The son begotten when?

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 17 2010,16:02)

Mike

If Paul meant a literal begetting then why did he use the same word for the other scriptures?

Okay WJ,

I'm going through this with Jack and the word “made” in our “plural God” debate right now also. There are more than one definition, for example:

I made a table today = formed
Kathi made me laugh = caused me to laugh
I made you my arch enemy on HN = appointed you to something

It is similar with gennao. It CAN mean a literal begetting, but doesn't necessarily HAVE to. So which one did Paul mean in Hebrews 1? Well, he tells us he was quoting Psalm 2. What is the word in Psalm 2? YALAD. What does the Hebrew “yalad” mean? A LITERAL begetting.

Now just because Paul other times uses “gennao” in a way that implies one of the other definitions of it – NOT a literal begetting – is not to say the word “gennao” doesn't ever mean a literal begetting, right?

So since he used “gennao” to replace the Hebrew word “yalad” (which always means a literal begetting) in Hebrews 1, we can assume in that case, “gennao” has the LITERAL BEGETTING definition.

And about Ignatius, your favorite quote that you post over and over says right in it that Jesus was “BORN FROM GOD”. But here's my favorite Ignatius quote:

But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son.

Whatever definition of “gennao” you want to use for Jesus, you also have to find a way to explain that the Father is the “un” of that definition. And the only one that works is “caused to exist”. The Father is the only one who was never “caused to exist”, yet He was the One who “caused to exist” the “only caused to exist Son”.

Go ahead, try one of the alternate definitions of “gennao”. See how good it works in this sentence. One more from Ignatius from the same letter:

For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father,

In what sense was Jesus begotten before time began? And why didn't Ignatius know what you and KJ know – that Jesus wasn't “begotten” until he was raised?

mike

July 17, 2010 at 3:22 pm#204496

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ July 18 2010,00:43)

MIke ………Was ADAM and EVE then begotten by GOD also because scripture says that Adam was a Son of GOD. What is you take on this then brother?.

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

Hi Gene,

Does scripture say Adam was begotten from God? You do know that Jesus is THE Son of God in a special way that none of us other “sons of God” are, right? Like calling the Philistine god Dagon “god”. But we know he is not THE God, right?

mike

July 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm#204497

Participant

Hi All

I always love it when an “Arian” uses the words of a Trinitarian (who refutes Arianism) to support their Arianistic beliefs.

Let’s look at Calvin’s quote…

“The first-born of every creature. The reason of this appellation is immediately added…”

First of all we see that Calvin calls “The first-born” (prōtotokos) an appellation which is merely a title or a name. Then he clarifies why this is so for he says…

— For in him all things are created, as he is, three verses afterwards, “called the first-begotten from the dead, because by him we all rise again“.

He clearly states that he is called the “first-begotten” (prōtotokos) from the dead which he says he is called that “because by him we all rise again”.

He then goes on to say…

Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having preceded all creatures in point of time,

Again he says “he is not “called” the first-born on the grounds that he preceded all creatures “In a point of time”.

But he says…

but because he was begotten (the appellation name or title by reason that all things came from him) by the Father, that they might be created by him, and that he might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things.

So in other words Jesus is the “Source”, the substance or foundation of all things. This is why he is called the first-born, because he has the preeminence.

Then he completely refutes the Arian supposition…

It was then a foolish part that the Arians acted, who argued from this that he was, consequently, a creature. For what is here treated of is, not what he is in himself, but what he accomplishes in others.

He specifically states that “first-born” is not “what he is in himself, but what he accomplishes in others” as he is also called “the first-begotten from the dead, because by him we all rise again”.

The Arian controversy has been going on for centuries and has been rejected by the Forefathers as a heretical belief.

This is what the Arians believed…

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological dogma, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and most Protestant Churches. “Arianism” is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).

Source

Calvin was a Trinitarian and refuted Arianism and defended the creeds which were written to address the heritical beliefs of Arius and his followers.

July 17, 2010 at 3:32 pm#204498

Participant

WJ said to Mikeboll:

Quote

As far as beating me over the head with Ignatius, his point has nothing to do with what you say, for no where does Ignatius or any Trinitarian believe that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh.

Keith,

Mike assumes that he and Ignatius mean the same thing by terms used. Mike “beats” over the head with what men say because he does not have a strong enough argument scripturally and he knows it. He said that he cannot prove scripturally when Jesus was begotten. You even asked him if Jesus is called begotten before his birth and he replied saying, “Not that scripture records.”

So Mike has to rely heavily on the statements of men and what he thinks they meant by what they said.

That's why from now on I will give Mike what he wants. He wants the word of men. So when he gives me Eusebius I will give him Custance and his language credentials in return.

Jack

July 17, 2010 at 3:34 pm#204499

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ July 17 2010,16:25)

Hi all,
Here is what Calvin wrote about the Col 1 'firstborn':

Quote

The first-born of every creature. The reason of this appellation is immediately added — For in him all things are created, as he is, three verses afterwards, called the first-begotten from the dead, because by him we all rise again. Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having preceded all creatures in point of time, but because he was begotten by the Father, that they might be created by him, and that he might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things. It was then a foolish part that the Arians acted, who argued from this that he was, consequently, a creature. For what is here treated of is, not what he is in himself, but what he accomplishes in others.

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom42.v.ii.iii.html

I agree with Calvin here. Calvin knew that the Son was begotten before the ages.

Hi Kathi,

And yet ANOTHER early chuch father who understood the scriptures as we do.

I have discovered some the reasons people don't want to read the scriptures as they are written.

JA thinks Satan was God's firstborn, but then messed up so God had to “appoint” Jesus as His firstborn and begotten.

WJ and KJ can't have Jesus being caused to exist because that would mess up their whole “Jesus is God Himself” doctine.

Martian ignores the scriptures about Jesus pre-existing because he – a mere man – WANTS Jesus to be nothing more than a man like him to make him feel like he can accomplish what Jesus did and overcome this world.

It's amazing to me how many people would choose to ignore scripture or make up their own definitions of what the words mean just to satisfy their own man-made belief system.

mike

July 17, 2010 at 4:02 pm#204502

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,02:31)

First of all we see that Calvin calls “The first-born” (prōtotokos) an appellation which is merely a title or a name.

Hi WJ,

Calvin, like the Nicene Creed, has it all scripurally correct until the end.

You son has the “appelllation” of “son of WJ”. It is the “title” he recieved by being begotten by you.

And Calvin says Jesus is not called firstborn “simply” or “ONLY” because he was ahead of all others – although that is the main reason.

Then Calvin says, but it was because he was BEGOTTEN by the Father.

Who was the Father BEGOTTEN by, WJ?

No matter how you define it, it always comes up the same: The Son is ALWAYS BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IS “UNBEGOTTEN”, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOWHERE IN THE PICTURE. If that doesn't spell out a difference between the two entities of Jesus and God, I don't know what to tell you.

Then, Calvin adds his man-made thoughts at the end which contradict the scriptural things he said before – just like the Nicene Creed. They were going along just fine, and then they added the anathema at the end which contradicted every scriptural thing they just said.

You quoted:

Quote

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological dogma, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church

Your source left out this part of history:

This creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by later councils, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”

mike

July 17, 2010 at 4:32 pm#204505

Blocked

Jack, you lie so often and misrepresent truth even more. I never said Jesus wasn't called “BEGOTTEN” before he was flesh.

And NO ONE can PROVE the exact WHEN of Jesus' begetting. We only know it was before all ages.

You are so scared of Eusebius, why not try Ignatius:

But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son.

What did Ignatius mean when he said the Father was the only “UNBEGOTTEN” and the “BEGETTER OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”?

What definition of “begotten” would you apply here?

As far as your “scholars” you like to quote, I hope they are a little sharper than the Clarke you used in our debate. He was supposed to be an expert on the Bible, and it took me only a few hours of research to scripturally prove him wrong.

Maybe you should spend less time searching the web for people who agree with you and more time believing what the Word of God actually teaches.

mike

July 17, 2010 at 4:41 pm#204508

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,10:14)

Really? Then King David heard YHWH speak those words to him before he was born.

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

The NET says…
22tn The words “the king says” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The speaker is the Lord’s chosen king.
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.

It is David that is “declaring the decree” that he heard Mike. Did David hear the decree before he was born?

This is a prophetic Psalm of Jesus quoted by the Apostles as the “Title” given Jesus after his resurrection when the Father had given him all things.

Adam Clark says…

This day have I begotten thee.
By thy resurrection thou art declared to be the Son of God, ÎµÎ½Î´Ï…Î½Î±Î¼ÎµÎ¹, by miraculous power, being raised from the dead. Thus by thy wondrous and supernatural nativity, most extraordinary death, and miraculous resurrection, thou art declared to be the Son of God. And as in that Son dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, all the sufferings and the death of that human nature were stamped with an infinitely meritorious efficacy. We have St. Paul's authority for applying to the resurrection of our Lord these words, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee; “-see Acts 13:33; see also ; Hebrews 5:5;-and the man must indeed be a bold interpreter of the Scriptures who would give a different gloss to that of the apostle.

The Geneva study Bible writes…

2:7 I will declare the d decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this e day have I begotten thee.
(d) To show that my calling to the kingdom is from God.
(e) That is to say, concerning man’s knowledge, because it was the first time that David appeared to be elected by God. So it is applied to Christ in his first coming and manifestation to the world.

Matthew Henry commentates…

1. A title by inheritance (Psalms 2:7): Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This scripture the apostle quotes (Hebrews 1:5) to prove that Christ has a more excellent name than the angels, but that he obtained it by inheritance, Psalms 2:4. He is the Son of God, not by adoption, but his begotten Son, the only begotten of the Father, John 1:14. And the Father owns him, and will have this declared to the world as the reason why he is constituted King upon the holy hill of Zion; he is therefore unquestionably entitled to, and perfectly qualified for, that great trust. He is the Son of God, and therefore of the same nature with the Father, has in him all the fulness of the godhead, infinite wisdom, power, and holiness. The supreme government of the church is too high an honour and too hard an undertaking for any mere creature; none can be fit for it “but he who is one with the Father and was FROM ETERNITY by him as one brought up with him, thoroughly apprized of all his counsels, Proverbs 8:30.

Why do you insist in propagating your own theories over the Scriptures?

July 17, 2010 at 4:44 pm#204510

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,02:34)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 17 2010,16:25)

Hi all,
Here is what Calvin wrote about the Col 1 'firstborn':

Quote

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom42.v.ii.iii.html

I agree with Calvin here. Calvin knew that the Son was begotten before the ages.

Hi Kathi,

And yet ANOTHER early chuch father who understood the scriptures as we do.

I have discovered some the reasons people don't want to read the scriptures as they are written.

JA thinks Satan was God's firstborn, but then messed up so God had to “appoint” Jesus as His firstborn and begotten.

WJ and KJ can't have Jesus being caused to exist because that would mess up their whole “Jesus is God Himself” doctine.

It's amazing to me how many people would choose to ignore scripture or make up their own definitions of what the words mean just to satisfy their own man-made belief system.

mike

John Calvin on the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born according to the seed of David” ( Romans 1:3)

Quote

Divinity and humanity are the two requisites which we must look for in Christ if we are to find salvation in Him. His divinity contains power, righteousness, and life, which are communicated to us by His humanity

Calvin on the statement “eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5)

Quote

We must further note that this ascription of praise belongs only to the one eternal God. In another passage (1 Tim. 1:17) Paul states that there is one God to whom honor and and glory are due. To separate this clause from the rest of the of the context for the purpose of depriving Christ of this CLEAR WITNESS TO HIS DIVINITY, is an audacious attempt to create darkness where there is full light. The words are quite plain, 'CHRIST, who from the Jews according to the flesh, IS GOD BLESSED FOREVER'

Excerpts taken from Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, Romans and Thessalonians pages 15-16, 196, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company

By the term “begotten before all ages” Calvin meant that the Son of God was eternal. No history revisionism on Kathi's and Mike's part can make Calvin a non-trinitairan. He CLEARLY believed in the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Are Kathi and Mike husband and wife?

the Roo

July 17, 2010 at 4:53 pm#204512

Participant

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,11:32)

What did Ignatius mean when he said the Father was the only “UNBEGOTTEN” and the “BEGETTER OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”?

The same thing the Father meant when Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father and the Father declared the decree…

…He said to me: ‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father! Pss 2:6, 7 – Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5

The same thing that he meant when David heard his voice say…

I WILL ANNOUNCE THE LORD’S DECREE. HE SAID TO ME: ‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father! Pss 2:7

July 17, 2010 at 4:54 pm#204514

Participant

Kathi and Mike,

See my post above on Calvin. You've been caught revising history. I have some of Calvin's commentaries in my personal library.

the Roo

July 17, 2010 at 4:57 pm#204516

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,11:02)

[No matter how you define it, it always comes up the same: The Son is ALWAYS BEGOTTEN BY THE FATHER, AND THE FATHER IS “UNBEGOTTEN”, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOWHERE IN THE PICTURE. If that doesn't spell out a difference between the two entities of Jesus and God, I don't know what to tell you.

Fallacious, for no scritpure declares Jesus to be the “Begotten Son of God” before he came in the flesh. All scriptures declaring him as such are prophetic or post incarnation.

July 17, 2010 at 4:58 pm#204517

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,03:41)

Why do you insist in propagating your own theories over the Scriptures?

Not just my theories WJ,

The “greatest Greek teacher” and “most learned theologian of his day” agrees with “my theory”.

How does your understanding fit in with Eusebius' and Ignatius' understanding that Jesus was begotten by the Father “before all ages”?

mike

July 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm#204518

Participant

Bump for Mike and Kathi

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,02:34)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 17 2010,16:25)

Hi all,
Here is what Calvin wrote about the Col 1 'firstborn':

Quote

found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom42.v.ii.iii.html

I agree with Calvin here. Calvin knew that the Son was begotten before the ages.

Hi Kathi,

And yet ANOTHER early chuch father who understood the scriptures as we do.

I have discovered some the reasons people don't want to read the scriptures as they are written.

JA thinks Satan was God's firstborn, but then messed up so God had to “appoint” Jesus as His firstborn and begotten.

WJ and KJ can't have Jesus being caused to exist because that would mess up their whole “Jesus is God Himself” doctine.

It's amazing to me how many people would choose to ignore scripture or make up their own definitions of what the words mean just to satisfy their own man-made belief system.

mike

John Calvin on the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born according to the seed of David” ( Romans 1:3)

Quote

Calvin on the statement “eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5)

Quote

Excerpts taken from Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, Romans and Thessalonians pages 15-16, 196, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Company

Are Kathi and Mike husband and wife?

the Roo

July 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm#204519

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,03:44)

By the term “begotten before all ages” Calvin meant that the Son of God was eternal.

Well, the Father is eternal. When is the Father ever said to be “begotten”?

Think, man think.

And no one cares what any of these MEN think. We only care how the Greek words were understood by people closer to the time of Jesus.

mike

July 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm#204520

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,11:58)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,03:41)

Why do you insist in propagating your own theories over the Scriptures?

Not just my theories WJ,

The “greatest Greek teacher” and “most learned theologian of his day” agrees with “my theory”.

How does your understanding fit in with Eusebius' and Ignatius' understanding that Jesus was begotten by the Father “before all ages”?

mike

Scripture Mike!

You have none!

July 17, 2010 at 5:06 pm#204521

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,11:58)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,03:41)

Why do you insist in propagating your own theories over the Scriptures?

Not just my theories WJ,

The “greatest Greek teacher” and “most learned theologian of his day” agrees with “my theory”.

How does your understanding fit in with Eusebius' and Ignatius' understanding that Jesus was begotten by the Father “before all ages”?

mike

The same thing the Father meant when Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Father and the Father declared the decree…

…He said to me: ‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father! Pss 2:6, 7 – Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5

The same thing that he meant when David heard his voice say…

I WILL ANNOUNCE THE LORD’S DECREE. HE SAID TO ME: ‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father! Pss 2:7

July 17, 2010 at 5:10 pm#204522

Blocked

And as far as “husband and wife”, one might ask the same question about you and WJ. Do you guys call each other and agree on a time to visit HN? Every time one of you posts, the other is right there with a backslap. Have you worked it out to high five each other for every post in the effort that one agreeing with the other will somehow make what the other posted seem more believable?

Unfortuantely for you guys, no one here gives much credibility to ANYTHING EITHER ONE OF YOU GUYS HAS TO SAY.

So you agreeing with each other is kind of like the clowns running the circus!

mike

July 17, 2010 at 5:12 pm#204523

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,04:01)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,03:44)

By the term “begotten before all ages” Calvin meant that the Son of God was eternal.

Well, the Father is eternal. When is the Father ever said to be “begotten”?

Think, man think.

And no one cares what any of these MEN think. We only care how the Greek words were understood by people closer to the time of Jesus.

mike

If no one cares what Calvin thought then why did Kathi post fragments from Calvin? And why did you “amen” what Kathi said?

You said:

Quote

And yet ANOTHER early chuch father who understood the scriptures as we do

Make up your mind Mike. You either care what Calvin said or you don't.

Who cares what your hero Eusebius said? Did you know that after he signed the Nicene creed he wrote a letter of apology to his Arian firiends? He anathematized them by by signing the creed and then writes a letter of apology. Just the kind of man you look up to. Right Mike?

the Roo

July 17, 2010 at 5:14 pm#204524