"Begotten", what does it mean?

[muhammad_isa]

Who was first... God or humans?
If God, then he brought forth. Thus he created or brought forth.
If progeny, or creatures in his likeness, then he is a father... and yes, he has sons.

Why don't you believe God has sons. Is it because you believe the Qur'an? Why, may I ask?

I do believe that we are all "sons" of G-d.
That is why Jesus taught us the Lord's prayer.
Our Father, whom art in heaven...

The problem with translations of scriptures, is that they can have implications that are not intended by their authors

 

[muhammad_isa]

Did you appreciate the point @SA Huguenot made, that the Nicene Creed is some 300 years older than the original writings?

Not really. I consider the Gospel of John to be sectarian in nature.
The Bible canon was not decided by G-d, but by men.

I'm not saying that the men who decided on it were corrupt, but the Empire in which it has its roots surely had its political preferences.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I told you that begetting can also be SPIRITUAL.

..best not to use the word at all, if there is confusion.
I believe the translators purposely used such words, as they were prone to exaggeration.

 

[nPeace]

It isn't answering the question. All you did was write a verse.

What does Begotten mean. I didn't ask for a play by play on how Maryam, picked above all women in all nations, was overshadowed....that explains nothing.

What does begotten mean. It should be the easiest on your tongue and not a shameful act if you are honest. And yet, you can't say it.

Might I suggest MyM... I think you may be creating a bit of confusion.
Before, you asked 'What it means'. Then you asked 'How it was done'. Now again, you ask 'What it means'. ...but @SA Huguenot has already answered.

Of course, they may not have said what you are looking for, but shouldn't you then address what they said, perhaps showing why you disagree?
I don't think asking the same question again, will change their answer.

 

[nPeace]

It means, The Holy Spirit of God overshaddowed Mary, and changed her body so she could have a fetus without any sexual intercourse.
Just as the Holy Spirit changed the bodies of countless people in the bible.
You say I should tell you how I think it happened.
My opinion is that when the Holy Spirit overshadow your body, your body seems to me like a"spunge", and this Spirit enters in all the spaces in your body.
This allows the Spirit of God to control every cell and DNA of your existence, and can make muscles strong, remove malignant tumers, give you the power of prophecy by controling your brain and mouth etc.
In Mary's case, the Spirit overshadowed her body, controlled her body and manipulated her womb to create a cell with only the mother's DNA.
this DNA in that cell was further changed by the Spirit, to become XY chromosones.
There was no other DNA in Jesus' cells, except that of Mary!

Here is the evidence:
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Wow, in the beginning God said that Eve's seed will be the one that will crush the head of Satan!
Not the seed of the MAN!

I'm glad I read through posts in threads. Otherwise I would have missed this. I'm glad I didn't.
The seed of the woman will crush the head of Satan. Yes.
Do you see here, why Jesus, or the Word - the only begotten son - is not, and cannot be God?
Is God the seed of the woman?

 

[sojourner]

Wrong. I just want people to be honest.

That’s not what your post said though.

 

[sojourner]

I'm glad I read through posts in threads. Otherwise I would have missed this. I'm glad I didn't.
The seed of the woman will crush the head of Satan. Yes.
Do you see here, why Jesus, or the Word - the only begotten son - is not, and cannot be God?
Is God the seed of the woman?

Problem is, in Genesis, the serpent is not “Satan.”

 

[nPeace]

Haven't you got more important things to worry about?
How exactly, does the nature of Jesus affect my behaviour and your behaviour?

I can answer that, but you won't believe it, because you reject it.
I'll answer nonetheless.
There is a reason the Messiah was sent by God (The Tanakh explains).

The reason this is hidden from the masses, is the same reason why people's lives are affected.
Because the Messiah is the one to address the issue raised in the Garden of Eden, when one rejects the Messiah, they in turn reject God, thus they in turn reject his holy spirit acting on them.
Without the holy spirit acting on one's life, one is deluded into thinking that their way is right, and that they are "okay", "good"... but they aren't.

Do you understand?
According to scripture, God's holy spirit leads us in right works. Without it, the opposite is true.
Please read Galatians 5:16-26
I know you don't believe that part of the Bible, but they are in sync with the Prophets and Psalms. So rejecting them, does harm us.
It does affect our behavior.

In fact, moreover, we fail to please God.

 

[nPeace]

Problem is, in Genesis, the serpent is not “Satan.”

That's the belief of those who do not accept the Greek scripture. It's not a problem for Christians, who accept them. In Revelation he is, and that relates to what Jesus said at John 8:44.

 

[nPeace]

Good. The word 'begotten' in common usage does not mean that.

We are not discussing common usage... are we.

 

[nPeace]

Not really

the word begat means just that. even in the Bible the two daughters that seduced their father Lot (God forbid to even do that to a prophet of God-what a bible) and those daughters produces children who are now considered in the lineage of Jesus pbuh . It's right in the book. A man who has no genealogy is now the lineage of the seduction of a prophet of God. begat begat begat.... All I am saying is, these terms are in the Bible to mean the way they are. You can make all the excuses you can, but it means the right way. Sure there are situations that mean sons, etc. but to put a genealogy on a God man that has no genealogy and to humiliate a prophet of God in the process. That has gone to far.

I am not wanting to argue. People give their say but everyone says different things. The word begotten means begotten.

I just wish people would be honest.

I don't recall reading that Lot was a prophet of God. Can you point that out? Where did you read it?
Lot was Abram nephew, and he had a lot to learn too. He was not like Abraham either.
Actually God saved Lot out of mercy, and on behalf of his friend Abraham.
Lot made some serious errors too.

 

[nPeace]

I am not trying to make it fit my expectations. I just wish people would be honest. They criticize me for my religion, they bash it, they laugh, they humiliate and yet, when I actually bring something from their own book, God forbid I'm a horrible person. I explain from my religion yet when I bring something from the Bible, which I have every right to do, being I was a born again Christian, it's so wrong and "I was never a true Christian". Just always the answer. People are dishonest.

It's true, a lot of people are dishonest MyM, but remember too, that some of the many people are sincere - sincerely wrong, but we may be thinking they are dishonest, when they are not.
They may also be thinking the same of you.
So it's best to just deal with the argument, rather than the person.
Otherwise we would accuse everyone who don't agree with what we believe, of being dishonest... and that would be a mistake.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Because the Messiah is the one to address the issue raised in the Garden of Eden, when one rejects the Messiah, they in turn reject God, thus they in turn reject his holy spirit acting on them.
Without the holy spirit acting on one's life, one is deluded into thinking that their way is right, and that they are "okay", "good"... but they aren't.

I don't reject the Holy Spirit.
I don't reject G-d.
I don't reject the Messiah.

What I reject, is the insistence that "my way is the only one that you can be saved".
eg. if you don't believe that Jesus is G-d, you've had it

 

[muhammad_isa]

In Revelation he is, and that relates to what Jesus said at John 8:44.

Agreed.

 

[nPeace]

I do believe that we are all "sons" of G-d.
That is why Jesus taught us the Lord's prayer.
Our Father, whom art in heaven...

The problem with translations of scriptures, is that they can have implications that are not intended by their authors

Ooof. You knocked the wind out of me.
I know the Qur'an refers to the Gospels, but I thought most Muslims consider the Gospels corrupt writings. Aren't you Muslim? Do you accept the Greek scriptures, or only a small portion of preferred books?

Do you speak Hebrew... and did you know the original ancient writings are all lost, and the writers all dead? So copies were made, and during those times interpretations were also made, which were not intended by the authors.
Since you mentioned Jesus, he pointed this out. The religious leaders burdened the people with their interpretations. It's there in Matthew 23.
23 must be a special number, because Jeremiah, in Chapter 23, also mentioned those who wickedly did things like these.

So how do you determine what is pure?

Not really. I consider the Gospel of John to be sectarian in nature.
The Bible canon was not decided by G-d, but by men.

I'm not saying that the men who decided on it were corrupt, but the Empire in which it has its roots surely had its political preferences.

I understand.
From my reading of the scriptures though, if the Gospel of John is corrupt, then every other book is corrupt.
Any time you remove one book, you need to remove all the others.
It's like a knitted crochet. Just try removing one of those threads.
The Bible is like that, as far as I can see, from my experience.

You say it's not from God, but then, why don't you apply that same principle to the Tanakh.
Moses claimed to write from God. God didn't write anything. So is what he wrote, decided by God? What's the difference?
Can God not use a present system that may be corrupt, to preserve his word?

Remember what Jesus said...
(Matthew 23:2, 3) 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say.
So, while Jesus knew the system was corrupt, he knew that God's law was not, and that there was no other source.
Eventually, in God's due time, he would clean house, but while that system existed, God would make his word available to truth seekers.
Jesus used the temple. His apostles did too... until God had it destroyed by the Romans.

Interestingly, this was prophesied to happen, two-fold.
God allows the corrupt Empire to stand, and claim authority over his word. For now, she "sits a queen" Revelation 18:7, 8 , but it's only a matter of time, when they too, will crumble... and guess whom God will use to destroy her.
(Revelation 17:16, 17) 16 And the ten horns that you saw and the wild beast, these will hate the prostitute and will make her devastated and naked, and they will eat up her flesh and completely burn her with fire. 17 For God put it into their hearts to carry out his thought, yes, to carry out their one thought by giving their kingdom to the wild beast, until the words of God will have been accomplished.
Another political system.

So currently, we used God's word, like the apostles did, while separating ourselves from that corrupt system.
That's what God's people today are doing. They have separated from Christendom. and they live by wnhat's written in scripture.
As I said, one thread holds it together.
That's one piece of evidence that convinces me that it's true.

 

[nPeace]

..best not to use the word at all, if there is confusion.
I believe the translators purposely used such words, as they were prone to exaggeration.

You never did tell me what word you suggest.

 

[nPeace]

I don't reject the Holy Spirit.
I don't reject G-d.
I don't reject the Messiah.

What I reject, is the insistence that "my way is the only one that you can be saved".
eg. if you don't believe that Jesus is G-d, you've had it

Oh, okay. Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah, as mentioned in the Gospels?

 

[sojourner]

That's the belief of those who do not accept the Greek scripture. It's not a problem for Christians, who accept them. In Revelation he is, and that relates to what Jesus said at John 8:44.

Huh? 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.

 

[nPeace]

Huh? 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.

If you proove everything you just said, that will settle it.

 

[sojourner]

If you proove everything you just said, that will settle it.

Look in any scholarly commentary. No reputable exegete explains Genesis with passages from Revelation. It’s just not part of that process. It doesn’t work that way. It’s like asking a doctor to prove that diagnosing a brain aneurysm by tossing tea leaves in the air isn’t proper diagnostic procedure. The doctor will tell you that such practices are wholly unreliable and unrelated to diagnostic procedure.

Reading a second century Greek writing into a Hebraic writing from the 600s BCE (with much older sources) is wrong. It will not help the reader understand what the older text is saying.