His only-begotten Son

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

His only-begotten Son

Post #1

Post by Checkpoint »

This a well known description of Jesus Christ, found only in John and 1 John.

What do you think this phrase is conveying to us?

Is it literal or metaphorical, or both?

What teachings have used it as support for traditional or other views?

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #41

Post by Checkpoint »

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 39 by Checkpoint]

So will you be addressing the issue of the definition of "begotten" found in secular dictionaries, theological dictionaries, greek-english lexicons etc as well as the bible based reasoning presented above? Do they have any bearing in how you form your opinion?
Yes in this post, but not in detail.

They do have bearing as definitions, and I stand corrected where my definition was out of line.

However, that does not include any "bible based reasoning", or indeed any human reasoning either.

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #42

Post by Checkpoint »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Checkpoint wrote:To beget is to become a father. The life begotten becomes a son or a daughter.
That is correct. I'm sure you agree Jehovah (YHWH) could well have "become a father" long before the earth or anyone on it (male or female) existed.
Checkpoint wrote:To beget is not to create as the sole Creator but to procreate, to reproduce, to generate, as one of the progeny's two parents.
Says who? YOU?! Because you have just declared it so?
Definition of BEGET

1 :to procreate as the father :sire He died without begetting an heir.
2 :to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beget
procreate:
to beget or bring forth (offspring) :propagate

There is no imposed minimum number of parents in the defintion of beget; granted, until science offers alternatives, for humans, the process requires the input from both a male and female, but I think most reasonable people would agree we cannot impose such limits on an immaterial spirit being like God.

Image

Should an omnipotent God have chosen to "beget" at any point in his existence, He would obviously have needed no one else's imput to do so. We know from scripture that Jesus existence at the very least predates the physical universe, thus if he (Jesus) did indeed have a beginning, as the scriptures indicate he did, then by necessity he (Jesus) would have been begotten ("brought forth", "generated", "produced" "fathered") at that time.


JW

ONLY begotten is a reference to the unique and special nature of an individual and not to being the sole or only progeny (we know from scripture Jehovah God has other sons)
You were right to point out I should not have included "two parents" in relation to my definition of beget/begotten.

And to have given balance by observing the situation that has always been with human procreation.

However, what you have said concerning what did or did not happen, and when and how, is "bible based reasoning" such as "I think most reasonable people would"...

All such are open to discussion and debate.

User avatar
tigger2
Sage
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:32 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #43

Post by tigger2 »

[Replying to post 42 by Checkpoint]

Addition to post #38:

The Hebrew word yalad means “to bear, bring forth, beget�- Gesenius, #3205. But it can be used (as the equivalent English word also can) for “cause to be.�

For example, when God says he “begot�/�fathered� (yalad) the nation of Israel (Deut. 32:6, 18), he clearly means that he caused it to be or created it as a nation. There is no implication that it was somehow begotten out of the very substance of his body.

In like manner God calls the nation of Israel his son, his firstborn because it was the very first nation created by him and for him (cf. Ex. 4:22).

Again, anything Jehovah causes to be may be said to be “begotten� by him and is his “offspring.�

“Do you thus repay [YHWH], O foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?� - Deut. 32:6, NRSV.

“You forsook the creator who begot [yalad] you and ceased to care for God who brought you to birth.� - Deut. 32:18, NEB.

“Men of Athens [nonChristians], .... The God who made the world and everything in it ... does not live in shrines made by man. .... Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold or silver, or stone...� - Acts 17:22, 24, 29, RSV.

In Ps. 90:2 we also see yalad used in the sense of created: “Before the mountains were born [yalad] or you brought forth the earth� - NIV, AT, JB, NJB, NAB (1991), NASB; “begotten� - NAB (1970); “were given birth� - MLB. Or, “Before the mountains were created, before the earth was formed.� - Living Bible, cf. TEV. So, the Hebrew word most often translated “begotten, brought forth� may also be understood (as in English) to mean "created."

A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed.:

“[The beginning of the 4th century debates over the deity of Christ] hinged in turn on interpretation of the Greek term gennetos as that was applied to the Son. [Although] traditionally translated ‘begotten,’ in Greek philosophical terminology, it had a broader and hence vaguer sense. It denoted anything which in any way ‘came to be’ and hence anything ‘derivative’ or ‘generated.’ Christian thought had early learned to express its monotheistic stance by insisting that God is the sole agennetos (‘underived,’ ‘ungenerated’ [‘unbegotten’]): that is, the unique and absolute first principle. By contrast with God, all else that exists - including the Logos, God’s Son - was described as generated [‘begotten’].� - p. 132, Charles Scribner’s Sons, Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985. [Emphasis and bracketed material added]

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Post #44

Post by Checkpoint »

[Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]
There is no imposed minimum number of parents in the defintion of beget; granted, until science offers alternatives, for humans, the process requires the input from both a male and female, but I think most reasonable people would agree we cannot impose such limits on an immaterial spirit being like God.

ONLY begotten is a reference to the unique and special nature of an individual and not to being the sole or only progeny (we know from scripture Jehovah God has other sons).
If this is so, then it seems to me to leave us three main possible explanations of what God did and/or intended by using the terms "begotten" and "only-begotten", referring to the promised and actual Messiah, Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man.

1) The view expressed in the Creeds, "eternally begotten"; "begotten, not made".

2) The view of JWs, begotten as the first of God's creation [as I understand it, at least].

3) The view of Psalm 2, as explained and applied by Paul in Acts 13:
32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33 this He has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’

User avatar
Prince
Scholar
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Location: Ca USA

Post #45

Post by Prince »

Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]
There is no imposed minimum number of parents in the defintion of beget; granted, until science offers alternatives, for humans, the process requires the input from both a male and female, but I think most reasonable people would agree we cannot impose such limits on an immaterial spirit being like God.

ONLY begotten is a reference to the unique and special nature of an individual and not to being the sole or only progeny (we know from scripture Jehovah God has other sons).
If this is so, then it seems to me to leave us three main possible explanations of what God did and/or intended by using the terms "begotten" and "only-begotten", referring to the promised and actual Messiah, Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man.

1) The view expressed in the Creeds, "eternally begotten"; "begotten, not made".

2) The view of JWs, begotten as the first of God's creation [as I understand it, at least].

3) The view of Psalm 2, as explained and applied by Paul in Acts 13:
32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33 this He has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’
In Psalms when it is written, " You are my son this day I have begotten you," it is speaking of him who declares the decrees of the Lord.

That is why Jesus said He had brothers and sisters. Those who serve the Lord in spirit and truth are son of man and son of God.

As it is written;"You are my witnesses, my servants whom I have chosen. "

"Israel is my son, my firstborn, let my son go so he can serve me." says the Lord

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #46

Post by polonius »

Prince wrote:
Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]
There is no imposed minimum number of parents in the defintion of beget; granted, until science offers alternatives, for humans, the process requires the input from both a male and female, but I think most reasonable people would agree we cannot impose such limits on an immaterial spirit being like God.

ONLY begotten is a reference to the unique and special nature of an individual and not to being the sole or only progeny (we know from scripture Jehovah God has other sons).
If this is so, then it seems to me to leave us three main possible explanations of what God did and/or intended by using the terms "begotten" and "only-begotten", referring to the promised and actual Messiah, Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man.

1) The view expressed in the Creeds, "eternally begotten"; "begotten, not made".

2) The view of JWs, begotten as the first of God's creation [as I understand it, at least].

3) The view of Psalm 2, as explained and applied by Paul in Acts 13:
32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33 this He has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’
In Psalms when it is written, " You are my son this day I have begotten you," it is speaking of him who declares the decrees of the Lord.

That is why Jesus said He had brothers and sisters. Those who serve the Lord in spirit and truth are son of man and son of God.

As it is written;"You are my witnesses, my servants whom I have chosen. "

"Israel is my son, my firstborn, let my son go so he can serve me." says the Lord
QUESTION" How many "firstborns" does God have?

And how, if "firstborns" can it be claimed any are eternal and coequal to God (see Trinity).

User avatar
Prince
Scholar
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Location: Ca USA

Post #47

Post by Prince »

polonius.advice wrote:
Prince wrote:
Checkpoint wrote: [Replying to post 36 by JehovahsWitness]
There is no imposed minimum number of parents in the defintion of beget; granted, until science offers alternatives, for humans, the process requires the input from both a male and female, but I think most reasonable people would agree we cannot impose such limits on an immaterial spirit being like God.

ONLY begotten is a reference to the unique and special nature of an individual and not to being the sole or only progeny (we know from scripture Jehovah God has other sons).
If this is so, then it seems to me to leave us three main possible explanations of what God did and/or intended by using the terms "begotten" and "only-begotten", referring to the promised and actual Messiah, Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man.

1) The view expressed in the Creeds, "eternally begotten"; "begotten, not made".

2) The view of JWs, begotten as the first of God's creation [as I understand it, at least].

3) The view of Psalm 2, as explained and applied by Paul in Acts 13:
32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33 this He has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,

‘You are my Son,
today I have begotten you.’
In Psalms when it is written, " You are my son this day I have begotten you," it is speaking of him who declares the decrees of the Lord.

That is why Jesus said He had brothers and sisters. Those who serve the Lord in spirit and truth are son of man and son of God.

As it is written;"You are my witnesses, my servants whom I have chosen. "

"Israel is my son, my firstborn, let my son go so he can serve me." says the Lord
QUESTION" How many "firstborns" does God have?

And how, if "firstborns" can it be claimed any are eternal and coequal to God (see Trinity).
In saying Israel is God's firstborn son it is simply stating it is as precious as a firstborn.

There is only one son, Israel. But Israel his many people. Those people are the servant of God, the son of man.

Jesus describes the servant of God and also is the example to follow to become the "Son of God".

" The Son can only do what he sees the Father doing, whatever the Father does the Son does likewise for the Father loved the Son and whatever he does He shows him.
"

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

So "firstborn" isn't really the "first born&q

Post #48

Post by polonius »

Prince posted:

In saying Israel is God's firstborn son it is simply stating it is as precious as a firstborn.
RESPONSE: If we allow your reasoning, we open the at least Paul's and John's writings up to a variety of different meanings.

Some examples:

When it is written that Jesus rose from the dead, it might mean it just seemed Jesus was still alive. (as in the case of Elvis).

When it says Jesus is the Son of God, it might only mean that Jesus seems
to be the Son of God.

Can we use a "let's pretend" interpretation with the plain meaning of the words of scripture?

User avatar
Prince
Scholar
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:00 pm
Location: Ca USA

Re: So "firstborn" isn't really the "first bo

Post #49

Post by Prince »

polonius.advice wrote: Prince posted:

In saying Israel is God's firstborn son it is simply stating it is as precious as a firstborn.
RESPONSE: If we allow your reasoning, we open the at least Paul's and John's writings up to a variety of different meanings.

Some examples:

When it is written that Jesus rose from the dead, it might mean it just seemed Jesus was still alive. (as in the case of Elvis).

When it says Jesus is the Son of God, it might only mean that Jesus seems
to be the Son of God.

Can we use a "let's pretend" interpretation with the plain meaning of the words of scripture?
I say that the way others understand scripture is flawed. I never said it might mean something. I am telling you what it means.

As far as Paul and John, they didn't understand. Their writings are not from God except when quoting God and Jesus or writing down the historical Jesus. Paul on the other hand could not write about what Jesus said since He never knew Him nor cared to acquire His words.

As Jesus said; "By your words you'll be justified and by your words you'll be condemned."

Checkpoint
Prodigy
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 10:07 pm
Has thanked: 105 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: So "firstborn" isn't really the "first bo

Post #50

Post by Checkpoint »

Prince wrote:
polonius.advice wrote: Prince posted:

In saying Israel is God's firstborn son it is simply stating it is as precious as a firstborn.
RESPONSE: If we allow your reasoning, we open the at least Paul's and John's writings up to a variety of different meanings.

Some examples:

When it is written that Jesus rose from the dead, it might mean it just seemed Jesus was still alive. (as in the case of Elvis).

When it says Jesus is the Son of God, it might only mean that Jesus seems
to be the Son of God.

Can we use a "let's pretend" interpretation with the plain meaning of the words of scripture?
I say that the way others understand scripture is flawed. I never said it might mean something. I am telling you what it means.

As far as Paul and John, they didn't understand. Their writings are not from God except when quoting God and Jesus or writing down the historical Jesus. Paul on the other hand could not write about what Jesus said since He never knew Him nor cared to acquire His words.

As Jesus said; "By your words you'll be justified and by your words you'll be condemned."
You may say what you like, it is just another opinion.

How about you justifying your words about the writings of Paul and Johh?

Post Reply