Worshipping the MAN Christ Jesus?

[Guest]

Before we get too carried away in speculation, we do well to keep in mind that gennao is used figuratively (metaphor and allegory) as well as literally in the New Testament. My TDNT notes that "Strikingly the New Testament does not apply Psalm 2:7 to Jesus' birth narratives thus a physical, sexual begetting is precluded. Acts 13:33 applies the words 'today I have begotten you' to Jesus' ressurection."

Also the literal meaning of monogenes (John 1:14) is "of a single kind" and may be speaking of Jesus' uniqueness. The TDNT comments: "This word marks out Jesus as unique, above all earthly and heavenly beings, yet the soteriological meaning is more strongly stressed than that of ontology or origin".

[Guest]

Paidion,

We're simul-posting ("in real time") lol

The idea that God exists "outside of time" is meaningless to me.

I don't know why, but this isn't a problem for me. I'll chalk it up under "the Sovereignty of God" (leaving aside Calvinist/Arminian stuff on that). It just doesn't bother or puzzle me in the least that God could "be" and "do" before anything and anywhen "was"....

Your "when" question can be answered only in relation to other events.

I remember a quote from a theology (101) prof:
"In God there is no such thing as time. For God it is all one big, eternal, NOW!" If such is the case in God, "when" can be answered with no relation to other/any events. I'm fully satisfied with this explanation (under "Sovereignty of God").

The only other events of which I am aware that took place "before the ages" is the begetting of the Son, the first of God's acts at the beginning of time, and the creation of the Universe, which may have taken place shortly afterwards. I think "in the beginning" mentioned in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 refers to the beginning of time.

Agreed: "In the beginning" is, obviously, the start of human history (Ge & Jn).

Otherwise, I see what you are saying about the Son's begetting (as somehow concurrent or very proximal to the actual beginning). In Col 1:15b Jesus is "the firstborn 'of' all creation". Though the meaning of this passage is contested with it sometimes being translated as "the firstborn 'over' all creation"...I get your meaning. Btw, I prefer the former translation as I assume you do also; the latter is characterized with theological presuppositions, imo.

Quote:
2) It would be "before" other, normal time (as we know it): Correct?


No, not as I see it. I don't believe in any time except "normal time". I think "normal time" had a beginning, and that there was no "before" in reference to that beginning.

Would you agree with my professor who said God exists in an Eternal Now? (keeping in mind that "now" has no meaning without reference to time), lol

Quote:
3) When do you think (regular ol') chronological time began? At Creation?


Again, I believe that's the only time there is, and that time began with the begetting of the Son, the first event that ever happened.

You have the Son being begotten proximal to, and/or just prior to Creation: "...the begetting of the Son, the first of God's acts at the beginning of time, and the creation of the Universe, which may have taken place shortly afterwards" (as you posted, above). Okay, I see what you mean.

Quote:
4) How do you distinguish between the two? ("eternity past" seems the most accurate way to describe the "time before Creation")....bbl


By now, you will have realized that I believe in only one kind of time. I do not believe in "eternity past".

We're not really discussing "God's Attributes" in this thread and I don't necessarily want to "debate" your interpretation of the Scriptures on Christology. You have a "biblical" case....

Lastly for tonite:
If we were discussing the Attributes of God (I mean, of God the Father); If the Son had no existence prior to, or came into existence proximal to, Creation/time; and therefore, didn't exist or do anything: What do you say about the Father? He "acted" in begetting the Son...but you say an action (event) has no meaning without reference to time.

It could be debated that you are proposing God had no existence till He begot the Son (is what I'm saying). How do you resolve this? Or are you silent and/or agnostic about it?

I take it you do not believe in two begettings of the Son, as I am considering (being rather different from other trinitarians)!

Anyways....Thanks, Paidion

[Guest]

Rick, I'll answer you next time.

Before we get too carried away in speculation, we do well to keep in mind that gennao is used figuratively (metaphor and allegory) as well as literally in the New Testament. My TDNT notes that "Strikingly the New Testament does not apply Psalm 2:7 to Jesus' birth narratives thus a physical, sexual begetting is precluded. Acts 13:33 applies the words 'today I have begotten you' to Jesus' resurrection."

Homer, I don’t think “we” are getting carried away into speculation. Most of that which I have expressed and to which I subscribe are directly stated in the scriptures. I agree that the NT does not apply Psalm 2:7 to Jesus’ physical birth from His mother Mary. In Acts 13:33, the passage is applied to His birth or generation at the beginning of time.

I don’t think gennaō is ever used figuratively. It means “generate” in every instance. This Greek word and its Latin counterpart “generare” mean “to generate, produce, bring forth, procreate” or, in older English “beget”. Our English word “generate” is believed to be derived from the Latin.

As for the quotation from Psalm 2:7 which was quoted in Acts 13:33, I can see why one might think it refers to the resurrection of Christ since the whole passage refers a lot to Christ’s resurrection and appearing to His disciples. However, it might be instructive to consider Acts 13:33 together with the two verses which surround it:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you.’ As to his raising him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he has spoken in this way, ‘I will give you the holy promises made to David.’ Acts 13:32-34 NRSV

The way it is written seems to contrast God’s raising Jesus in 33 with God’s raising Him from the dead in 34. For 34 begins “As to His raising Him from the dead” as if the author is talking about a different subject. The RSV and other translations make this even more pronounced, “And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead…”

As I see it, verse 33 is speaking of raising Jesus, by bringing Him into the Universe by generation (“Who shall declare His generation?”). Through Jesus being raised (begotten, generated, produced, brought forth), and sent into this world to bring the good news of the Kingdom, we (the apostles) were able to bring you (the Jews and the Godfearers) the same good news (there’s only one gospel) as Jesus Himself proclaimed.

Also the literal meaning of monogenes (John 1:14) is "of a single kind" and may be speaking of Jesus' uniqueness. The TDNT comments: "This word marks out Jesus as unique, above all earthly and heavenly beings, yet the soteriological meaning is more strongly stressed than that of ontology or origin".

In spite of what some lexicons affirm, the word does not mean “of a single kind” but means “only-generated” or “only-begotten”. Every instance of its occurrence in the NT can be so translated, although one might question in which sense Isaac could be said to be the “only-begotten” son of Abraham (Heb 11:17. However translating it as “his one and only son” (as the NIV has it), or “his only son” (ESV) doesn’t make it a whit more accurate.

I suppose one could interpret Isaac as being “a son of a single kind” in a sense that Ishmael was not. However, this seems to be stretching things. That meaning would make no sense in Luke 8:42, Luke 7:12, and Luke 9:38

[Guest]

As I see it, verse 33 is speaking of raising Jesus, by bringing Him into the Universe by generation (“Who shall declare His generation?”). Through Jesus being raised (begotten, generated, produced, brought forth), and sent into this world to bring the good news of the Kingdom, we (the apostles) were able to bring you (the Jews and the Godfearers) the same good news (there’s only one gospel) as Jesus Himself proclaimed.

Just for clarity. Are you saying that it is refering to a pre-incarnation begetting, or the begeting which occured in Mariam's womb?

I suppose one could interpret Isaac as being “a son of a single kind” in a sense that Ishmael was not. However, this seems to be stretching things. That meaning would make no sense in Luke 8:42, Luke 7:12, and Luke 9:38

Yitshak was Abraham's unique son because he was the sole heir. Why would it make no sense in the following cases?

And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. Luke 7:12

And behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue. And he fell down at Jesus’ feet and begged Him to come to his house, for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying. 8:41-42

38 Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child. 9:38

In all of these, the children may have had siblings but may have been unique heirs like Yitshak. This could also apply to Jairus' girl, because the Torah stipulated that where a man had no sons, then his inheritance passed on to his oldest daughter (Numbers 27:8).

[Guest]

Just for clarity. Are you saying that it is refering to a pre-incarnation begetting, or the begeting which occured in Mariam's womb?

The pre-incarnate begetting at the beginning of time.

Paidion wrote:

I suppose one could interpret Isaac as being “a son of a single kind” in a sense that Ishmael was not. However, this seems to be stretching things. That meaning would make no sense in Luke 8:42, Luke 7:12, and Luke 9:38

Yitshak was Abraham's unique son because he was the sole heir. Why would it make no sense in the following cases?

And when He came near the gate of the city, behold, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother; and she was a widow. Luke 7:12

And behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue. And he fell down at Jesus’ feet and begged Him to come to his house, for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age, and she was dying. 8:41-42

38 Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, “Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child. 9:38

It makes no sense, because in each of these cases, the child is clearly the only offspring (the only-begotten). The child is not called "only-begotten" because it is "one of a kind" having some special attribute or belonging to some particular class.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You wrote:

I don’t think gennaō is ever used figuratively. It means “generate” in every instance. This Greek word and its Latin counterpart “generare” mean “to generate, produce, bring forth, procreate” or, in older English “beget”. Our English word “generate” is believed to be derived from the Latin.

IMHO I do not think bringing the Latin counterpart into the discussion is of any benefit. Do you disagree that gennao means to procreate, to father, to beget? And that it is used figuratively in the following places?

1 Cor 4:15: "I have begotten you through the Gospel..."

Phil 10: "whom I have begotten in my bonds..."

2 Tim. 2:23: "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing they generate strife."

And numerous places in John referring to being "born again", or "born of God", &c

Allegorical use: Galatians 4:24 in reference to those under the law (Hagar), "birth to bondage".

As for monogenes, Moulton and Milligan state that ”monogenes is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus).” Thayer gives as the roots of the word monos and genos, the latter word meaning "kind, sort, class”, as does Abbott-Smith.

Regarding God being "outside of time", many brilliant thinkers believe this is so. In a debate with the athiest Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and a Christian, said: "God cannot be completely contained within nature....By being outside of nature, God is also outside space and time. The idea that He could both see the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable".

[Guest]

The pre-incarnate begetting at the beginning of time.

Again to clarify. This might be just an oversight on your part. You said:

As I see it, verse 33 is speaking of raising Jesus, by bringing Him into the Universe by generation (“Who shall declare His generation?”).

When you say that this being was begotten "into the universe," are you saying that the universe existed before the begetting? If so, I thought Yahweh's act of begetting him was the "first event in time"?

[Guest]

When you say that this being was begotten "into the universe," are you saying that the universe existed before the begetting? If so, I thought Yahweh's act of begetting him was the "first event in time"?

This was a slip up on my part. I think I actually meant "brought Him into being" = "generated Him".

I guess I had been thinking of "the Universe" as a limitless void into which the Son was begotten, and later matter was introduced. Thank you for bringing this to my intention. Immediately, I realized, of course, that there is no such entity as a vast limitless void. There was nothing --- until God generated His Son. No. That is incorrect also. As soon as I say "There was ..." I am implying a time before the generation of the Son. There was no "before". But I do think there was a time (possibly a very brief time) before the creation of matter when only the Father and the Son existed.

[Guest]

Homer wrote:

Do you disagree that gennao means to procreate, to father, to beget?

No. That is the original basic meaning. The meaning of the word developed. So it also means "generate" or "produce". These meanings are given in virtually any Greek lexicon.

And that it is used figuratively in the following places?

1 Cor 4:15: "I have begotten you through the Gospel..."

Phil 10: "whom I have begotten in my bonds..."

2 Tim. 2:23: "But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing they generate strife."

And numerous places in John referring to being "born again", or "born of God", &c

Yes, I disagree that they are used figuratively in any of these verses.
Let's start with Jesus saying to Nicodemus that he must be begotten (not "born") again. It seems that Nicodemus did, in fact, become begotten again. And this implies that he was begotten the first time (in his mother's womb). Clearly the Greek word "gennaō" is used for "procreate, beget, etc." in the case of being begotten in his mother's womb. It is used in exactly the same way concerning his second begetting. The only difference is that his second begetting was a spiritual begetting. I don't see this as "figurative". To me, "The leaves danced in the wind" would be figurative. Leaves don't actually dance, but the description helps us to imagine the way the leaves moved. Unlike the leaves which didn't really dance, Nicodemus actually was regenerated in spirit. This is also the sense in which Paul "generated" people through the gospel.

As for "ignorant disputes" generating quarrels, how can this be an example of a figurative use of "gennaō"? We talk that way today. It is a common usage of the use of "generate". Are we using "generate" figuratively when we speak of generating electicity? Or of the generation of wheat or some other grain?

Allegorical use: Galatians 4:24 in reference to those under the law (Hagar), "birth to bondage".

Homer, this isn't an "allegorical use" of "gennaō" at all! The whole description is an allegory, Hagar representing Mount Sinai, and therefore the earthly Jerusalem, while Sarah represented the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, the mother of us all. The point of the allegory is that we are children of the free woman (Sarah) and not children of the slave woman (Hagar). The writer also compares the first covenant to Hagar, and, presumably, the second to Sarah. So vs 24 indicates that the first covenant generated slavery, (and the second by implication, freedom).
a perfectly correct use of the word "gennaō".

As for monogenes, Moulton and Milligan state that ”monogenes is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique’ (unicus), not ‘only begotten,’ which would be monogennetos (unigenitus).” Thayer gives as the roots of the word monos and genos, the latter word meaning "kind, sort, class”, as does Abbott-Smith.

The latter word does not mean "kind, sort, class". It's basic meaning is "offspring", and came to be used also for "race" or "nation" since these result from offspring, and become "generations", and then "races" or "nations".

These are the first and primary definitions given by Abott-Smith.
"Kind", "sort", "class" is the fourth definition according to Abbott-Smith. These words will fit in a translation of some passages, but that doesn't imply that the word has that meaning. We can hardly build a doctrine, or base our belief, on the suppostition that the word has this meaning.

Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star."

Is Jesus the "offspring" of David? Or the "kind", "sort", or "class" of David?

So if "monogenās" has been derived from "monos"(only) and "genos" (offspring), then the "monogenās of God" (if you think "only begotten" is incorrect) is the "only offspring of God". God begat no other offspring.

However, I suggest that "monogenās" has come from "monos" and "genea" (generation). I think this because because the "eta" in the ending of the word suggests the feminine. "genea" is a feminine noun, whereas "genos" is neuter. I think "genea"(generation) is the nounal form of the verb"gennaō"(generate).

Regarding God being "outside of time", many brilliant thinkers believe this is so. In a debate with the athiest Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and a Christian, said: "God cannot be completely contained within nature....By being outside of nature, God is also outside space and time. The idea that He could both see the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable".

So if God is outside space and time, would it also become entirely acceptable to believe that He could create a stone so large that He could not lift it? Contradictions are never acceptable to most rational beings.

[Guest]

Ely,

I just read through this entire thread this morning... and it doesn't seem we've gotten much closer to answering your question.

It is a good question and worthy of asking. I was thinking of saying, well.. since we pray in Jesus' name, and thus pray to or through Jesus, can't we also worship Him. But, I guess my practice of addressing Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or the Father directly in prayer is more based on my trinitariain convictions.

Back to your original question. In all seriousness, if Jesus stayed dead, I wouldn't worship Him. But since He rose again and ascended to the right hand of the father, I choose to worship Him.

Phil 2:10
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth

Ely, the verse above seems to indicate that all humans should bow to Jesus. How do you bow to Jesus?

in Him,
Les