Why is Jesus called the Only Begottten Son?

[Fred]

I do not accept that John or Thomas are equating "the Son of God" with "God" o

When the expression "my God" is used by a believer in the Bible it always refers to the Almighty.

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings Fred,

I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum despite my differences in Bible understanding to the Administrators and Moderators and Fred. I have been banned from three forums because I do not advocate the Trinity. I have been tolerated on another forum but I have mainly posted in a sub-forum labeled Christadelphianism and this is placed in a Cult category. This had been my favourite forum since 2004, but an episode of spam wiped out all the threads in our sub-forum. More recently my old computer, or browser or their faulty program does not allow me to participate except that the only thread that I succeeded in adding is labeled "A few thoughts on Psalm 1". I consider my main reason for participating in forums is that I like to participate in interesting and sometimes challenging subjects.
I do not consider that this is at all polite and I am disappointed that you have suggested this. No other member has added such a symbol on either of my two threads so far. I am not worried if you disparage me personally, but I am concerned if you disparage some of what I have stated, especially if what I have stated is Biblical truth. I notice that you have not responded to either of the two posts that I added.

A few brief statements concerning two aspects raised. I believe in the conception, not the incarnation. I believe that God the Father was the father of the human, Jesus, and as such Jesus is the Son of God. The character of Jesus, full of grace and truth, is attributable to the fact that the human Jesus was begotten by God his father, and also to the care and education of Jesus by God his father until the time of his ministry when John beheld his moral glory.

Kind regards
Trevor

Where in the universe is anything begotten that is not of its own kind?

Animals beget the same kind of animals.
Humans beget humans.
And divinity (Godhood) begets divinity.

The divine Father begat a Son in a human female.
The Son is necessarily both human and divine, or he was not begotten by divinity as the Scriptures state.

 

[Rescued One]

I'm extremely grateful for your response,John Bauer. Having been in a cult probably makes me more appreciative of truth.

This verse is for Trevor.

2 Corinthians 6:17
Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”

 

[John Bauer]

I am not sure why you quoted this rule.

Because your position—which you stated simply and directly to the OP, yes—represents a heretical view, and this is the primary rule concerning heresies. It requires you to substantively engage with rebuttals (rather than merely repeat assertions) and defend what you stated. It is not optional but mandatory—and you have not done so. I am giving you one more chance.

I am not stating that Jesus is merely a good man or prophet, ...

I am aware of what you were stating—obviously, because I quoted you. You said Jesus is the Son of God by character. You also said a few other things which I addressed directly and you are required to engage—substantively. That means in a manner that is relevant, meaningful, serious, and thorough—not dismissively, evasively, superficially, or partially.

Your reference to John 1:14 thus fails the requirement, for it is not relevant, meaningful, or thorough. Yes, Jesus is the locus of God's covenantal presence (plērēs charitos kai alētheias), but citing this passage does not demonstrate or even support your claim that this is why he was the Son.

Again, you have one more chance to substantively engage my rebuttal (link).

 

[Rescued One]

Where in the universe is anything begotten that is not of its own kind?

Animals beget the same kind of animals.
Humans beget humans.
And divinity (Godhood) begets divinity.

The divine Father begat a Son in a human female.
The Son is necessarily both human and divine, or he was not begotten by divinity as the Scriptures state.

It ain't the same.

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Eleanor,

Where in the universe is anything begotten that is not of its own kind?

A donkey and a horse produce a hybrid, a mule.

The divine Father begat a Son in a human female.
The Son is necessarily both human and divine, or he was not begotten by divinity as the Scriptures state.

Was the result a hybrid, a baby god and a baby human? I thought you considered the following

The conception of divine Spirit (God) in human flesh is incarnation; i.e., enfleshment of the divine Spirit.

Does this agree with the word "begat"? Did Jesus have two minds? One as a child, a human, that needed development. Was his other mind, as God the Son, fully developed as a child? How do you account for the following?

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again John Bauer,

I am aware of what you were stating—obviously, because I quoted you. You said Jesus is the Son of God by character.

Yes and I hold to that position. I also consider that the following is relevant to my claim:

Romans 1:1–4 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Your reference to John 1:14 thus fails the requirement, for it is not relevant, meaningful, or thorough. Yes, Jesus is the locus of God's covenantal presence (plērēs charitos kai alētheias), but citing this passage does not demonstrate or even support your claim that this is why he was the Son.

I suggest that John 1:14 does substantiate the connection between the fact that Jesus' moral glory was intimately connected with the fact that he was the only begotten of the Father, and I continue to maintain that the narratives of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 substantiate this.

How Jesus attained to this position of "grace and truth" is firstly revealed in the two references that i quoted in my post above, Luke 2:40,52. In addition the following reveals some aspects of the education of God's Servant, our Lord Jesus Christ, God's beloved Son:

Isaiah 50:4–9 (KJV): 4 The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. 5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. 8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand together: who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord GOD will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth shall eat them up.

It requires you to substantively engage with rebuttals (rather than merely repeat assertions) and defend what you stated. It is not optional but mandatory—and you have not done so. I am giving you one more chance.

Again, you have one more chance to substantively engage my rebuttal

I am not sure if this satisfies the requirement concerning the phrase "grace and truth" in John 1:14. If you ban me I may consider this as Providential, as I sometimes spend too much time on this and two other forums that I am presently active with. I would like to spend more time with my main interests The Psalms and Isaiah. How do you understand Psalm 8 and Isaiah 6, which are also quoted extensively in the New Testament?

How do you really understand how or even when Jesus obtained to this position of fullness of Grace and Truth? I am not at all satisfied with your present answer. I consider your answer, to quote you: "it is not relevant, meaningful, or thorough." Let us see how sensitive or authoritative you are here.

My time has been limited and you may not hear from me tomorrow. I have other interests and responsibilities and I have been distracted and have not had the disposition of mind to settle down at the moment and concentrate more on this thread. My eldest sister fell asleep on Friday and will be buried tomorrow. She was a great help to me in my teenage years and helped to guide me in spiritual ways. She sacrificed her own welfare to look after me and my other older sister. My mother once mentioned that her mother, my grandmother who died before I was born, had a favourite Bible, the RV/KJV Interlinear Bible. My mother left an almost brand new copy in her estate and my eldest sister sent this to me. I now use this every morning and in our meetings, replacing my KJV which did service many years.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Arial]

A donkey and a horse produce a hybrid, a mule.

A donkey and a horse are of the same kind, the same family---Equidae. The family of horses and related animals that includes asses and zebras. Not of the same kind would be a cross between a donkey and a bovine.

God and man are not of the same kind.

 

[Arial]

A donkey and a horse are of the same kind, the same family---Equidae. The family of horses and related animals that includes asses and zebras. Not of the same kind would be a cross between a donkey and a bovine.

God and man are not of the same kind.

Since God and man are not the same kind, in Jesus we have two distinct never mixed natures. That of his Father, God. And that of his mother, human.
@TrevorL

 

[Eleanor]

It ain't the same.

Matthew 1:20
But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, it is. . .

Jesus was fathered by God.

 

[Eleanor]

Greetings Eleanor,

A donkey and a horse produce a hybrid, a mule.

Which has a combination of horse nature and mule nature.

Was the result a hybrid, a baby god and a baby human? I thought you considered the following

Does this agree with the word "begat"? Did Jesus have two minds? One as a child, a human, that needed development. Was his other mind, as God the Son, fully developed as a child? How do you account for the following?

While God is one God in three persons (Mt 28:19),
Jesus is one person with two natures: divine and human.

Jesus' human nature was 100% human, developing in exactly the same way all humans develop,and
Jesus' divine nature was 100% divine (God is not in parts): he said
to believe in Jesus is to believe in the one who sent him (Jn 12:44),
to look at him is to look at the one who sent him (Jn 12:45),
his disciples should believe in him just as they believe in God (Jn 14:1),
those who know him know the Father (Jn 14:7),
to see him is to see the Father (Jn 14:9) -- (what other human can truthfully make that statement?),
all are to honor the Son just as they honor the Father (Jn 5:23),
all the Father has is his (Jn 16:15, 17:10),
he is the way, the truth and the life and no one goes to the Father except through him (Jn 14:6).
Jesus thereby declares that what God is, he is; thereby making himself equal with God (Jn 5:18b).

How do you account for the following?

The same way I account for: God has no beginning, he has always been.

The same way I account for John the Baptist being born again while still in his mother's womb.
Do you think he knew who he was and that he was born again when she birthed him?

It's not my job to "account for" the word of God.
My job is to receive it and believe it. . .which is your job also.
You will never truly understand it until you do, for those are the conditions for understanding.

We don't understand it so we can believe it,
we believe it so we can understand it.

God is not a fool.
He doesn't throw pearls before swine.

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Rescued One]

Indeed, it is. . .

Jesus was fathered by God.

Not fathered as humans are. Jesus was and is eternal. He is as eternal as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Eleanor]

Not fathered as humans are. Jesus was and is eternal. He is as eternal as the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The Trinity is not human. Jesus, the man, was still fathered by God.

The divine nature of Jesus is eternal (without beginning).

The human nature of Jesus was not eternal, as I am not eternal.
We are both immortal.

 

[Arial]

Which has a combination of horse nature and mule nature.

Yep. The natures are mixed and so so are the phenotypes (visible evidence of the particular mixture). A mule looks sort of like a great big donkey and sort of like a horse. In a Netflix show I saw a zebra/horse mix. It was creepy. It had some stripes on haunches and shoulders and the rest solid white. Had a zebra looking head, minus the stripes, and ears. The creepiest of all was the sounds it made. It sometimes made what I guess is a zebra noise that sounds like laughing (kind of like a hyena) followed by the whinny of a horse. It astounds me that anyone would do that to an animal. It didn't fit with the zebras or the horses. An outcast. (Of course, in the show, since it was geared towards young adults, and was not the central to the ongoing saga and drama of the 16 season program, it found a friend in a horse.) But it was a real horse/zebra cross.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Gen 25:7-9 . . Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. Then Abraham
breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he
was gathered to his people. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him

Ishmael will always and forever be one of Abraham's paternal descendants; that
can't be undone with any more ease than recalling the ring of a bell. However; in
the case of slave mothers; there was a way to break Ishmael's legal ties to
Abraham; and the way was actually quite to Hagar's advantage.

The common law of Abraham's day (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the laws of
Lipit-Ishtar) stipulated that if a slave-owner disowned his child's in-slavery
biological mother; then the mother and the child would lose any and all claims to a
paternal property settlement with the slave-owner.

The catch is: Abraham couldn't just send Hagar packing, nor sell her. In order to
strip Ishmael of his legal right to an inheritance, Abraham had to emancipate his
mother; which he did.

● Gen 21:14 . . So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin
of water; and putting it on her shoulder, he gave it and the boy to Hagar, and sent
her away.

The phrase "sent her away" is from a versatile Hebrew word that can be used of
divorce as well as for the emancipation of slaves.

In other words: Hagar wasn't banished as is commonly assumed; no, she was set
free; and it's very important to nail that down in our thinking because if Abraham
had merely banished Hagar, then her son Ishmael would have retained his status
as Abraham's eldest son.

Thus in the eyes of the laws of that day-- and apparently in God's eyes too
--Ishmael and Abraham were no longer kin; which of course improved Isaac's status
from that of the younger descendant to that of not only Abraham's eldest son, but
also his only son.
_

 

[John Bauer]

I also consider that the following is relevant to my claim [that Jesus is the Son of God by character]:

Romans 1:1-4 (KJV), "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God—which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures—concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."

It may be relevant to your claim but it doesn't support it—as my response to you already demonstrated (link). This is one reason why rule 3.2 requires you to substantively engage with rebuttals. It is not okay for you to reassert claims, pretending that no rebuttal was posted.

As I already said (emphasis added), "Romans 1:4 says he was declared (not made) the Son of God with power by the resurrection. The resurrection is the public vindication of his divine sonship—not the origin of it. To say that he became the Son at the resurrection is the ancient heresy of adoptionism, which was explicitly condemned by the early church."

I suggest that John 1:14 does substantiate the connection between the fact that Jesus' moral glory was intimately connected with the fact that he was the only begotten of the Father, and I continue to maintain that the narratives of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 substantiate this.

I am willing to affirm, along with historic Christian orthodoxy, that there is indeed a real connection between Christ's moral glory and his divine sonship. But the issue at hand is not whether a connection exists; the issue is whether that connection is causal. Did Jesus become the Son of God because of his moral glory, or did it reveal his identity as the Son of God? The former is the claim that you are making, and it is not supported by either John 1:14 or the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

How Jesus attained to this position of "grace and truth" is firstly revealed in the two references that I quoted in my post above, Luke 2:40,52.

These verses are about messianic maturation, not ontological promotion. They affirm the real humanity of Christ who, as true man, underwent a normal process of human development. To take these verses as a description of Jesus "attaining" divine sonship or status is to read into the text a theology that is contrary to the gospels particularly and scripture generally.

I am not sure if this satisfies the requirement concerning the phrase "grace and truth" in John 1:14.

Rule 3.2 is about heresy, not the meaning of "grace and truth" in John 1:14. The issue is your Christadelphian heresy that Jesus became the Son of God by virtue of moral development, faithful obedience, and post-resurrection exaltation.

If you ban me ...

I have no intention of banning you at this point. However, since you have exhibited a flagrant disregard for the rules of this discussion board in this thread, all of your submissions will now have to go through an approval process before being posted. I am doing this until you decide to comply with rule 3.2. If you post something that does not substantively engage my rebuttals in this thread, it will be rejected and you will be asked to try again. (In other words, you cannot simply abandon this thread and try posting elsewhere on different topics.)

My time has been limited and you may not hear from me tomorrow. I have other interests and responsibilities and I have been distracted and have not had the disposition of mind to settle down at the moment and concentrate more on this thread. My eldest sister fell asleep on Friday and will be buried tomorrow. She was a great help to me in my teenage years and helped to guide me in spiritual ways. She sacrificed her own welfare to look after me and my other older sister.

I am sorry to hear about the passing of your sister. It sounds like she played a formative role in your life. I respect the weight of that, and I understand that these are not ideal circumstances for deep engagement in theological debate.

Having said that, because you have introduced and continued to reassert a serious heretical claim, it's important that the claims be fully addressed. This isn't merely academic. What is at stake here is the nature of Christ himself. If your view is wrong, then it misrepresents the Son of God in a way that cannot be left unchallenged.

So, while I will respect your need for space right now, I trust that you will return to this thread when you are able, to deal honestly with the clear exegetical and doctrinal rebuttals that have been offered. When you're ready, I will be here to continue the exchange.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

● Luke 1:31-34 . . Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you
shall name him Jesus . . and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his
father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever.

Before any man can be considered for David's throne he has to be-- first and
foremost --one of the king's natural descendants; and that's on oath.

● Ps 132:11 . .The Lord has sworn in truth unto David; and He will not turn from it:
"Of the fruit of your body will I set upon your throne"

The new testament verifies Jesus is the fruit of David's body spoken of in that oath.

● Acts 2:29-30 . . Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch
David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.

● Rom 1:1-3 . . Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated
unto the gospel of God, concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh

The Greek word for "seed" is a mite ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual
progeny as well as biological progeny; but in David's case; seed refers to biological
progeny because Jesus was 1) the fruit of David's body and 2) of David's loins
according to the flesh.

So then, seeing as how Jesus was David's paternal descendant, then of course
Jesus was Adam's paternal descendant too because we all, including David, descend
from a common ancestor.

● Gen 3:20 . . Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of
all the living.

● Acts 17:26 . . He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face
of the earth.

Now, the thing is: Rom 1:1-3 declares Jesus Christ our Lord is God's son and
David's son simultaneously. And in both situations, God and David are Jesus'
fathers for real rather than artificially, i.e. Jesus is their begotten son rather than
their son by means of adoption.
_

 

[Rescued One]

The Trinity is not human. Jesus, the man, was still fathered by God.

The divine nature of Jesus is eternal (without beginning).

The human nature of Jesus was not eternal, as I am not eternal.
We are both immortal.

Define: "fathered." The Father did not impregnate Mary as Mormons claim.

 

[Eleanor]

Define: "fathered." The Father did not impregnate Mary as Mormons claim.

Define: "fathered." The Father did not impregnate Mary as Mormons claim.

God sired Jesus in the womb of Mary.

Mary's son was sired by God.

 

[Rescued One]

God sired Jesus in the womb of Mary.

Mary's son was sired by God.

That word "sired" means he impregnated Mary.