What PS Ivor Myrs is saying sounds a lot like fig leaves covering gathering your own righteous your own works by doing what Jesus did to be saved. But it's truly by faith that we are saved believing in the only begotten Son and for believing that you are baptized by the Holy Spirit receiving His life
This is a really well disciplined detailed critique on this discussion. Christ's sonship is of paramount importance before he is resurrected. Remember, God spoke at his baptism, saying that he was indeed His son. This is what he was able to believe during the forty day fast when satan tempted him while saying, if you are really the son of God. He wasn't tempting with, if you are really going to be the son of God when you are resurrected, as Meyers suggest.
That time of when he was begotten is not given. God gave his son before he was born by Mary. Its not love if it's not his son. This is the love of God, that he gave his only begotten son. If that is put in obscurity then it shadows the love of God. All the gymnastics of running away from the reality that God had a son before man was created is dangerous. Christ Jesus did not become a son because of his humanity
*Two Hebrew verbs that are pertinent to this discussion.* - *The first is the Hebrew verb qânâh [H7069 קָנָה ]* found in Pro 8:22. The KJV renders this verb as "possessed" but it actually means "to get." It is in the past tense so it is properly rendered as "got" or "gotten." This same verb is used by Eve in Genesis 4:1, speaking of Cain, when she said "I have “gotten” H7069 a man from the LORD." - *The second verb that concerns us is "chûwl" [H2342 חוּל]* which is found in Prov.8:24,25 as “brought forth.” -- The specific form that it is in here indicates birth language. It's the same as the usage in Psalm 51:5; Job 15:7. - *Thus contextually it is impossible to avoid birth language here.* Gen 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten [H7069,“qânâh”] a man from the Lord.” or Gen 14:19 “And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, *possessor *[“ qânâh” H7069 קָנָה]* of heaven and earth: Thus, we've got two verbs here that are used 3 times in this passage that strongly indicate we are dealing with birth language here just as Eve bore Cain [Gen 14:1] and God being the *“possessor” [“qânâh” H7069]* or the originator of heaven and the earth [Gen 14:19]. *There is no basis [as some claim] to make this only a matter of anointing or bestowal in a soteriological sense of the sonship on a pre-existing being who was not the actual/ontological Son of God prior to bestowal or anointing.* *“brought forth” [H2342, "chûwl"]* The "brought forth" clearly denotes labor [having pain and travail], or giving birth: Psa 51:5 "Behold, I was *shapen [H2342]* in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalm 90:2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst *formed* [H2342] the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Isa 13:8 "And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in*pain* [H2342] *as a woman that travaileth*: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames." Isa 26:17 "Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in *pain,* [H2342] and *crieth out in her pangs;* so have we been in thy sight, O LORD." Isa 45:10 "Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? *or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? H2342"* Isa 51:2 "Look unto Abraham your father, and unto *Sarah that bare [H2342]* you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him." Isa 54:1 "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, *thou that didst not travail with child: [H2342]* for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD." Isa 66:7 *"Before she travailed, [H2342] she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child."* *As you can see the Hebrew word, "chûwl", translated as "brought forth" clearly refers to a birth language. Therefore, Prov. 8 denotes "wisdom" or Christ being "brought forth" as in begetting or being begotten.* *To the question, if it is possible that the Son was •"brought forth" in the creation of the world?* *Some people believe that but if you look at Proverbs 8, THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT POSSIBLE.* - *Look at the timing markers in the passage.* - *Vs. 22 says that the Lord begot wisdom *"BEFORE"* his works since.* - *Vs. 23 says He was set up *“FROM EVERLASTING, FROM THE BEGINNING, BEFORE THE WORLD.”* - *Vs. 24,25, explain that He was brought forth before the fountains of water, before the mountains and hills.* - *THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS IS REFERENCE TO HIS HUMANITY. WE ARE SPEAKING HERE ABOUT AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THIS WORLD WAS, EVEN FROM EVERLASTING. *Now, regarding the genuineness of Christ's Sonship, He is called the* - *“only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” three times, “the firstbegotten” once and God's “holy child” twice.* - *Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. Four verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.* - *The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the •literal begotten Son of God who was •brought forth from the Father before all creation.* - *The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.* *Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon* *G1831* - *To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.* *G2064* - *To come from one place to another.* *Some also claim that Jesus cannot be divine if He was born of God.* - *But this is just another tactic Satan uses to deter people from the truth.* - *In any case, the problem is actually the other way around.* - *DIVINITY IS NOT BASED ON HOW OLD YOU ARE BUT WHO YOU CAME FROM.* - *JESUS INHERITED EVERYTHING FROM HIS FATHER INCLUDING HIS DIVINITY.* *EVERYTHING THAT CHRIST CONSISTS OF HAD NO BEGINNING, His divinity, His makeup, His substance had no beginning as it all came from the Father. - *If you trace Christ back you will have to go through the Father and you will never get to a beginning.* - *BUT HIS PERSONALITY AS THE SON BEGAN WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY HIS FATHER.* And *IF JESUS DID NOT GET HIS DIVINE NATURE FROM HIS FATHER, THEN WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM?* *Another means of trying to discredit the truth is to say that Jesus cannot be born of God because He has no mother.* - *But this is an anthropomorphic thought.* - *Why do Trinitarians try and put “human” limitations on God?* - *He is God, NOT human.* - *Strangely, these very same people have no problem with the virgin birth.* - *Just because something does not seem reasonable or logical to us, or just because it does not make sense to us, it does not mean it is not truth.* - *Our heavenly Father said,* - *“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”* Isaiah 55:8-9. - *GOD CAN AND DID BRING FORTH A SON WITHOUT HAVING TO CREATE HIM.* - *Scripture does not lie and those opposing the truth on Christ being begotten of the Father should know all things are possible with God.* - *We must not put human limitations on how or what God can and cannot do based on our human finite knowledge over the omniscience and omnipotence of God.* - *Why do so many Christians try to explain away clear words that state Jesus is the Son of God just to uphold a pagan doctrine that does not exist in the Bible?* - *When Satan goes to this much effort you know it has to be extremely important.* *Since Christ is the same substance of His Father, then everything He consists of had no beginning. So His divinity had no beginning, His makeup; His nature had no beginning as it all came from the Father.* In principle, everything Christ is had no beginning. - *IF YOU TRACE CHRIST BACK YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FATHER AND YOU WILL NEVER GET TO A BEGINNING.* - *BUT HIS PERSONALITY AS THE SON OF GOD BEGAN WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY HIS FATHER.* - *This principle is brought out in Scripture many times. In effect it was only the personality of Christ that had a beginning.* - *These are the mysteries of God and things our mind cannot possibly comprehend.*
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this challenge Pastor Virgil. With respect to Pastor Myers' belief regarding Jesus' Sonship to the Father, there are clear evidence from scriptures that there are at least 3 FORMS of BIRTH (being begotten, so to speak) 1. Physical birth: (Being born of a woman) 2. Spiritual birth: (Being born of God, in a mysterious sense). Jesus addressed this birth when conversing with Nicodemus in John chapter 3 3. The Resurrection: (Being born from the DEAD). Jesus has preeminence to this birth, even though technically speaking he was not the first from a human perspective to have been resurrected from the dead. All the births that Jesus experienced we also must experience them in order to make it to heaven, to see the Father. That being said, Jesus' spiritual birth is from Everlasting/Eternity (Olam). I found that in Pastor Myers' challenge he created a false dichotomy in order to make the challenge impossible, fir how can you answer to a challenge if there are no statements from Bible or SOP to back it up? What do I mean by that? In his challenge he specifically asked for Bible verse, to the exclusion of SOP to prove that Jesus was "BEGOTTEN IN ETERNITY" Notice he said "IN ETERNITY". It is a false dichotomy because there are no evidence for what he is asking, however, there are evidence both from the Bible AND SOP that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, "FROM ALL ETERNITY". Some may not see a difference, but there is a difference, why? One statement is INSPIRED and the other is NOT, thus creating a false dichotomy. I wish for all Non-Trinitarian Christians to understand this difference. Now, what Pastor Ivor Myers is not currently SEEING, is that BOTH PROVERBS 8:22-31 and Micah 5:2 supports this Truth. Why, because if as a people we believe that God did inspire Ellen White with the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy or the TESTIMONY of Jesus, then it would be wise to take a serious look at how she explained these texts as they relate to Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God, BEGOTTEN FROM ALL ETERNITY. In the book Patriarchs and Prophets, speaking to the subject matter of Christ's pre-incarnate Sonship to the Father, she specifically cited Proverbs 8:22-31 and Micah 5:2. Here is the evidence: "The history of the great conflict between good and evil, from the time it first began in heaven to the final overthrow of rebellion and the total eradication of sin, is also a demonstration of God's unchanging love. The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate-a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father-one in nature, in character, in purpose-the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting.... When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22-30. The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings. “By Him were all things created, ... whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him.” Colossians 1:16. Angels are God's ministers, radiant with the light ever flowing from His presence and speeding on rapid wing to execute His will. But the Son, the anointed of God, the “express image of His person,” “the brightness of His glory,” “upholding all things by the word of His power,” holds supremacy over them all. Hebrews 1:3. “A glorious high throne from the beginning,” was the place of His sanctuary (Jeremiah 17:12); “a scepter of righteousness,” the scepter of His kingdom. Hebrews 1:8. “Honor and majesty are before Him: strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.” Psalm 96:6. Mercy and truth go before His face. Psalm 89:14." [Patriarchs and Prophets, pages 33-34]
Thank you brother Virgil for your good video... But everyone fails to explain that there are two different meanings for the English word ' Begotten' STRONGS says this... gennaō - Begotten ghen-nah'-o From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring. (Act_13:33, 1Co_4:15, Phm_1:10, Heb_5:5 (2), 1Jn_5:1, 1Jn_5:18) monogenēs - Begotten mon-og-en-ace From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). (Joh_1:14, Joh_1:18, Joh_3:16, Joh_3:18, Heb_11:17, 1Jn_4:9) Pastor Ivor Myers conveniently chose the other meaning of begotten (gennaō ) ... which does attribute to Jesus the Son of God, being birthed into becoming the Son of man, birthed as a child, when the word became flesh... But when it comes to the other word begotten (monogenēs) which doesn't mean unique, as the Greek word for unique is monadikós, this word monogenēs means 'only child' .... They conveniently choose the word gennaō to back up their argument... What is sad, I like anyone else, can see for ourselves using the concordance to prove the real meanings of these words... these guys are theologians, and professionals... shows me they know what they are doing, by decieving the flock, May the Lord have mercy on our souls
*Here’s a Trinitarian conundrum:* - *Jesus prayed to the Father [John 17:1], - but His mother Mary was pregnant with Him as a result of the Holy Spirit: “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit” [Matthew 1:18]. That would make the Holy Spirit the “father” of Jesus.* *Question for Trinitarians [Modalist] and Tritheist [3 gods].* *Provide the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses that explain the following:* *1.)* There is one God, and He is triune. *2.)* Jesus is God, yet He is not triune. *3.)* The holy Spirit is God, but not triune. *4.)* Jesus is a metaphorical, or unique Son. *5.)* That the Son of God is a job description/roleplay/imaginative Son. *6.)* Calling or covenantal/agreement identity. *7.)* A narrative/story identity. *8.)* That the Bible text "Son of God" has nothing to do with [ontology/metaphysics] nature of being and existence. *Philosophical explanations are not acceptable.* - *Only the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses must be provided.* *Most SDA Church *members believe in a literal sonship,* but *the authority of the GC, the BRI argues differently,* - *they believe in a metaphorical Son.* *Below is what the SDA hierarchy say* - *[Note- not the members].* - *Seems like the hierarchy is the ponéros speaking through the people. [Acts 19:15].* *"People expect the General Conference to have the last word and to speak for the Church with ultimate authority.”* (General Conference President Neal C. Wilson, Commission Report on Role and Function of Denominational Organizations, 140-85GN, p 22-23, April 30, 1985). *Did you get that?* - *They say “the people expect”* - *Are the leaders the people speaking on behalf of the people?* - *I'd like to see the agreement between the GC and the "people".* *Additionally, they say that the members must abide by their decisions.* - “It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to submit our understandings to those in the church who are able to judge our findings, *and then to abide to the decisions of the church...”* (Seventh-day Adventist Church Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, Lesson 13, March 28, 1987, p 92, or p 153 in the Teacher’s Edition). *Sounds more like a dictatorship, isn't it?* *There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says Jesus is a metaphorical Son.* - *Such un-Biblical utterances were made by Manuel Rodriguez [now retired] was a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and was the “director” of the Adventist BRI (Biblical Research Institute).* In the November 2015 issue of Adventist World on page 42 he wrote the following: "The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. *The term “Son” is used metaphorically* when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship" *Likewise, Gerhard Pfandi, says,* - *"The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role"* - The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Pfandi, Biblical Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD, June 1999. *Retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) states,* - *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons:* - *but* theological reasoning on the basis of biblical principles leads to that conclusion.” - *Kwabena Donkor, retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) Release 9, May 2015, page 20, God in 3 Person - in Theology* So, then what is being stated is that *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons”* Then he [Kwabena Donkor] concludes, “theological reasoning based on biblical principles leads to that conclusion.” *What a contradiction!* - *First, he says there is no prooftext* - *then he contradicts himself by saying theological reasoning based on biblical principle leads to that conclusion.* - *He should have been a politician* *Since when does dogma replace scripture?* *An official Church Publication reads,* “If Adventism is to meet the needs of all people around the world, the landmarks must remain simple and straightforward. The Bible will be our only creed. Complex theological definitions, *the Trinity, for example, may serve the church well in general but cannot be imposed as a test for all Adventist everywhere.”* - The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries (NAD 1977), p.50 Adventism can expect fresh insights into truth, ‘present truth’ that will enhance the appreciation of old landmarks. Such an expectation has always been a part of historic Adventism and is reaffirmed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. When ‘present truth’ is of a complex nature, however, *it may be more helpful for some in the church than for others. In such a case it cannot be imposed on the church as a whole.”* (Ibid). *Then they say,* - *“Remember our non-Trinitarian past as well as the simplicity of our landmarks should encourage a certain humility in the church and lead us to resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest.”* (Ibid) *Now, be honest and tell me, is it proper for the GC of the SDA Church to impose its synthesis on members, and expel those who conscientiously do not agree with the church’s reasoning, even though those members accept everything the Bible actually says?* -- The Bible refers to Christ as God's Son at least 120 times. Jesus is the Son of God the Father. The phrase *Son [G5207 uihos] of God [G2316 theos]* is mentioned 48 times in 47 verses in the KJV Bible. *Paul emphatically states that Christ was* - *“Begotten First or Born Before all creation”* - *because all of creation was by God through His Son Jesus Christ.* [Col. 1:15-16]. *“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”* Ephesians 3:9 ‘For to which of the angels did he ever say such words as these: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten *[G1080 to be born; to be begotten]* you?’ Or, again ‘I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?’ Further, *when he brings his first-born*[G4416 prōtotokos the first born of all creation]* into this world of men,* he says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’ Hebrew 1:5-6 J.B Phillips] A similar decree in found in Psalm 2:7 ‘I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, *Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten *[G1080 or H3205 - yâlad - of child birth; to be born; to beget a child]* thee.’* Psalm 2:7 in the LXX, Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 all use the word begotten [Hebrew γεγέννηκά G1080 to be born; to be begotten]" *Jesus speaks interpreting God’s declaration of His Sonship.* - *This decree implies that Jesus is to be acknowledged as the Son of God and that His reign is universal.* [vs. 8,9] *This is an official declaration by Jesus Himself by His Father own words that there was a day that Jesus was begotten of the Father.* - *This declaration is made to ALL creation whom were not present at the day that Jesus was begotten of His Father and that He is NOT a product of creation.* *Thayer's Greek Lexicon says,* “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things.” Barnes New Testament Notes on Colossians 1:15 says, “the word firstborn - pro-tot-ok'-os - properly means the firstborn child of a father or mother.” *Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says,* “Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature.” *Matthew Henry's Commentary states* “He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made;” *And since the word “son” is prefixed by the word “begotten”* - *more than once when referring to Christ,* - *then it can only mean Jesus is born of God and explains why He is called the Son of God to state the obvious.* - *We also have Paul's testimony in Colossians 1:15 which says Christ was the first born BEFORE anything was created.* - *And the Greek word “prōtotokos” used in this verse CANNOT be abused as it means, first born [usually as noun, literally or figuratively]: - firstbegotten [born].* *“CHRIST WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, AND LUCIFER, THAT GLORIOUS ANGEL, GOT UP A WARFARE OVER THE MATTER,* until he had to be thrust down to the earth.” - 25LtMs, Ms 86, Aug. 21, 1910, par. 29 *And today the pastors employed by the GC “GOT UP A WAREFARE OVER THE MATTER”.*
*Etymologists at some point decided* that the term *μονογενης (monogenes)* did not in fact carry the meaning of ‘begotten’. Rather, *it seems to be the case.* This is the reason that modern translations of the Bible have effectively dropped the use of this term in English. *Thus, they say that the word means ‘one-of-a-kind’ and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT.* In every instance of *μονογενης (monogenes)* in the NT, the meaning ‘only begotten’ fits the context better than ‘one of a kind’ or unique’. It may be concluded that the usage of *μονογενης (monogenes)* that there is clear warrant for retaining the meaning ‘only begotten’. If *μονογενης* truly mean ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’, without any reference to ‘begetting’, then one might expect *μονογενης (monogenes) * could be used of a brother or sister and even of a father. Therefor we might expect to also find *μονογενης αδελφος* meaning ‘one of a kind/unique brother’, or *μονογενης αδελφη* meaning ‘one of a kind/unique sister’ and *μονογενης πατηρ* meaning ‘one of a kind/unique father’. Such expressions do not occur throughout the whole of Greek literature. *Whenever μονογενης (monogenes) is used in the context of personal relationship, the relationship is always that of offspring to parent. This strongly suggest that the concept of ‘begotten’ is indeed present in μονογενης (monogenes).* *μονογενης (monogenes)* is a Greek adjective consisting of two parts, *μονο (mono) and γενης (genes).* There is no argument regarding the derivation of the first part of the word; it is from the Greek word *μονον (monon),* an adverb meaning ‘only’. The difference of opinion only arises in regard to the second part of the word, *γενης.* The traditional view is that *γενης* is to be derived from the Greek verb *γενναω* Strong’s 1080 *(‘meaning to beget, conceive‘),* so that *μονογενης* meaning ‘class’, ‘sort’, ‘kind’, so that *μονογενης* must mean ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’. In support of the letter view, some point out that *γενος* has only a single v (the Greek letter, pronounced ‘nu’) as does *μονογενης while γενναω* has two v’s. So which etymology is correct? *It must also be recognized that it is only in recent times that some scholars have advanced the view that the Greek word* - *μονογενης (monogenes)* - *does not mean ‘only begotten’, as in the Authorised King James Version, but ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’ or something which omits the concept of ‘begotten’.* *It must also be noted that there is nothing in the term *μονογενης (monogenes)* to indicate that Christ was ‘the eternal Son of God,’ as many suggested.* If the type was not literal than the anti-type should also not be literal, but this is not so. *The Bible is clear that the type and anti-type are both literal Father and Son.* - *Nowhere in the Bible do we read that Jesus is a unique or metaphorical Son, but it rather gives the direct opposite repeatedly.* *The claim that the γενης (genes) [Strongs 1085 meaning descendant, Family] ending of μονογενης is to be derived from γενος with the meaning ‘class’, or ‘sort’, ‘kind’, may be tested by examining the meaning of the γενης ending in a similar Greek adjective which also have the same two-part structure.* *Herewith a list of such adjectives.* *1* πρωτογενης: - *first born* - *2* ομογενης: - *of the same race or family* - *3* πολυγενης: - *of many families* - *4* αγεηνς: - *not of noble birth; low born* - *5* παλιγενης: - *born again, generated anew* - *6* ευγενης: - *well born, high born* - *7* αγεννης: - *low born δυσγενης: low born* - *8* προγενης: - *born before* - *9* συγγενης: - *related, akin* *It may be observed that in all the above-mentioned [9] words the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ is clearly present.* The Nicene Creed of the year 325 defines monogenēs as “only-begotten.” Monogenēs was always translated as “only-begotten,” even in the Latin translations that preceded the first English Bible. *The word is monadikos (μοναδικός) and it antedates Christianity, having been employed by Aristotle, Philo, and others. The Greek word monadikos (μοναδικός) means unique or one of a kind and nothing else, as native Greeks know. Its morphology hasn't changed in over two thousand years. monadikos (μοναδικός) is the word that Greek speakers have been using for unique for more than two thousand years, and it is the word native Greeks still use today when they want to say unique or one of a kind.* *Neither has the morphology of (monogenes) μονογενης changed in over two thousand years, and monogenes has always meant only begotten or its equivalent.* *Just as only begotten is not equivalent to unique, so monogenes is not equivalent to monadikos. The Greek word monogenes does not mean unique, nor has it ever. The Greek word monadikos means unique. It has always meant unique.* *Had the writers of the New Testament wanted to say unique, THEY WOULD HAVE USED THE GREEK WORD WHICH MEANS UNIQUE - monadikos (μοναδικός).* *The reason the writers of the New Testament didn’t employ monadikos when they penned the New Testament is simple - because the writers of the New Testament didn’t mean unique. The writers of the New Testament meant only begotten or its equivalent. That’s why they used the word monogenes (μονογενης) instead of monadikos (μοναδικός).* *According to both history and native Greeks themselves, the Greek word monogenes means only begotten or its equivalent, and it has always been so,* notwithstanding the delusions of Anglo-bible scholars and modern version translators who cannot speak Greek. *Another objection that many put forth is:* If Paul meant to convey that Christ was the first created being, why did he not use the Greek word protoktistos, which means "first created"? Prōtoktistos comes from the said adjective prōtos and the verb ktizō ‘to build, construct, create.’ *Christian theologians have often used this distinction as evidence that Jesus was “begotten, not made”* and is therefore of the same substance/dna as the Father as opposed to a mere part of the creation. - In Col. 1:15, the rendering "every creature" in context designates the class being spoken as being all living creatures. On the other hand, *Jesus is certainly NOT the firstborn of only one creature, which really would make no sense.* *If Jesus was the first created, as some people claim, surely the Greek word ‘protoktistos’ would have been used instead.* *One could ask a similar question concerning Paul’s usage of firstborn in Colossians 1:18, such as *why didn't he say "first raised" from the dead, rather than "firstborn" from the dead?* *There is no record that the word protokistos was in common use in Paul's day. If the word protokistos [which nowhere appears in the Bible] had been used, then the thought would have been shifted from the rights of the one who is firstborn to his being the first created.* - *Paul was not emphasizing that Jesus was the first created,* - *but rather that Jesus held the rights of heirship as the firstborn of all creation.* - *This in no way negates the fact that the firstborn one is included in the group spoken of; it certainly does not provide any reason to change its meaning in this case from the meaning shown in its usage throughout the scriptures.*
*This is a contentious subject within pneumatology.* - *With a Trinitarian mindset and an eisegesis method of study, eternal or everlasting will be ‘for all eternity, without beginning’.* - *If there is a theological bias, the text will say exactly what the reader wants it to say.* *There is no conflict between the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament,* - *but the Hebrew sets the standard for the rest of the Bible.* *To Western minds the expression •“forever” or “eternal” means “endlessness.”* - *HOWEVER, this is not the meaning to the Eastern mind-set when either the Hebrew `ôlām or the Greek aiōn/aiōnios is used.* - *While these terms may be translated •“forever” or “everlasting/eternal” in English,* - *both the Hebrew and Greek words derive their length from the nature of the object described.* *For example,* - *in the modern sense* - *if we say, “God lives forever” [in Hebrew/Greek terms], we do, indeed, mean “endless,” because by nature the Deity is immortal or eternal, without beginning or end.* *But if we were to say, “King Darius, live *for ever ‘ôlām (H5769)”* [Daniel 6:6], - *it would simply mean, Live a long life.* - *The phrase would not mean “endlessness” at all,* - *because man is mortal and subject to death* [Job 4:17]. *For another example, see 2 Samuel **7:16**,19. Although God promised David a dynastic throne that would last “for ever,” David understood the promise to mean “for a great while to come.” • It actually ended with Zedekiah in 586 B.C.* *The emphasis of the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “for ever” or “eternal” in the Bible is on duration.* - *A thing or person exists continuously without break-endlessly or until it comes to an end-according to its nature.* *Notice Strong's **#s** 3117 & 5769.* - This combination is two Hebrew words, one referring to days or time [Yôwm - Strong's # 3117, although in this verse it is a plural form] and the other referring to duration [`ôlām - Strong's #5769, more correctly olamin, in the plural] There is a similar declaration in Deuteronomy 32:7. ‘Remember the *days [H3117]* of *old [H5769,* consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.’ -- KJV w/ Strong's *Notice:* - *Strong's H3117 and H5769:* - *Certainly, Moses was NOT telling the Israelites to remember eternity, for they were not capable of such.* *Some other scriptures that contain ‘yowm olam’ [in plural form] are Isaiah 63:9,11; Amos **9:11** and Malachi 3:4.* - *It should be apparent that ‘days of eternity’ is not meant in any of these scriptures.* - *Examining the other place in Micah where this expression is used, we find:* ‘Shepherd your people with your staff, The flock of your heritage, Who dwell by themselves in a forest, In the midst of fertile pasture land, let them feed; In Bashan and Gilead, as in the days [Strong's #3117] of old [Strong's G5769].’ - Micah 7:14 *It is apparent the expression here does not mean days of eternity,* - *NOT UNLESS ONE WANTS TO BELIEVE THAT GOD'S PEOPLE, ISRAEL, HAS EXISTED FROM ETERNITY PAST.* *Some other scriptures are similar, although olam and yowm are separated:* Psalm 77:5. ‘Olam’ is rendered *‘ancient times’* here in the KJV Isaiah 51:9 ‘Olam’ is rendered *‘old’* in the KJV. Strong's #s 3117 & 5769 *are once again used to denote, not eternity, BUT THE DAYS OF OLD.* *So we can clearly see that the UNREASONABLE INSISTENCE UPON THE USE OF 21st-CENTURY ENGLISH IDIOMS OF SPEECH TO INTERPRET 1st-CENTURY GREEK OR HEBREW HAS LED TO SOME EXTREME VIEWS INDEED.* *Scores of contradictions would appear in both the Old and New Testaments if this principle were ignored. We must compare Scripture with Scripture and use the idiom of the language in which the Bible was written and not our own thoughts and ideas.*
How do we read 1st John 4:9. "In this was manifested the Love of God toward us, because that God sent His Only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." and again. Galatians 4:4. " But when the fulness of time was come, God set forth His son, made of a woman, born under the law. And again. John 1:14. "And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Was Christ Jesus born of the Father just once, or twice? "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God, the same was in the beginning with God. Does this not tell us that the word was just as much divine as the one He was with? Does not a son always have his father's nature? Is anything imposable with God? For some there is an impossibility for God the Father, and that is to Beget a Son in eternity past, that is infinitely God as His Father. For in Him (Christ) dwelt all the fulness of Godhead (divinity) bodily, for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell. Col. 2:9: 1:19.
Hello, just to say that if Jesus was equal to the Father, that is, he is the same eternity, he could never have died on the cross because God cannot die. As the wages of sin is death, the divine and human person of Christ had to die. Now, only the begotten Son could die on the cross.
No. Actually Jesus could not dies before His incarnation. Why, because He is a God also. He had to become human *so that He can die*. When He took on humanity, He fixed Himself to facilitate dying. When He died, His divinity did not die, but could not continue without the human body which was His only body then He could have. The devine and the human were mysteriously blended. They are inseparable. So, Yes He died as a person, but His divinity did not die.
Jesus was begotten at his resurrection Acts 13-33 KJV God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ellen White agrees: “We declare unto you glad tidings,” the apostle continued, “how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore He saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but He, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.” AA 172.1
Walter Veith makes a false conclusion that if Christ did come from God his Father, then he is not God. That is a false conclusion. He is God, the creator of all things.
When these pastors starts on false premises they end in false conclusions
God bless you, man of God, for revealing that truth for enlightment of many in SDA Church who are still unaware of the truth
What PS Ivor Myrs is saying sounds a lot like fig leaves covering gathering your own righteous your own works by doing what Jesus did to be saved. But it's truly by faith that we are saved believing in the only begotten Son and for believing that you are baptized by the Holy Spirit receiving His life
This is a really well disciplined detailed critique on this discussion. Christ's sonship is of paramount importance before he is resurrected. Remember, God spoke at his baptism, saying that he was indeed His son. This is what he was able to believe during the forty day fast when satan tempted him while saying, if you are really the son of God. He wasn't tempting with, if you are really going to be the son of God when you are resurrected, as Meyers suggest.
That time of when he was begotten is not given. God gave his son before he was born by Mary. Its not love if it's not his son.
This is the love of God, that he gave his only begotten son. If that is put in obscurity then it shadows the love of God.
All the gymnastics of running away from the reality that God had a son before man was created is dangerous. Christ Jesus did not become a son because of his humanity
*Two Hebrew verbs that are pertinent to this discussion.* - *The first is the Hebrew verb qânâh [H7069 קָנָה ]* found in Pro 8:22. The KJV renders this verb as "possessed" but it actually means "to get." It is in the past tense so it is properly rendered as "got" or "gotten." This same verb is used by Eve in Genesis 4:1, speaking of Cain, when she said "I have “gotten” H7069 a man from the LORD." - *The second verb that concerns us is "chûwl" [H2342 חוּל]* which is found in Prov.8:24,25 as “brought forth.” -- The specific form that it is in here indicates birth language. It's the same as the usage in Psalm 51:5; Job 15:7. - *Thus contextually it is impossible to avoid birth language here.*
Gen 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten [H7069,“qânâh”] a man from the Lord.”
or Gen 14:19 “And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, *possessor *[“ qânâh” H7069 קָנָה]* of heaven and earth:
Thus, we've got two verbs here that are used 3 times in this passage that strongly indicate we are dealing with birth language here just as Eve bore Cain [Gen 14:1] and God being the *“possessor” [“qânâh” H7069]* or the originator of heaven and the earth [Gen 14:19].
*There is no basis [as some claim] to make this only a matter of anointing or bestowal in a soteriological sense of the sonship on a pre-existing being who was not the actual/ontological Son of God prior to bestowal or anointing.*
*“brought forth” [H2342, "chûwl"]*
The "brought forth" clearly denotes labor [having pain and travail], or giving birth:
Psa 51:5 "Behold, I was *shapen [H2342]* in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
Psalm 90:2 “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst *formed* [H2342] the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
Isa 13:8 "And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in*pain* [H2342] *as a woman that travaileth*: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames."
Isa 26:17 "Like as a woman with child, that draweth near the time of her delivery, is in *pain,* [H2342] and *crieth out in her pangs;* so have we been in thy sight, O LORD."
Isa 45:10 "Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? *or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? H2342"*
Isa 51:2 "Look unto Abraham your father, and unto *Sarah that bare [H2342]* you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him."
Isa 54:1 "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, *thou that didst not travail with child: [H2342]* for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD."
Isa 66:7 *"Before she travailed, [H2342] she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child."*
*As you can see the Hebrew word, "chûwl", translated as "brought forth" clearly refers to a birth language. Therefore, Prov. 8 denotes "wisdom" or Christ being "brought forth" as in begetting or being begotten.*
*To the question, if it is possible that the Son was •"brought forth" in the creation of the world?*
*Some people believe that but if you look at Proverbs 8, THAT CONCLUSION IS NOT POSSIBLE.* - *Look at the timing markers in the passage.* - *Vs. 22 says that the Lord begot wisdom *"BEFORE"* his works since.* - *Vs. 23 says He was set up *“FROM EVERLASTING, FROM THE BEGINNING, BEFORE THE WORLD.”* - *Vs. 24,25, explain that He was brought forth before the fountains of water, before the mountains and hills.* - *THUS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS IS REFERENCE TO HIS HUMANITY. WE ARE SPEAKING HERE ABOUT AN EVENT THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THIS WORLD WAS, EVEN FROM EVERLASTING.
*Now, regarding the genuineness of Christ's Sonship, He is called the* - *“only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” three times, “the firstbegotten” once and God's “holy child” twice.* - *Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. Four verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.* - *The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the •literal begotten Son of God who was •brought forth from the Father before all creation.* - *The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.*
*Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon*
*G1831* - *To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.*
*G2064* - *To come from one place to another.*
*Some also claim that Jesus cannot be divine if He was born of God.* - *But this is just another tactic Satan uses to deter people from the truth.* - *In any case, the problem is actually the other way around.* - *DIVINITY IS NOT BASED ON HOW OLD YOU ARE BUT WHO YOU CAME FROM.* - *JESUS INHERITED EVERYTHING FROM HIS FATHER INCLUDING HIS DIVINITY.*
*EVERYTHING THAT CHRIST CONSISTS OF HAD NO BEGINNING, His divinity, His makeup, His substance had no beginning as it all came from the Father. - *If you trace Christ back you will have to go through the Father and you will never get to a beginning.* - *BUT HIS PERSONALITY AS THE SON BEGAN WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY HIS FATHER.* And *IF JESUS DID NOT GET HIS DIVINE NATURE FROM HIS FATHER, THEN WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM?*
*Another means of trying to discredit the truth is to say that Jesus cannot be born of God because He has no mother.* - *But this is an anthropomorphic thought.* - *Why do Trinitarians try and put “human” limitations on God?* - *He is God, NOT human.* - *Strangely, these very same people have no problem with the virgin birth.* - *Just because something does not seem reasonable or logical to us, or just because it does not make sense to us, it does not mean it is not truth.* - *Our heavenly Father said,* - *“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”* Isaiah 55:8-9. - *GOD CAN AND DID BRING FORTH A SON WITHOUT HAVING TO CREATE HIM.* - *Scripture does not lie and those opposing the truth on Christ being begotten of the Father should know all things are possible with God.* - *We must not put human limitations on how or what God can and cannot do based on our human finite knowledge over the omniscience and omnipotence of God.* - *Why do so many Christians try to explain away clear words that state Jesus is the Son of God just to uphold a pagan doctrine that does not exist in the Bible?* - *When Satan goes to this much effort you know it has to be extremely important.*
*Since Christ is the same substance of His Father, then everything He consists of had no beginning. So His divinity had no beginning, His makeup; His nature had no beginning as it all came from the Father.* In principle, everything Christ is had no beginning. - *IF YOU TRACE CHRIST BACK YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FATHER AND YOU WILL NEVER GET TO A BEGINNING.* - *BUT HIS PERSONALITY AS THE SON OF GOD BEGAN WHEN HE WAS BROUGHT FORTH BY HIS FATHER.* - *This principle is brought out in Scripture many times. In effect it was only the personality of Christ that had a beginning.* - *These are the mysteries of God and things our mind cannot possibly comprehend.*
Wow...excellent study.
Thank you.
Did you send this to Ivor ?
@@canadiancontrarian3668: Not sure - If not, I will do so soonest. Please feel free to use these materials.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this challenge Pastor Virgil.
With respect to Pastor Myers' belief regarding Jesus' Sonship to the Father, there are clear evidence from scriptures that there are at least 3 FORMS of BIRTH (being begotten, so to speak)
1. Physical birth: (Being born of a woman)
2. Spiritual birth: (Being born of God, in a mysterious sense). Jesus addressed this birth when conversing with Nicodemus in John chapter 3
3. The Resurrection: (Being born from the DEAD). Jesus has preeminence to this birth, even though technically speaking he was not the first from a human perspective to have been resurrected from the dead.
All the births that Jesus experienced we also must experience them in order to make it to heaven, to see the Father.
That being said, Jesus' spiritual birth is from Everlasting/Eternity (Olam).
I found that in Pastor Myers' challenge he created a false dichotomy in order to make the challenge impossible, fir how can you answer to a challenge if there are no statements from Bible or SOP to back it up?
What do I mean by that?
In his challenge he specifically asked for Bible verse, to the exclusion of SOP to prove that Jesus was "BEGOTTEN IN ETERNITY"
Notice he said "IN ETERNITY".
It is a false dichotomy because there are no evidence for what he is asking, however, there are evidence both from the Bible AND SOP that Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, "FROM ALL ETERNITY".
Some may not see a difference, but there is a difference, why?
One statement is INSPIRED and the other is NOT, thus creating a false dichotomy. I wish for all Non-Trinitarian Christians to understand this difference.
Now, what Pastor Ivor Myers is not currently SEEING, is that BOTH PROVERBS 8:22-31 and Micah 5:2 supports this Truth.
Why, because if as a people we believe that God did inspire Ellen White with the gift of the Spirit of Prophecy or the TESTIMONY of Jesus, then it would be wise to take a serious look at how she explained these texts as they relate to Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God, BEGOTTEN FROM ALL ETERNITY.
In the book Patriarchs and Prophets, speaking to the subject matter of Christ's pre-incarnate Sonship to the Father, she specifically cited Proverbs 8:22-31 and Micah 5:2.
Here is the evidence:
"The history of the great conflict between good and evil, from the time it first began in heaven to the final overthrow of rebellion and the total eradication of sin, is also a demonstration of God's unchanging love.
The Sovereign of the universe was not alone in His work of beneficence. He had an associate-a co-worker who could appreciate His purposes, and could share His joy in giving happiness to created beings. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” John 1:1, 2. Christ, the Word, the only begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father-one in nature, in character, in purpose-the only being that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. And the Son of God declares concerning Himself: “The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up from everlasting.... When He appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him.” Proverbs 8:22-30.
The Father wrought by His Son in the creation of all heavenly beings. “By Him were all things created, ... whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him.” Colossians 1:16. Angels are God's ministers, radiant with the light ever flowing from His presence and speeding on rapid wing to execute His will. But the Son, the anointed of God, the “express image of His person,” “the brightness of His glory,” “upholding all things by the word of His power,” holds supremacy over them all. Hebrews 1:3. “A glorious high throne from the beginning,” was the place of His sanctuary (Jeremiah 17:12); “a scepter of righteousness,” the scepter of His kingdom. Hebrews 1:8. “Honor and majesty are before Him: strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.” Psalm 96:6. Mercy and truth go before His face. Psalm 89:14." [Patriarchs and Prophets, pages 33-34]
Even the word everlasting in Hebrew means "eternity" in Micah 5:2
Did we know that Christ had a Triune Sonship?
Thank you brother Virgil for your good video...
But everyone fails to explain that there are two different meanings for the English word ' Begotten'
STRONGS says this...
gennaō - Begotten
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring. (Act_13:33, 1Co_4:15, Phm_1:10, Heb_5:5 (2), 1Jn_5:1, 1Jn_5:18)
monogenēs - Begotten
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child). (Joh_1:14, Joh_1:18, Joh_3:16, Joh_3:18, Heb_11:17, 1Jn_4:9)
Pastor Ivor Myers conveniently chose the other meaning of begotten (gennaō ) ... which does attribute to Jesus the Son of God, being birthed into becoming the Son of man, birthed as a child, when the word became flesh...
But when it comes to the other word begotten (monogenēs) which doesn't mean unique, as the Greek word for unique is monadikós, this word monogenēs means 'only child' ....
They conveniently choose the word gennaō to back up their argument...
What is sad, I like anyone else, can see for ourselves using the concordance to prove the real meanings of these words... these guys are theologians, and professionals...
shows me they know what they are doing, by decieving the flock,
May the Lord have mercy on our souls
*Here’s a Trinitarian conundrum:* - *Jesus prayed to the Father [John 17:1], - but His mother Mary was pregnant with Him as a result of the Holy Spirit: “She was found with child of the Holy Spirit” [Matthew 1:18]. That would make the Holy Spirit the “father” of Jesus.*
*Question for Trinitarians [Modalist] and Tritheist [3 gods].*
*Provide the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses that explain the following:*
*1.)* There is one God, and He is triune.
*2.)* Jesus is God, yet He is not triune.
*3.)* The holy Spirit is God, but not triune.
*4.)* Jesus is a metaphorical, or unique Son.
*5.)* That the Son of God is a job description/roleplay/imaginative Son.
*6.)* Calling or covenantal/agreement identity.
*7.)* A narrative/story identity.
*8.)* That the Bible text "Son of God" has nothing to do with [ontology/metaphysics] nature of being and existence.
*Philosophical explanations are not acceptable.* - *Only the name[s] of the Book[s] in the Bible, the chapters and verses must be provided.*
*Most SDA Church *members believe in a literal sonship,* but *the authority of the GC, the BRI argues differently,* - *they believe in a metaphorical Son.*
*Below is what the SDA hierarchy say* - *[Note- not the members].* - *Seems like the hierarchy is the ponéros speaking through the people. [Acts 19:15].*
*"People expect the General Conference to have the last word and to speak for the Church with ultimate authority.”* (General Conference President Neal C. Wilson, Commission Report on Role and Function of Denominational Organizations, 140-85GN, p 22-23, April 30, 1985).
*Did you get that?* - *They say “the people expect”* - *Are the leaders the people speaking on behalf of the people?* - *I'd like to see the agreement between the GC and the "people".*
*Additionally, they say that the members must abide by their decisions.* -
“It is our responsibility to study the Scriptures for ourselves, to ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to submit our understandings to those in the church who are able to judge our findings, *and then to abide to the decisions of the church...”* (Seventh-day Adventist Church Adult Sabbath School Quarterly, Lesson 13, March 28, 1987, p 92, or p 153 in the Teacher’s Edition).
*Sounds more like a dictatorship, isn't it?*
*There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that says Jesus is a metaphorical Son.* - *Such un-Biblical utterances were made by Manuel Rodriguez [now retired] was a Seventh-day Adventist theologian and was the “director” of the Adventist BRI (Biblical Research Institute).* In the November 2015 issue of Adventist World on page 42 he wrote the following: "The Son is not the natural, literal Son of the Father. A natural child has a beginning, while within the Godhead the Son is eternal. *The term “Son” is used metaphorically* when applied to the Godhead. It conveys the ideas of distinction of persons within the Godhead and the equality of nature in the context of an eternal, loving relationship"
*Likewise, Gerhard Pfandi, says,* - *"The sonship of Jesus, however, is not ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role"* - The Trinity in Scripture by Gerhard Pfandi, Biblical Research Institute, Silver Springs, MD, June 1999.
*Retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) states,* - *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons:* - *but* theological reasoning on the basis of biblical principles leads to that conclusion.” - *Kwabena Donkor, retired Associate Director Biblical Research Institute (BRI) Release 9, May 2015, page 20, God in 3 Person - in Theology*
So, then what is being stated is that *“No text of Scripture specifically says that God is three Persons”*
Then he [Kwabena Donkor] concludes, “theological reasoning based on biblical principles leads to that conclusion.”
*What a contradiction!* - *First, he says there is no prooftext* - *then he contradicts himself by saying theological reasoning based on biblical principle leads to that conclusion.* - *He should have been a politician*
*Since when does dogma replace scripture?*
*An official Church Publication reads,* “If Adventism is to meet the needs of all people around the world, the landmarks must remain simple and straightforward. The Bible will be our only creed. Complex theological definitions, *the Trinity, for example, may serve the church well in general but cannot be imposed as a test for all Adventist everywhere.”* - The Seventh-day Adventist Church and Certain Private Ministries (NAD 1977), p.50
Adventism can expect fresh insights into truth, ‘present truth’ that will enhance the appreciation of old landmarks. Such an expectation has always been a part of historic Adventism and is reaffirmed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. When ‘present truth’ is of a complex nature, however, *it may be more helpful for some in the church than for others. In such a case it cannot be imposed on the church as a whole.”* (Ibid).
*Then they say,* - *“Remember our non-Trinitarian past as well as the simplicity of our landmarks should encourage a certain humility in the church and lead us to resist any attempt by one segment of the church to impose its views on the rest.”* (Ibid)
*Now, be honest and tell me, is it proper for the GC of the SDA Church to impose its synthesis on members, and expel those who conscientiously do not agree with the church’s reasoning, even though those members accept everything the Bible actually says?*
--
The Bible refers to Christ as God's Son at least 120 times. Jesus is the Son of God the Father. The phrase *Son [G5207 uihos] of God [G2316 theos]* is mentioned 48 times in 47 verses in the KJV Bible.
*Paul emphatically states that Christ was* - *“Begotten First or Born Before all creation”* - *because all of creation was by God through His Son Jesus Christ.* [Col. 1:15-16]. *“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.”* Ephesians 3:9
‘For to which of the angels did he ever say such words as these: ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten *[G1080 to be born; to be begotten]* you?’ Or, again ‘I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?’ Further, *when he brings his first-born*[G4416 prōtotokos the first born of all creation]* into this world of men,* he says: ‘Let all the angels of God worship him.’ Hebrew 1:5-6 J.B Phillips]
A similar decree in found in Psalm 2:7 ‘I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, *Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten *[G1080 or H3205 - yâlad - of child birth; to be born; to beget a child]* thee.’*
Psalm 2:7 in the LXX, Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 all use the word begotten [Hebrew γεγέννηκά G1080 to be born; to be begotten]"
*Jesus speaks interpreting God’s declaration of His Sonship.* - *This decree implies that Jesus is to be acknowledged as the Son of God and that His reign is universal.* [vs. 8,9]
*This is an official declaration by Jesus Himself by His Father own words that there was a day that Jesus was begotten of the Father.* - *This declaration is made to ALL creation whom were not present at the day that Jesus was begotten of His Father and that He is NOT a product of creation.*
*Thayer's Greek Lexicon says,* “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things.” Barnes New Testament Notes on Colossians 1:15 says, “the word firstborn - pro-tot-ok'-os - properly means the firstborn child of a father or mother.”
*Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says,* “Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature.”
*Matthew Henry's Commentary states* “He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made;”
*And since the word “son” is prefixed by the word “begotten”* - *more than once when referring to Christ,* - *then it can only mean Jesus is born of God and explains why He is called the Son of God to state the obvious.* - *We also have Paul's testimony in Colossians 1:15 which says Christ was the first born BEFORE anything was created.* - *And the Greek word “prōtotokos” used in this verse CANNOT be abused as it means, first born [usually as noun, literally or figuratively]: - firstbegotten [born].*
*“CHRIST WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, AND LUCIFER, THAT GLORIOUS ANGEL, GOT UP A WARFARE OVER THE MATTER,* until he had to be thrust down to the earth.” - 25LtMs, Ms 86, Aug. 21, 1910, par. 29
*And today the pastors employed by the GC “GOT UP A WAREFARE OVER THE MATTER”.*
Well and very documented ,congrats
Anyone in the one true God movement in the area of maryland ? Me and hubby are looking for one true God folks to fellowship together
*Etymologists at some point decided* that the term *μονογενης (monogenes)* did not in fact carry the meaning of ‘begotten’. Rather, *it seems to be the case.* This is the reason that modern translations of the Bible have effectively dropped the use of this term in English. *Thus, they say that the word means ‘one-of-a-kind’ and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT.*
In every instance of *μονογενης (monogenes)* in the NT, the meaning ‘only begotten’ fits the context better than ‘one of a kind’ or unique’. It may be concluded that the usage of *μονογενης (monogenes)* that there is clear warrant for retaining the meaning ‘only begotten’. If *μονογενης* truly mean ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’, without any reference to ‘begetting’, then one might expect *μονογενης (monogenes) * could be used of a brother or sister and even of a father. Therefor we might expect to also find *μονογενης αδελφος* meaning ‘one of a kind/unique brother’, or *μονογενης αδελφη* meaning ‘one of a kind/unique sister’ and *μονογενης πατηρ* meaning ‘one of a kind/unique father’. Such expressions do not occur throughout the whole of Greek literature. *Whenever μονογενης (monogenes) is used in the context of personal relationship, the relationship is always that of offspring to parent. This strongly suggest that the concept of ‘begotten’ is indeed present in μονογενης (monogenes).*
*μονογενης (monogenes)* is a Greek adjective consisting of two parts, *μονο (mono) and γενης (genes).* There is no argument regarding the derivation of the first part of the word; it is from the Greek word *μονον (monon),* an adverb meaning ‘only’. The difference of opinion only arises in regard to the second part of the word, *γενης.* The traditional view is that *γενης* is to be derived from the Greek verb *γενναω* Strong’s 1080 *(‘meaning to beget, conceive‘),* so that *μονογενης* meaning ‘class’, ‘sort’, ‘kind’, so that *μονογενης* must mean ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’. In support of the letter view, some point out that *γενος* has only a single v (the Greek letter, pronounced ‘nu’) as does *μονογενης while γενναω* has two v’s. So which etymology is correct?
*It must also be recognized that it is only in recent times that some scholars have advanced the view that the Greek word* - *μονογενης (monogenes)* - *does not mean ‘only begotten’, as in the Authorised King James Version, but ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’ or something which omits the concept of ‘begotten’.*
*It must also be noted that there is nothing in the term *μονογενης (monogenes)* to indicate that Christ was ‘the eternal Son of God,’ as many suggested.*
If the type was not literal than the anti-type should also not be literal, but this is not so. *The Bible is clear that the type and anti-type are both literal Father and Son.* - *Nowhere in the Bible do we read that Jesus is a unique or metaphorical Son, but it rather gives the direct opposite repeatedly.*
*The claim that the γενης (genes) [Strongs 1085 meaning descendant, Family] ending of μονογενης is to be derived from γενος with the meaning ‘class’, or ‘sort’, ‘kind’, may be tested by examining the meaning of the γενης ending in a similar Greek adjective which also have the same two-part structure.*
*Herewith a list of such adjectives.*
*1* πρωτογενης: - *first born* - *2* ομογενης: - *of the same race or family* - *3* πολυγενης: - *of many families* - *4* αγεηνς: - *not of noble birth; low born* - *5* παλιγενης: - *born again, generated anew* - *6* ευγενης: - *well born, high born* - *7* αγεννης: - *low born δυσγενης: low born* - *8* προγενης: - *born before* - *9* συγγενης: - *related, akin*
*It may be observed that in all the above-mentioned [9] words the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ is clearly present.*
The Nicene Creed of the year 325 defines monogenēs as “only-begotten.”
Monogenēs was always translated as “only-begotten,” even in the Latin translations that preceded the first English Bible.
*The word is monadikos (μοναδικός) and it antedates Christianity, having been employed by Aristotle, Philo, and others. The Greek word monadikos (μοναδικός) means unique or one of a kind and nothing else, as native Greeks know. Its morphology hasn't changed in over two thousand years. monadikos (μοναδικός) is the word that Greek speakers have been using for unique for more than two thousand years, and it is the word native Greeks still use today when they want to say unique or one of a kind.*
*Neither has the morphology of (monogenes) μονογενης changed in over two thousand years, and monogenes has always meant only begotten or its equivalent.*
*Just as only begotten is not equivalent to unique, so monogenes is not equivalent to monadikos. The Greek word monogenes does not mean unique, nor has it ever. The Greek word monadikos means unique. It has always meant unique.*
*Had the writers of the New Testament wanted to say unique, THEY WOULD HAVE USED THE GREEK WORD WHICH MEANS UNIQUE - monadikos (μοναδικός).*
*The reason the writers of the New Testament didn’t employ monadikos when they penned the New Testament is simple - because the writers of the New Testament didn’t mean unique. The writers of the New Testament meant only begotten or its equivalent. That’s why they used the word monogenes (μονογενης) instead of monadikos (μοναδικός).*
*According to both history and native Greeks themselves, the Greek word monogenes means only begotten or its equivalent, and it has always been so,* notwithstanding the delusions of Anglo-bible scholars and modern version translators who cannot speak Greek.
*Another objection that many put forth is:* If Paul meant to convey that Christ was the first created being, why did he not use the Greek word protoktistos, which means "first created"?
Prōtoktistos comes from the said adjective prōtos and the verb ktizō ‘to build, construct, create.’
*Christian theologians have often used this distinction as evidence that Jesus was “begotten, not made”* and is therefore of the same substance/dna as the Father as opposed to a mere part of the creation. - In Col. 1:15, the rendering "every creature" in context designates the class being spoken as being all living creatures. On the other hand, *Jesus is certainly NOT the firstborn of only one creature, which really would make no sense.*
*If Jesus was the first created, as some people claim, surely the Greek word ‘protoktistos’ would have been used instead.*
*One could ask a similar question concerning Paul’s usage of firstborn in Colossians 1:18, such as *why didn't he say "first raised" from the dead, rather than "firstborn" from the dead?*
*There is no record that the word protokistos was in common use in Paul's day. If the word protokistos [which nowhere appears in the Bible] had been used, then the thought would have been shifted from the rights of the one who is firstborn to his being the first created.* - *Paul was not emphasizing that Jesus was the first created,* - *but rather that Jesus held the rights of heirship as the firstborn of all creation.* - *This in no way negates the fact that the firstborn one is included in the group spoken of; it certainly does not provide any reason to change its meaning in this case from the meaning shown in its usage throughout the scriptures.*
Thank you for such clear and concise description of terms.Even for the layman like me it's clearly understood.God bless you
@@victoriakhumalo6463 : May God bless you too. Thank you. I am humbled by your kind response.🙏🏽
*This is a contentious subject within pneumatology.* - *With a Trinitarian mindset and an eisegesis method of study, eternal or everlasting will be ‘for all eternity, without beginning’.* - *If there is a theological bias, the text will say exactly what the reader wants it to say.*
*There is no conflict between the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament,* - *but the Hebrew sets the standard for the rest of the Bible.*
*To Western minds the expression •“forever” or “eternal” means “endlessness.”* - *HOWEVER, this is not the meaning to the Eastern mind-set when either the Hebrew `ôlām or the Greek aiōn/aiōnios is used.* - *While these terms may be translated •“forever” or “everlasting/eternal” in English,* - *both the Hebrew and Greek words derive their length from the nature of the object described.*
*For example,* - *in the modern sense* - *if we say, “God lives forever” [in Hebrew/Greek terms], we do, indeed, mean “endless,” because by nature the Deity is immortal or eternal, without beginning or end.*
*But if we were to say, “King Darius, live *for ever ‘ôlām (H5769)”* [Daniel 6:6], - *it would simply mean, Live a long life.* - *The phrase would not mean “endlessness” at all,* - *because man is mortal and subject to death* [Job 4:17]. *For another example, see 2 Samuel **7:16**,19. Although God promised David a dynastic throne that would last “for ever,” David understood the promise to mean “for a great while to come.” • It actually ended with Zedekiah in 586 B.C.*
*The emphasis of the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “for ever” or “eternal” in the Bible is on duration.* - *A thing or person exists continuously without break-endlessly or until it comes to an end-according to its nature.*
*Notice Strong's **#s** 3117 & 5769.* - This combination is two Hebrew words, one referring to days or time [Yôwm - Strong's # 3117, although in this verse it is a plural form] and the other referring to duration [`ôlām - Strong's #5769, more correctly olamin, in the plural]
There is a similar declaration in Deuteronomy 32:7. ‘Remember the *days [H3117]* of *old [H5769,* consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.’ -- KJV w/ Strong's
*Notice:* - *Strong's H3117 and H5769:* - *Certainly, Moses was NOT telling the Israelites to remember eternity, for they were not capable of such.*
*Some other scriptures that contain ‘yowm olam’ [in plural form] are Isaiah 63:9,11; Amos **9:11** and Malachi 3:4.* - *It should be apparent that ‘days of eternity’ is not meant in any of these scriptures.* - *Examining the other place in Micah where this expression is used, we find:* ‘Shepherd your people with your staff, The flock of your heritage, Who dwell by themselves in a forest, In the midst of fertile pasture land, let them feed; In Bashan and Gilead, as in the days [Strong's #3117] of old [Strong's G5769].’ - Micah 7:14
*It is apparent the expression here does not mean days of eternity,* - *NOT UNLESS ONE WANTS TO BELIEVE THAT GOD'S PEOPLE, ISRAEL, HAS EXISTED FROM ETERNITY PAST.*
*Some other scriptures are similar, although olam and yowm are separated:*
Psalm 77:5. ‘Olam’ is rendered *‘ancient times’* here in the KJV
Isaiah 51:9 ‘Olam’ is rendered *‘old’* in the KJV.
Strong's #s 3117 & 5769 *are once again used to denote, not eternity, BUT THE DAYS OF OLD.*
*So we can clearly see that the UNREASONABLE INSISTENCE UPON THE USE OF 21st-CENTURY ENGLISH IDIOMS OF SPEECH TO INTERPRET 1st-CENTURY GREEK OR HEBREW HAS LED TO SOME EXTREME VIEWS INDEED.*
*Scores of contradictions would appear in both the Old and New Testaments if this principle were ignored. We must compare Scripture with Scripture and use the idiom of the language in which the Bible was written and not our own thoughts and ideas.*
Well done. Very good seeker truth.
Pipenger @8 min is essentially asking 'Where is Christ's mother'?
Was not Adam a Son of God?
Jeff...Where is Adam's mother?
How do we read 1st John 4:9. "In this was manifested the Love of God toward us, because that God sent His Only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him." and again. Galatians 4:4. " But when the fulness of time was come, God set forth His son, made of a woman, born under the law. And again. John 1:14. "And the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Was Christ Jesus born of the Father just once, or twice? "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God, the same was in the beginning with God. Does this not tell us that the word was just as much divine as the one He was with? Does not a son always have his father's nature? Is anything imposable with God? For some there is an impossibility for God the Father, and that is to Beget a Son in eternity past, that is infinitely God as His Father. For in Him (Christ) dwelt all the fulness of Godhead (divinity) bodily, for it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell. Col. 2:9: 1:19.
It makes God a liar if he gave a pretence son, only a son at Bethlehem is not what the bible says. John 3:16. God gave his only begotten son.🙏
Hello, just to say that if Jesus was equal to the Father, that is, he is the same eternity, he could never have died on the cross because God cannot die. As the wages of sin is death, the divine and human person of Christ had to die. Now, only the begotten Son could die on the cross.
No. Actually Jesus could not dies before His incarnation. Why, because He is a God also. He had to become human *so that He can die*. When He took on humanity, He fixed Himself to facilitate dying. When He died, His divinity did not die, but could not continue without the human body which was His only body then He could have. The devine and the human were mysteriously blended. They are inseparable. So, Yes He died as a person, but His divinity did not die.
Jesus was begotten at his resurrection
Acts 13-33 KJV
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Ellen White agrees:
“We declare unto you glad tidings,” the apostle continued, “how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore He saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but He, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.” AA 172.1
Walter Veith makes a false conclusion that if Christ did come from God his Father, then he is not God. That is a false conclusion. He is God, the creator of all things.