Born and begotten

[JustAskin]

Mike,

I only study and 'preach' from the Scriptures.

And this is what I'm trying to encourage you to do.

You cannot question Eusebius or any 'early Church' writer. And you have already been down the road of learning how some backtracked on their own beliefs when put under pressure.

I have not changed on anything of base values, refinement, yes, base values, no.

All the same, have it your own way. As I said, it was your own 'surety' in what someone else said even as you admit you had 'never read it before'. Even now you are desperately trying to find fault with JA to cover your 'very apparent error'!
In doing so, you expose why others get irritated with you – you cannot stand to be found to be in error and will thrash and thrash to try to get out. Unfortunately, JA is not fooled by any such nonesense. You are muddying the 'clear waters' with your multiple other translations which are clearly 'allegorical'…you have been with KJ so long you are adopting his tactics. Sad!

As the old adage goes, 'when you lay down with [mangy] dogs, you get up with [mangy] fleas!', and this I also warn you about. But you say, 'I like debating'…
Mike, think about what you are saying. You can only ever cause contention by this kind of thinking…you will cause a 'debate' just to have a debate because to agree with someone means the debate is over…and you like to debate…
God made six days to 'debate' in and he said to rest in the seventh. Mike, you will debate even on the seventh, debating with God as to 'why not?'
This is why none of your debates with anyone in this forum has ever ended. The opponent simply gives up in sheer frustration and anger, if not just walk away saying, 'Mikeboll, have it your own way, i'm outa here before I go mad!'

Shimmer is better than JA, because she has humbled herself and apologised.

Guess what, Mike? That is called 'Sacrifice'.
Shimmer, your begotten sister through JustAskin, has taken on your 'sin' and 'died' for you (let him that has wisdom understand this!)

[Proclaimer]

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

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

I don't think that anyone can rightly deny that the Father is the source of all, his own spirit and the Word and son.

Whatever way we look at this, the Father is the true God and Jesus is his image and first-born.

Trying to meld them together into a God substance and teaching that the oneness of God is in the substance is not what the scriptures are teaching us.

e.g., when we are taught that there is one God, it is not saying that there is one substance. And adding in multiple members into that substance is a further breach.

When we read that there is one God, we shouldn't turn our attention to a substance. Scriptures conveys to us that we can know God. It is not about knowing the substance. We address God as an identity or person. Not as 3 persons or one substance.

So it is that we are told that there is one God the Father. Therefore the son in whatever form (divine) is from him.

God is the Father and the Father is the source of all Spirit. He is the Father of spirits.

It doesn't take a genius to see that the son or Word came from him.

[Lightenup]

t8,
When you say substance, do you mean 'nature' like your children are made of the same stuff you are made of…they have a human nature? I think that 'nature' is easier for me to understand than 'substance.' Like nature begets like nature. Most of what I am reading in the early church father's writings is that they believed the Father and Son both possessed the same nature and that nature was a nature that always existed, it wasn't a new and foreign nature for the Son in other words. Man's nature and trees' nature were new and foreign.

[Proclaimer]

I agree Lightenup. But Trinitarians use the word substance and essence, so sometimes I use these words so they can relate.
But yes, nature is what I mean.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 09 2010,14:36)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 09 2010,06:31) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 09 2010,07:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 08 2010,05:56) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 08 2010,11:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 08 2010,04:55) Well Duh!  Everyone knows that one.  I think, therefore I am. Is that right O wise one? mike oh i dont know you could be a woman for all i know, and super old. Hi Dennison, Are these “fluff” posts your way of saying you have no support for your opinion that Ez was lamenting about Satan? mike No im just trying to be more like you, and say whatever i want, and think thats proof enough to refute everything. Hi Dennison, While I appreciate you trying to be more like me, could you show me where I didn't back up something I claimed with scripture? I believe that was a very misleading thing to say about me…….and I believe you know it. Btw, is there a scripture you know of to support your assertion that Ez was “fractal” about Satan?   mike Can you prove that you have? You have not

Hi Dennison,

You have been acting like a child lately. What gives? And what's with this flippant remark? Either show where I ever tried to claim anything without supporting scriptures, or be a Christian and apologize for insinuating that I do.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

JA,

Your arrogance and misrepresentation of the truth is really starting to irritate me.

You said:

Quote

You cannot question Eusebius or any 'early Church' writer. And you have already been down the road of learning how some backtracked on their own beliefs when put under pressure.

You know why I used Eusebius.  It wasn't to tell people to believe the way he did.  It was to show the 3 J's that the word “monogenes” most definitely DID refer to Jesus' beginning.  And that's why you railed against him.  It was proof in black and white that your view was flawed.  If we wanted to know what a 1st century Chinese word meant, could we not look at some 1st century Chinese writings to see how that word was used back then?  That's what I did, and because you don't like the results, you fault the messenger.  Too bad, so sad.

Did you even bother to check out the uses of “monogenes” in the scriptures before you sided with WJ and KJ?  It's in the scriptures 9 times and here they are:

Luke 7:12 (New International Version)
12As he approached the town gate, a dead person was being carried out—the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And a large crowd from the town was with her.

Luke 8:42 (New International Version)
42because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.

Luke 9:38 (New International Version)
38A man in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.

John 1:14 (New International Version)
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the only begotten who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:18 (New International Version)
18No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten god who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

John 3:16 (New International Version)
16″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.

John 3:18 (New International Version)
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son.

Hebrews 11:17 (New International Version)
17By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,

1 John 4:9 (New International Version)
9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him.

Okay Mr. I Only Use Scripture, show me scripturally how any of the people mentioned in these scriptures as being “mongenes” were NOT ACTUALLY BEGOTTEN.  Where is your SCRIPTURAL evidence that “monogenes” didn't refer to being caused to exist?

Of the 4 times monogenes doesn't refer to Jesus, can you see that it does actually refer to a begotten child?  The one about Isaac is weird because we know Issac wasn't Abraham's ONLY child.  But he WAS Abraham's BEGOTTEN child.  And do you remember that the word “monogenes” itself actually MEANS ONLY BEGOTTEN?  

I don't even know why I waste my time with you.  I already know that you can't scripturally prove that any of these scriptures don't refer to an actual begetting.  And there is no scripture that tells us that “monogenes” didn't refer to a literal begetting.  So how will you ever “preach” from scripture against “monogenes” when there is nothing in scripture to dispute its meaning?

You won't.  You will ignore all of this, and instead of actually answering my scriptually based questions, you'll post a testimonial of how you believe, slam me a few more times, and bail.   Just like you've done before on this topic, and just like you did after I painstakingly researched and posted the “yalad” post for Shimmer.  Not a single bite from you, KJ or WJ on that one either.  

Which brings us to why I irritate my debate opponents.  I ask hard questions that they/you can't answer.  And when they/you don't answer, I ask it again and again and again.  People apparently don't like scriptures and logic they can't refute thrown in their faces over and over.  At first, they think I will give up and move on, so they try diversion tactics like SF is trying right now in our debate.  But when they see I refuse to let it go, they start crying and complaining about me……..like I'm the one who wrote the scripture that blows their view away.   So I'll take your comment as a compliment…….Thanks!  

You said:

Quote

All the same, have it your own way. As I said, it was your own 'surety' in what someone else said even as you admit you had 'never read it before'. Even now you are desperately trying to find fault with JA to cover your 'very apparent error'! In doing so, you expose why others get irritated with you – you cannot stand to be found to be in error and will thrash and thrash to try to get out. Unfortunately, JA is not fooled by any such nonesense. You are muddying the 'clear waters' with your multiple other translations which are clearly 'allegorical'…you have been with KJ so long you are adopting his tactics. Sad!

You said there was scripture that said Satan was created perfect.  You were wrong, there is no such scripture that says that.  And like I've already explained three times, I never even took a stand on the Ez passage.  I have told you and told you that when I get time, I'll look into it.  There was no “surety” that took place, therefore there was no need for any “thrashing” or “covering of my apparent error”.  As I recall, I said this to you right off the bat,

Quote

Hi JA, To be honest, I haven't even looked into it until I asked you about the “perfect Satan” verse.  When I get time, I'll read through it and see if I agree with your interpretation, or the scholars at NETBible.

And when confronted by SF, I said:

Quote

Hi Dennison, I'm not even sure what this post means.  Have you got any proof that anything I've quoted from NETBible is incorrect information? Their interpretation might not be yours, or even mine, but after all, they are INTERPRETATIONS.  None of us were actually there, were we? And I would love for you or JA to show me the scriptural proof that this lament is about Satan.  Like I said, I have never even looked into it before today, so if you have something besides your opinion to say it's about Satan, hit me with it.

Is that what you mean by “surety”?  Is it for this I should “thrash and thrash”?    All I did was ask for scriptural support to your OPINION, and apparently there isn't any, so I get this nasty post instead.
 
And then YOU say I'M adapting KJ's tactics?    Speaking of KJ, remember the time you were shamelessly bragging about your debate with WJ, and KJ told you that I was “100 times more competent” than you were?  It is about that very time that you went from being my friend to insulting, ridiculing and lying about me.  Did that have something to do with the attitude change?  Because if it did, you know it wasn't me that said it, right?

And sorry Shimmer, but I'm on a roll now and can't stop.  JA, she is the one who pm'd me asking why we weren't friends anymore.  I pointed her to the first few pages of this very thread.  She pm'd back after reading the condescending, arrogant, aggressive posts you wrote to me and said, “Oh, I didn't realize.  I'm sorry.”  That was what the “Are you paying attention, Shimmer?” was all about.  Because this time, she got to see first hand and in real time what an arrogant jerk you can be.

So let's at least get this much straight:  You are not my God, my father, my preacher, or my spiritual guide.  I never asked you to be any of those things because I didn't want you to be any of those things.  And I've said this nicely, then I said it using a funny analogy about my ex-girlfriend, and now I will say it bluntly:  I will post however and to whomever I wish.  It is my business, not yours.  So unless I'm directly discussing something with you, or you have something to add that is RELATED TO THE TOPIC…..BUTT OUT.  I don't need you butting in a discussion I'm having with Gene telling me how or whether I should converse with him.  It's not your business, so stay out of it.

Secondly, I am getting very frustrated with people on this site lying about each other.  In one week, I've had you, Martian and SF all make untrue statements about me or something I posted.  It's getting very old, man.  All of you should be held accountable for what you say and made to show proof of what you allege.  I mean, compare the quotes of what I really said about the “perfect Satan” to what you claimed happened.  Do they match?  Come on, man!  Aren't you better than that?

And speaking of “better than that”, I agree with the seemingly only true statement you made in your entire post:  Shimmer IS better than you.

mike

[Proclaimer]

This is a general post from a moderator.

It would be nice if people just stuck to scripture and let others decide for themselves what people are like. We are quite able to judge what people are like without having to be told.

If a person cannot read an abusive post and know that there is something wrong with the person who wrote it, then explaining it to them is vain as they already lack understanding. You are better to preach what you know, and report the abusive post.

I mean, does it really help anyone's case when they say, “I believe this and scripture says that, and you are a jerk”?

[mikeboll64]

Fair enough t8.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2010,05:41)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 09 2010,14:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 09 2010,06:31) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 09 2010,07:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 08 2010,05:56) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 08 2010,11:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 08 2010,04:55) Well Duh!  Everyone knows that one.  I think, therefore I am. Is that right O wise one? mike oh i dont know you could be a woman for all i know, and super old. Hi Dennison, Are these “fluff” posts your way of saying you have no support for your opinion that Ez was lamenting about Satan? mike No im just trying to be more like you, and say whatever i want, and think thats proof enough to refute everything. Hi Dennison, While I appreciate you trying to be more like me, could you show me where I didn't back up something I claimed with scripture? I believe that was a very misleading thing to say about me…….and I believe you know it. Btw, is there a scripture you know of to support your assertion that Ez was “fractal” about Satan?   mike Can you prove that you have? You have not Hi Dennison, You have been acting like a child lately.  What gives?  And what's with this flippant remark?  Either show where I ever tried to claim anything without supporting scriptures, or be a Christian and apologize for insinuating that I do. peace and love, mike

My way of seeing how you react to such posts.
=)

[KangarooJack]

Calvin on “today I have begotten you” in Psalm 2:7:

Quote

On this account, we ought the more carefully to beware of wickedly refusing the edict which he publishes, Thou art my Son. David, indeed could with propriety be called the son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels. This the apostle (Heb 1:5) wisely and diligently considers when he tells us this language was never used with respect to any of the angels. David, individually considered, was inferior to the angels, but in so far as he represented the person of Christ, he is with very good reason preferred far above them. By the Son of God in this place we are therefore not to understand one son among many, but his only begotten Son, that he alone should have the pre-eminence both in heaven and on earth. When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Ac 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken. This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world. Finally, this begetting ought not to be understood of the mutual love which exists between the Father and the Son; it only signifies that He who had been hidden from the beginning in the sacred bosom of the Father, and who afterwards had been obscurely shadowed forth under the law, was known to be the Son of God from the time when he came forth with authentic and evident marks of Sonship, according to what is said in Joh 1:14, “we have seen his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Ro 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and therefore what is here said has a principal allusion to the day of his resurrection. But to whatever particular time the allusion may be, the Holy Spirit here points out the solemn and proper time of his manifestation, just as he does afterwards in these words

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08007.htm

TO ALL:

Please note that Calvin agrees with Keith that the Psalm applies to David first and then Christ.

the Roo

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:02)

Calvin on “today I have begotten you” in Psalm 2:7: Quote On this account, we ought the more carefully to beware of wickedly refusing the edict which he publishes, Thou art my Son. David, indeed could with propriety be called the son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels. This the apostle (Heb 1:5) wisely and diligently considers when he tells us this language was never used with respect to any of the angels. David, individually considered, was inferior to the angels, but in so far as he represented the person of Christ, he is with very good reason preferred far above them. By the Son of God in this place we are therefore not to understand one son among many, but his only begotten Son, that he alone should have the pre-eminence both in heaven and on earth. When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Ac 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken. This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world. Finally, this begetting ought not to be understood of the mutual love which exists between the Father and the Son; it only signifies that He who had been hidden from the beginning in the sacred bosom of the Father, and who afterwards had been obscurely shadowed forth under the law, was known to be the Son of God from the time when he came forth with authentic and evident marks of Sonship, according to what is said in Joh 1:14, “we have seen his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Ro 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and therefore what is here said has a principal allusion to the day of his resurrection. But to whatever particular time the allusion may be, the Holy Spirit here points out the solemn and proper time of his manifestation, just as he does afterwards in these words http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08007.htm TO ALL: Please note that Calvin agrees with Keith that the Psalm applies to David first and then Christ. the Roo

Jack

True.

But Kathi will say that Calvin is not a Trinitarian.

WJ

[GeneBalthrop]

WJ………..You are right Calvinist are indeed Trinitarians and Preexistence both they are they Daughters of the Catholic Church.

Peace and love……………………….gene

[KangarooJack]

TO ALL:

Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual act of God:

Quote

In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example He begetteth not, nor is he begotten. And there is none like unto Him. Sura 112:3-4 Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting: My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but … … and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally! Where does the Bible even say so? I have not found one passage where God is connected with a sexual act. It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself. There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God. There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible. There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language. The verses that do speak about “begotten” are: Acts 13:33 Hebrews 1:5 Hebrews 5:5 In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament. What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter: 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.' 34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.' 35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.' … In Hebrews 1: 1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” Hebrews 5: 1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. 4 And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”; 6 as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek.” 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. All of these passages speak about the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. It refers to his taking office as king and priest. This took place about 33 years after the birth of Jesus. Clearly, in Biblical usage, the term “begotten” when used for Jesus in those passages is not at all connected with anything sexual but has a metaphorical meaning. The expression “the begotten son” of God is never mentioned in respect to his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit or his birth by the Virgin Mary. It might well be that the Muslim understanding is correct in regard to the Qur'an, but it is better to carefully read the Bible or ask knowledgable Christians before just assuming that the Bible does speak about the same thing that is condemned in the Qur'an. There is no duty on the part of the Christian to actually believe in the false notions that the Qur'an has about the Christians. The problem in not in the Bible, it is in the Qur'an whose author has not understood the clear meaning of the Biblical language…. Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception. And this meaning caries over into the New Testament use for Jesus just as well, that the resurrection is the public announcement by God about the true identity and authority of Jesus, Messiah, true king of Israel, representative of God among mankind.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/ps2-7.html

A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!”

The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this.

the Roo

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 11 2010,02:30)

WJ………..You are right Calvinist are indeed Trinitarians and Preexistence both they are they Daughters of the Catholic Church. Peace and love……………………….gene

Gene,

I appreciate your honesty regarding the historical facts. Kathi has sold her soul.

KJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ Aug. 09 2010,19:17)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 03 2010,07:47) 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 I don't think that anyone can rightly deny that the Father is the source of all, his own spirit and the Word and son. Whatever way we look at this, the Father is the true God and Jesus is his image and first-born. Trying to meld them together into a God substance and teaching that the oneness of God is in the substance is not what the scriptures are teaching us. e.g., when we are taught that there is one God, it is not saying that there is one substance. And adding in multiple members into that substance is a further breach. When we read that there is one God, we shouldn't turn our attention to a substance. Scriptures conveys to us that we can know God. It is not about knowing the substance. We address God as an identity or person. Not as 3 persons or one substance. So it is that we are told that there is one God the Father. Therefore the son in whatever form (divine) is from him. God is the Father and the Father is the source of all Spirit. He is the Father of spirits. It doesn't take a genius to see that the son or Word came from him.

t8

You once said…”The Father is 'who' God is and the “Spirit” is 'what' God is”.

So instead of using the word “Substance” since that seems to bother you, though it is a “Scriptural” term, lets use the word “Spirit”.

There is “One Spirit”, and my Bible tells me that “the Lord is that Spirit” and that the Spirit is called the “Spirit of the Lord”, the “Spirit of God”, the “Spirit of Jesus”, the “Spirit of Christ”, the “Holy Spirit”,, the “Spirit of Truth”, the “Comforter”, the “Spirit of the Son, and on and on which all speak of that “One Selfsame Spirit” which we have been made to drink of and which joins the Body of Jesus Christ, the Temple of God as an Holy Habitation of God through his Spirit.

So please tell us in what sense is the “Spirit of Jesus” less than the “Spirit of God”?

Please tells us how the Word that was with God and was God or as you say “the word was divine”, is less divine or in nature than the Father?

Then please tell us how that you are less “man” (human) than your Father in nature.

Jesus is the Monogenes (single, of its kind only) Son of God who is the same Spirit as the Father.

The Father is in the “form” of God also, which means he is in a metaphysical class of his own, and the Son shares that same class of being for they are one.

Simple to understand.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 10 2010,10:30)

WJ………..You are right Calvinist are indeed Trinitarians and Preexistence both they are they Daughters of the Catholic Church. Peace and love……………………….gene

GB

So are you saying that t8, kathi, Mike, JA, WJ, KJ, SF, Irene, are all heretics?

[Lightenup]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36)

TO ALL: Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God: Quote In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example He begetteth not, nor is he begotten. And there is none like unto Him. Sura 112:3-4 Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting: My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but … … and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally! Where does the Bible even say so? I have not found one passage where God is connected with a sexual act. It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself. There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God. There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible. There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language. The verses that do speak about “begotten” are: Acts 13:33 Hebrews 1:5 Hebrews 5:5 In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament. What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter: 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.' 34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.' 35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.' … In Hebrews 1: 1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” Hebrews 5: 1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. 4 And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”; 6 as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek.” 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. All of these passages speak about the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. It refers to his taking office as king and priest. This took place about 33 years after the birth of Jesus. Clearly, in Biblical usage, the term “begotten” when used for Jesus in those passages is not at all connected with anything sexual but has a metaphorical meaning. The expression “the begotten son” of God is never mentioned in respect to his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit or his birth by the Virgin Mary. It might well be that the Muslim understanding is correct in regard to the Qur'an, but it is better to carefully read the Bible or ask knowledgable Christians before just assuming that the Bible does speak about the same thing that is condemned in the Qur'an. There is no duty on the part of the Christian to actually believe in the false notions that the Qur'an has about the Christians. The problem in not in the Bible, it is in the Qur'an whose author has not understood the clear meaning of the Biblical language…. Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception. And this meaning caries over into the New Testament use for Jesus just as well, that the resurrection is the public announcement by God about the true identity and authority of Jesus, Messiah, true king of Israel, representative of God among mankind. http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/ps2-7.html A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!” The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this. the Roo

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Mike and I do not say that the Son was begotten by a sexual act. You know this. You need to apologize for this because you have been told over and over that I do not teach that. If there is no apology, you will be reported! I am not putting up with your shenanigans anymore.

[Lightenup]

Tertullian on “Today I have begotten thee:”

Quote

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb,78237823    Ornatum. His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.”78247824    Gen. i. 3. This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed78257825    Conditus. [See Theophilus To Autolycus, cap. x. note 1, p. 98, Vol. II. of this series. Also Ibid. p. 103, note 5. On the whole subject, Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicænæ. Vol. V. pp. 585–592.] by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—“The Lord created or formed78267826    Condidit. me as the beginning of His ways;”78277827    Prov. viii. 22. then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect—“When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.”78287828    Ver. 27. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things;78297829    Col. i. 15. and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart—even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “hath emitted my most excellent Word.”78307830    Ps. xlv. 1. See this reading, and its application, fully discussed in our note 5, p. 66, of the Anti-Marcion, Edin. The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee;”78317831    Ps. ii. 7. even before the morning star did I 602 beget Thee. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.” 78327832    Prov. viii. 22, 25. For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;”78337833    John i. 3. as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit”78347834    Ps. xxxiii. 6.—that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God78357835    Prov. viii. 22. which “strengthened the heavens;”78367836    Ver. 28. “by which all things were made,”78377837    John i. 3. “and without which nothing was made.”78387838    John i. 3. Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him.  Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word.

from here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.vii.html

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 10 2010,10:25)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:02) Calvin on “today I have begotten you” in Psalm 2:7: Quote On this account, we ought the more carefully to beware of wickedly refusing the edict which he publishes, Thou art my Son. David, indeed could with propriety be called the son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels. This the apostle (Heb 1:5) wisely and diligently considers when he tells us this language was never used with respect to any of the angels. David, individually considered, was inferior to the angels, but in so far as he represented the person of Christ, he is with very good reason preferred far above them. By the Son of God in this place we are therefore not to understand one son among many, but his only begotten Son, that he alone should have the pre-eminence both in heaven and on earth. When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Ac 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken. This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world. Finally, this begetting ought not to be understood of the mutual love which exists between the Father and the Son; it only signifies that He who had been hidden from the beginning in the sacred bosom of the Father, and who afterwards had been obscurely shadowed forth under the law, was known to be the Son of God from the time when he came forth with authentic and evident marks of Sonship, according to what is said in Joh 1:14, “we have seen his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Ro 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and therefore what is here said has a principal allusion to the day of his resurrection. But to whatever particular time the allusion may be, the Holy Spirit here points out the solemn and proper time of his manifestation, just as he does afterwards in these words http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08007.htm TO ALL: Please note that Calvin agrees with Keith that the Psalm applies to David first and then Christ. the Roo Jack True. But Kathi will say that Calvin is not a Trinitarian. WJ

So when does Calvin think the Son BEGAN being the Son.  Is it like you say, during the incarnation?   We know that Calvin doesn't think that He BEGAN being the Son at His coronation.

Calvin and Tertullian disagree on when “Today I have begotten thee” was said to the Son.  Did you know that?  Isn't the main concern about WHEN the Son became the divine Son?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,11:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36) TO ALL: Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God: Quote In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example He begetteth not, nor is he begotten. And there is none like unto Him. Sura 112:3-4 Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting: My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but … … and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally! Where does the Bible even say so? I have not found one passage where God is connected with a sexual act. It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself. There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God. There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible. There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language. The verses that do speak about “begotten” are: Acts 13:33 Hebrews 1:5 Hebrews 5:5 In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament. What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter: 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.' 34 And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.' 35 Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.' … In Hebrews 1: 1 In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” Hebrews 5: 1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. 4 And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”; 6 as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek.” 7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. All of these passages speak about the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. It refers to his taking office as king and priest. This took place about 33 years after the birth of Jesus. Clearly, in Biblical usage, the term “begotten” when used for Jesus in those passages is not at all connected with anything sexual but has a metaphorical meaning. The expression “the begotten son” of God is never mentioned in respect to his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit or his birth by the Virgin Mary. It might well be that the Muslim understanding is correct in regard to the Qur'an, but it is better to carefully read the Bible or ask knowledgable Christians before just assuming that the Bible does speak about the same thing that is condemned in the Qur'an. There is no duty on the part of the Christian to actually believe in the false notions that the Qur'an has about the Christians. The problem in not in the Bible, it is in the Qur'an whose author has not understood the clear meaning of the Biblical language…. Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception. And this meaning caries over into the New Testament use for Jesus just as well, that the resurrection is the public announcement by God about the true identity and authority of Jesus, Messiah, true king of Israel, representative of God among mankind. http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/ps2-7.html A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!” The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this. the Roo Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex. Mike and I do not say that the Son was begotten by a sexual act.  You know this.  You need to apologize for this because you have been told over and over that I do not teach that.  If there is no apology, you will be reported!  I am not putting up with your shenanigans anymore.

So in other words to “beget” does not mean “litterally born” or a procreated act? It is just a reinvention of the word?

WJ

[Author]

Posts