The son begotten when?

Participant

Hi all,

Some on here think that if the Son of God actually was begotten as an offspring before the ages, that would make Him a lesser God. Well, not lesser God by nature. The Father would not have an offspring that was of an alien nature than Himself. Perfect begats perfect after all. One would certainly be from the other and that would indicate a difference but what is the significance of that difference. It establishes a relationship of Father and Son. The Father is greater than the Son, not by nature but by being the source of the Son. They are two separate persons, one nature and together in one Godhead. One is the source and the other the fruit from the source. Is the fruit of a tree of a different nature than the tree? Is the fruit of a lesser nature and the tree a greater nature? Of course not. The tree is however the source of the fruit and the fruit is not the source of the tree which gave it. Do they both have the glory of being the same nature? Yes, same nature.

Here is a quote from Cyril of Alexandria:

Quote

Another. If the Son be less than the Father, and therefore not Consubstantial; He is as a consequence other by nature and wholly alien: hence He is not Son, yea not even God at all. For how will he be called Son who is not of the Father, or how will he be any longer God who is not of God by Nature? But since our faith is in the Son, we are still it seems in error, not knowing the True God. But this is absurd. Believing therefore in the Son, we believe in the Father too and in the Holy Ghost. The Son is not therefore alien from God the Father as lesser, but has unity with Him, by reason of being of Him by Nature, and is therefore both Equal and Perfect.

Another. If God the Word Who beamed forth from God the Father is in truth Son, of necessity must our opponents even against their will confess that He is of the Essence of the Father; for this is what sonship in truth means. Then how is Such inferior to the Father, if He be Fruit of His Essence, Which is nowise receptive of the lesser within Itself? For all things are in perfect degree in God. But if He be not of the Essence of the Father, neither is He Son, but some counterfeit and falsely-called: yea neither will the Father Himself be rightly and truly called Father. For if there be no Son by Nature, on account of Whom He is Father, how is He conceived of as Father? But this is absurd, for God is Very Father; for so do all the Divine Scriptures cry aloud. He Who is of Him by Nature is therefore surely Son: if so, not lesser; for He is Consubstantial as Son.

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel….ok1.htm

BTW, our sons are consubstantial with us too. It means to be of the same nature, essence.

July 19, 2010 at 4:13 pm#204990

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)

Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.

Kathi

But you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.

Arians

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God “did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.[3] Wki

Arius

At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[19] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father were led by the young archdeacon Athanasius. Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[20] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said he, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. Wiki

The only difference is you say he was “Born from the Father” and not created, yet scripturally there is no difference.

This puts you in “Arius” camp for “The True God”, Jesus could not be “True God” if he had a beginning.

The Concept that God brought birth to a god is more in line with Greek Mythology and Polytheism.

The truth is “The Word was with God and was God”.

July 19, 2010 at 4:20 pm#204991

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,10:03)

Hi all,

Here is a quote from Cyril of Alexandria:

Quote

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel….ok1.htm

BTW, our sons are consubstantial with us too. It means to be of the same nature, essence.

Kathi

There is nothing in this quote that implies the very essence of who Jesus is, ever had a beginning. Therefore since he is the “Eternal Essence” of the Father he is “Eternal” and without beginning or without end.

John described him being with the Father as the “Eternal Life” in the beginning before time which is “Eternity”.

1 John 1:1-3

July 19, 2010 at 4:30 pm#204992

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:21)

Hi WJ,

First, why didn't you answer my points about Jesus being the SON of God instead of a different title?

How do you think God expected us to understand “only begotten Son of God”?

Like John described him as the “Monogenes” “Only Unique” Son of God.

He is Unique because he was born of a virgin. No other is like him or will be the “Monogenes” Son which is the Word that was with God and was God and who “ginomai” (came into existence) in the flesh as the “Monogenes” Son.

So why didn’t you answer this post?

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,19:30)

This Psalm is not about King David at all, but Jesus.

It sure is speaking of David as well as Jesus.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,19:30)

And you keep capitalizing the “THE KING SAYS”, but the NET translation says about those words, The words “the king says” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The speaker is the Lord’s chosen king.

And the NET also says…

23tn Or “I will relate the decree. The Lord said to me” (in accordance with the Masoretic accentuation).
24sn ‘You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). The idiom reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” “Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift. Such gifts usually took the form of land and/or an enduring dynasty. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184-203, for general discussion and some striking extra-biblical parallels.

So I highlighted the part that is there…

2:6 “I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.” 2:7 “the King says, “I WILL ANNOUNCE THE LORD’S DECREE. “HE SAID TO ME: ‘YOU ARE MY SON! THIS VERY DAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER! 2:8 Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property. NET

Did David hear the decree before he was “born”?

Was the Apostle Paul an idiot for applying this scripture to Jesus after the resurrection? Heb 1:5 Heb 5:5.

Did Jesus hear the Father say this to him before he was so-called “born from the Fathers womb”?

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; “BUT HE THAT SAID UNTO HIM (JESUS), Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.:”. Heb 5:5

When did the Father say to Jesus “Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten (gennaō) thee”?

Jesus already existed when the Father said this to him didn't he Mike?

July 19, 2010 at 5:26 pm#204996

Participant

If one defines 'God', then it will be seen clearly that there can be no such thing as a 'Lesser God' or anything called 'God' that can be equal to that which IS GOD. Not even that which is FROM GOD is GOD because anything FROM or OF GOD is, by, both exact and simple logic, less than GOD.

There can be only ONE who is GOD.

God is everything; Everything is 'part' of God.
God is in everything; Everything is 'Within' God.
God created everything; Anything 'Created' cannot be God.
God contains everything; Anything 'contained' by God cannot 'BE' God.
Only that which is whole and uncontained and not within and not part of a whole but is that whole can be the God of that whole.

One can be 'god' of a lesser whole, for sure. A man can be 'god' of his whole family; an 'expert' can be 'god' of his profession, etc. But such 'gods' are only so by granting permission to have a limit on a family group, or limits on a professional ability.
Abraham may be called the 'god' of Isaac. Or that expert, the 'god of his profession' if he, at that point, has, given human limitations, has 'all' knowledge concerning his profession. He cannot be questioned and not be able to answer; he cannot be asked and cannot do; he needs no external input, no 'companion' to committee with.

So, ask then. Define Jesus' divinity and state how he is that 'expert', how the 'expert' requires to be given 'power and authority' from another source. In fact, from the source of …All Power and Authority.

July 19, 2010 at 5:28 pm#204997

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)

Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.

Kathi

But you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.

Arians

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God “did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.[3] Wki

Arius

The only difference is you say he was “Born from the Father” and not created, yet scripturally there is no difference.

This puts you in “Arius” camp for “The True God”, Jesus could not be “True God” if he had a beginning.

The Concept that God brought birth to a god is more in line with Greek Mythology and Polytheism.

The truth is “The Word was with God and was God”.

Keith,
I am showing these quotes by these people to say that they believe that the Son is the Son 'of God' before the ages and not that He becomes the Son 'of God' at a later time as in Mary or at His resurrection. These people that I am quoting are also stressing that He was begotten as a Son with the same nature as the Father and not some foreign nature.

It seems that the debate with the arians and the trinitarians was this:
arians: the son was the first creation of God and not the same nature as God and that He was made from NOTHING.

trinitarians: the son was begotten of God before the ages and thus, the same nature as God. They say that He was generated from the eternal God.

On that basis, I agree with the trinitarians here. I have always said on here that the Son was of the same nature of the one He was begotten of. I have never said that the Son was made out of NOTHING.

In the matter of the Son being always existent, in a way, it can be said that He was always existent if you realize that He was generated from eternal substance. For instance, if the Father had the incurruptible seed of the Son always within Him, yet dormant, and then at the proper time during eternity quickened that 'seed' to eternal life as His only begotten offspring by His 'word' or whatever means, then it can be said that the Son had eternal existence…but only in a sense. Sort of like Levi paying a tithe while he was still in his ancestor Abraham's loins. Levi existed but only in a sense.

Heb 7:9 And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. 7:10 For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins 15 when Melchizedek met him.

(This was added but in hopes that we would not go off on a tangent about Levi)

July 19, 2010 at 5:43 pm#204999

Participant

Every sentient creation of God is a 'Son of God'.

There is no special emphasis on 'pre-Jesus' being a Son of God over any other Son of God, except that 'pre-Jesus' was held in higher esteem by God because 'pre-Jesus' held himself more righteous than all the other Sons of God.
He was therefore chosen to be the unblemished lamb to be offered as a Sacrifice in the form of a perfect human Servant-Son of God.

Remember that even Adam, is called 'Son of God'. Was Adam 'a Human form of God'

Remember, also, that all that become like Christ, will also be called Brothers of Christ, Sons of God and Heirs with Christ, Princes to God our ultimate King.

So, does that mean, they too, will 'become God' because each will be called 'Son of God'

July 19, 2010 at 5:57 pm#205002

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,12:28)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)

Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.

Kathi

But you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.

Arians

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God “did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.[3] Wki

Arius

The only difference is you say he was “Born from the Father” and not created, yet scripturally there is no difference.

This puts you in “Arius” camp for “The True God”, Jesus could not be “True God” if he had a beginning.

The Concept that God brought birth to a god is more in line with Greek Mythology and Polytheism.

The truth is “The Word was with God and was God”.

It seems that the debate with the arians and the trinitarians was this:
arians: the son was the first creation of God and not the same nature as God and that He was made from NOTHING.

trinitarians: the son was begotten of God before the ages and thus, the same nature as God. They say that He was generated from the eternal God.

Heb 7:9 And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. 7:10 For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins 15 when Melchizedek met him.

(This was added but in hopes that we would not go off on a tangent about Levi)

Kathi

I know what you believe. You believe Jesus had a beginning.

Trinitarians do not believe that. Anything that had a beginning is not God but part of a beginning.

Jesus was there in the beginning before time meaning he always was with the Father and the Father was always with him.

July 19, 2010 at 6:21 pm#205003

Participant

Keith,
In regards to the word 'was' in John 1:1:

The verse reads this way:
“In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God”

Some have taken that further and said:
“The Word always was in the beginning and always was with God and always was God”
or
“The Word already was in the beginning and already was with God and already was God”
or
“The Word always was before the beginning and always was with God and always was God”

I do not think that is the intent but more like:
“The Word was in the beginning, the word was with God and the word was God”

The imperfect form of the word 'was' does not denote a sense of 'always was.'
An infinitive of the verb 'to be' (which 'was' is-an infinitive of 'to be') when used in the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of a continual or repeated action.
This info can be found by going to this link and clicking on the number 5713.
http://www.studylight.org/isb….=1&l=en

The word was with God (the Son was with God)
The word was God (the Son would be whatever His Father was) Perfect begets perfect, perfect does not beget imperfect.

July 19, 2010 at 6:45 pm#205004

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,12:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,12:28)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)

Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.

Kathi

But you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.

Arians

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God “did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.[3] Wki

Arius

The only difference is you say he was “Born from the Father” and not created, yet scripturally there is no difference.

This puts you in “Arius” camp for “The True God”, Jesus could not be “True God” if he had a beginning.

The Concept that God brought birth to a god is more in line with Greek Mythology and Polytheism.

The truth is “The Word was with God and was God”.

It seems that the debate with the arians and the trinitarians was this:
arians: the son was the first creation of God and not the same nature as God and that He was made from NOTHING.

trinitarians: the son was begotten of God before the ages and thus, the same nature as God. They say that He was generated from the eternal God.

Heb 7:9 And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. 7:10 For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins 15 when Melchizedek met him.

(This was added but in hopes that we would not go off on a tangent about Levi)

Kathi

I know what you believe. You believe Jesus had a beginning.

Trinitarians do not believe that. Anything that had a beginning is not God but part of a beginning.

Jesus was there in the beginning before time meaning he always was with the Father and the Father was always with him.

Keith,
From what I understand after reading about what the early fathers had to say is that the Son was not a seperate distinct person at one point and then was begotten as a seperate person at another point. That would also mean that the seperate person had a beginning at being seperate from the Father. That which was hidden in the bosom of the Father was begotten when it was brought forth. Nobody says that the separate person of the Son was always brought forth and was never 'hidden.'

The beginning that I imply is that of His being a separate person from the Father and I understand the term 'begotten' with the term 'firstborn' as indicating the process of the Son becoming a separate person was like a true Son, exactly the nature like His Father.

July 19, 2010 at 6:48 pm#205005

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,13:21)

I do not think that is the intent but more like:
“The Word was in the beginning, the word was with God and the word was God”

The intent of John could not have been that he had a beginning or else why would he say “the Word was God”, the same Word “Theos” that he was with?

It is purely inference that the Theos that was with the Theos had a beginning since he was there in the beginning.

Why not the Word was the “begotten Son” or the “Word was from God”?

The term Word\God with God surely does not imply a beginning or he would not have waited until the 14th verse to call him the “Begotten Son”.

It is merely inference that Jesus was the “begotten Son” in John 1:1.

July 19, 2010 at 6:55 pm#205006

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,13:45)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,12:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,12:28)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)

Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.

Kathi

But you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.

Arians

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God “did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.[3] Wki

Arius

The only difference is you say he was “Born from the Father” and not created, yet scripturally there is no difference.

This puts you in “Arius” camp for “The True God”, Jesus could not be “True God” if he had a beginning.

The Concept that God brought birth to a god is more in line with Greek Mythology and Polytheism.

The truth is “The Word was with God and was God”.

It seems that the debate with the arians and the trinitarians was this:
arians: the son was the first creation of God and not the same nature as God and that He was made from NOTHING.

trinitarians: the son was begotten of God before the ages and thus, the same nature as God. They say that He was generated from the eternal God.

Heb 7:9 And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. 7:10 For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins 15 when Melchizedek met him.

(This was added but in hopes that we would not go off on a tangent about Levi)

Kathi

I know what you believe. You believe Jesus had a beginning.

Trinitarians do not believe that. Anything that had a beginning is not God but part of a beginning.

Jesus was there in the beginning before time meaning he always was with the Father and the Father was always with him.

Kathi

But that is because you believe that the words “Begotten” or “Firstborn” in relation to Jesus always means to be literraly born as in the case of “Isaac” who was the “Monogenes” Son according to the promise and not the firstborn Son.

Scripturally it is a fact that Jesus was “Begotten” after the resurection and declared to be the Son of God with Power.

So the terms “Begotten” and “Firstborn does not always mean to be born.

Or else Paul would have given litteral birth to the Corinthians and Onesimus!

July 19, 2010 at 7:11 pm#205007

Participant

Keith,
I don't think John was implying either a beginning or an always existing.
I do think that John was implying that the word was a person and a separate person than the one He was with and that separate person was in the beginning.

July 19, 2010 at 7:14 pm#205008

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,13:55)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,13:45)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,12:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,12:28)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)

Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories? If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.

Kathi

But you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.

Arians

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God “did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father.[3] Wki

Arius

The only difference is you say he was “Born from the Father” and not created, yet scripturally there is no difference.

This puts you in “Arius” camp for “The True God”, Jesus could not be “True God” if he had a beginning.

The Concept that God brought birth to a god is more in line with Greek Mythology and Polytheism.

The truth is “The Word was with God and was God”.

It seems that the debate with the arians and the trinitarians was this:
arians: the son was the first creation of God and not the same nature as God and that He was made from NOTHING.

trinitarians: the son was begotten of God before the ages and thus, the same nature as God. They say that He was generated from the eternal God.

Heb 7:9 And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. 7:10 For he was still in his ancestor Abraham’s loins 15 when Melchizedek met him.

(This was added but in hopes that we would not go off on a tangent about Levi)

Kathi

I know what you believe. You believe Jesus had a beginning.

Trinitarians do not believe that. Anything that had a beginning is not God but part of a beginning.

Jesus was there in the beginning before time meaning he always was with the Father and the Father was always with him.

Kathi

Scripturally it is a fact that Jesus was “Begotten” after the resurection and declared to be the Son of God with Power.

So the terms “Begotten” and “Firstborn does not always mean to be born.

Or else Paul would have given litteral birth to the Corinthians and Onesimus!

I realize that the meanings aren't ALWAYS literal. But I do believe that the Son is a literal Son, a true Son, a begotten Son as one who therefore has the same nature as the one that beget Him. And as far as I have read, so do the early Christian fathers.

I have to go do some stuff around here. I am expecting a friend from CA to come for a visit. Talk to ya later. K

July 19, 2010 at 7:21 pm#205010

Participant

In the beginning was the Word.

What/when was 'the Beginning'?

And the Word was with God.
“the word was WITH God”. Very simply: is something 'WITH' something else, that Something Else?

And the Word was God.
…I make no pretence of understanding what this means…

He was in the beginning with God.
It clearly states here that 'PreJesus' was 'in the beginning' WITH God.

It has already been asked, 'what/when' was the 'Beginning'. It was certainly NOT 'Eternity'.

All things were made 'Through' Him…

If 'He' were God, would not the statement say, 'All things were made BY Him'? Why 'Through Him'? Does this not imply that the initial 'Cause' was from 'outside' of Him?
All that is written in John 1, pertains to the 'past' in as much as 'In the bosom of the Father' and 'Only Begotten of the Father' refer to Jesus' risen position and not 'from his preJesus' position as some have tried to force it to say.

July 19, 2010 at 7:27 pm#205012

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,14:11)

Kathi

No one is denying that he is not the same person.

The question is in regards to his role as a Son and when that begins.

Scriptures clearly state that Sons can become Sons of God though they at one time were not, yet they remain the same person.

There is no scriptural support for Jesus being born before time or again that would be a beginning and Jesus was there in the beginning.

That is what the Church Fathers believed. I have no problem looking back through time and saying that Jesus is the Eternal Son of God that was with the Father in the Eternal Godhead which always existed.

July 19, 2010 at 7:37 pm#205015