Would Jesus have claimed it without explaining it?

[Elijah John]

The Evangelist John has Jesus telling us that God so loved the world that he sent him (God's "only begotten son" presumably Jesus himself) so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For debate, does this sound like something the teacher of the Lord's Prayer would say? Remember, he taught us to call God "Father".

If the key word here is "begotten" and if Jesus actually claimed to have been God's only begotten son, wouldn't he have explained the difference between a "begotten vs. an adopted Son of God?

How likely is it that the word "begotten" is a theological insertion by the Evangelist John, and not something Jesus actually said?

[brianbbs67]

The Evangelist John has Jesus telling us that God so loved the world that he sent him (God's "only begotten son" presumably Jesus himself) so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Christ called himself the Son of Man. That would imply God begat him in some manner.

For debate, does this sound like something the teacher of the Lord's Prayer would say? Remember, he taught us to call God "Father".

YEs he did.

If the key word here is "begotten" and if Jesus actually claimed to have been God's only begotten son, wouldn't he have explained the difference between a "begotten vs. an adopted Son of God?

Begotten would imply made by God. IE, offspring

How likely is it that the word "begotten" is a theological insertion by the Evangelist John, and not something Jesus actually said?

[font=Georgia][/font][font=Impact][/font][font=Georgia][/font]

Not very likely to me. Son of man seems to say, God's son with Human woman.

[marco]

The Evangelist John has Jesus telling us that God so loved the world that he sent him (God's "only begotten son" presumably Jesus himself) so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For debate, does this sound like something the teacher of the Lord's Prayer would say? Remember, he taught us to call God "Father"

Much is attributed to Jesus that Jesus seems unlikely to have thought far less said. We do have the question in Mark:8
"And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?" What was he after?

My own view is that he felt he had a special mission, as preachers do, and just wanted reassurance without spelling his thoughts out. And he got it, to his obvious delight, from Peter. Had he been completely aware of a divine mission engineered through an extraordinary birth he would have explained precisely what John tells us. There is no way that someone "genitum non factum" (begotten not made as we say in the Credo) would withhold that startling piece of information from those closest to him. The words: "I am God" never escape his lips.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 3 by marco]

Much is attributed to Jesus that Jesus seems unlikely to have thought far less said.

Yes, as is always the case with any public figure. Take ANY public figure today and see what many attribute to his thoughts/words. Tis the nature of man to summarize/paraphrase/take away what they like.

So some might get it right and some wrong. The messenger cannot always control the perception of others.

"If only Jesus/God were more clear . . . " Riiiiiiiiight . . . .

Jesus said and did what He wanted to say and do. Some got it -- some didn't. He also left His Church to help clear up confusion. And again some get it -- some don't.

[marco]

Jesus said and did what He wanted to say and do. Some got it -- some didn't. He also left His Church to help clear up confusion. And again some get it -- some don't.

This is a fine defence for a modern evangelist but not for someone who was the supposed emissary of God. Some even believe he was God. Given that kind of qualification we should not throw him in with Billy Graham, who was an impressive preacher. A very simple method of communicating would have been to write down his instructions. I remember first reading: "Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres", and being fascinated and thrilled that I was reading the words of Julius Caesar starting his Gallic War commentaries.

Normally we don't blame the messenger. In this case we can.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

This is a fine defence for a modern evangelist but not for someone who was the supposed emissary of God.

Really? Jesus was probably amazed at how often he was sooooo clear and people still didn't get His message. Short of taking away our free will and forcing us to believe what we are actually hearing and seeing, there isn't much more He could have done.

[bluethread]

The Evangelist John has Jesus telling us that God so loved the world that he sent him (God's "only begotten son" presumably Jesus himself) so that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For debate, does this sound like something the teacher of the Lord's Prayer would say? Remember, he taught us to call God "Father".

If the key word here is "begotten" and if Jesus actually claimed to have been God's only begotten son, wouldn't he have explained the difference between a "begotten vs. an adopted Son of God?

How likely is it that the word "begotten" is a theological insertion by the Evangelist John, and not something Jesus actually said?

That is exactly what Yeshua is addressing in His discussion with Nichodemus. His point was that being born an Israelite does not make one a de facto representative of the kingdom of Adonai. As the text states, "You(Nichodemus) should not be surprised at my saying 'You must be born again.'" It was well understood under rabbinic interpretation that some one who is not born an Israelite must undergo a mikvah of conversion(be born again) in order to be accepted into the assembly of Israel. Yeshua is just extending this understanding by applying it to the assembly the kingdom of Adonai. One can claim physical rights based on one's physical birth, but one can only claim spiritual right base on spiritual birth. Yeshua being the only begotten son, this would require everyone else to undergo a spiritual mikvah of conversion(be born again) to be accepted.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

This is a fine defence for a modern evangelist but not for someone who was the supposed emissary of God.

Really? Jesus was probably amazed at how often he was sooooo clear and people still didn't get His message. Short of taking away our free will and forcing us to believe what we are actually hearing and seeing, there isn't much more He could have done.

I've just told you he could have written his thoughts down for us to examine without our trying to grope our way through the hazy language of his biographers. So what was this vastly important message he was vainly trying to communicate? Be nice to others and pious as well? That advice was given centuries before he was sleeping with the ox and the donkey. Have a good Christmas.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 8 by marco]

I've just told you he could have written his thoughts down for us to examine without our trying to grope our way through the hazy language of his biographers.

Hmmmm . . . OR He could have given us His Church, rather than risk us misunderstanding language barriers, cultural differences, improper translation, missed context, missed syntax, etc . . .

So what was this vastly important message he was vainly trying to communicate?

Ha, ha, ha . . . you say vainly and yet many know, understand, and believe what you claim to be oblivious to.

Be nice to others and pious as well?

How bout Love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor? If you do that the "piousness" often falls into place.

That advice was given centuries before he was sleeping with the ox and the donkey. Have a good Christmas.

Yes! Because the message hasn't changed. But now God wants to reveal Himself even more so that we can come to know Him/Love. Babies always have a way of showing us how to love.

Happy birthday baby Jesus and thank you.

Happy Christmas to you as well.

[marco]

Hmmmm . . . OR He could have given us His Church, rather than risk us misunderstanding language barriers, cultural differences, improper translation, missed context, missed syntax, etc . . .

And the well-taught little boy in me recalls:
Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets will arise and mislead many." Henry viii was awarded the title Fidei Defensor for his staunch defence of R.C. articles some time before he killed two of his wives and invented the Church of England. I know that Judas can proclaim God because God works in mysterious ways. I think man works in even more mysterious ways to justify his interpretations.

Yes! Because the message hasn't changed. But now God wants to reveal Himself even more so that we can come to know Him/Love. Babies always have a way of showing us how to love.

Good people demonstrate love. When Jesus and Muhammad intervened in the daily transactions of human love and kindness we had people burned and tortured, stoned and beheaded to the tune of Te deum laudamus or simply Allahu Akbar. Go well.