- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2010,16:43) Hi David and Kathi, David, you are spot on with all you said in your last post. You and I and Kathi would make a very formiddible scriptural team against the non-preexisters and the trinitarians if we could stay on the topic and avoid the “holy spirit is a chick” and “Jesus is God in every sense that God is God” issues.
If we all just stuck to scripture, we could do some gaining up of our own, instead of always being divided and overwhelmed by the trinitarians and non-preexisters.
You two are both very scripturally and logically sharp, and I consider it an honor to learn from and with you both.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,If you haven't noticed I have tried to avoid listing the Holy Spirit as She or Her and try not to bring Her up in topics concerning anything other than the Holy Spirit. I use the ambiguous word “God” and “He” to please the people.
But, let me ask you this: Could you allow people to say that there is a Trinity and you not say anything?
However, since we have only about 10 different people responding and they have already heard some Scriptures concerning the Holy Spirit, I try not to bring it up. But, at the same time I cannot deny Her or Her existence as a separate person/essence of Elohim/God who completes Him.
It does hurt to see/hear people refer to Her as an “it” or a power of YHWH instead of what I see in the Bible.
Wouldn't it have been “nice” if God would've only written a text book concerning Himself and avoided all of these discussions?
That way we wouldn't have to search the Scriptures to find Him.
The Professor
Hi David,
You said
Quote Also, when you eliminate the word “of” after begotten you are saying that Jesus = God. HolySpirit is “GOD: The Father” of Jesus Christ! (Click Here)
(Mathew 1:18 / Mathew 1:20 / Luke 1:35)Applying your logic to Eph.4:30, 'you' should
understand that the “HolySpirit” is God! Right?Eph.4:30 And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God,
whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (davidbfun @ Aug. 23 2010,10:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2010,15:26) David,
I'm wondering why you can't say that the Son is the begotten God? What is holding you back? Would God beget less than Himself. Does man beget less than man, or any does any example in creation beget an offspring of a different kind?
Hi Kathi,It is basically the same that I don't say that Jesus is the begotten Man. Would you say this?
I've also tried to explain the ambiguity of the word “God” in English and Greek compared to various words for God in Hebrew. Replace “God” with His specific name.
Try replacing YHWH with “God” since you believe that YHWH is God, no? The son is the begotten YHWH. Amost sounds like re-incarnation, no?
Kathi, the daughter is the begotten “Robert” (place your father's name here). Does this make sense to you?
If it doesn't here, why would you say “Jesus, the son is the begotten God”? Ambiguous and confusing.Unless you are trying to cause confusion, which I don't believe you are, why wouldn't you say, “the begotten son OF YHWH”? This way it is clear, to the point,causes no confusion and is easily understood without any explanations.
The (begotten) son of God is clear. The begotten (son) God, is not.
Also, when you eliminate the word “of” after begotten you are saying that Jesus = God.
Why doesn't the Bible put it in the order and way that you want to tell it? And why wouldn't you want to quote the Bible?
What is the purpose for not using the Bible and quoting “others”? Or what is gained by eliminating the word “of”? Only YOU can tell WHY you are doing this.
Me, I prefer using the Bible and then the people can dispute the written word and argue with “God”.
The Professor
David,
The Bible does put begotten God in the order that I write it:NASB ©
Joh 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.This is not translated as only begotten OF God because, in the Greek, the word theos is not written in the genitive case. The genitive case is translated with the word 'of.'
In the greek, we see monogenes theos, and correctly translated is 'only begotten God.'
I capitalize the G in God because He is not a false god which would have the small g.
Do you see?
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 23 2010,10:44) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2010,15:26) David,
I'm wondering why you can't say that the Son is the begotten God? What is holding you back? Would God beget less than Himself. Does man beget less than man, or any does any example in creation beget an offspring of a different kind?
Kathi,As for the second part of your statement:
I begat my daughter Stephanie.
She isn't the begotten David.
She is not less a man (in nature) but she isn't the same as David.
I beget a human but this human is not ME. “God” (with a capital) is the title for a specific person. god (lower case “might” refer to His existence as a “being” or you might even want to add “nature” after the being you wish to express: “God-natured”, “Human-natured” to identify the specifics that you are addressing.
The Professor
David,
Theos is not necessarily a proper name like 'David.'My husband begat my son…my husband begat another man…my husband did not begat himself.
The Most High Theos begat a Son…the Most High Theos begat another Theos…the Most High Theos didn't begat Himself. The other Theos is the monogenes Theos, translated 'only begotten God.' John 1:18 NASB
For us there is only one unbegotten God and one begotten God and they can fill us with their united Holy Spirit. That is how they BOTH dwell within us and unite with our Spirit to make not three, but one united Spirit.
That is my understanding.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2010,14:50) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 23 2010,10:36) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2010,15:26) David,
I'm wondering why you can't say that the Son is the begotten God? What is holding you back? Would God beget less than Himself. Does man beget less than man, or any does any example in creation beget an offspring of a different kind?
Hi Kathi,It is basically the same that I don't say that Jesus is the begotten Man. Would you say this?
I've also tried to explain the ambiguity of the word “God” in English and Greek compared to various words for God in Hebrew. Replace “God” with His specific name.
Try replacing YHWH with “God” since you believe that YHWH is God, no? The son is the begotten YHWH. Amost sounds like re-incarnation, no?
Kathi, the daughter is the begotten “Robert” (place your father's name here). Does this make sense to you?
If it doesn't here, why would you say “Jesus, the son is the begotten God”? Ambiguous and confusing.Unless you are trying to cause confusion, which I don't believe you are, why wouldn't you say, “the begotten son OF YHWH”? This way it is clear, to the point,causes no confusion and is easily understood without any explanations.
The (begotten) son of God is clear. The begotten (son) God, is not.
Also, when you eliminate the word “of” after begotten you are saying that Jesus = God.
Why doesn't the Bible put it in the order and way that you want to tell it? And why wouldn't you want to quote the Bible?
What is the purpose for not using the Bible and quoting “others”? Or what is gained by eliminating the word “of”? Only YOU can tell WHY you are doing this.
Me, I prefer using the Bible and then the people can dispute the written word and argue with “God”.
The Professor
David,
The Bible does put begotten God in the order that I write it:NASB ©
Joh 1:18
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.This is not translated as only begotten OF God because, in the Greek, the word theos is not written in the genitive case. The genitive case is translated with the word 'of.'
In the greek, we see monogenes theos, and correctly translated is 'only begotten God.'
I capitalize the G in God because He is not a false god which would have the small g.
Do you see?
Hi Kathi,There needs to be a place where like responses can be stored without having to look them up again.
I responded in length to someone about the nomitive and genitive (possessive) cases.
Of course this is not referring to a possession and wouldn't show “of”. In the nomitive the translators are “free” to add the “of” in our language.
I wrote much about the word “God” and the “logic” of writing sentences using God vs a name to preclude confusion, etc. Are you going to go back and address them?
The Professor
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2010,15:08) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 23 2010,10:44) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2010,15:26) David,
I'm wondering why you can't say that the Son is the begotten God? What is holding you back? Would God beget less than Himself. Does man beget less than man, or any does any example in creation beget an offspring of a different kind?
Kathi,As for the second part of your statement:
I begat my daughter Stephanie.
She isn't the begotten David.
She is not less a man (in nature) but she isn't the same as David.
I beget a human but this human is not ME. “God” (with a capital) is the title for a specific person. god (lower case “might” refer to His existence as a “being” or you might even want to add “nature” after the being you wish to express: “God-natured”, “Human-natured” to identify the specifics that you are addressing.
The Professor
David,
Theos is not necessarily a proper name like 'David.'My husband begat my son…my husband begat another man…my husband did not begat himself.
The Most High Theos begat a Son…the Most High Theos begat another Theos…the Most High Theos didn't begat Himself. The other Theos is the monogenes Theos, translated 'only begotten God.' John 1:18 NASB
For us there is only one unbegotten God and one begotten God and they can fill us with their united Holy Spirit. That is how they BOTH dwell within us and unite with our Spirit to make not three, but one united Spirit.
That is my understanding.
Hi Kathi,I just wrote to Irene about the defects of the Greek language regarding God and LORD, Lord.
You say Theos is not a proper name. But when you put the G in front it essentially is because there is only one God and IT, G, refers to that person, no? Then you try to put that G as part of G's son you are in essence saying the son is G.
Are you trying to say that you are unawares of the deception the saying, “begotten God” alludes to?
And why the push to keep using “God” instead of God's name? Replace it and see how it comes out.
Therefore you would have problem “proving” that YHWH is God or that YHWH is the name of God in Greek, since Theos is a title.
I noticed Gen 2:4 in the Septuagint they omitted the word YHWH in front of Theos.
The Professor
Professor David,
I am not being deceptive, I actually believe John 1:18 and that the Son of God is the only begotten God. If that is deception, then Paul is guilty of that too.What is it you want me to go back and address? If the disciples call God 'Theos,' I think it is ok if I do too. If Paul calls the only begotten Son, the only begotten Theos, I think it is ok if I do too. I can call the Father, the 'Most High', 'Father' and His Son, 'Brother' or 'Begotten God', or 'Lord,' and that is all fine…the disciples did too. I believe in two that are my God, the Father and His Son, and I distinguish between them sometimes by using the word 'unbegotten' or 'begotten.' I believe in only one 'unbegotten God' and only one 'begotten God.'
John 1:18 proves 'monogenes theos' and we know that the Father was unbegotten. What is the problem?
“On and On …and Ariston” goes the commercial for an 'everlasting' Washing Machine.
So too, this dilemma about the TITLE 'God'.
“God” is a TITLE…. It does not belong to any one person. It does not mean that it is possessed by any one person… it is not unique to any one person.
Why do you guys and gals not get it after all this time..? Why do you struggle so..? What is it that you WANT to say..? How long will you remain in your ignorance..? Your naivety..?
“GOD” is a TITLE. It means; “A MIGHTY ONE”, “One with Power and Authority”, it means “A Hero”, it means “ONE Who is Above ALL ELSE OF THEIR KIND”.
Choke on it…
“YHVH” is ALL OF THESE definitions… He is “THE MOST HIGH (GOD), The MOST HIGH 'One Above All Else of ALL Kinds' “
And for that reason we simple use the title “GOD or God” to refer to Him, —IN CONTEXT —- because we already know that ANYONE WITH MIGHT and Power can be 'A GOD' – A God of their OWN kind.
Moses was 'God' of Aaron, why? Why – Some answers please…
Satan is “God of this system of things”? Hey, Whatcha mean 'Satan is God'?? Please explain some one, thank you.
A Judge is “God” in his own Courtroom… What, God is a Man? Tell them someone, enlighten them?
A 'Super Genius' Computer programmer is called “A God” (Also a wizard, and other superior type words) So what yasayin' is even a NattyBungoChewbackingMonstaRavinLuni can be 'a God' if he is 'the best of the best of his kind'?…Hey, I think he's getting it?
Yes, davidBFun, let us return to expressing “The Most High God” by his own name and this will resolve a host of issues – and turn the arguments to other issues.
So, a proposal, The TITLE of “GOD” is banned for TWO WEEKS – anyone posting a post containing the Word “GOD” as an argument that post must be ignore.
Use YHVH where it would be normal to write “God”. It's not hard. Jesus himself used the TITLE “Father”. ha ha – ow many people would argue that:
– “The Father gave birth to another Father”;
– “Father begets Father”;
– “The Son of The Father is a Father”“Why do you say I blaspheme because I say that I am the Son of the Father when, even unto those of whom the word of the Father came, the father Himself called 'Father' “…
Those whom the inspired Father inspired by his word – they themselves became the father of inspirers to the nations by their word…
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2010,16:52) Professor David,
I am not being deceptive, I actually believe John 1:18 and that the Son of God is the only begotten God. If that is deception, then Paul is guilty of that too.What is it you want me to go back and address? If the disciples call God 'Theos,' I think it is ok if I do too. If Paul calls the only begotten Son, the only begotten Theos, I think it is ok if I do too. I can call the Father, the 'Most High', 'Father' and His Son, 'Brother' or 'Begotten God', or 'Lord,' and that is all fine…the disciples did too. I believe in two that are my God, the Father and His Son, and I distinguish between them sometimes by using the word 'unbegotten' or 'begotten.' I believe in only one 'unbegotten God' and only one 'begotten God.'
John 1:18 proves 'monogenes theos' and we know that the Father was unbegotten. What is the problem?
Kathi,Yes, that is one verse that has it and over 100 verses using the other term. Your way must be explained, the others do not.
If the translators would've put the “of” as is normal, then there wouldn't be “ONE”.
This is why you don't want to replace the Name in place of the Title…then it wouldn't cause ANY confusion.
Try what JA says and stop being ambiguous.
Or better yet I'll start another Thread with that idea.
Your way A does not equal A.
Someone else says that A(1) is a reflection of A(2) so when you see A(1)what you see is A(2) even though A(2) is not A(1).
When you put a Name you cut out all the BS that is going on.
But, then again Greek doesn't have a Name for Him. Don't you find that a bit “odd”?
The Professor
Professor,
This thread is entitled 'born and begotten' and I find it an appropriate thread for what I am posting. I know you and JA do not believe that Yahweh could have an offspring that was His nature exactly but I do. It is their nature that makes them both deity, the difference is one was not begotten and the other was begotten from the one that was not begotten. This is not hard. They are each unique in that one was a begotten deity, the other an unbegotten deity…yet they are each alike in their nature. I worship them both because of their nature and I recognize them differently, one is my Heavenly Father, and the other is His Son, my Brother, my Groom, my Friend. Both are my creator and savior.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2010,20:04) Professor,
This thread is entitled 'born and begotten' and I find it an appropriate thread for what I am posting. I know you and JA do not believe that Yahweh could have an offspring that was His nature exactly but I do. It is their nature that makes them both deity, the difference is one was not begotten and the other was begotten from the one that was not begotten. This is not hard. They are each unique in that one was a begotten deity, the other an unbegotten deity…yet they are each alike in their nature. I worship them both because of their nature and I recognize them differently, one is my Heavenly Father, and the other is His Son, my Brother, my Groom, my Friend. Both are my creator and savior.
Hi Kathi,These words are clearer and I can agree with.
Jesus and his Father are my Creator and Savior.
One is my brother and the other is my Father.
I agree that what you post is appropriate for the thread…never said it wasn't.
The “thing” I had trouble with and I think you asked me….was about using “begotten God”….so, I addressed it.
And you are right in mentioning it….”begotten God” should be a different thread like I mentioned about trying to post and we could elaborate and get others to input.
It could be interesting to see if the people use the Bible or go elsewhere.
The Professor
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 24 2010,20:44) David,
I'm glad that you understood and agree.
Kathi,Take a look at Truth and Tradition. “Begotten God”.
Hopefully, I put it in in a fair and equitable manner.
The Professor
I know this is an old thread but it comes up in current searches.
Begotten (begat, beget) refers to the father’s role and born to the mother’s role.
Isaiah 45:10 demonstrates this distinction:
Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What have you begotten?’ or to his mother, ‘What have you brought to birth?’John 1:14 and 18 for example demonstrate that Jesus was begotten of the Father, being in his besom. He was born of a woman as a man by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. All sons/children of God are born this way John 3 & Titus 3.
Jesus is the unique son the of the Father, both at his incarnation (the Word becoming flesh) and his begetting in the resurrection when it was declared ‘This day have I begotten you’.
There is much that could be said on this wonderful subject. Suffice it to say our whole redemption, reconciliation, salvation, remission, newness of life, access to the Father, salvation from wrath to come, dwelling in the new heavens and new earth (wherein dwells righteousness) depends solely on our wonderful Lord and Saviour, his life, death & resurrection, work and ministry, and is accessible through faith and obedience.
We look for and haste towards the coming of the day of God (when the son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him and sit upon the throne of glory) so we live in this present world soberly, righteously and godly through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit in order that we might be found of him in that day in peace, without spot and blameless.
God bless.
Good post @davidtdoyle
To all…….This is the way i understand it, begotten is the process of what causes, while born is what is produce, first comes the causal or begotten, then the bringing forth, ie. “born”.
Therefore it says, whosoever is “born” of God does not commit sin; for (because) his seed (that which beggets) remains in him: and he can not sin, because he is “born” of God.
And again, Jesus said, “you must be born again”, that takes a begotten or (casual) act of God.
We were first begotten of flesh, “flesh begets flesh”, then later, we are begotten of Spirit, “spirit begets spirit” , the Spirit within the body is changed by the “causal ” act of God, and that spirit (his seed), remains with us , we have actually been begotten of God and then comes “born” again with a new body and Spirit from God, at the resurection , just as it says,
Rom 8:11…..“but if the Spirit of him that raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal “bodies” by his Spirit that dwells in you.
Peace and love to you all and yours. ………….gene
Thankyou GeneBalthrop for your post.
Indeed both the Apostle Peter and the Apostle John show us that God the Father is the cause using ‘means’ to accomplish his purposes through the regeneration.
1Pe 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy has begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead”
1Jn 5:1 “Whosoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loves him that begat loves him also that is begotten of him.”
Praise God that according to his great predestinating purpose, He conforms the called to the image of His Son that He (the Son) “might be the firstborn among many brethren”. Christ in us, Christ formed in us. Spiritual beings to be clothed eventually with “an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”, for “we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is”.
Glory be to God, what glorious Blessings.
Hello All,
I’d appreciate some clarification on people’s beliefs.
Some say he pre-existed in the form of God and then he came to earth leaving glory behind coming in the likeness of man but was not a man. So without his glory and without being an actual man, what exactly was he?
What was the glory left behind, and what remained that was needed for his quest to earth?
How is Jesus on earth considered the only begotten Son exactly, if he left his glory behind?
He’s the only begotten Son according to his pre-existence being made first of all creation, but then he is the only begotten Son also because of how he was conceived?
The only begotten Son is a pre-existing Son, made the Word of God, who then made all things, AND the only begotten Son on earth was an infant that had to learn to walk and talk…hmm…?
Some say that he was fully a man, but that he was also more than a man. What exactly was the “more than” and what advantage did it give him? Was the “more than” his pre-existing self minus the glory, or was the “more than” something more like God’s sperm? If the later is the case then where does the pre-existing Jesus come in?
What OF the pre-existing only begotten Son entered Mary’s womb? That which was left behind what exactly was left behind and where did it go?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
