"Begotten", what does it mean?

[sojourner]

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"?

Doesn’t matter. Lists are lists, extant or not. Plus, the LXX is older, even, than that.

It also doesn’t matter what the religious affiliation of peer-reviewed scholars may or may not be. Peer-review is peer-review. And, no, there doesn’t have to be total agreement on exegesis — that’s not the goal, and that’s not the nature of most texts. Their findings are valid, so long as the process used is as unbiased as possible.

 

[nPeace]

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.

I did? No that was your ego telling you so.
I did no such thing.
Give us the post number that we all can see... that I did not. Your ego did.

Now you’re complaining because I have more experience than you do, and masquerading it as some kind of social/moral judgment and sensitivity.

You are so busy beating your chest, you missed the point entirely.
I'll make sure you don't miss it, in a minute.

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

...and here is what you missed.
I am talking about scholars that disagree with you. Not people who are not scholars.
Can't get it any bigger. Sorry.

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

I was talking about other scholars... the whole time... how many posts now.... Sorry you missed that. Hard to listen when it's all about you.
Yes, you were so focussed on you and me, so as to inflate your ego, by picking someone with whom to compare yourself.

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

Apparently you are wrong, and evidently, you can't see why.

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

Academia is not in your camp. I'm sorry. I deal with academia, and I have not seen any one that does not contradict another.
So maybe you need to specify which academia is not academia.

 

[sojourner]

I did? No that was your ego telling you so.
I did no such thing.
Give us the post number that we all can see... that I did not. Your ego did.

See post #202 and #255.

and here is what you missed.
I am talking about scholars that disagree with you. Not people who are not scholars.
Can't get it any bigger. Sorry.

Yeah, I know. but what YOU missed is that we began by discussing academic procedures for exegesis, specifically, that Revelation does not inform an exegesis of Genesis. You said that was only a problem for someone who didn’t believe in the Greek texts. There’s where you made your mistake. It doesn’t have anything to do with belief in other texts, Greek or no. It has to do with realizing the correct exegetical process, which does not include a much later text having any bearing on a much earlier text.

Look, the whole issue was that I said that Satan doesn’t appear in Genesis. And a rebuttal was made, “But… Revelation!” My response was as above: Revelation doesn’t inform Genesis in matters of exegesis. All of a sudden, you’re on about “scholars i disagree with. It doesn’t have anything to do with “other scholars.” It has to do with your assertion in post #169 that putting Satan into Genesis is only a problem for those who don’t believe in the Greek texts. That’s the whole crux, right there. That’s it, and yes, it’s a problem with you — with something you posited — not these non-existent “other scholars.”

I was talking about other scholars... the whole time... how many posts now.... Sorry you missed that. Hard to listen when it's all about you.
Yes, you were so focussed on you and me, so as to inflate your ego, by picking someone with whom to compare yourself.

First of all, it’s not “all about me.” But it’s also not about “other scholars.” I wasn’t talking about “other scholars.” I was talking about correct exegetical procedure, and how YOU appeared to dismiss that process. I can’t figure out why you dragged “other scholars” into the whole thing, except maybe to deflect the conversation from your erroneous statement in #169.

If that was the point you were making, then perhaps you should have stated it more clearly. Although I can’t figure out why you were making that particular point, since it isn’t germane to the conversation we were having.

Academia is not in your camp. I'm sorry. I deal with academia, and I have not seen any one that does not contradict another.
So maybe you need to specify which academia is not academia.

Of course people contradict each other, but that’s not what I pointed out, was it. I pointed out that there are agreed upon standards for exegesis in the peer-reviewed, scholastic community. That’s my whole beef. I couldn’t care less what other scholars say, so long as they don’t try to press a point without using the proper procedure.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at how you “deal with academia,” because thus far, you’ve managed to post stuff that’s out of character with academic standards, such as #179: Prove these academic standards.

WTH?? Prove academic standards?? I don’t have to prove things that have been universally-accepted for a number of years. That’s not what I was setting out to do. Again, it’s like asking a doctor to prove that diagnostic standards are diagnostic standards.

The issue isn’t with my “hubris,” or with “other disagreeing scholars.” The real issue, IMO, is that you didn’t like being told that you were wrong when you said that “only those who don’t believe in the Greek texts have a problem” with using Revelation as some kind of textual proof for Genesis. Which is clearly mistaken. Especially since I pointed out that I believe in the Greek texts and, yes, there’s a problem with using Revelation to prove something about Genesis that clearly isn’t in there.

 

[nPeace]

See post #202 and #255.


Yeah, I know. but what YOU missed is that we began by discussing academic procedures for exegesis, specifically, that Revelation does not inform an exegesis of Genesis. You said that was only a problem for someone who didn’t believe in the Greek texts. There’s where you made your mistake. It doesn’t have anything to do with belief in other texts, Greek or no. It has to do with realizing the correct exegetical process, which does not include a much later text having any bearing on a much earlier text.

Look, the whole issue was that I said that Satan doesn’t appear in Genesis. And a rebuttal was made, “But… Revelation!” My response was as above: Revelation doesn’t inform Genesis in matters of exegesis. All of a sudden, you’re on about “scholars i disagree with. It doesn’t have anything to do with “other scholars.” It has to do with your assertion in post #169 that putting Satan into Genesis is only a problem for those who don’t believe in the Greek texts. That’s the whole crux, right there. That’s it, and yes, it’s a problem with you — with something you posited — not these non-existent “other scholars.”


First of all, it’s not “all about me.” But it’s also not about “other scholars.” I wasn’t talking about “other scholars.” I was talking about correct exegetical procedure, and how YOU appeared to dismiss that process. I can’t figure out why you dragged “other scholars” into the whole thing, except maybe to deflect the conversation from your erroneous statement in #169.

If that was the point you were making, then perhaps you should have stated it more clearly. Although I can’t figure out why you were making that particular point, since it isn’t germane to the conversation we were having.


Of course people contradict each other, but that’s not what I pointed out, was it. I pointed out that there are agreed upon standards for exegesis in the peer-reviewed, scholastic community. That’s my whole beef. I couldn’t care less what other scholars say, so long as they don’t try to press a point without using the proper procedure.

Perhaps you should take a closer look at how you “deal with academia,” because thus far, you’ve managed to post stuff that’s out of character with academic standards, such as #179: Prove these academic standards.

WTH?? Prove academic standards?? I don’t have to prove things that have been universally-accepted for a number of years. That’s not what I was setting out to do. Again, it’s like asking a doctor to prove that diagnostic standards are diagnostic standards.

The issue isn’t with my “hubris,” or with “other disagreeing scholars.” The real issue, IMO, is that you didn’t like being told that you were wrong when you said that “only those who don’t believe in the Greek texts have a problem” with using Revelation as some kind of textual proof for Genesis. Which is clearly mistaken. Especially since I pointed out that I believe in the Greek texts and, yes, there’s a problem with using Revelation to prove something about Genesis that clearly isn’t in there.

Who cares about what big-headed people believe, or think? How often have big-headed people been wrong? I laugh at them. They do not affect me in the least.
In fact, Atheistic thinking is not even something I give thought to, so why would I care what opinions they put forth to the public, as Gospel.
Then there are the fickle "Christians" who curry to the favor of men, and given to biased leanings.
Who wants to be looked at as a nut or crack among professors.

I say keep thinking that your beliefs and opinion are right. The others who disagree, and they are quite a lot, will say the same about you.
So what you believe has no bearing on what I believe.
I said what I said. You believe different, but feel that you have some sort of "better belief" - you may not call it a belief, but it is... like it or not -, and so you must have the last word on what belief is right - namely yours.

That said...
My point was made. Not all scholars agree with you.
I am not interested in arguing with you about who is wrong or right.
I make only one point. Stated clearly... I believe it was.

 

[nPeace]

Post #202
You proved it by saying this?

See? Your ego told you that this is me asking for your credentials. LOL.
I asked you to prove everything you said here.
I accept the Greek Texts. I also accept that Revelation cannot inform what is written in Genesis in the process of exegeting Genesis. It should be a problem for Christians who want to arrive at a valid interpretation of Genesis. Your lack of attention to this detail has skewed your theological thinking and provided you with some textual “proof” that wouldn’t stand up with training wheels.

Of course you can't, so you started beating your chest. i.e. inflating the ego.

Post #255
You must be joking.

LOL. Man, I have never met anyone like you. I tell you, If anyone is higher than you, they definitely are the most high.

 

[2ndpillar]

Doesn’t matter. Lists are lists, extant or not. Plus, the LXX is older, even, than that.

It also doesn’t matter what the religious affiliation of peer-reviewed scholars may or may not be. Peer-review is peer-review. And, no, there doesn’t have to be total agreement on exegesis — that’s not the goal, and that’s not the nature of most texts. Their findings are valid, so long as the process used is as unbiased as possible.

It doesn't matter if the exegesis follows a process. If it doesn't come up with agreed upon result, it is pretty much worthless. If your peers are dumber than dirt, who cares what process they use. It is like a computer, which follows a process, junk in, junk out. That would be to assume your "scholars" are objective, which in fact they are not. And there is no list for Eusebius bible. There is one reference to one chapter, which is not included in today's canon. And Eusebius was a tool of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the 7th head of the beast (Revelation 17). As for the LXX, that is with reference to the Hebrew bible, not the NT, whose canon was formed in 367 A.D. You are getting derailed while trying to support your false claims.

 

[sojourner]

It doesn't matter if the exegesis follows a process. If it doesn't come up with agreed upon result, it is pretty much worthless

Of course it does! There is no “agreed upon result,” other than discovering what the text is actually saying. The standard process is designed to filter out biases and preconceptions. That way, a purer reading is achieved.

If your peers are dumber than dirt, who cares what process they use

You don’t understand either exegesis or peer-review, do you.

Eusebius was a tool of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the 7th head of the beast (Revelation 17).

Biased bunk.

As for the LXX, that is with reference to the Hebrew bible, not the NT

Of course. The books Martin Luther removed were part of the LXX.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Eusebius was a tool of the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was the 7th head of the beast (Revelation 17).

Where do you get that idea?
Do you think that those in early Caesarea were all misguided?
eg. Origen

Through Origen and especially the scholarly presbyter Pamphilus of Caesarea, an avid collector of books of Scripture, the theological school of Caesarea won a reputation for having the most extensive ecclesiastical library of the time, containing more than 30,000 manuscripts.
...
The collections of the library suffered during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, but were repaired subsequently by bishops of Caesarea.
Caesarea Maritima - Wikipedia

That is where the main problem lies. Who was the library "repaired" by?
I believe it was corrupted. The so-called Arians were annihilated by political means.

 

[Soapy]

Ah, another analysis where comparisons were taken to show that somehow Mathew and Luke are in contrast to the origins of Jesus than Mark and also of John.

Your summary is:

• Matthew and Mark spoke of Jesus as a result of divine insemination, and not of the pre existence of Jesus.
• John speaks of the pre existence of Jesus, and say nothing about the virgin conception, but you accept that Jesus must have been a descendent of Adam, thereby the Son of God.
• Mark does not say Jesus is the only begotten son of God, but an ordinary Jew.
• You also bring Paul into the equation, to get the numerical value in opposition to the Virgin birth to 2 against 3.

OK, so you agree that:

• Matthew and Mark say Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.

Here we have 2 votes for AYE!

• Jou say John does not speak about Jesus' virgin conception, and therefore Jesus must have been a son of God through normal human act, but you obviously never read the Bible! Please read John 3:16! For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

OK, so now we have 3 votes for AYE!

• You say mark perceives Jesus as a normal Jew.
  • Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; well, why would Mark say Jesus is the Son of God, and not Jesus the son of Adam?
  • And Why would Mark write that Jesus is his beloved son? Mar 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And again in 9:7?
  • And why would Mrk write that even Deamons knew Jesus was the Holy one of God? Mar 1:23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, Mar 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
  • And Mark identify Jesus as the Son of God again? Mar 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
    
  • and do not forget mark 14: 61 to 64 where Jesus was condemned as the Son of God, equalling himself to God for which the learned Jewish priests understood exactly what he said.

And from the above it is clear that Mark says, Jesus is the Son of God, and writes about the divinity of Jesus
Now we have 4 votes for AYE!

OK, Now we sit with paul.
You say "The Jesuses of Paul and of John pre-existed in heaven with God. It follows that they were created by God rather than begotten by God."

Funny that you would make Jesus a plural, be as it may. lets see what paul in the Bible say.

• Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
• Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
  
• Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Oh Golly, they all speak about one Jesus...
who is God...
who lived in a human body.

Enjoy Jesus Christ, the Word of God that was manifested in flesh as a man.
Greetings

Why do you people not understand the meaning of the words:

• Son
• Father

In the spiritual sense I t does not mean PROCREATED OFFSPRING. And that is what is spoken of in relation to Jesus and God.

It means:

• Son: He who does the works dutifully and reverently of the Father
• Father: He who creates; gives life to; Brings into being; the Head

The Father created all things.
He created a human Being in his own image.
That created Being made in the image of the Father carried out the tasks and duties given him by the Father: viz-a-viz, a Son!

 

[Soapy]

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, according to the doctrine.

So which part of Jesus did he empty himself of yet still remained 100% of what he emptied himself of?

 

[sojourner]

So which part of Jesus did he empty himself of yet still remained 100% of what he emptied himself of?

<sigh> It’s a metaphor.

 

[2ndpillar]

Of course. The books Martin Luther removed were part of the LXX.

I think Martin Luther lived way past the 367 A.D. canon date, regardless of what books Marty tried to remove. He was one of the fathers of the Protestant daughters of Babylon, and his effort at removing books from the NT was a flop, as you will still find Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation in the NT. His first printed bible excluded 25 books, such as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Esther, Job, Ecclesiastes, Jonah, Tobias, Judith, etc., which are present in my bible. As for why the Catholic bible has different books than the reformation church, it did not start with Martin Luther. And to be plain, Martin Luther was a Catholic cleric, and the reformation sprang out of the fact that the reformation leaders declared the Roman church as the "whore of Babylon", from which they had been raised in those traditions, and have kept most of them. Did Martin Luther Remove Books from the Bible? A Pastor’s Answer | Pastor Your exegesis seems to be one of ignoring real history. But exegesis seems to be a process, and not a means of attaining truth. Peer review is when you have to present your conclusions to your equals, regardless how ignorant they or the presenter may be on any subject. In science, one presents theories to their peers. They are called theories, because they are not proved. M=ma only works at normal speeds. It doesn't explain gravity, other than it uses the speed of gravity at a given point. If the integration of how gravity actually works would be applied, then you would have a better understanding why it breaks down at higher speeds. As it is, the speed of gravity (g), is different at the top of a building from that at the bottom. You are going to have to come up with a unified theory of physics to get closer to how things actually work. As for the bible, written through the means of the Spirit of prophecy, you will need the Spirit of Prophecy/Revelation to understand what is written. No college, or seminary degree will provide such insight. Although a decent non-religious study of history wouldn't hurt.

 

[sojourner]

Several facts remain after your attempt to appear well-read:
1) the apocryphal books included in the Roman canon were part of the LXX, and only removed during the Reformation.
2) You have no idea what encompasses exegesis, nor of what encompasses peer-review, and why it is the standard for academic work.

 

[2ndpillar]

Of course it does! There is no “agreed upon result,” other than discovering what the text is actually saying. The standard process is designed to filter out biases and preconceptions. That way, a purer reading is achieved.

If there was agreement on what the "text is actually saying", such as an understanding of the text, then there would be an agreed upon understanding, which there is not.

 

[2ndpillar]

Several facts remain after your attempt to appear well-read:
1) the apocryphal books included in the Roman canon were part of the LXX, and only removed during the Reformation.
2) You have no idea what encompasses exegesis, nor of what encompasses peer-review, and why it is the standard for academic work.

My understanding of "academics", which is from fly over country, is that they teach because they cannot do and think way too highly of themselves. Why Teachers Can’t Teach – Texas Monthly

As for the LXX, it is still not part of the NT canon published in 367 A.D. which was the point being addressed. Your attempt at obfuscation seems to be inhumed within the law and academic circles to hide versus enlighten. As for being well read, I apparently don't read what you read, nor do I watch fake CNN, as apparently the elite/academic do, at least until all the CNN leadership is fired or quits for cause.

 

[2ndpillar]

Where do you get that idea?
Do you think that those in early Caesarea were all misguided?
eg. Origen

Through Origen and especially the scholarly presbyter Pamphilus of Caesarea, an avid collector of books of Scripture, the theological school of Caesarea won a reputation for having the most extensive ecclesiastical library of the time, containing more than 30,000 manuscripts.
...

The collections of the library suffered during the persecutions under the Emperor Diocletian, but were repaired subsequently by bishops of Caesarea.
Caesarea Maritima - Wikipedia

That is where the main problem lies. Who was the library "repaired" by?
I
believe it was corrupted. The so-called Arians were annihilated by political means.

Arius was expelled several times by Constantine, and Eusebius did not stand up for Arius when the votes were cast. Eusebius was a political animal who was the court historian for Constantine, and was Constantine's personal cleric. It was Eusebius's boss, Constantine, who had all of the writings of Arius burnt, and threatened execution for anyone found with any of those writings. Per Eusebius own writings, he was not a straight shooter, and wrote whatever he felt was necessary to benefit the Roman church. What does the Caesarea library have to do with Eusebius being Constantine's man Friday, and a father of the current Roman church, whose false Trinity dogma was initiated by Constantine in 325 AD? And here I thought the writings on the inner wall of the Dome of the Rock were against the Trinity dogma. Are you a Muslim, or a Trinitarian?

 

[sojourner]

If there was agreement on what the "text is actually saying", such as an understanding of the text, then there would be an agreed upon understanding, which there is not.

You’re confusing “what the text actually says” with “interpreting what the text says.” Exegesis is concerned with the former. when dealing with texts in ancient, foreign languages, we often have to parse out what the writer meant to say, because translation is never 100% word-for-word. There are also cultural biases that have to be read through — the culture of the writer, as well as the culture of the reader. However, most exegesis is reasonably accurate.

Interpretation is completely another issue. Since the texts are multivalent, any number of valid interpretations may be reached, via a solid exegetical foundation. Scholars will usually defend their interpretations reasonably.

 

[sojourner]

My understanding of "academics", which is from fly over country, is that they teach because they cannot do and think way too highly of themselves. Why Teachers Can’t Teach – Texas Monthly

As for the LXX, it is still not part of the NT canon published in 367 A.D. which was the point being addressed. Your attempt at obfuscation seems to be inhumed within the law and academic circles to hide versus enlighten. As for being well read, I apparently don't read what you read, nor do I watch fake CNN, as apparently the elite/academic do, at least until all the CNN leadership is fired or quits for cause.

1) No, that’s not How it Works. those who teach at the graduate level are generally well-respected in their fields of study and publishing.
2) Apparently you don‘ t (which doesn’t surprise me, since you don’t seem to have a good grasp of the exegetical and interpretational processes).
3) I suppose you watch Faux News and ascribe to politicians abusing children in the rear of pizza shops…

 

[muhammad_isa]

What does the Caesarea library have to do with Eusebius being Constantine's man Friday, and a father of the current Roman church, whose false Trinity dogma was initiated by Constantine in 325 AD? And here I thought the writings on the inner wall of the Dome of the Rock were against the Trinity dogma. Are you a Muslim, or a Trinitarian?

You make it sound so simple..
You leave out Eusebius of Nicomedia.
It was because of Eusebius that "On the whole, Constantine and his successors made life pretty miserable for Church leaders committed to the Nicene decision and its Trinitarian formula."

Eusebius of Nicomedia baptised Constantine before his death on his request. Most of Constantine's family were so-called Arians.

Orthodox Christianity relies on a conjuring trick. It persecuted all Christians other than themselves and claims that Christians had always believed Jesus is G-d.
The more one looks into the claims, the more one finds inconsistencies.
Origen was a renowned scholar who was eventually condemned, and writings burnt for political reasons.

 

[Soapy]

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.


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.

If is clear from your response that you understand your error. You have downgraded your replies to simply disputing the EXACT EVENTS and Words as against the obvious sequence of events.

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.


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.

I will give you some of what I mean?

• The Father’s NAME is YHWH; His TITLE is GOD (YHWH God)
• The Son’s NAME is Jesus; His TITLE is CHRIST/MESSIAH (Jesus Christ)
• The NAME of the Son of Elizabeth is John; His TITLE is BAPTIST (John the Baptist)

Now your turn…

Can you give me a few examples of what you say?