Did god beget his only son before the ages?

[Lightenup]

Hello all,
I think that we need to revisit this topic.

Please answer the simple question:
Did God/the Father, beget His only Son before the ages?

I couldn't add “the Father” in the title because the title could only handle so many words.

So…what do you think?

[Worshipping Jesus]

The big qustion is, “What definition of the word “beget” applies to Jesus?” “Did God procreate Jesus at some “time” in eternity or was he “eternally the begotten Son?”

WJ

[Lightenup]

Hi Keith,
I get what you are asking. I would say that the Son was begotten at some time during eternity. I hesitate to use the word procreate because it has more than one meaning and has led to confusion.

Let me ask another question…

If the Son was begotten at some time during eternity, was He in existence in some pre-begotten form eternally before that? And if so, what would be the difference between the pre-begotten Son and the begotten Son?

I don't think we have ever discussed the possibility of the Son having a form of pre-begotten existence before.

I do not think the Son was the 'eternally begotten' Son because that would mean the same as 'eternally unbegotten' unless someone can tell me the difference.

So Keith, I assume that you voted 'yes?'

Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

kathi

I have to go but will discuss this later. You have some good questions.

WJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 25 2011,08:11)

The big qustion is, “What definition of the word “beget” applies to Jesus?” “Did God procreate Jesus at some “time” in eternity or was he “eternally the begotten Son?”   WJ

Keith,

Jesus was begotten (gennao) on the day of His resurrection. You know this. He was NEVER begotten (monogenes) in time for the adejctive 'monogenes' by the time of Jesus and the apostles simply meant 'only.' The idea of origin had been dropped and the 'genes' part of the word was silent.

Jack

[Proclaimer]

KJ, you are allowed your opinion of course.
But your statement appears to make you a heretic according to those who police, administer, and invented that doctrine.
For me there is no value in the doctrine or the organisations that police and administer it.

But you are an adherent, so you have gone out on a tangent with this as you are saying that the ‘Father’ was not a father and the Son not the son, prior to coming in the flesh.

The Trinity Doctrine states that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are all God and have always been God.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ Mar. 24 2011,17:08)

The idea of origin had been dropped and the 'genes' part of the word was silent.

By whom?  And when?  And why?  Strong says the word literally means “only begotten”.  It is used many times in scripture in reference to an only begotten child.  The base words “mono” and “ginomai” mean “only” and “generated”.

The truth of the matter is that the trinni's don't like the implication of Jesus being “begotten” by his God, because it means exactly what it says.  So they are now on a mission to change it to “only” or “the one and only” or “the only one after it's kind” to eliminate the threat of someone actually reading “only begotten” and taking it for what it says.  

But, as I've told Jack before, even “only one after it's kind” says that Jesus came AFTER his God.  

mike

[Lightenup]

So Roo,
From what you write, you do not accept the Nicene Creed in its fullness, right? I thought all trinitarians accept the Nicene Creed in its fullness.

Are you going to vote?

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Keep your votes coming and comments! Let's hear what you think

[Author]

Posts