- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi,
It seems odd that the most crucial fact in the bible does not have a forum of it's own here.Jesus Christ said he was the Son of God. God spoke from heaven and said he was the Son of God. Peter and Paul and John and John the baptist all say that Jesus is the Son of God.
Scripture says the Son was sent into the world.
But some here say he is instead the son of Joseph, a man only.
If so in what way is he a son of God?
Is he not a son or is “son of God” only to them a meaningless title?
God's Son….in the sense that he was conceived through the action of the holy spirit (God's active force).
If he were NOT “God's Son,” then his death/resurrection would mean nothing.
Hi tb4u,
If so, and he only existed from the moment of his human conception then why does scripture record the Son was sent into the world?
1Jn 4.9
“…God sent His only begotten Son into the world..”Hi tb4u,
Yes because the Son of Man was resurrected and became the “firstborn from the dead” we too can follow him into his death and become his brothers and sons of God too.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 18 2006,03:19) Hi tb4u,
If so, and he only existed from the moment of his human conception then why does scripture record the Son was sent into the world?
1Jn 4.9
“…God sent His only begotten Son into the world..”
I would say (my opinion) is that is simply a figure of speech.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 18 2006,03:21) Hi tb4u,
Yes because the Son of Man was resurrected and became the “firstborn from the dead” we too can follow him into his death and become his brothers and sons of God too.
Right! Nick…there is an argument for Jesus NOT being “God” that I think pretty well covers it…not sure if you have ever heard it, so I'll throw it in here:“If Jesus WAS God, then the death/resurrection means nothing.
If Jesus WAS NOT God, then the death/resurrection means EVERYTHING!”Can't remember where I read this, but it made a lot of sense to me. This argument is, of course, predicated on the fact that God cannot die…He is immortal, and knowing that, if Jesus was in fact God, then this throws the whole “sacrifice” out of whack. (Not to mention that if Jesus WAS God, there would have been NO resurrection, period, as there would have been no one around to resurrect him…if GOD DIED, there could have been no resurrection!)
Hi tbfu,
Please can you make up a list of the figures of speech that are found in the bible.
If there are things that appear to be true but are not because they are just an idiom of the language then we need to be able to recognise these things clearly.Otherwise there is ahe danger that we might believe them.
Hi,
All of the Jewish people are sons of God according to scripture [Deut 14.1]. In fact all men are sons of God as sons of Adam as Lk 3.38 shows. Again Paul made a similar claim when speaking to the Athenians in Acts 17.29
“Being then the offspring of God..”So if being THE Son of God only meant Jesus was a man or was a Jew then why was Jesus so excited when Peter stated;
“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”?
Why did he not just say “you are the Christ”?
The “only begotten Son” deserves our deep respect and all knees will bow to him even if now that is not the case.
Hi,
When Paul had to teach the Jews from their scriptures about the Son of God he had little to draw on. There is so little written about Jesus as the Son of God in the OT. That is why he used Psalm 2 several times and from different perspectives.
Ps 2.7
“I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord; He said to me'Thou art My Son, today I have begotten thee'..”
This is the Son who was with God and sent into the world.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 19 2006,03:07) Hi tbfu,
Please can you make up a list of the figures of speech that are found in the bible.
If there are things that appear to be true but are not because they are just an idiom of the language then we need to be able to recognise these things clearly.Otherwise there is ahe danger that we might believe them.
Nick….you gotta be kidding me? A list of idioms and figures of speech? You got a few days and a couple volumes of space here? No way we can do that here in the forum…you'd have to hit the library (you know, real books…the printed stuff!
). You can find articles on the Internet as well, but I'd recommend the local library.http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_idioms.html
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2794
http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library….ch.html
http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/otidioms.htmOnward…..Nick, the question of Jesus' “pre-existence” is one of those “darned if ya do, darned if ya don't” issues…..there are verses/contexts that support both views, and I have no idea which is ultimately correct, even though I, myself, tend to go with the “no pre-existence” theory
Nick, you asked: “So if being THE Son of God only meant Jesus was a man or was a Jew then why was Jesus so excited when Peter stated;
“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”?”
I think because Peter recognized he was the Messiah (Saviour), as opposed to simply being (in the Jewish tradition) a “son of God.”
Hi tbfu,
Then what does “only begotten” mean to you?
Pre-existence is a silly term.
Surely a being exists or it does not.
When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?”
We know God did and the angels do.
Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes?
Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1]The Word did..was that THE Son of God?
“You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God”
I do not believe Yahshua existed with YHWH before his birth except that his birth was planned and would take place 'when the fullness of time had come'.
Quote from Nick
Quote What does 'only begotten' mean to you? Quote John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (3439), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Hebrews 11:17-19 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotton (3439)son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
To say Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son would make no sense since according to the Bible, Abraham begat Ishmael as well as Isaac. But “one of a kind”, “one and only”, or “unique” would fit because Isaac was special. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was too old to have a child but she nevertheless became pregnant.
The following article may be of interst:
Only Begotton -MonogenesQuote (Ramblinrose @ April 26 2006,09:18) I do not believe Yahshua existed with YHWH before his birth except that his birth was planned and would take place 'when the fullness of time had come'. Quote from Nick
Quote What does 'only begotten' mean to you? Quote John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son (3439), that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Hebrews 11:17-19 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotton (3439)son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
To say Isaac was Abraham’s only-begotten son would make no sense since according to the Bible, Abraham begat Ishmael as well as Isaac. But “one of a kind”, “one and only”, or “unique” would fit because Isaac was special. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was too old to have a child but she nevertheless became pregnant.
The following article may be of interst:
Only Begotton -Monogenes
Hi RR,
Gen 22.1
“He said
'Take now your son,your ONLY son..”
Gen 22.12
“…I know that you fear God since you have not withheld your son, your ONLY son, from Me”
Gen 22.16
“…because you have not withheld your son, your ONLY son, indeed I will greatly bless you..”But earlier in Gen 16.15
“so Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son Ishmael..”How can this be?
Truth is according to what God states. If God does not recognise Ishmael as a true son of Abraham then that is that.
Abraham understood God's position.
Gen 17.13
“And Abraham said to God
'Oh that Ishmael might live before you!'
But God said
'No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you will call his name Isaac and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold I will bless him…”For the blessing was through Sarah
Gen 17.15
“As for Sarai, your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and indeed I shall give you a son by her. Then I will bless her and she shall be the mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her”So what of the “only begotten son” reference to Isaac in Hebrews 11.17? The word “son” does not appear in the manuscript but was added perhaps for clarity.
Surely it refers to his uniqueness as the son of promise through whom the bloodline of that promise flowed?
Interestingly there are several words translated as “ONLY” in the OT. But only one these three occasions in the OT is
3173 used in The OT so it deserves more study.3173 YACHID from
[3161 YACHAD to be united-unite[1]united[2]]
only, only one, solitary;
=child[1] lonely[2],one[1],only[5], only son[4]How odd that a word is only used in this context. Perhaps it can give insight to the meaning of “only begotten”? Perhaps the Hebrews use shows that it is equivalent to “Monogenes ” in Hebrew?
And why would a word derived from a word meaning 'united' be translated in a totally different sense as “only” ?-surely uniqueness, at least, must be part of the equation?
Quote Genesis 22:2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only (03173) son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” Genesis 22:12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only(03173 ) son[/b], from Me.”
Genesis 22:15-16 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only(03173) son[/b] —
HEBREW LEXICON
03173 dyxy yachiyd yaw-kheed’
from 03161; TWOT-858a;
AV-only 6, darling 2, only child 1, only son 1, desolate 1, solitary 1; 12
adj
1) only, only one, solitary, one
1a) only, unique, one
1b) solitary
1c) (TWOT) only begotten sonIsaac was the ‘unique’ son of Abraham and Yahshua was chosen as a son by YHWH and he was YHWH's ‘unique’ son.
Hi RR,
Of course it cannot simply mean just 'unique' either it is a a narrow meaning and as there is another word for that;
259 ECHAD which is also translated as alone, united, one and only.
Judges 11.34
“Now she was his one and only CHILD[3173.YACHID]
Surely if it could give the sense of meant 'uniqueness' it would have no place in this verse.Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,15:45) Hi tbfu,
Then what does “only begotten” mean to you?
Pre-existence is a silly term.
Surely a being exists or it does not.
When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?”
We know God did and the angels do.
Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes?
Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1]The Word did..was that THE Son of God?
“You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God”
“Only begotten,” to me means just that….Yashuah was the ONLY “begotten” Son of God…the ONLY one ever conceived via the holy spirit directly.“Pre-existence” may be a semantic argument…I lean toward the view that Yashuah did not exist until his conception, but there are other views…that's just my personal leaning.
John 1:1, et. seq. has been misinterpreted, and has nothing to do with “Jesus” existing way back in Genesis.
See: http://www.jetlink.com.ph/~religion/relig029.htm
and; http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/colossians.htmI think Ramblinrose has supplied some links, as well, that would apply.
Hello everyone,
Question: If the Word (Jesus, Michael or the word) did not exist before He was begotten then what is this scripture saying
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee “before the world was”.
Quote (kenrch @ April 27 2006,02:31) Hello everyone, Question: If the Word (Jesus, Michael or the word) did not exist before He was begotten then what is this scripture saying
Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee “before the world was”.
See: http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/b08trinity/john17v5.htmlJohn 17:5
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
Problem:
If Christ had glory with God before the world was, then obviously it is argued he must have existed before his birth on earth.
Solution:
Stress is often placed on Jesus' statement that he had glory with the Father. The J.W.'s in their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures translate this verse as follows: “So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.”1 But the Greek preposition “para” translated “with” in the A.V. and “alongside” in the N.W.T. also occurs in John 1:6: “There was a man sent from {Greek: para} God, whose name was John.” If the preposition in John 17:5 requires the literal pre-existence of Christ, then likewise it requires the literal pre-existence of John the Baptist.2 It is interesting that the N.W.T. inconsistently translates John 1:6 as follows: “There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John.” There is no hint of pre-existence here.How could Jesus have glory with his Father “before the world was” if he did not literally pre-exist? An illustration is helpful: An architect sees and knows the beautiful details of his proposed construction before the site is prepared, or the foundation-stone laid. But God is the great Architect and in His divine plan, Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8) – the chief cornerstone “foreordained before the foundation of the world”. (1 Peter 1:20). The building will duly be fitly framed together (Eph. 2:21) to constitute its part in the “kingdom prepared . . . from the foundation of the world.” (Matt. 25:34). Christ was “foreordained”, but not formed until born of the virgin Mary in the days of Herod the king. Likewise, the glory he had with his Father was in the divine plan of the great Architect. It was the subject of prophetic testimony “when it {the Spirit of Christ} testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” (1 Peter 1:11 cf. John 12:41).
Scripture speaks as if others pre-existed, as well as Christ. Consider the following:
Of believers, Paul wrote:
“Whom he did foreknow.” (Rom. 8:29).
“He had afore prepared {note the past tense} unto glory.” (Rom. 9:23 cf. 2 Tim. 1:9).
“He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” (Eph. 1:4).
Of Jeremiah, the LORD said: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer. 1:5).But who would contend for the pre-existence of Jeremiah and other believers because the language employed states that God knew them before they were born? Similarly, the language of John 17:5 must be understood in terms of this background. Unless the principle is recognized that God “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom. 4:17), confusion will result in Biblical interpretation, as it does with the wrested pre-existence interpretation given to this passage in John's gospel.
The context is sufficiently clear that Christ is not “Very God”. His power and authority are derived, not innate: “As thou hast given him {Christ} power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” (John 17:2).
The Greek preposition “para” in John 17:5 takes the dative case and means “beside and at, with or near a person; with, i.e., in the estimation or power of.” But in John 1:6 “para” takes the genitive case and means “from beside, beside and proceeding from.” See Ethelbert W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd., 1957), p. 888. Return
Quote (truebelief4u @ April 26 2006,19:14) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,15:45) Hi tbfu,
Then what does “only begotten” mean to you?
Pre-existence is a silly term.
Surely a being exists or it does not.
When you say “pre-existed” you really mean “existed in a form prior to visible physical existence?”
We know God did and the angels do.
Why is it so hard to grasp what we cannot see with our own eyes?
Yet faith is to do with things that are not seen.[Heb 11.1]The Word did..was that THE Son of God?
“You are the Christ THE Son of the Living God”
“Only begotten,” to me means just that….Yashuah was the ONLY “begotten” Son of God…the ONLY one ever conceived via the holy spirit directly.“Pre-existence” may be a semantic argument…I lean toward the view that Yashuah did not exist until his conception, but there are other views…that's just my personal leaning.
John 1:1, et. seq. has been misinterpreted, and has nothing to do with “Jesus” existing way back in Genesis.
See: http://www.jetlink.com.ph/~religion/relig029.htm
and; http://www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/5257/colossians.htmI think Ramblinrose has supplied some links, as well, that would apply.
Hi tbfu,
Clearly you have not looked at the greek.
“only begotten” is one word 'monogenes'.He is also the only and beloved “only begotten son”, who was sent into the world.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 26 2006,18:37) Hi RR,
Of course it cannot simply mean just 'unique' either it is a a narrow meaning and as there is another word for that;
259 ECHAD which is also translated as alone, united, one and only.
Judges 11.34
“Now she was his one and only CHILD[3173.YACHID]
Surely if it could give the sense of meant 'uniqueness' it would have no place in this verse.
No, it does not mean 'unique' in all cases.Isaac was not Abrahams 'only' son Ishmael was his first son. Isaac was however his 'unique' son, the son of the promise YHWH made with him and it is through Isaac the 'seed' was to come.
Yahshua was not the 'only' son of YHWH as Solomon was also a choosen son. Yahshua was however his 'unique' son, born of the 'seed of David' – the one all had been waiting for. The 'unique' son of God – the Messiah.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
