Mike vs. wj on begotten and firsborn

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

Hi WJ, First, like Dennison said, your point A is a refutation, not an assertion.  The thing is, I never said anything for you to refute about monogenes.

Mike do you have a lapse of memory? Is your age getting to you?

This is how this debate began…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,00:12)

“I challenge you to a debate on the words “monogenes” and “prōtotokos” in relation to Jesus and his origins.”

Found here (Fifth  post down)

Then I said…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,00:16)

Therefore I challenge Mike to a debate in the debates thread on two words in the Bible, “monogenes” and “prōtotokos” to pin down the fact that the words do not mean that Jesus was born from the Father by procreation before time. Mike insists that the words prove Jesus had a beginning as a Son of God before he came in the flesh and now even implies he could have been a man before he came in the flesh. I challenge him to “Prove” by scriptures that this is true using those two words.

Found here (Sixth post down)

Then you responded…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,23:04)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,16:12) I challenge you to a debate on the words “monogenes” and “prōtotokos” in relation to Jesus and his origins. Hi Keith, Are you sure?  You know the first thing I will hit you with is the fact that both Ignatius and Eusebius think you are wrong.  Not to mention Stong, the KJV, and if I remember right from my debate with Jack, even Vine.  Oh, and also the very definition of the Greek words, and some pretty straight forward scriptures.

Found here (Sixth post down)

So this whole debate was set up on the words “Monogenes” and “prōtotokos” in relation to Jesus having a beginning before he came in the flesh.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

Second, when did I say that the Psalmist wrote about God begetting a Son on the same day (or millennium) that it happened?  Just because the Psalmist wrote it 700 years ago doesn't mean the actual begetting of Jesus couldn't have happened a billion years ago.

But the problem you have is the Psalmist contradicts you. First you have denied that the Psalm is speaking of King David who already existed and the fact that YHWH spoke to him on a particular day after he set him on his throne.

Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Contextually it is obvious that David is “Declaring the decree” that “The Lord hath said unto me” on a particular DAY, “Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee”.

This is called proper exegesis and creates a real conundrum for your “eisegesis” of the verses.

You have a contradiction Mike. You say Jesus was there before the “Ages” or time, in which the scriptures clearly teach he was already there at the beginning of all things, but now you say he was “literally” born from the Father on a particular day, and if you take the literal meaning of the word “begotten” in the sense of being born then you are completely reinventing the concept because it takes a Male and a Female to “Beget”. Not to mention you must believe that Jesus was “Begotten” as a full blown son of God for God to say to him on the same day he was born “This day I have begotten you”, again this concept also denies the “True meaning” of the word begotten as you say for men and women didn't bring birth to full grown sons.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

The facts remain the same.   1. Psalm 2:7 tells us that God already had a begotten Son hundreds of years BEFORE Christ was made flesh.  God used the word “yalad” which has no other meaning except an actual begetting or birth.  None of the alternate meanings the Greeks have with gennao ever applied to yalad.  It simply meant “begotten” or “birthed” in a very real sense.

And once again you are denying the scriptures and the fact that Paul who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews used the word “Yalad” in a different way than just being born.

The Hebrew word “Yalad” is the equivalent of the Greek word “gennaō” which is the same word the writers of Hebrews and Acts used when they quoted Psalms 2:7 in Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 -5:5 in relation to Jesus resurrection.

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

It’s the same word used for the “begetting” of the saints which already exist…

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

And Paul says…

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

These are the facts Mike and cannot be disproved by your inferences and conjecture.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

2. [/ And THAT'S the word God chose to explain how his Son came to exist, knowing full well that the Hebrews would take it to mean a literal begetting.

The facts are that a literal begetting when spoken of being born is it takes a “Male and Female” and Sons are not born as FULL GROWN sons as you infer Jesus was, are they? So you are reinventing the word “Begotten”. But we do see in scriptures where men were “begotten” after they were born. Stick to the scriptures Mike!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

2.  We later find out that Jesus IS that begotten Son of God talked about in Psalm 2:7, and that he is God's ONLY begotten, or the “monogenes” Son of God.

According to scriptures, when was he begotten Mike? When did he become the “Monogenes” Son? When was David begotten?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

The bottom line is that your point A is refuted, because I can reasonably add the new info from the NT to what we already knew from the OT and deduce that Jesus has been the “monogenes” Son of God for at least about 6500 years, based on two facts.

Yes you can assume what you want to about the scriptures based on your own man made doctrines spawned by the Arians and the JWs the sister apostate church of the Arians. But your assumptions are not Biblical facts Mike.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

a. We know scripturally that all things were created through God's only begotten Son, so that means he had to have been begotten “before creation”.

Circular, because we know that we now can speak of Jesus who was “begotten” as the same person that was there with the Father in the beginning before he was begotten, i.e. President Obama was not the President when he was a student at Harvard, but becomes the President when he was elected. Therefore Jesus is the “Only Begotten” Son of God that was there with the Father in the beginning.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

b. We now know that Jesus is God's ONLY begotten Son, so that PROVES that the “begotten Son of God” spoken of in Psalm 2:7 HAD to have been Jesus, which means he had to have been the monogenes Son of God even then.

Conjecture without scriptural backing. The word “Monogenes” or its Hebrew equivalent is not in Pss 2:7. The fact is the Psalmist David speaks of YHWH calling him his Son on a particular day. New Born sons cannot understand such neither do they sit on thrones when they are “born”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 20 2010,19:29)

Therefore, I can logically deduce that Jesus IS that begotten Son mentioned in Psalms, that he was the only one then – as he is now, and that his begetting had to have happened before all things were created.

That’s your problem Mike, you are using human logic without scriptural backing. You have determined what you believe and then set out to prove it by using scriptures, and when they disagree with you, you just put your head in the sand.

So no Mike you haven’t proven that “Monogenes” when referring to Jesus means that he had a beginning before coming in the flesh, but in fact you have just shown more of your conjecture.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

You said:

Quote

First you have denied that the Psalm is speaking of King David who already existed and the fact that YHWH spoke to him on a particular day after he set him on his throne.

Every word in Psalm 2 is about Jesus Christ.  This is made clear by Acts 4,
24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
  ” 'Why do the nations rage
     and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
     and the rulers gather together
     against the Lord
     and against his Anointed One.' 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.

Psalm 2 was spoken BY God's Holy Spirit THROUGH the mouth of King David.  You see?  It wasn't David's words at all, but God's words being spoke about a different anointed one.  Verse 7 let's us know who this King on Zion was – Jehovah's begotten Son.

You said:

Quote

This is called proper exegesis and creates a real conundrum for your “eisegesis” of the verses.

Well, your “proper exegesis” is in conflict with what Peter and John thought.  They didn't think it was David talking about himself, but the holy spirit talking about Jesus.

You said:

Quote

if you take the literal meaning of the word “begotten” in the sense of being born then you are completely reinventing the concept because it takes a Male and a Female to “Beget”.

Are you supposing to limit who, what or how God can beget?  Are you forgetting that what little knowledge mankind does have, such as languages, comes from our God?  Do you really think God would have said “begotten” knowing how the Hebrews understood the word if He didn't really mean begotten?  

You said:

Quote

Not to mention you must believe that Jesus was “Begotten” as a full blown son of God for God to say to him on the same day he was born “This day I have begotten you”,

Really WJ?  You are just being lame now.  Was Adam caused to exist by God as an infant?  Did God have to change his diapers and slowly teach him to walk and talk over many years?  Do you not think that God could put the knowledge of the history of the ages into a 1 day old human baby if he wanted to?

You said:

Quote

This day I have begotten you”, again this concept also denies the “True meaning” of the word begotten as you say for men and women didn't bring birth to full grown sons.

This is a lame point JA also tries to make.  These are the first recorded words God ever said to Adam, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

How could Adam understand this new language he had never been taught?  He immediately went to work naming all the animals.  How?  He was only a baby, right?  Do you see how lame this argument is?  God had just begotten his first creation.  Jesus is a brand new being all wide eyed and filled with wonder.  Why WOULDN'T God's first words to him explain who he was and how he came to be?  In fact, what else could His first words to His newborn Son sensibly HAVE BEEN?  Goo Goo Ga Ga?

You said:

Quote

The Hebrew word “Yalad” is the equivalent of the Greek word “gennaō” which is the same word the writers of Hebrews and Acts used when they quoted Psalms 2:7 in Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 -5:5 in relation to Jesus resurrection. 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 parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”!

Let me try to dumb this down for you WJ.  700 years ago, the Spanish word “caliente” meant simply “hot” as in temperature.  Today in English, it can mean “hot as in temperature”, “a good looking person”, “angry”, or “very popular” as in a “hot topic”.  So if we read a 700 year old Spanish letter that said, “The girl was caliente”, we could not infer that the writer meant she was a “hottie”, or that she was “angry” or that she was very “popular”.  We could ONLY assume that he meant she was “overheated – temperature wise”.

It's the same with “yalad”.  It did NOT EVER mean any of those alternate definitions of it's Greek equivalent “gennao”.  It ONLY meant a literal begetting or birth.

So we can NOT think Paul was talking of any of the #2 definitions of “gennao” because he quoted a word that ONLY meant the #1 definition of “gennao”.  Get it?  Similarly, we could not read the 700 year old Spanish letter and smartly assume he was saying the girl was good looking, for that wasn't one of the definitions at the time.

I'll stop here for now.  We must eventually jump some hurdles.

1.  Do you agree with Peter and John in Acts 4 that Psalm 2 was the holy spirit speaking THROUGH David ABOUT Jesus?

2.  Do you understand how Paul could not have meant anything but a literal begetting by quoting “yalad”?

mike

[Author]

Posts