hard to make it not be about Jesus' literal birth “before the worlds”.

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, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.

So what does the underlined part mean, then?

mike

[davidbfun]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,15:20)

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?

LU,

That's an excellent point. Adam was created, Jesus was pro-created….only begotten….

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Good question.

There are verses about the Son being made perfect but I don't think that talks about His nature but more of a sufficiency. This verse claims that He is the exact representation of His nature (God's).
Heb 1:3
3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
NASU
Would perfect nature beget imperfect nature?

[Lightenup]

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 02 2010,22:29)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,15:20) 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? LU, That's an excellent point.  Adam was created, Jesus was pro-created….only begotten….

Thanks Professor

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,14:40)

Mike, Good question.   There are verses about the Son being made perfect but I don't think that talks about His nature but more of a sufficiency.  This verse claims that He is the exact representation of His nature (God's). Heb 1:3 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. NASU Would perfect nature beget imperfect nature?

My thought is that since Jesus could have sinned, but didn't, he wasn't exactly “perfect”. Satan's temptation would have meant nothing if he couldn't have possibly strayed. He has the ability, even now I assume, to follow his God's will, or not.

What do you think?

mike

[davidbfun]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 03 2010,21:05)

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) tomorrow Notice 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=1 If 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

Hi MIke,

Well said.

Eternal and eternity deals with “time” which God doesn't have.  God doesn't have a lot of time, he is beyond the limits of time.  God EXISTS!

However, Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God Rev 3:14.  Col 1:15 Jesus is the firstborn (thus he was brought forth Yalad) of all creation.  Hence “this day” is the very first day of existence or TODAY I have brought you forth. Showing that Jesus is THE BEGINNING. He is before all things. 

Then from that point onward time exists.  

Thru the son, God created everything.  And this is showing that Jesus pre-existed as “The Son of God” prior to vacating that body's existence to be born thru Mary as “The Son of Man”.

IN the son exists Eternal Life.

[mikeboll64]

Oh, and I forgot to mention……on the contrary, God cannot possibly sin, right?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Thanks David,

I strongly believe that God alone is “THE Beginning”, while everything else in existence HAD a beginning. I strongly believe it, because that's what scripture says.

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 02 2010,22:49)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,14:40) Mike, Good question.   There are verses about the Son being made perfect but I don't think that talks about His nature but more of a sufficiency.  This verse claims that He is the exact representation of His nature (God's). Heb 1:3 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. NASU Would perfect nature beget imperfect nature? My thought is that since Jesus could have sinned, but didn't, he wasn't exactly “perfect”.  Satan's temptation would have meant nothing if he couldn't have possibly strayed.  He has the ability, even now I assume, to follow his God's will, or not. What do you think? mike

Mike,
This is a deep thinker. I say no, the Son could not sin because His nature was perfect, but the Son, nor the angels, nor man could know that (by experience that or witnessing that) until He was tested. He was full of grace and truth. Sin is a lie. He wasn't almost full of grace and truth.

That doesn't mean that, in the flesh, He couldn't be tempted. He actually did feel hungry, tired, weak and the thought of turning stones into bread after fasting for 40 days was appealing, I'm sure and so was bypassing the crucifixion to become king, but He held steadfast because His will was perfect and His nature was perfect.

2 Cor 5:21
21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
NASU

[mikeboll64]

I agree this is a deep thinker. He wasn't a robot. He did have his own free will. So I guess there was/is always the possibility he would go against God's will. If he absolutely COULDN'T, then I'm sure Satan would have know that. And then what would be Satan's point of testing him?

good night ma'am

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
He didn't follow God's will because He was a robot, but because He was perfect and knew from whom He came.

G'nite ya'll,
That is the southern 'plural' goodnight but can mean goodnight to just one person…smile…two or more are one and one is one or more…figure that out

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 03 2010,00:02)

I agree this is a deep thinker.  He wasn't a robot.  He did have his own free will.  So I guess there was/is always the possibility he would go against God's will.  If he absolutely COULDN'T, then I'm sure Satan would have know that.  And then what would be Satan's point of testing him? good night ma'am mike

Mike,
I'm not so sure that Satan would have known that.

[shimmer]

Mike, thank you for your post [a few pages back],

I hope that in your quest to find the truth of words and meanings of words, I hope you don't become too confused.

I'm only learning myself, basics first for me, God bless you though.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 04 2010,11:03)

Mike, thank you for your post [a few pages back], I hope that in your quest to find the truth of words and meanings of words, I hope you don't become too confused. I'm only learning myself, basics first for me, God bless you though.

Hi Shimmer,

You are welcome.  I was at a little family get-together this past weekend.  My brother is concerned about me spending time on HN.  (Of course he is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and therefore believes the only truth needed can be found at Kingdom Hall meetings.    )  He was trying to tell me what you seem to be:  What we actually NEED to know about God and Jesus is very simple.

So I'll explain it to you the way I did to him.  Some people like to read book after book.  Some people enjoy doing hours of yard work and gardening.  For others, it is knowing everything there is about a particular pro sport.  Some research the Civil War for years……and still want to know more.

Like you, I am just learning myself.  I've been a drug addict since I was 14 (I'm 45).  I read the Bible for the first time 2 years ago.  But it (meaning taking in knowledge of the only true God and His Son) immediately became my passion.  I can't get enough of it.  I seriously want to know the meaning of every Hebrew and Greek word eventually.  I want to understand God's Living Word as completely as I can.  This IS my passion, and I hope I never lose it.  I completely understand that what God requires of us is very little and very simple, but I thirst to know more.  I don't know if you can understand that or not.

Anyway, my post was to enlighten you with the correct information.  It was never meant to suggest you change your beliefs because I believe this way.  But I did mean it as a warning to you about “siding” with others because their points “sound valid”.

Consider this:  

KJ and WJ don't want Psalm 2:7 to really mean “begotten” because that would shoot down their trinity doctrine if Jesus had a beginning.  And they will twist scriptures and tell half-truths and do anything else they can to make new students like us be swayed to their way of thinking.

And the only reason JA is ignoring what is clearly stated for all to see is because he thinks that Satan was God's REAL firstborn Son, but then messed up, so God “appointed” Jesus as the “replacement firstborn Son”.  So for that selfish reason, an otherwise pretty sharp dude that I consider my brother is willing to alter the meaning of what Psalm 2:7 plainly says.  He's even come up with a couple twisted supporting scriptures.  He has apparently forgotten that Satan is one of the “everything” that came into existence through Jesus.

But that is nothing compared to the trinitarians.  Over the last 2000 years, they have invented new definitions for Biblical words, and “developed” scriptures that can be twisted to support the other scripture they twisted to support the other scripture they twisted to support the scripture they twisted to say Jesus is God Almighty.    

We'll have to give JA a few years and see what he comes up with.  In the meantime, I'll continue to pray for him.

peace and love to you Shimmer,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2010,16:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 03 2010,00:02) I agree this is a deep thinker.  He wasn't a robot.  He did have his own free will.  So I guess there was/is always the possibility he would go against God's will.  If he absolutely COULDN'T, then I'm sure Satan would have know that.  And then what would be Satan's point of testing him? good night ma'am mike Mike, I'm not so sure that Satan would have known that.

Why would Satan not know that about God's master craftsman who helped to create him?

This calls for conjecture, but if Jesus COULDN'T sin because of his “perfect nature”, then what is the big deal that he DIDN'T sin?

mike

[Author]

Posts