Born and begotten

Blocked

Hi WJ,

Good! Now we are getting somewhere.

You quoted:

Quote

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15

I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have “begotten (gennaō) in my bonds“: PHM 1:10

Show me how the actual word “gennao” does NOT mean “born” in these scriptures. As I have shown you and Jack before, just because the word is used as a metaphor doesn't mean the word doesn't still mean “born”. Jack quoted a scripture that said the sea beget someone, and I have tried to show you guys that the word there still meant “beget”, it's just that the word itself was used as a metaphor. Paul is saying that he “brought them to life” in the sense that he caused them to be “born again” into the truth. Their old selves had died, and they were “reborn”. Do you understand this? The word “gennao” still means “born” or “begotten”, it's just that Paul used that word as a metaphor. So once again:

Please show me how the word “gennao” in these verses, although being used as a metaphor, does not still mean “born” or “begotten”. In other words, does the actual WORD “gennao” take on another definition and mean something other than “begotten” here?

You said:

Quote

The word for begotten is “gennaō” which means;

1) of men who fathered children
A) to be born
B) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

Do you see the highlighted bold parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”!

Yes, I see them “loud and clear” Keith. And you have to know that most lexicons and Greek dictionaries are made by admitted trinitarians……..Strong was one for example. So when you see certain definitions like 1-B-2-c above, you must take them with a grain of salt. What does 1-B-2-c really mean anyway? What way is it actually saying that Jesus became God's Son? It's rather vague, don't you think? It gives no clue whatsoever as to the way Christ became begotten by God.

Just as another example of these “trinitarian” lexicons, look up the word Jesus. One of the definitions will be “the second person in the Trinity Godhead”. Look up “holy spirit” and it will say “the third person in the Trinity Godhead”. Should thinking people really take these bogus definitions seriously? They are defining words from scriptures, yet scripture never mentions anything about a trinity or the “rank” of the persons in it. By the same token, should we take this bogus 1-B-2-c definition above seriously? Does scripture ever allude to the fact that the begetting of Jesus was anything other than the begetting of anyone else……in other words, “caused to exist by his Father”? Is there any reason given that the words “yalad” and “gennao” should be taken metaphorically in reference to Jesus?

So I will dismiss definition 1-B-2-c as readily as I dismiss the other definitions that refer to a trinity. So that leaves us definition 1, or definition 1-B-2-b, or definition 1-B-2-d. Notice that these last two are metaphorical uses of the word and neither fits with the begetting of Jesus by his God.

In fact, 1-B-2-b is exactly what I was just saying above about Paul. Your source actually confirms that it was a metaphorical “begetting” Paul was speaking of. Which again, does NOT change the actual definition of the word itself.

Keith, look at the definitions for the English word “bear” – these are just the verbs!

bear1 /bɛər/ Show Spelled [bair] Show IPA verb, bore or ( Archaic ) bare; borne or born; bear•ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6. to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
7. to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
8. to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
9. to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
10. to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
11. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
12. to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
13. to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
14. to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
15. to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
16. to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
17. to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18. to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
19. to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
20. to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
21. to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
22. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.
–verb (used without object)
23. to tend in a course or direction; move; go: to bear west; to bear left at the fork in the road.
24. to be located or situated: The lighthouse bears due north.
25. to bring forth young or fruit: Next year the tree will bear.

Wow! There's even more than “gennao”. But notice #3. When used in a sentence about a child, it would almost always have to do with a birth. But it could also be used as literally “brought forth”. I could say, “She was accused of welfare fraud, so she was required to bear the children she was claiming benefits for.” In that rare case, it is about children, but NOT about childbirth. It is actually closer to the “exhibit” defintion. She had to have her children “brought forth” to prove she was receiving the correct amount of benefits. Remember that for my next post which will respond to your “yalad” verses.

to be continued,
mike

August 12, 2010 at 11:28 pm#208709

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2010,06:26)

Kathi

And what is the difference? If he is the “Only Begotten Son” then he is a “Unique” Son, right?

Strong's G3439 – monogenēs;

Single, of its kind, Only

Hey WJ,

Would you mind listing a link to this source or pasting it unedited and in it's entirety?

Because, according to my source, http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin….nogenes, Strong says this:

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “monogenes”:

3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096;
only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

thanks,
mike

August 12, 2010 at 11:36 pm#208710

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 13 2010,06:50)

Most here do not buy your Begotten God theory which has caused a lot of confusion also Kathi.

Oh no! Well I better switch sides then so I can be on the winning team!

In fact WJ, I believe it's only you and KJ and JA that think Jesus wasn't literally begotten by his God at some point. You three are the only ones I know of that think he was given the “title” or “postition” of “Only Begotten Son of God” when he was raised from the dead.

Please correct me if I am wrong? Does anyone else out there believe this?

peace and love,
mike

August 12, 2010 at 11:58 pm#208713

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2010,14:50)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2010,12:10)

Wow!

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black! Didn't you just accuse Jack and myself of creating confusion…

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2010,12:29)

Most here do not buy your Begotten God theory which has caused a lot of confusion also Kathi.

Well Keith,
I have found “God begat God” in the writings of several of the early Christians, so that is sufficient for me. And then the Nicene Creed would agree with me (I don't think that it agrees with your theory though):

Quote

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

So, I'm fine with what I believe…God begat God. I have found people take that position in many places. Ignatius says it too, the disciple of John when he refers to the Son as the begotten God and the Father as the unbegotten God, begotten before the ages. But I have already shown you many examples of this, maybe you don't remember those.

August 13, 2010 at 12:17 am#208719

Participant

Lightenup, [and EdJ]

KangarooJack, JustAskin and WorshippingJesus did a great job explaining the words and their meaning, enough for me to think that even the Trinity is a safer thing to believe in
What became disturbing to me was the repeated use of the word, say a word over and over in conversation and it starts to get annoying and this to me is wrong. I couldn't fathom, What was the need ?

And then it started getting creepy,

Scripture says clearly what it means for us to understand in Acts 13…

But God raised him from the dead, and he was seen for many days by those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses to the people. We bring you good news of the promise made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled the same to us, their children, in that he raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son. Today I have become your father.'

God also sent His only Son into he World, thinking as a child would in Christ this is easy to understand….God sent His Son….which is why Jesus said he came from above. That is all we need to know.

Please though I cant read or reply on this thread anymore I have to stay away !

August 13, 2010 at 12:31 am#208721

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 13 2010,02:19)

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,21:26)

You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed,

Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.

I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away

Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,

I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.

So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong

And I felt the love on me,

And I wrote what I did….

Listen carefully to What I know,

Perverting the words of The LORD,

Give heed.

Shimmer,

I too have been disturbed by what has been said regarding the church fathers. But I did not handle it in the spiritual manner that you did.

You have been an example to me.

Roo

You are blessed, KangarooJack,

August 13, 2010 at 2:22 am#208737

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2010,12:10)

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,05:26)

You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed,

Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.

I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away

Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,

I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.

So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong

And I felt the love on me,

And I wrote what I did….

Listen carefully to What I know,

Perverting the words of The LORD,

Give heed.

Shimmer,
Please answer this:

Can God reproduce from within Himself?

yes or no

If you think that I have been understanding that God had sex to reproduce you are entirely WRONG. Is that clear Shimmer?

So, I guess that you are just into shooting people down and running, leaving no proof for defense just leaving accusing inuendos. That is NOT love!

August 13, 2010 at 2:36 am#208738

Participant

Mike,
Good post! This really stood out to me:

Quote

9. Moreover to anathematize “Before His generation He was not,” did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh

That was quite a strong statement that it is confessed by ALL, that the Son of God was BEFORE the generation according to the flesh. Hmmm…

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html

That is confessed by only a handful of us on HN. Go team!

August 13, 2010 at 3:40 am#208749

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,13:36)

Mike,
Good post! This really stood out to me:

Quote

9. Moreover to anathematize “Before His generation He was not,” did not seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all, that the Son of God was before the generation according to the flesh

That was quite a strong statement that it is confessed by ALL, that the Son of God was BEFORE the generation according to the flesh. Hmmm…

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.ix.ii.html

That is confessed by only a handful of us on HN. Go team!

Thanks Kathi,

Is that the same site you gave me in the pm? I have been wondering (actually led to research, I believe) why Eusebius would sign the anathema when he didn't believe that way.

In my mind, I thought it would turn out that the anathema was added later by Athanasius after the others had agreed to and signed the Creed itself and then left for home.

So I just Googled it and ended up on that site.

I was wrong about Eusebius not signing it, but that was so cool to see how he strategically “agreed” to the anathema on the surface to keep the peace. But then he pointed out that they were not to use wording that wasn't in the scriptures to forward this Creed. So he blatantly derided the anathema to his Diocese by saying that since none of that crap was in scripture anyway, they never considered ever teaching it in the first place, so it was cool to sign it in the effort of keeping the peace.

Why is it that this unscriptural part is the part that Jack and Keith cling to?

peace and love,
mike

August 13, 2010 at 3:50 am#208755

Participant

Yes Mike that is the sight.
I have really been enjoying reading about the earlier Christians in the pre-trinity era.

August 13, 2010 at 4:07 am#208762

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2010,14:50)

Yes Mike that is the sight.
I have really been enjoying reading about the earlier Christians in the pre-trinity era.

August 13, 2010 at 5:14 am#208775

JustAskin

Participant

Edj,
Page 73… I am on the side of Truth by whomever expouses Truth.

Therefore, if Trinitarian speaks Truth,, then JA is on his side for that Truth, and I hope, vice versa.

Jack, thank you, brother in waiting…maybe!

August 13, 2010 at 6:10 am#208780

JustAskin

Participant

WJ,
I have seen your post concerning JA's 'begetting Mike' and that was 'right on'. Even JA didn't spot that!

Shimmer, please stay…just don't get deeply involved.

You are a 'leveller' who brings us back to simple reality, and such ones are needed here.

Yes, you suffer for it, but you suffer in Christ, and that is worthy!!

Mike, I even forget what it is you are actually disputing, so long has this beat gone on…

R&B rap:
'So long as the beat goes on'
[How long will] the beat go on?..
One, two, this is what you do'
[Who's ganna listen – only the few!] *added (14/08/2010)

All,

Edj, has listed Seven (significant?) points at which 'Jesus' is 'Begotten'.

Each of these links to 'Begotten' as thought of byeach of us.
Gene says, 'At his anointing/Baptism'
Mike says, 'At his coming into existence in Heaven'
The three 'J's say, 'At his resurrection'.
Others say, the others as well, perhaps.

Now, it is patently clear that 'Jesus' 'came into existence' at some point. Was 'caused to be'. Was 'Begotten' before the ages…ha! before time and 'Days'.
But, then, so were the rest of the Heavenly beings!

No one, except Trinis (And even they don't actaully believe it themselves), does not believe that 'Jesus' was not 'caused to be', therefore that is a none issue.

There is no emphasis put on 'Jesus'' 'begetting' before time, before the ages and certainly no mention of the 'How'.

Now let us not be silly and talk about God having sex with Himself or 'procreation' for these are fleshly concepts.
God is Spirit, God is Almighty, God Contains All Things…and All Things are Contained in God, the Almighty.

Therefore, 'creating' a separate 'Spirit being' from within Himself, Within Himself, is wholly in order of the way of things.

The human mind cannot fathom this, so we try to see it in human terms…how can something reproduce? something from itself, within itself??

The book of Revelation gives an insight into the 'throne room' of God. In there 'Jesus', the Lamb, is shown…only to be AMONG the throng around and in the midst of God's throne. He is only picked out when no one else was found worthy to open the scroll…why is this significant?

Is it because, although God forknew he would the sacrifice, hence metaphoricaly 'slaughtered before the ages', there was no other special emphasis placed on him?

Therefore, no special emphasis on him being 'begotten' over any that of any other heavenly being.

So, where IS the special emphasis on being 'begotten' placed?
Quite clearly, at his overcoming Sin and Death, at his being 'Raised Up'(Begotten'), raised up to Spirit (Begotten), to become preEminent (Begotten) over his brothers…who are 'his brothers'??
Hence God spoke to 'them' and to him saying, 'This day (That I raised you up) You have become my Son and I have become your Father'

August 13, 2010 at 7:07 am#208781

Proclaimer

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,02:49)

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

It's quite simple WJ.

God is Spirit, Jesus has a spirit, and you and I have a spirit.

Now, God and Jesus are one in spirit and the Church can be one in spirit too. This is how we can be one with God, Jesus, and each other. In spirit.

Angels are also spirits, and the Father again, is the father of all spirits.

Again, it is by reason of your doctrine that confuses you. Starting with the Trinity Doctrine, you end up confusing Jesus with God.

Try starting without it and let scripture say what it wants to say. Things will be much clearer and contradictions will evaporate.

August 13, 2010 at 10:08 am#208792

Participant

Lightenup, I answered your post, I'm not running away, only obeying what I was shown, please respect that.

JustAskin, sorry, your alone in this, your choice to stay or not.

August 13, 2010 at 10:24 am#208795

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 13 2010,00:01)

Hi Shimmer,

Your Posting the thoughts of others as well.
If you agree with something someone else says,
instead of importing their writing, absorb the points
you agree with and re-word those points through 'your'
filters; OK? Then we have something to discuss! Importing
someone else's words is NOT helpful; I won't bother to read it!
So you are wasting our time and the space of valued Posts here!
I didn't include you, because I want your words; not those of others!

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed,

This is the word's which came to me today,

God sent his spoken word into the world through the man Christ Jesus

The word was God.

My human mind understands this as; God spoke through the MAN Jesus. Therefore the words which Jesus spoke were not his own. Therefore, In the Beginning was the word [The spoken word of God, part of God just as our speech is part of us] the word was with God and the word was God, so this man Christ Jesus born of a virgin, receiving the Holy Spirit at Baptism, spoke the word of God. The man Christ Jesus was crucified but on the third day was risen from the dead, taken up and begotten of God. He then was seated in a position of power and authority at the right hand of God,

Please though this is just my understanding today,

Is this Trinitarian or non Trinitarian, that's where I'm curious. Anyone ?

August 13, 2010 at 1:40 pm#208808

Participant

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 13 2010,05:08)

Lightenup, I answered your post, I'm not running away, only obeying what I was shown, please respect that.

JustAskin, sorry, your alone in this, your choice to stay or not.

Shimmer

You are now worried about obeying God but you weren't obeying when you posted your 'spiritual' inuendo to me because God had told you not to get on here, yet you had to get on here and make your fleshly comments seeing that they could not have been spirit led if God told you to stay away.

Why is that? Love? You should obey God if you are clearly getting direction. If you had, you would not have posted what you did.

August 13, 2010 at 1:44 pm#208810