Jesus - "Eternally" Begotten

[JerryNumbers]

Actually this false doctrine of eternal begotten, if its true, them Jesus had a beginning, the verse I posted assured us Jesus did not have a beginning, He always has been. Eternal begotten is a man made doctrine of the RCC that fits in with all their other man made doctrine such as Mary Queen of heaven, Mary Mother of Jesus, and all of that praying to Mary.

[Madeline]

John 1:18' date=' John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9.[/quote']

I will get to the rest of your post later on today after work, but I would like to comment on your interpretation of the word "begotten". Begotten (monogenes) clearly means one and only, not born. If it were so, then the verses you quoted would read as:

John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time, the only BORN Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BORN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 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 BORN Son of God.

1 John 4:9 - In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only BORN Son into the world, that we might live through him.

NONE of the verse you cited teaches the doctrine of the "Eternal Begetting" of the Son. Jehovah's Witnesses would be happy with your translation. The word "Trinity" is not found in the bible, but the concept is. The phrase "Eternally Begotten" is not found in the bible, and neither is the concept...there lies the difference. Now keep in mind that I do not deny the Eternal Sonship because a Spirit (God the Father) need not procreate or give birth to have a Son, for God is not a human being. All of the passages you cited above gives proof that God gave His one and only son, and that He is "unique" in the sense that He is THE only Son of God as to the "many" sons of God (angels, adopted sons of God). Jesus is not Eternally BORN, for it would make Him lesser and not of the same essence of the Father. More later...

Love,
Madeline

[Madeline]

I feel that I must add this before you try to counter what I wrote:

It can be physical' date=' or it can be spiritual as it was with Paul and Onesimus. Likewise in order to be a son you must have been begotten or have had a father. God the father is the father for a reason.[/quote']

Philemon 1:10 - I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds:

Nowhere does it state in that verse that Paul "begat" Onesimus as a son, but rather he has begat him in his BONDS (won over through Christ). Nothing to do with begatting as a Father to a son in the same sense with Christ and His Father.

Love,
Madeline

[Revelation3:20]

I feel that I must add this before you try to counter what I wrote:




I said it could be a spiritual birth. Yes, Paul being a father to Onesimus was spiritual not physical, and Paul had many spiritual children.


1 Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

[Madeline]

Why would God who is uncreated need to "beget" Christ in order for Christ to be called a Son? hits the nail right on the head. No one is denying the eternity of Christ nor the nature of His eternal relationship to the Father nor that of the Father to the Son. The issue here is "entirely" about the concept of "begetting". Begetting means "giving physical birth to", and there was nothing physical at all before Jesus created the universe at the Father's behest. Besides that, if something or someone is "begotten" that something or someone must have had a beginning as well as a sire/creator. Jesus has no beginning: He always existed as God. Jesus has no sire/creator; His relationship as Son is one of chosen obedience but it does not flow from having been created or sired or begotten. As I have explained twice now, no one ever used this term before the Nicene Creed. If you're defending the tradition, you are defending the Creed, because that is where this erroneous false doctrine originates. All of these passages you have listed (John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9) use the word /monogenes/ whose meaning and usage I have explained twice already, but will have one last go here. This adjective and the failure to understand it properly are indeed at the root of the misunderstanding. The Greek adjective is the New Testament translation for the Hebrew adjective /yachiyd/ which means "one and only" and has nothing to do with "begotten" (it is derived solely and entirely from the Hebrew numeral "one"). In the book of Hebrews in the context of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac in chapter eleven Isaac is described as /monogenes/, whereas in Genesis the word used is /yachiyd./ Without any question, therefore, /monogenes/ is the Greek translation of /yachiyd/, so that whatever /yachiyd/ means ("one and only") is precisely what /monogenes/ is meant to mean, namely, "one and only" or "precious and unique", but not anything to do with "begotten" (despite the etymology of the Greek adjective, usage determines meaning, not etymology). As I say, it would be much ado about nothing except for the fact that the improper meaning of the word "begotten" has led some to misunderstand the divinity of Jesus Christ, since anyone "begotten" has both a beginning and a superior creator, neither of which things is true of our Lord. If you agree/concur with this last statement, then you are merely arguing about words, not doctrines (and mistranslated words at that).

Love,
Madeline

[Revelation3:20]

Why would God who is uncreated need to "beget" Christ in order for Christ to be called a Son? hits the nail right on the head. No one is denying the eternity of Christ nor the nature of His eternal relationship to the Father nor that of the Father to the Son. The issue here is "entirely" about the concept of "begetting". Begetting means "giving physical birth to", and there was nothing physical at all before Jesus created the universe at the Father's behest. Besides that, if something or someone is "begotten" that something or someone must have had a beginning as well as a sire/creator. Jesus has no beginning: He always existed as God. Jesus has no sire/creator; His relationship as Son is one of chosen obedience but it does not flow from having been created or sired or begotten. As I have explained twice now, no one ever used this term before the Nicene Creed. If you're defending the tradition, you are defending the Creed, because that is where this erroneous false doctrine originates. All of these passages you have listed (John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and 1 John 4:9) use the word /monogenes/ whose meaning and usage I have explained twice already, but will have one last go here. This adjective and the failure to understand it properly are indeed at the root of the misunderstanding. The Greek adjective is the New Testament translation for the Hebrew adjective /yachiyd/ which means "one and only" and has nothing to do with "begotten" (it is derived solely and entirely from the Hebrew numeral "one"). In the book of Hebrews in the context of Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac in chapter eleven Isaac is described as /monogenes/, whereas in Genesis the word used is /yachiyd./ Without any question, therefore, /monogenes/ is the Greek translation of /yachiyd/, so that whatever /yachiyd/ means ("one and only") is precisely what /monogenes/ is meant to mean, namely, "one and only" or "precious and unique", but not anything to do with "begotten" (despite the etymology of the Greek adjective, usage determines meaning, not etymology). As I say, it would be much ado about nothing except for the fact that the improper meaning of the word "begotten" has led some to misunderstand the divinity of Jesus Christ, since anyone "begotten" has both a beginning and a superior creator, neither of which things is true of our Lord. If you agree/concur with this last statement, then you are merely arguing about words, not doctrines (and mistranslated words at that).

First let me post the English definition of "begotten". Hopefully that will put us on the same page there.

begotten

1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

So we see in English it can have two different meanings. I agree that the term "only begotten" does not mean a only born son, because we as believers are born again at the new birth as sons of God and as you mentioned angels are also spoken of as the "sons of God" as well. Therefore "only begotten" must have an additional meaning. I think definition two is an appropriate description. It is perfectly accurate to say that Jesus was eternally the only "outgrowth" of the father, nor does it deny or lessen his deity. Christ said he only spoke only the things of the father while he was here on earth, and now that he is at the fathers right hand the Spirit speaks the things of Christ which are the things of the father ect.


Now with that said "begotten" in Psalm 2:7 and in Acts 13:33 does mean born in a more literal sense and is speaking of the resurrection of Christ by the father.

Now keep in mind that I do not deny the Eternal Sonship because a Spirit (God the Father) need not procreate or give birth to have a Son, for God is not a human being. All of the passages you cited above gives proof that God gave His one and only son, and that He is "unique" in the sense that He is THE only Son of God

Good. I am glad you can agree to that, although I don't see why you can accept the eternal Sonship of Christ while being bothered by the phrase "eternally begotten" since the two statements are synonyms. Obviously Christ was not "born" in a physical sense since he is eternal.

[Revelation3:20]

Actually this false doctrine of eternal begotten, if its true, them Jesus had a beginning, the verse I posted assured us Jesus did not have a beginning, He always has been.

I never said Jesus had a beginning, matter of fact I said he was eternal. If Christ ever had a beginning he would not be eternally begotten at all but begotten at some specific period.

[Madeline]

First let me post the English definition of "begotten". Hopefully that will put us on the same page there.

begotten

1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

So we see in English it can have two different meanings. I agree that the term "only begotten" does not mean a only born son, because we as believers are born again at the new birth as sons of God and as you mentioned angels are also spoken of as the "sons of God" as well. Therefore "only begotten" must have an additional meaning. I think definition two is an appropriate description. It is perfectly accurate to say that Jesus was eternally the only "outgrowth" of the father, nor does it deny or lessen his deity. Christ said he only spoke only the things of the father while he was here on earth, and now that he is at the fathers right hand the Spirit speaks the things of Christ which are the things of the father ect.


Now with that said "begotten" in Psalm 2:7 and in Acts 13:33 does mean born in a more literal sense and is speaking of the resurrection of Christ by the father.




Good. I am glad you can agree to that, although I don't see why you can accept the eternal Sonship of Christ while being bothered by the phrase "eternally begotten" since the two statements are synonyms. Obviously Christ was not "born" in a physical sense since he is eternal.

Jesus is "begotten" in His humanity; Jesus is "eternal" in His deity. He is */not/* "eternally begotten", nor is there anything in scripture which suggests this.

As to the two English definitions, the Bible is written in Hebrew and in Greek. The question is not what English means; that is a fallacy. The question is what the Bible means in its original Hebrew and Greek. But even if we wished to place any stock in these English definitions, the second definition you want to slide to now still says "*/produce /*an 'outgrowth'". Jesus was */not/* produced; production requires a beginning, and Jesus has no beginning. He existed eternally from eternity past; there was never a time when He did not exist. Therefore He is not any sort of "outgrowth". If you want to say that Jesus is eternal in His deity and begotten uniquely in His humanity, that would be correct. If you want to say that in eternity past the idea that Jesus would at some point in human history become a human being, that is, be "begotten" in His humanity, that is fine. My point is that there is no need and no justification to express these truths with the phrase "eternally begotten", and, in fact, that is not what the English phrase means. What a convoluted situation we put ourselves in if in order to adopt a non-biblical phrase we are forced to interpret it to mean something it clearly does not mean in normal English and are likewise forced to aver that it does not mean what it clearly does mean in normal English! Not only is that sort of "arguing about words" completely unnecessary, but it is also very confusing and potentially spiritually dangerous, because there /will/ be those who will take the phrase to mean what it says, despite our convoluted attempts to explain that it really means something entirely different. When you or I or any other native English speaker hears "eternally begotten" we think "born in eternity" or something of the sort. But Jesus was not "born in eternity"; He was born in 1 B.C. In eternity, He was undiminished deity without a beginning, without an end; this He has always been; this He will always be. The human part of His nature is the new development, and that only occurred in time, not in eternity. The problem with the phrase is that it suggests otherwise. My point is that it is unnecessary and unwise to introduce a potentially confusing and spiritually dangerous phrase like this into the conversation of Christian doctrine because it will inevitably trip some people up and because we don't need to use it since it does not occur in the Bible anywhere (i.e., the KJV passages, there is a /*big difference*/ between "only begotten" and "eternally begotten").

Love,
Madeline

[Wilchbla]

Thanks for pointing out that the "eternally begotten" doctrine was outlined in the Nicene Creed. I was unaware of that. I do know that the Calvinists hold tight to it. Somehow they tie it into the Uncoditional Election and Ephesians 1:4.

The apostle John particularly like the word "begotten". This was because of the Gnostics he was constently dealing with didn't believe that Jesus came in the flesh. Therefore he used the word begotten. It simply is to show that Christ was physically born in a body. The Son always existed but you can't say he was "eternally begotten". That just doesn't make sense. The Trinity does make sense though it's hard to understand. Get a concordance a read every instance the word is used in relation to the Son of God. The only other way it is used other then his phyical birth (read the context) is in relation to his resurrection but in that case he is NOT THE ONLY BEGOTTEN but the FIRST begotten.

[JerryNumbers]

Thanks for pointing out that the "eternally begotten" doctrine was outlined in the Nicene Creed. I was unaware of that. I do know that the Calvinists hold tight to it. Somehow they tie it into the Uncoditional Election and Ephesians 1:4.

The apostle John particularly like the word "begotten". This was because of the Gnostics he was constently dealing with didn't believe that Jesus came in the flesh. Therefore he used the word begotten. It simply is to show that Christ was physically born in a body. The Son always existed but you can't say he was "eternally begotten". That just doesn't make sense. The Trinity does make sense though it's hard to understand. Get a concordance a read every instance the word is used in relation to the Son of God. The only other way it is used other then his phyical birth (read the context) is in relation to his resurrection but in that case he is NOT THE ONLY BEGOTTEN but the FIRST begotten.

&