"Begotten", what does it mean?

[Soapy]

I believe begotten means that it is a child that was produced. Usually that requires sex but in this case it did not.

‘Begotten’ is ANYTHING that is ‘TAKEN UP AS ONES OWN’.

Therefore it CAN refer to an entity other than a child.

Scriptures outlines GOD begetting the nation of Israel. Obviously Israel is not a procreated child - but God refers to Israel as being ‘Father’ to them.

God BEGETS Ephraim….

Paul BEGAT Onesimus (Phil 1:10). Onesimus was an adult and was not related to Paul but Paul calls him ‘My Son’.

• “Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the abundance of His kindness did beget us again to a living hope, through the rising again of Jesus Christ out of the dead” (1 Peter 1:3)
• “Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath been begotten, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him” (1 John 5:1)
• “
  having counselled, He did beget us with a word of truth, for our being a certain first-fruit of His creatures.” (James 1:18)

What is the link between these: The greater TOOK UP THE LESSER AS THEIR OWN.

Also, the scriptures describes the following:

1. A mother GIVES BIRTH to a child
2. A Father BEGETS that child

The Father TAKES UP the child he procreated with the mother AS HIS OWN child. He Begets the child of the mother.

God BEGETS Jesus …. ‘This day I have become your Father!’

Therefore Jesus is BEGOTTEN OF GOD.

Jesus is the ONLY HUMAN BEING who was BEGOTTEN by such words. Even if another is spoken of in spiritualness, Jesus is the only LIVING Begotten Son!!

The ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.

 

[sojourner]

You are making me laugh so hard.
Anyone who treats scholars with different opinions... whose opinions they favor, as though they are gods, is deluded, in my opinion, or they just like being mentally blind.
Worst yet, that person is involved in some form of human worship. in my opinion.

If it makes you feel good about yourself, and you are so full of yourself, don't mind me. Keep right at it.

So you’re of the anti-scholarship crowd? That stance certainly allows one to conform fact to belief and assuage any sense of guilt.

The rest of us would just as soon deal with the texts realistically.

 

[sojourner]

So you are saying that God is Satan… in your words?

God IS an adversary against UNTRUTHFULNESS…. Against unrighteousness… but Satan is not interpreted that way… it is interpreted as an adversary AGAINST UNTRUTH… It is absolutely wrong to claim that an ADVERSARY AGAINST UNRIGHTEOUSNESS is ALSO a SATAN!!

THE SATAN is the Father of unrighteousness… the Father of the lie!

Do you see what is written: THE Satan… not A SATAN… is the Father of the lie.

A Satan is like a child, an offspring, a prodigy of THE SATAN… like Jesus said to some of the Jews:

• “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)

Would you say that because the Father of lies is called ‘Devil’ then that is his NAME… or would you say that ‘Devil’ is a title?

For unique entities there is only one - and that one us given the DEFINITE ARTICLE. All others are given the INDEFINITE ARTICLE.

See that our ONE TRUE GOD is ‘THE GOD’. There is only one of him. If there were any other God or Gods they would be referred to as ‘A God’ or ‘Those Gods’.

Can you show me a verse where Lucifer is called ‘THE SATAN’?

But then again, are you saying that ‘GOD’ is the … NAME … of God?

Read back over the quote I put in my post and see that what I am saying agrees with the quote.

The simple situation is that the TITLE ‘Satan’ is used so often for the fallen Angel that it has been taken as his name. You can’t see that … Knowing the actual name of the fallen Angel would only lead to glorifying his name by those who are of such nature. By NOT KNOWING his name such ones cannot glorify and worship him as worship could be carried out - only cause worship can occur. But he won’t mind because anything that takes the emphasis off the true worshipped one: THE almighty God, THE Father (His titles) : YHWH (His NAME), suits him!

Aaaaand THERE it is! Your whole argument is a sham, because it conflates articles. You claim that Satan is the serpent in Genesis (claiming “a” satan, but really meaning “THE” Satan).

And then when I point out that error through providing another example, you point the finger at me.

Once again: Satan does not appear in the creation myths, Revelation’s claim notwithstanding.

 

[sojourner]

That is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Nah. I don’t need to contrive things to make me feel good. Following established principles of scholarship isn’t a contrivance (as some here claim).

 

[nPeace]

So you’re of the anti-scholarship crowd? That stance certainly allows one to conform fact to belief and assuage any sense of guilt.

The rest of us would just as soon deal with the texts realistically.

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you... Scholarship is not reserved to people who believe what you want to hear.
Perhaps read up on what makes a scholar, and then consider that there are hundreds more than those you favor.
Claiming that someone is anti-something because they are not in agreement with the opinions you prefer, is just plain hubris.

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry to be the one to inform you... Scholarship is not reserved to people who believe what you want to hear.
Perhaps read up on what makes a scholar, and then consider that there are hundreds more than those you favor.
Claiming that someone is anti-something because they are not in agreement with the opinions you prefer, is just plain hubris.

I’m not talking about differences in conclusions drawn, or even schools of thought. But there are acceptable ways to arrive at conclusions with regard to ancient texts within the scholastic community that you appear to dismiss.

That’s not hubris, it’s nearly 20 years of being involved with and invested in the biblical scholarship community. I know what those hermeneutical standards are.

 

[2ndpillar]

Nah. I don’t need to contrive things to make me feel good. Following established principles of scholarship isn’t a contrivance (as some here claim).

Established by whom, and for whom? Keep in mind that the ruler of the world is Satan (John 14:30), and his authority is given to the beast (Revelation 13:4), whose sidekicks are the false prophets, and their elite academics, the supposed "wise and intelligent" who have a warm feeling going down their legs as they are sold a bill of goods. You apparently don't know your history, if you think Eusebius, Constantine's man Friday, gave you a canon you can point out, so just maybe there is much more that you are kept in the dark about.

 

[2ndpillar]

I’m not talking about differences in conclusions drawn, or even schools of thought. But there are acceptable ways to arrive at conclusions with regard to ancient texts within the scholastic community that you appear to dismiss.

That’s not hubris, it’s nearly 20 years of being involved with and invested in the biblical scholarship community. I know what those hermeneutical standards are.

And which "biblical scholarship community" are you associated with, and what are the doctrines they rely? Are you a JW, who supposedly have brethren in heaven, and who have a lot of writings of so-called scholars in their back pockets?

 

[nPeace]

I’m not talking about differences in conclusions drawn, or even schools of thought. But there are acceptable ways to arrive at conclusions with regard to ancient texts within the scholastic community that you appear to dismiss.

Yes. There are acceptable ways to arrive at conclusions with regard to ancient texts within the scholastic community that you appear to dismiss.
Maybe don't try so hard to be the scholar to dismiss scholars that disagree with you.
Who makes you and company the crème de la crème?

That’s not hubris, it’s nearly 20 years of being involved with and invested in the biblical scholarship community. I know what those hermeneutical standards are.

Wow. You don't even see that bragging about and appealing to authority, based on a number of year is hubris.
Yes. Pride definitely blinds one. Wow.

I mean... take pride in your work man, but please, for the love of modesty, see your limitations, and give your peers some credit.
Are you the oldest among the scholars.... the wisest? I'm just floored right now. Unbelievable!

 

[sojourner]

Established by whom, and for whom?

Established by the community of peer-reviewed Biblical scholars as the norm for exegetics. All disciplines need norms. Bible scholastics is no different. As I said, physicians don’t diagnose a brain tumor by reading tea leaves.

Keep in mind that the ruler of the world is Satan (John 14:30), and his authority is given to the beast (Revelation 13:4), whose sidekicks are the false prophets, and their elite academics, the supposed "wise and intelligent" who have a warm feeling going down their legs as they are sold a bill of goods

Keep in mind that Biblical exegesis doesn’t include matters of belief or doctrine. Keep in mind, too, that you wouldn’t undergo brain surgery performed by someone passing himself off as a “professional” but with 0 academic credentials and not board certified. You would insist on such a credentialed and certified “elite academic” doing the procedure according to established protocols, rather than simply some hack with a business card cutting into your brain “on faith.” Why should studying the Bible be any different?

You apparently don't know your history, if you think Eusebius, Constantine's man Friday, gave you a canon you can point out, so just maybe there is much more that you are kept in the dark about.

It’s established the Eusebius did present a rudimentary canon. I don’t know what you’re on about.

 

[sojourner]

And which "biblical scholarship community" are you associated with, and what are the doctrines they rely? Are you a JW, who supposedly have brethren in heaven, and who have a lot of writings of so-called scholars in their back pockets?

Biblical scholars don’t rely on doctrine in the exegetical process. That sort of bias is intentionally left out of the loop, since it produces imprecise results.

Nope. Not a JW. We’re talking about peer-reviewed and published scholars, not fringe hacks.

 

[sojourner]

Yes. There are acceptable ways to arrive at conclusions with regard to ancient texts within the scholastic community that you appear to dismiss

I’m not dismissing credentialed academics. But you appear to do so.

Maybe don't try so hard to be the scholar to dismiss scholars that disagree with you.
Who makes you and company the crème de la crème?

Maybe don’t try so hard to be offended by academia.

Wow. You don't even see that bragging about and appealing to authority, based on a number of year is hubris.
Yes. Pride definitely blinds one. Wow

Let’s look at it this way: is it hubris and braggadocio for an attorney to display her diplomas and law review documents? Is it hubris for a cardiac surgeon to point out that he’s well-experienced in his field? Why should Biblical academics be any different?

I mean... take pride in your work man, but please, for the love of modesty, see your limitations, and give your peers some credit.

Fine. What are your credentials? Show me the letters behind your name, and I’ll give you some credit. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know what I know. When people offer the “nuh-uh! The Holy Spirit tells me different” argument, without backing up their claims, insinuating that “Satan has blinded me,” It’s time to counter with, “well, this is my profession.” If it’s not yours, that’s your problem, but don’t expect me to play dumb out of some false sense of modesty.

 

[nPeace]

I’m not dismissing credentialed academics. But you appear to do so.


Maybe don’t try so hard to be offended by academia.


Let’s look at it this way: is it hubris and braggadocio for an attorney to display her diplomas and law review documents? Is it hubris for a cardiac surgeon to point out that he’s well-experienced in his field? Why should Biblical academics be any different?

Yes. If she displays them to other lawyers in order to claim that she is better at her job than they are at theirs... and worst, that they don't know anything about law, but she does.
Why should scholars consider themselves wise among all?

IFine. What are your credentials? Show me the letters behind your name, and I’ll give you some credit. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know what I know. When people offer the “nuh-uh! The Holy Spirit tells me different” argument, without backing up their claims, insinuating that “Satan has blinded me,” It’s time to counter with, “well, this is my profession.” If it’s not yours, that’s your problem, but don’t expect me to play dumb out of some false sense of modesty.

I can see you are the competitive sort.
Show me that you have more years than scholars who present a different opinion on matters you consider.
This is not about me.
It's about scholarship.
Don't try to turn this into a competition, to beat your chest more.
The hubris is stifling.

 

[nPeace]

I’m not dismissing credentialed academics. But you appear to do so.


Maybe don’t try so hard to be offended by academia.


Let’s look at it this way: is it hubris and braggadocio for an attorney to display her diplomas and law review documents? Is it hubris for a cardiac surgeon to point out that he’s well-experienced in his field? Why should Biblical academics be any different?


Fine. What are your credentials? Show me the letters behind your name, and I’ll give you some credit. I don’t claim to know everything, but I do know what I know. When people offer the “nuh-uh! The Holy Spirit tells me different” argument, without backing up their claims, insinuating that “Satan has blinded me,” It’s time to counter with, “well, this is my profession.” If it’s not yours, that’s your problem, but don’t expect me to play dumb out of some false sense of modesty.

Oh. The fact that you pretend I said anything about holy spirit, and Satan, is revealing.
You think that will cover up the hubris?
You already showed yourself. I made no mention of Satan nor holy spirit to you.

 

[Soapy]

Incorrect. The operative theological term here is “see.” Thomas saw. It’s a play on definitions. Thomas physically seeing refers to spiritual understanding. IOW, Thomas saw — understood who Jesus was. He was blessed in that coming to understanding. Again, in a play on terms, those who have not physically seen can still come to an understanding and be blessed for that.

Ummm…. No!

• “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39)

God has hands and feet and flesh and bone? Ho ho ho… Which God do you worship… sounds like the wood and stone ones!

Oh, and your God (Jesus) is ‘NOT A SPIRIT’!!

I think scriptures says that the true and only God IS A SPIRIT.

 

[Soapy]

Aaaaand THERE it is! Your whole argument is a sham, because it conflates articles. You claim that Satan is the serpent in Genesis (claiming “a” satan, but really meaning “THE” Satan).

WHAT? Are you replying to the correct person - the person who IS correct?

I never said Satan was the Serpent in Genesis where did you get that from (which shows you have lost the plot and just scatter-gunning your wrongful comments)

With this clear ERROR - Are you going to admit you are WRONG?

And then when I point out that error through providing another example, you point the finger at me.

Once again: Satan does not appear in the creation myths, Revelation’s claim notwithstanding.

What I said was that the Serpent was USED by THE FALLEN ANGEL WHO WAS GIVEN THE TITLE OF SATAN. I said that ‘Satan’ is a TITLE.

The TITLE of the fallen lead Angel IS NOT MENTIONED in the book of Genesis, true.… HIS NAME is NEVER mentioned EVER in case it should be used for false worship.

The Title, Satan, is used so often by writers and read so often by readers that it has become the ASSUMED NAME of the fallen lead angel.

Even Jesus did not call him BY NAME but referred to him only as ‘The Father of Lies’ and ‘Devil’ … each of which are DESCRIPTIONS OR TITLES… not NAMES!

He called Peter, ‘Satan’… What do you say… was Peter the Fallen lead angel?

And Jesus called the devil, the tempter, ‘Satan’ in the wilderness temptation. He said, ‘Get behind me, Satan’…. This is not referring to the NAME of the tempter, as the same as with Peter. If is referring to the ACT…. ‘Being a Tempter’:
‘Get behind me, [Satan / you are a tempter]’

Anyone who is a Tempter can be called ‘[a ] Satan’

You will see from the temptation account that even the scripture writers DID NOT CALL the fallen lead angel, Satan, but rather, ‘Devil’. But, of course, you would agree that ‘Devil’ is a TITLE!!

How weird your logic is? But that is nothing new for a trinitarian - par for the course, in fact!

 

[sojourner]

Yes. If she displays them to other lawyers in order to claim that she is better at her job than they are at theirs... and worst, that they don't know anything about law, but she does.
Why should scholars consider themselves wise among all?

You insinuated that I was unaware of scholastic standards, even though you’ve presented less than that in your own posts. You all but asked me for my credentials. Now you’re complaining because I have more experience than you do, and masquerading it as some kind of social/moral judgment and sensitivity.

Why should scholars consider themselves wise as to standards of academic scholarship? Because they are. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be scholars.

Show me that you have more years than scholars who present a different opinion on matters you consider.

We’re not talking about other scholars. We’re talking about you and me.

This is not about me.
It's about scholarship

Apparently, it is about you, since you’ve not provided anything remotely academic here.

I made no mention of Satan nor holy spirit to you

I never said you did, but that’s usually how the argument ends up when one starts spitting against academia.

 

[sojourner]

Ummm…. No!

• “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” (Luke 24:39)

God has hands and feet and flesh and bone? Ho ho ho… Which God do you worship… sounds like the wood and stone ones!

Oh, and your God (Jesus) is ‘NOT A SPIRIT’!!

I think scriptures says that the true and only God IS A SPIRIT.

God is also a “rock,” a “stronghold,” a “lover” and a “mother hen.” Yet, I see no gravel, no castles, no beautiful women, and no feathers. All sorts of metaphors are assigned to God.

Jesus also says that a piece of bread is his body. Why are you twisting metaphors into some kind of empirical argument?

Jesus was showing himself to be resurrected bodily. therefore, flesh and bone. Yet, he walked through locked doors (as a spirit might). No, this is all too metaphorical to pose the kind of empirical argument you’re posing.

 

[sojourner]

I never said Satan was the Serpent in Genesis where did you get that from (which shows you have lost the plot and just scatter-gunning your wrongful comments)

With this clear ERROR - Are you going to admit you are WRONG?

There’s no mention in Genesis that any “fallen angel,” “devil,” or whatever you might claim had possessed the serpent. None. No mention of demon possession. If the devil HAD usurped the body of the serpent it would still be the devil acting, and the two entities would be indistinguishable. Unfortunately for you, that didn’t happen. Nor would that be consistent with the stories from which the creation myth is lifted.

What I said was that the Serpent was USED by THE FALLEN ANGEL WHO WAS GIVEN THE TITLE OF SATAN. I said that ‘Satan’ is a TITLE.

See above. Doesn’t matter if it’s a “title” or a “name.” Satan does not appear in the creation myth, in any form, as you claim.

 

[2ndpillar]

Established by the community of peer-reviewed Biblical scholars as the norm for exegetics. All disciplines need norms. Bible scholastics is no different. As I said, physicians don’t diagnose a brain tumor by reading tea leaves.


Keep in mind that Biblical exegesis doesn’t include matters of belief or doctrine. Keep in mind, too, that you wouldn’t undergo brain surgery performed by someone passing himself off as a “professional” but with 0 academic credentials and not board certified. You would insist on such a credentialed and certified “elite academic” doing the procedure according to established protocols, rather than simply some hack with a business card cutting into your brain “on faith.” Why should studying the Bible be any different?


It’s established the Eusebius did present a rudimentary canon. I don’t know what you’re on about.

Eusebius produced 50 copies of his compiled bible, for which the only evidence of its existence is a reference to one of the chapters, in which it does not correspond to the present generally used canon. As Eusebius was an original Arian leader, and Constantine had all the writings of Arius burned, and threatened anyone holding such writings to be killed, I imagine Eusebius bibles were burned, as the reason little trace is found. Eusebius was Constantine's personal cleric, and a Roman leadership historian, with no authority other than given by Constantine, and according to his own writings, was loose with the facts. Using a nonexistent canon as a basis for a canon, prior to 367 A.D., is a little bit disingenuous. A bit of obfuscation.

You failed to acknowledge which peer scholars you use. Are they Mormon, JW, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Catholic, and if they are, do the other "scholars" agree with their "exegesis"? If they all come up with different conclusions, what good is their "exegesis"?