Born and begotten

Participant

Hi Mike,

I keep askin you to just keep it simple…as I am.

There is one simple question: why does the Scripture writer use the word…or term… “Begotten” instead of “Born” or “Created”?

Nothing is written in Scriptures for 'just happen to be there' reasons.

You ignored the examples I gave of retrospectiveness.

Can I ask why? Is it because it made sense?

Another simple question:
Where, in the Scriptures, does it say that 'Jesus-to be' was 'Begotten'?
When was 'Jesus-to be' 'Begotten'?

The Scriptures say, 'Today' (…'This day'…).

I'm still trying to get out of you 'which Day' that was seeing that there were no 'Days' before the creation.
But there were 'Days' and 'a Day' when God raised Jesus from the dead.

KISS: The Son (ONE of the Princes). This Son is the most beloved of the Father because this Son loved righteousness more than the others and hated unrighteousness more than the others therefore God, his God, and God his Father, made him the 'firstborn' over his brothers, the other Princes. And all (except the wicked ones) came to do obesience to him.
Did the angels do obesience to him before he came to earth?

This means being 'Begotten'…but Mike, this is not the 'Begotten' that is being discussed.

Here is a classic case of of the falling one desperately grasping at anything to try and stop their fall.

Mixing two different scenarios to try and prove a point, using them out of context, brings to mind that brilliant word 'Oxymoron' (I wished that I could have defined it for I have a use for it other than for it's actual definition… can't state it here though!)

The verses quoted as 'Today, I have begotten you' refer to Jesus being raised from the dead and becoming a Spiritual Son to a Spiritual Father (David was not 'begotten'-'born'-'created', he was alive already when God 'Begot' him, he was 'Spiritually reborn of God that day', raised up above his fellows and all (except his enemies) came to do obeisence to him)

Jesus is now Man, in Spirit form and is therefore the perfect bridge between God and Man. He is both a Spirit and Man, able to exist as both, able to understand the cruel limitation of flesh and the glorious freedom of Spirit.

I'm hoping that there is some resolution coming through here, Mike.

The Spirit says, 'Stay on the Mike! Stay on the Mike!'

Don't know if it's talking about you or my 'rapping'…

June 11, 2010 at 6:27 am#195128

NickHassan

Participant

Hi JA,
Being begotten has nothing to do with being raised.
Acts 13 like acts 2 shows that Jesus is the Son and messiah in retrospect because he was raised fulfilling prophecy

June 11, 2010 at 8:23 am#195133

Participant

The level of wisdom and understanding among the brothers is falling…

Nick, Raised…? Raised has a number of meanings… Can you think of one other than being born or

'familially raised, brought up, perhaps, there is a clue!' ?

Mike, you said you'd try my next cryptic question.

Try that one?

WJ, KJ, …others, seem to deliberately misunderstand everyday rendering just as a means of attemting to thwart an opponent because no one wants to say they agree with another and changed their mind on their thinking.

Tomorrow, I may say, 'you know what, I might have been wrong about that theory…but you know what? It's ok, I started off stating it was a theory, and it gave fued for thought to others in reaffirming their belief, and boy, am I glad for that, that I didn't lead any astray…'

Further, though, should we not investigate every avenue of God's word, even the blind alleys? Surely even there some aspect of hidden truth, hidden treasure, MAY be found there.

At the least, it has performed the task of arming me and you's guys with the knowledge and information, the strength of it, to refute others at a later time, should the theory or question arise again'

So, keep coming at me… But please, be sensible…try to get into 'the spirit', it will direct your thoughts and understanding so you discern correctly instead of posting infectedly.

June 12, 2010 at 12:15 am#195264

Blocked

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2010,15:01)

The Son was sent into the world but so are we.[Jn17.18]

Hi Nick,

That's a good point. But in what sense did God GIVE His only begotten Son?

peace and love,
mike

June 12, 2010 at 12:24 am#195267

Blocked

Hi Nick,

Actually, John 17.18 is only a good point for people like you, who think Jesus was begotten at the Jordan. It is no help to JA and Roo, who think it was when he was raised.

mike

June 12, 2010 at 12:26 am#195269

Blocked

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 11 2010,17:27)

Hi JA,
Being begotten has nothing to do with being raised.
Acts 13 like acts 2 shows that Jesus is the Son and messiah in retrospect because he was raised fulfilling prophecy

Hi Nick,

I'm unaware of any scripture where God says he will send someone who, after he dies and is raised, will be His Messiah “in retrospect”.

mike

June 12, 2010 at 12:31 am#195272

NickHassan

Participant

Hi MB,
He was given as a first fruits offering .[1cor 15.20,23]

June 12, 2010 at 12:51 am#195276

Participant

Mike,

I don't know if you are composing a response to the questions in my last post to you, but can you show me, very simply, from Scriptures, 'Where and When' it says that God 'begot' 'Jesus'.

Please remember that we are discussing 'Today, I have begotten you'

If you can do so then that will close this chapter.

Mike, Are you also following, no need to contribute, just read, the thread on 'PreExistent'?

June 12, 2010 at 1:11 am#195278

Participant

Mike,

I just read a post by 'princess of the king' where she restates, 'john 3:16'
“For God so loved the world that he gave his 'only begotten son'…”

Now, we know that God had many Sons. What is special about 'Jesus' as a Son?
Well, Scriptures tells us that God loved him more than the others because he loved righteousness more than the others.

So, could John not have been saying that 'Jesus' was God's most beloved son, isn't that also what 'begotten' means.

Therefore, you are right that he was 'begotten' before he came to earth,….ooops! It was you who was meant to prove that, sorry…

Forget what I just wrote… I'll wait for you response….

Shouldn't be hard or take long, should it?

June 12, 2010 at 1:11 am#195279

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 10 2010,22:41)

Quote (JustAskin @ June 09 2010,16:20)

Mike,

I don't deal with phylosophical debate, So have no interest in what 'roo' said or what a man down the pub/bar told you.

My interest is in the Scriptures.

Everything we need to know is in the Scriptures.

Okay JA and Nick

Here are some scriptures. Tell me again how you can read these and think Jesus wasn't already the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:16 NWT
16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

1. In what sense did God GIVE his only begotten Son? If Jesus wasn't his only begotten Son until he was raised, it couldn't be said that God GAVE him. Since he has been raised, he has been at the right hand of God, safe and sound. God hasn't GIVEN him to anyone since the time he died.

17 For God sent forth his Son into the world, not for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him.

2. How could God have SENT FORTH his only begotten Son INTO THE WORLD if he wasn't already the only begotten Son of God?

18 He that exercises faith in him is not to be judged. He that does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

3. Do you see the past tense? How could anyone have already been judged because they hadn't BELIEVED in the only begotten Son of God, if he wasn't yet the only begotten Son of God? How could one be faulted for not believing in someone who didn't even exist yet?

John 1:14 NWT
14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father;

4. It doesn't say, “So the Word died and was raised, and then we had a view of his glory as an only begotten son from a father”, does it?

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

5. I know the “is in the bosom of the Father” part gives you some doubt. But contrast the “No man has seen God” with the “only begotten god” who man HAS seen. True, they saw him after he was raised also, but that is not when Jesus “explained Him”. He “explained Him” during his ministry on earth.

1 John 4:9 NWT
9 By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him.

6. We gained life through Jesus by his sacrificial death. So according to this scripture, God's ALREADY only begotten Son was SENT FORTH INTO THE WORLD so that we might gain life through his death.

Now this is the scripture you think infers that Jesus was given the “title” of “only begotten Son” after he was raised.

Hebrews 1:5 NWT
5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”?

7. These two statements don't even work for your view, for you think Jesus was already God's Son before he was raised. The first one doesn't say, “You are my ONLY BEGOTTEN Son”, just “You are my son”. But you think Jesus was God's son since his beginning, so why say that after he was raised? The “shall become” of the second one again doesn't make your point since you think Jesus was already God's son. Paul was only using these scriptures to prove that Jesus WAS the Son of God, not WHEN he became the Son of God. This is made clear in Acts 9:20,

20 At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

The scripture Nick likes is:

Romans 1:4 NIV
4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

8. I will defer to and agree with the Net Notes people on this one, who say: Paul is not saying that Jesus was appointed the “Son of God by the resurrection” but “Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection,” as indicated by the hyphenation. He was born in weakness in human flesh (with respect to the flesh, v. 3) and he was raised with power.

Like I told Jack in our debate, I can not justify trashing all of these other scriptures that are so clear to side with Rom 1:4 which, to be honest, doesn't PROVE what you want it to.

JA, you have been discoursing with me in this thread in an essay sort of way. The problem is, I sometimes don't even know which part of my post you are referring to with you answers. For example, you said, “Mike, is something wrong?” I have no clue as to which post, let alone which part of it you are referring to. If you don't want to quote my points (which I'd prefer, so I know which thought you are answering), then at least please include the numbers I've put on each point when you answer.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,
I agree with you here…yeah! A big problem that I see with those who say the Son was preeminent over all creation after His resurrection or at the Jordan is this; who was preeminent over all creation before that and where is it written.

June 12, 2010 at 1:28 am#195283

Blocked

JustAskin,June wrote:

[/quote]
Hi JA,

You have gotten very arrogant and insulting ever since you started that debate with WJ. I've mentioned it to you, and so have many others. You need to check yourself, man. This is the stuff you're saying to someone you used to call “brother”.

Quote

You ignored the examples I gave of retrospectiveness.

Can I ask why? Is it because it made sense?

This means being 'Begotten'…but Mike, this is not the 'Begotten' that is being discussed.

Here is a classic case of of the falling one desperately grasping at anything to try and stop their fall.

You said similar things to Nick in your next post. Insults, ridicules and “fightin' words”? Who are you…..Roo?

I will answer your points in a direct fashion in the hope that you will answer the scriptures in my previous post in the same manner.

You said:

Quote

There is one simple question: why does the Scripture writer use the word…or term… “Begotten” instead of “Born” or “Created”?

I don't know.

You said:

Quote

Nothing is written in Scriptures for 'just happen to be there' reasons.

You think the “Today” in Hebrews 1:5 indicates that the day Jesus was raised is the day he gained the “title” of “only begotten Son”, right? So be consistent, because the second part of Heb 1:5 says,

Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”

So if we take the “will be” literally, then that means that Jesus did NOT become God's only begotten Son by being raised, but WILL BE at some later time. Both the “Today” wording and the “will be” wording are in THE SAME VERSE! So do you think that POSSIBLY Paul was just quoting scripture as it was written in an effort to prove, not WHEN Jesus became God's Son, but THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS IN FACT GOD'S SON?

You said:

Quote

You ignored the examples I gave of retrospectiveness.

Can I ask why? Is it because it made sense?

Actually, quite to the contrary. It makes NO sense to me. I do not buy that Jesus said that God sent his only begotten Son and just expected people to “understand” that he wasn't yet given the “title of begotten”.

You said:

Quote

Where, in the Scriptures, does it say that 'Jesus-to be' was 'Begotten'?

In the scriptures I just posted for you. The ones you neglected to even comment on.

You said:

Quote

When was 'Jesus-to be' 'Begotten'?

The Scriptures say, 'Today' (…'This day'…).

What we do know, is that this “only begotten god” that John spoke of is the same being through whom everything came into existence. So while the Bible doesn't specify exactly when, we can be reasonably sure it was before anything else was created.

You said:

Quote

I'm still trying to get out of you 'which Day' that was seeing that there were no 'Days' before the creation.

And you know this how? The “days” mentioned in the account of creation could be only referring to our “system of things” or “age”. There could have been many other days and many other creations that we don't even know about. God could have millions of other planets each with millions of other “men” that we are unaware of.

But more likely, IMO, God phrased it that way because He didn't think the Israelites would understand the principals involved if He had tried to explain that He begat a Son outside of the dimensions of time and space. These were people so unadvanced that they had to be commanded not to eat raw flesh and roadkill.

You said:

Quote

This Son is the most beloved of the Father because this Son loved righteousness more than the others and hated unrighteousness more than the others therefore God, his God, and God his Father, made him the 'firstborn' over his brothers, the other Princes.

I can't understand how someone of your intelligence thinks Jesus is just “one of stars”. Don't you know that the stars were created THROUGH this one? Yet you think he was just an angel like the rest until God noticed he behaved the best?

You said:

Quote

Did the angels do obesience to him before he came to earth?

Not that scripture says. What it DOES say is that when God AGAIN brings His Son into the world, the angels will bow to him. I've always thought that to mean when Jesus comes on the clouds in his second coming.

You said:

Quote

The verses quoted as 'Today, I have begotten you' refer to Jesus being raised from the dead and becoming a Spiritual Son to a Spiritual Father

The scriptures I posted disagree with you and Roo's conjecture.

You said:

Quote

David was not 'begotten'-'born'-'created', he was alive already when God 'Begot' him, he was 'Spiritually reborn of God that day', raised up above his fellows

And it clearly says that David was APPOINTED firstborn among kings of the earth. Is there a scripture that says Jesus was appointed as “the only begotten Son of God”?

JA, I RESPECTFULLY ask that you do a little less of trying to be witty, cryptic and rapperific, and actually respond to the POINTS I have made in both this post and the last.

peace and love,
mike

June 12, 2010 at 1:30 am#195284

Blocked

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 12 2010,11:31)

Hi MB,
He was given as a first fruits offering .[1cor 15.20,23]

Hi Nick,

So he wasn't the Messiah at all when he was on earth?

mike

June 12, 2010 at 1:38 am#195286

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,12:11)

Hi Kathi,

Thanks for the support! You list one problem. The other is why is the Son preeminent? Why not his Father and God? Or both? Or all of the persons in the trinity for that matter?

peace and love,
mike

June 12, 2010 at 1:46 am#195288

Blocked

Hi Nick,

WHO was given as a firstfruits offering? 1 John 4:9 says it was the ALREADY only begotten Son of God.

mike

June 12, 2010 at 2:38 am#195300

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ June 01 2010,01:04)

Ah, so when Paul begot Onesimus (Philemon 1:10) it means Paul gave birth to him.

Ah, and, when Abraham begot Isaac as his Only Son, he somehow rebirthed him as first son ahead of Ishmael.

Ok. I can see that!

So onto Jesus being 'begotten' 'Today'?

These are my last two questions so please make them comprehensible, i'm feeling a little out of my depth of understanding.

1) Which DAY was 'Today', seeing that before time there were no times to make days?

2) Why does God tell Jesus that He has 'begotten' him?
(Possible a pronouncement for others listening to hear…haha, i typed 'lustening' but thought it too funny to retain…)

This Day referred to the day Jesus was born, so there were days just as there are days today. Jesus was not begotten in the Beginning because He was God and was with God..in the beginning. Jesus was never Jesus until He was born of Mary and He was never the Son of God until He was born of Mary. The Old Testament always referred to Him as the Word of God and John picked up on this in his gospel. You will see that in Revelation Jesus has regained His title as the Word of God (Rev 19.13)

June 12, 2010 at 2:47 am#195301

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 12 2010,14:38)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2010,12:11)

Hi Kathi,

Thanks for the support! You list one problem. The other is why is the Son preeminent? Why not his Father and God? Or both? Or all of the persons in the trinity for that matter?

peace and love,
mike

This is fascinating. In the beginning there was Almighty God, the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. Almighty God was the predominant one.

When Jesus was born all of a sudden we had Father, Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

After the ressurection of Christ all authority was given to the restored Word of God (Jesus), so what did Father do? He did what He always wanted to do and received for Himself the same blessing He bestowed upon Abraham. He became a Daddy. This is the whole reason why Jesus came, that we might have a way to become connected to the Father through new birth.

June 12, 2010 at 3:16 am#195311

Blocked

Hi Oxy,

So Jesus is his own Son and God is his own God? Is that about right?

peace and love,
mike

June 12, 2010 at 3:39 am#195322

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Oxy………The word Begotten means to (BE-GOT) or(brought) forth, Jesus was not the (ONLY) begotten son of GOD, He was a (uniquely) Begotten son of GOD. He is the only Begotten from the dead as a Son of GOD, the first begotten or raised of many brothers we are told. Adam was also Begotten of GOD as well as all angles and all creation to. God has Brought it all forth by His POWER and Might. He alone is GOD and there is (NO) other true GOD as Jesus Himself PLAINLY Said, REMEMBER, “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD”, When are people going to begin to believe what Jesus said Oxy?

peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene

June 12, 2010 at 7:07 am#195350

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 12 2010,16:39)

peace and love to you and yours…………………..gene

So which should disregard John 1:1? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God? Was John mistaken?

June 12, 2010 at 7:08 am#195351