I agree with "procreated" and "generated". I would also add "produced".Paul you wrote:First we need to agree on what Begot or Begotten actually mean. What does “begotten” mean?
My Webster’s 1828 Dictionary reads as follows:
Begot
BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get. Procreated; generated.
Now we would agree that God is eternal and timeless, thus God has no past and no future. God simply is being. Time appears to be a created phenomenon, for the benefit of his creation.
No, I do not agree. "Timeless" has no meaning whatever. God does not live in "an eternal present". God does have a past and a future. That's why He is called "The one who is, and was, and is to come." I see time in a very simple way. I think it the interval between the occurence of events. The only way there could be "timelessness" is if there were no events. So time didn't have to be created. As soon as the first event occurred, time began (or perhaps as soon as the second event occurred).
I don't understand your statement, "Time appears to be a created phenomenon, for the benefit of his creation." If time had been created, how would its creation benefit the rest of creation?
For example the term ‘Eternally Begotten’ would be a classic oxymoron.
I certainly agree with that, even with my understanding of time.
That doesn't follow unless there was an infinite regression of time into the past. We have all been educated to believe that that is the case. However, I believe in a REAL beginning to time. Nothing happened BEFORE that beginning, because there was no BEFORE. Let B represent the beginning of time. If anything happened, anything at all, before B, then obviously B was not the beginning of time.To state it simply, if Jesus was Begotten (generated, or procreated) then there was a time Jesus did not exist. He is out of God, a creation of God.
If the first event ever to occur was the begetting of the Son, then there were no events prior to that. Therefore there was no TIME at which He did not exist. The Father was simply there at the beginning of time and He begat the Son at the beginning of time. So the Father is no OLDER than the Son, for there was no BEFORE. This is difficult to comprehend, but it poses fewer logical problems that the supposition that there was an infinite regression of time into the past. If that were the case, then the Father was simply existing, doing nothing. Or perhaps He was just thinking and planning for an infinite amount of time. Would that be necessary in order to create a fininite universe?
I have no problem with Webster's definition. What do you mean by my getting "past that word"?Do you have another understanding of ‘Begotten’ different from Webster? I only ask because I want to know how you get past that word.
Which part to you consider inaccurate? Okay, I will give you a really literal translation. Tell me whether you consider this to be quite accurate:There are several issues here. First your translation of John 1:3 is not quite accurate. (This is a whole post in and of it’s self, and we will cover it if you wish ).
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one [thing] came into being.
I believe that the last few words in this verse (which I did not translate) actually belong to the next sentence. Otherwise as redundancy occurs.
That which came into being in Him was life, and the life was the light of people.
As you know the original manuscripts and early copies of them was written entirely in upper case letters with no spaces between words and no punctuation.
Second, you are show signs of Hellenistic influence. Almost all the early Church Fathers were well versed in Greek philosophy; and unfortunately they incorporated Christianity into their world view. The scripture are Hebraic in nature and do not mix well with Hellenistic beliefs systems.
The first century Christian writings which we call "The New Testament" were written in Greek.
There were Hellenistic Jews as well as Hebraic Jews:
Acts 6:1 Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food.
Acts 9:29 And he was talking and arguing with the Hellenistic Jews; but they were attempting to put him to death. NASB
Justin Martyr was not Jewish. He had been a disciple of Plato. It was while he was meditating as a Platonist that he was met by an old Christian. He was convinced that the teaching of Plato concerning reincarnation did not make sense. He became a disciple of Christ and rejected Greek philosophy.
Even the Jews in Jesus' day had "Hellenistic influence". It seems many or all of them believed in reincarnation. Even Jesus' disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" John 9:2. Now how could the blind man have sinned so that he would be born blind? There's no way he could have done it unless he had sinned in a prior incarnation. So possibly all of Jesus' disciples had "Hellenistic influence". Yet we read the writings of John and Peter. We don't reject them because these men had been influenced by Greek thought.
Yes, God has spoken to us in His Son in the last days after Jesus was born. This is one of the purposes, if not the main purpose that Jesus lived and walked on this earth as a human being. But, from this fact, how do you come to the conclusion that God did not also speak to the Hebrews of old through His Son who appeared to them? Remember, Abraham addressed one of the three men who came to him as "Yahweh"! The passage in Hebrews does not say that God spoke to the fathers in the old days only through the prophets. Indeed, it is obvious that God often spoke directly to people including Moses and Abraham. The second century Christians believed that He often did so through the appearance of His Son. We call these "Christophanies".Hebrews 1:1-2. would appear to give Justin Martyr’s belief of Jesus in the O.T. some trouble. Heb 1:1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, :2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the ages
God spoke to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways BUT now in these last days has spoken to us in His Son. These last days Paul is talking about the messianic age. The Son was not a spokesman for God in the O.T. according to Paul.
Not the slightest suggestion of rudeness, Paul.I hope I am not coming across as rude, I’m just sharing my studies and present beliefs.
That's great, Paul! Hopefully, we can all look to the Lord for guidance in understanding. But when our inadequate thinking gets in the way, we can still have unity in Christ by having the same LOVE for one another.I say present because, I have been wrong in the past and I see no reason why I could not be wrong in the present or future. Therefore I use the term present beliefs. I keep my mind open for the teaching of the Spirit.
