"Begotten", what does it mean?

[sojourner]

Please you explain how only one part of the trinity God became flesh when the trinity God is not composed of parts?

And how did Jesus empty himself of being God yet remained being God?

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

 

[sojourner]

Your opinion does not count on what the apostles wrote 2 000 years ago.
Muhamads' opinion also does not count.
Sorry pal, only the Bible is the authority on the Trinity and God.
Not you, Islam, the Quran, the pope...No One!

Not quite true according to the the historic church. Sola scriptura was an invention of the Reformation. The church existed without that heresy for 1500 years.

 

[sojourner]

Again,
I dont care for the Roman Emperors, they were much too late to have known the Trinity existed since creation, and the Bible described YHWH as a Trinity.
Your idea that God cant have a daughter or a son, a family, is the distorted view of Muhammad and Muslim scholars.
No where in the Bible does it say what you want it to be.

Lets see what the Bible say, no one else, and your argument falls like the walls of Jericho.

Where does the Bible describe YHWH as Trinity? Jesus never appears in the Hebrew texts where YHWH appears.

 

[sojourner]

Please you explain how only one part of the trinity God became flesh when the trinity God is not composed of parts?

And how did Jesus empty himself of being God yet remained being God?

There are no “parts,” according to the doctrine. You need to understand what the doctrine says before tilting at windmills of your own design. Otherwise, you end up with straw man arguments, such as you present here.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are no “parts,” according to the doctrine..

..not even one?

 

[blü 2]

John says that God became flesh.

No, John says ὁ λόγος became flesh. And John's Jesus makes it abundantly clear that he's not God eg

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

That comes closer to “begotten” than “created.”

We're not told how John's Jesus entered the world, but since he's said to be descended from David (John 7:42), either he had an earthly Jewish father, or God is a descendant of David.

Additionally, church Tradition says that Christ was “begotten, not made.” Historically, doctrine is founded upon both scripture and Tradition.

Yes, but only the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are literal genetic 'sons' of God. Church tradition is free to say what it likes, of course, and does ─ they can even find a 'fall of man' in the Garden of Eden story, for example, which says nothing even vaguely resembling that. My concern is simply with what the text says. In this case it gives (at least) three distinct versions, and only two Jesuses have God's Y-chromosome.

 

[blü 2]

There are no “parts,” according to the doctrine. You need to understand what the doctrine says before tilting at windmills of your own design. Otherwise, you end up with straw man arguments, such as you present here.

Of course the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till the fourth century. The NT gives no support for it ─ all five versions of Jesus deny they're God and don't claim to be God ─ and if there was an historical Jesus, he'd never heard of it.

 

[sojourner]

No, John says ὁ λόγος became flesh

John says that the logos was God, and that the logos became flesh in the person of Jesus. The theology is quite clear.

We're not told how John's Jesus entered the world

See above.

es, but only the Jesuses of Matthew and Luke are literal genetic 'sons' of God

Not according to the Bible. The texts never mention “God’s genetics.

My concern is simply with what the text says. In this case it gives (at least) three distinct versions, and only two Jesuses have God's Y-chromosome.

Apparently not. Even though the gospels present Jesus differently from each other,The texts never mention a “Y chromosome.

Of course the Trinity doctrine wasn't invented till the fourth century

The doctrine was not solidified until the fourth century, but the Bible gives us clues that the proto-church believed in the divine nature of Jesus.

The NT gives no support for it

See above.

 

[muhammad_isa]

John says that the logos was God, and that the logos became flesh in the person of Jesus. The theology is quite clear.

That's true .. but we only have John's word for it, and not Jesus himself.

 

[blü 2]

Your summary is:

Matthew and Mark spoke of Jesus as a result of divine insemination, and not of the pre existence of Jesus.

No.

The authors of Matthew and Luke present the divine insemination story. None of the others do.

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.

In the Garden story, neither Adam nor Eve is the product of divine insemination. There, Adam is more like a golem than a son.

Mark does not say Jesus is the only begotten son of God, but an ordinary Jew.

Yes. Which carries a little extra weight, because Mark is the first gospel, and the authors of Matthew and of Luke used his story as their template, adding and substracting and altering as pleased them. So the first version we have of Jesus (Paul’s) is gnostic, the first gospel we have (Mark) has Jesus as an ordinary Jew until God adopts him, the authors of Matthew and Luke know and dislike this part of Mark’s version and tart it up with annuciations, divine insemination, invented tales of censuses and a ‘massacre of the innocents’ and the idiocy of fake and incompatible genealogies to make God’s genetic son a descendant of David (which Mark’s is not, of course) &c.

OK, so you agree that:

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

No. I says again, Matthew and Luke.

Here we have 2 votes for AYE!

Matthew and Luke, yes, just as I said.

[Y]ou say John does not speak about Jesus' virgin conception

Nor does he.

and therefore Jesus must have been a son of God through normal human act

John’s Jesus is not born of a virgin or that would have been a headline somewhere. He was created in heaven by God, created the material universe as a good gnostic demiurge should, and came to earth in a self-evidently unremarkable manner as a result of which he was a descendant of David. So his mother wasn’t inseminated by God.

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.

A more modern translation of the TR Greek is ‘His only son’ - but as for being God’s genetic son, that’s contradicted by the details I’ve mentioned.

OK, so now we have 3 votes for AYE!

No, we’re still at Yes 2-3 No.

You say mark perceives Jesus as a normal Jew.

I only say it because Mark says it.

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?

For the obvious reason that God adopts Mark’s Jesus as [his] son when Mark’s Jesus is baptized.

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?

This is based on Psalm 2:7, where God adopts David as [his] son. That’s confirmed in greater detail in Acts 13:33.

And why would Mrk write that even Deamons knew Jesus was the Holy one of God?

Adopted son, adopted son, for goodness’ sake!

 

[blü 2]

John says that the logos was God

Where?

And even if he did, John's Jesus is adamant that he isn't God. All five NT versions of Jesus deny they're God, and never claim to be God, but none denies it more expressly or more often than John's Jesus. If you want some quotes, just ask.

Not according to the Bible. The texts never mention “God’s genetics.

IF the argument is that the story is an accurate report of real events, THEN of course genetics must be considered. IF Mary was a virgin THEN by the rules of the story, the only possible source of Jesus' Y-chromosome is God.

Which is it?

The doctrine was not solidified until the fourth century, but the Bible gives us clues that the proto-church believed in the divine nature of Jesus.

Paul and John thought God had created Jesus in heaven. Mark thought Jesus was an ordinary Jew till God adopted him. Matthew and Luke thought Jesus was the product of insemination by God.

Which?

 

[sojourner]

Where?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And even if he did, John's Jesus is adamant that he isn't God

I’m more of a synoptic scholar than a Johanine scholar, but the the theology of the Gospel is predicated upon his statement in chapter one. Everything else must follow from that premise. We must ask why Jesus denies his divinity when, in the world of that Gospel, he patently IS divine.

IF the argument is that the story is an accurate report of real events, THEN of course genetics must be considered

I’m not making that argument. I don’t believe the various Gospelers were, either. In fact, Luke’s account is a blatant ripoff of Augustus’ miraculous birth.

Paul and John thought God had created Jesus in heaven. Mark thought Jesus was an ordinary Jew till God adopted him. Matthew and Luke thought Jesus was the product of insemination by God.

Which?

It’s not a matter of “which.” The various accounts can’t be mushed together; each must stand alone for its unique message. In a sense, they’re all correct, in the sense that they each serve their author’s theological purposes.

 

[Neuropteron]

.

Hi,

I found your O.P very interesting, thank you.

I just have some questions:

How does the fact that "God had to save his creation from death, because we are all just dying" give a reason to conclude that Jesus is God ?

Why state that Christian believe that Jesus is God, when only "some" Christians believe that, others believe he is the son of God, the term "begotten" would make no sense otherwise.

Why state the "God Himself sent his Mind"?, when the Bible says that God send his "son", (not his mind).

 

[blü 2]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Thanks for that.

So is the Jesus of John lying when he says, for example ─

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “[...] I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

(And there are more.)

I’m more of a synoptic scholar than a Johanine scholar, but the the theology of the Gospel is predicated upon his statement in chapter one. Everything else must follow from that premise. We must ask why Jesus denies his divinity when, in the world of that Gospel, he patently IS divine.

Well, except for pre-adoption Mark, Jesus is divine in the sense that he's God's envoy, and in the case of Paul's and John's Jesus was created in heaven and resided there with God.

It’s not a matter of “which.” The various accounts can’t be mushed together; each must stand alone for its unique message. In a sense, they’re all correct, in the sense that they each serve their author’s theological purposes.

Again, if we're talking history, they can't all be correct ─ indeed Mark's account is the only one with a chance of being partly correct.

But if we're talking theology then nothing is out of the question.

Still, we appear to agree on a number of points, which is always a good start.

 

[sojourner]

So is the Jesus of John lying when he says, for example ─

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “[...] I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

As I said, I’m not a Johanine scholar. I’d have to check some references to speak to your post here. I have some ideas, but I’ll take a gander when I get a chance.

 

[Dogknox20]

I was asked by a fellow member to explain the word "Begotten" about Jesus in the Bible, because somehow it is a very bad word?

Will, I promised I will discuss this word on another thread, and here it is.

The Christian knows that Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God, and accepts this as fact, but they never question the meaning of how and what this means.

But we can not discuss this concept if we do not have the verses about Jesus being begotten and being the Son of God.
Here are a few.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1Jn 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

OK, so lets see. The word monogenes means "only" (mono) "kind" (genes) (also child)
It is very close to modern words where we know Mono, as one such as "Monotheism" and genes such as genes in DNA.
one, only kind child.

We find it in the OT also:
In Hebrews 11:17 Isaac is called Abraham’s "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.

Now that we have the verses, and the meaning, lets get the context.

In the beginning, we see a description that God had a Mind (Word), a Spirit, and an existence living body covered with light. The Spirit of God left the existence of YHWH and hovered above the waters, which means the Spirit could enter into the creation of YHWH.
We also see that the Spirit of YHWH, or as we know Him as the Holy Spirit of God, could come onto people and make their bodies change, such as Samson that became super strong as soon as the Spirit intered his body.
The Spirit came upon Elisha when Elijah annointed him, and he could do magnificent miracles.
Therefore, the Spirit of YHWH can come into creation, and change the human body!

Now we have a description in John about the "Word of God" who was with God in the beginning, and this Word of God created everything.

And God sent His Spirit to Mary and changed her body to become pregnant without intercourse, just as this Spirit changed human attributes before, and a human body was created in Mary, with the "Word of God" in it, which is the Mind of God.
This human was born, and became known as Jesus.
This is the reason why God calls Jesus His only begotten Son.
Jesus was created in the body of Mary by the Holy Spirit of God.
and God's Word left the existence of YHWH, and entered the fetus.

Now, take into consideration:
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Conclusion.
God had to save his creation from death, because we are all just dying corpses, and to do that God Himself sent his Mind, that became a Human, to live amongst us.
This is why Christians believe Jesus is God, and why He came as a Human to die!
To be the first to attain an immortal body for us all to follow in this way to eternity.

Therefore, what would you call someone that had a human body, that was created, just as Adam's body, but had the mind of God dwelling in that Body.

One of a Kind, or
Only Begotten Son.

Begotten.. The Word was Begotten! "Born"!

SA Huguenot Until Jesus was born he was "The Word"!
Until Jesus was Born "God was God"!

The title "Father" is NOT received until a Mother gives birth!
The title "Son" is NOT received until a Mother gives birth!

Mary gave birth to Jesus.. God then became "Father"! And then the Word became "Son"!
God' only Son is Born "Son of Man" the child of Mary! Mary received the title "Mother" when Jesus was born!

Jesus "Begotten" NOT made!

 

[Soapy]

Aren’t the holy Angels, ‘Sons of God’ (Gen 6:2)?

These are SPIRIT / Immaterial Sons of God.

God is the Father of Spirits’ (Hebrews 12:9)

A human Being is a Spirit made by God encased in flesh (‘And God made [the body of a] man and blew into his nostril the breath of life (Spirit) … and [together] the man became a LIVING Soul’ (Gen 2:7)

Wasn’t Adam also ‘Son of God’ (Luke 3:38)?

He was a Physical / Human Son of God created not by procreation from another human [Father] but directly by the Spirit of God.

Jesus, the Christ (after he was baptised), was, like Adam, created not by procreation from another human [Father] but directly by the spirit of God.
He is therefore called, ‘The Last Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45), since no other human Being will ever be created that way.

Oh, by the way, Jesus being ‘Sent’ by God to do God’s work was AFTER he was anointed at the river Jordan and tested by temptation in the wilderness. He was SENT after he passed the trial of holding to the office of ‘Son of God’.

AND… to get the true definition - a ‘Son’ is:

• ‘He who fully and reverently carries out the works of his Father’
• ‘He who follows the spirit of God’

This is a Spiritual Son. A true Son. A true ‘Son’ need not be a procreated child. Even a stranger child who carries out fully and reverently the works given to him by a senior person is a ‘Son’ of that person.

The everyday usage of the term ‘Son’ as being a procreated offspring of a Father is what holds the masses from understanding the true meaning.

Adam was Son of God because, until he fell to sin, he did strictly, reverently, and fully, follow the spirit of God and do the works of his God and Father.

The Apostle Paul, while in prison in chains is said to BEGET a son, Onesimus (Philemon 1). Note that this BEGETTING was not a procreation and Paul was not a human Father of Onesimus. Onesimus was a runaway slave who Paul took as his own son since Onesimus fully, faithfully, and reverentially carried out all the works that Paul directed him to do from his jail cell.

Repost in case you all missed this.

And yes, the scriptures say that God ‘adopted’ Jesus … which adds to the point I made about Onesimus being adopted as ‘Son’ by Paul.

If you want evidence of credibility then look for THREE separate verses from three different events that qualify each other.

In this case:

1. David adopted by God as ‘Son’
2. Jesus adopted by God as ‘Son’
3. Onesimus adopted by Paul as ‘Son’

Ask what the connection is between all three - what point is being made?

Answer, they all were reverential doers of the works of their [eventual] respective ‘adopted Fathers’ (and note that none of these were procreated sons!)

 

[SA Huguenot]

Bingo! Take a close look at Matthew’s Gospel. Tamar, Rahab (prostitutes), Ruth (foreigner), all “illegitimate” in the eyes of Judaic law.

Tamar was not a prostitute, where did you get that idea?
Rahab of the Old testament could not have been the Rahab of the NT, simply because Rahab would have been a women much too old for Salmon who would have been less than 13 when Jericho was destroyed.
It does not mean the Rahab in the geneaology of Jesus, must be the Rahab referred to in the OT, and other verses where the jericho Rahab is discussed.
Furthermore, where did you get the idea that Ruth was a forreigner?
Do you think that the Judges in Israel would ever have allowed a Moabite to have married Naomi's son?
And they would also not have allowed to sanction the Levite law of the closest relative to marry her.

Nope, the only reason why she is called a Moabite, is because she came from Moab.
An israelite from Moab, remains an Israelite.
Moses was called an Egyptian, then a Mideanite. It was the use of old times to call people a second name, usually from the region or city they live in.
I rest by the Levitical laws, and the sanctioning of the Judges and elders of Israel to have accepted Ruth as an israelite woman.
Your God is My God, and Your people are my people.

However, I like this post, because this info was a hot topic over the years, and many students of the Bible and History found the above to be totally incorrect.
Greetings.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Begotten.. The Word was Begotten! "Born"!

SA Huguenot Until Jesus was born he was "The Word"!
Until Jesus was Born "God was God"!

The title "Father" is NOT received until a Mother gives birth!
The title "Son" is NOT received until a Mother gives birth!

Mary gave birth to Jesus.. God then became "Father"! And then the Word became "Son"!
God' only Son is Born "Son of Man" the child of Mary! Mary received the title "Mother" when Jesus was born!

Jesus "Begotten" NOT made!

True, in the sense of the New Testament Writers, The Father would be Father after the Birth of Jesus.
However, even in the Old Testament YHWH speaks of His Spirit and the redeemer, and on one place, the Son, who knows his name!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Where does the Bible describe YHWH as Trinity? Jesus never appears in the Hebrew texts where YHWH appears.

Look I have pages of references from the Tanach where the Bible shows YHWH describing Himself as a Triune God.
Here is only a few I chose to show you.
2Samuel 23:2 The Spirit of Jehovah has spoken by me, and His Word is on my tongue.
2Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: One ruling over man righteously, who rules in the fear of God,

The Spirit of Jehovah, and the Word of YHWH?

Psalm 2:7 I will declare concerning the statute of Jehovah: He said to Me, You are My Son. Today I have begotten You.
Psalm 2:8 Ask of Me, and I will give the nations as Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth as Your possession.
Psalm 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psalm 2:10 Now, then, be wise, O kings; be taught, O judges of the earth:
Psalm 2:11 Serve Jehovah with fear; yea, rejoice with trembling.
Psalm 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish from the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Oh the blessings of all those who flee to Him for refuge!

Who's wrath?
YHWH's Son?

Proverbs 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is His name, and what is His son's name, if thou canst tell?

Question, do you know that Jesus said He came from Heaven, and He will return to heaven?

Isaiah 48:12 Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel My called: I am He; I am the First; surely I am the Last.
Isaiah 48:13 My hand surely founded earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; I called to them, they stood up together.
Isaiah 48:15 I, I have spoken; yea, I have called him, I brought him, and he causes his way to prosper.
Isaiah 48:16 Come near to Me; hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning. From its being, I was there; and now the Lord Jehovah, and His Spirit, has sent Me.
Isaiah 48:17 So says Jehovah, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, I am Jehovah your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the way you should go.

Wow, here we have the creator who was the first and the last and YHWH and His Spirit sent the Creator!

I think enough of the OT where God say He has a Spirit and a Word.
What did Jesus say?
Next post....