Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
4 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2010 - 2:08AM #1
kurnell
Posts: 305

Twice in the Creed the word begotten is used.


'the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father''


"begotten, not made'


What does begotten mean, as it is used in reference to Jesus Christ?


I understand that the point is that Jesus was not created as Arius taught.


But the word begotten, as commonly used, still carries the idea of a coming into existence.


So, to you theologians, can you explain it to this simple minded person?


Peace


Jeffrey

Treasure your experience of God,however it comes to you.Remember that Christianity is not a notion but a way.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  May 04, 2010 - 7:42PM #2
Bob_Bennett
Posts: 916

'Begotten" means created by a male principal, without a female/feminine partner.  i.e.  created by God.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 20, 2010 - 5:01PM #3
BDboy
Posts: 4,542

looked up the word in dictionary here is what I found




be·get


 –verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.


1.


(esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).


2.


to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.


 




Origin:
bef. 1000; ME begeten ( see be-, get); r. ME biyeten, OE begetan; c. Goth bigitan, OHG bigezzan
—Related forms


be·get·ter, noun


Synonyms
1. spawn, sire, breed, father. 2. occasion, engender, effect, generate.


Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.


 




==================================================================





..."return fp(this,{en:'te',io:'0',b:'a008',tp:'d',ec:'1',ex:'tsrc%3Dtxtx'},'false',0);" class="L4" id="r7_t">Common Good - “Persons Not Property” “Begotten Not Made


"Persons Not Property"; "Begotten Not Made" ... It is intrinsically immoral, unethical and must be made illegal. Human embryonic life deserves full legal protection not destruction. Human embryos are persons not property and to paraphrase the words of the ancient Christian creed, they are "begotten not made".

www.cloninginformation.org/prps/cg_02-05-06.htm





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 29, 2010 - 2:13PM #4
BDboy
Posts: 4,542

This word is only important if you feel Jesus was "God in flesh" or "literally" Son of God. Otherwise all of us have "Spirit of God" within us and we appeared with permission and plan from God.


Bible talks about son of God in other places but "begotten" son of God is a different game altogether.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Sep 29, 2010 - 3:51PM #5
Xapisma
Posts: 155

Sep 29, 2010 -- 2:13PM, BDboy wrote:


This word is only important if you feel Jesus was "God in flesh" or "literally" Son of God. Otherwise all of us have "Spirit of God" within us and we appeared with permission and plan from God.


Bible talks about son of God in other places but "begotten" son of God is a different game altogether.




And that is exactly the intent of that phrase in the Creed. It was intentionally phrased that way in order to deny what the Arians were claiming about the nature of the Christ.


"I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten not made, of one being*with the Father, by whom all things were made."


Athanasius, one of the chief composers of the Creed, was adamant about this point, and in his own notes, said that he wanted there to be absolutely no doubt about what is meant by it.


 


*homoousios = of the same being/nature/substance. Whatever God the Father is, that is what the Son is.  This is explicitly in contrast to homoiousias = of similar or like being. The Son is not like God, the Son IS God.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 07, 2010 - 1:41PM #6
BDboy
Posts: 4,542

Hi Xapisma,


Long time ago I read about some Christians who do not think Jesus was the "begotten son" of God. Is it true? What are their reasons behind such a different point of view.


[ Since you teach religion, I wanted to take advantage of your knowledge of this topic ] :-)


May you have a blessed day!


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2010 - 11:39PM #7
Xapisma
Posts: 155

 


Blessings on you as well.


Yes, the history if the Church has had any number of detours. In the late Third/ early Fourth Centuries, there was a priest named Arius who started with one true doctrine, and blew it out of proportion with the rest of the teachings of the Church. That is how most heresies begin. Making one lesser true teaching the most important one at the expense of other true teachings.


Arius believed, as the Church believes, that God is One. This teaching is part of what the Apostles and Early Fathers of the Church had said. But then he denied other teachings of the Church about the nature of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  Up to this time, there had not been a clear declaration of what the consensus of the faithful was.


In order to clear up the confusion, in AD 325, the newly converted Emperor Constantine called for an Ecumenical Council to resolve the matter. Since the Council was made up only of Bishops, Arius (a lowly priest) could not attend. But there was several bishops who agreed with Arius, and who argued his case in the Council.


The Arians had been successful in sending out missionaries, and thay had established a number of churches, especially in the Caucasus region of modern Romania, and among the germanic tribes of northern Europe. They had also sent missionaries to the desart tribes of the Bedouins in what is now Arabia. It is very likely, in fact, that Mohammad met and talked with some of these Arian missionaries.


The Council finally concluded that Arius, while cleaver, had been wrong about the nature of God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity was clearly declared to be the teaching of the Church. The Nicene Creed was composed to make the case against Arius airtight.


Is that what you are referring to?

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 11, 2010 - 5:52PM #8
BDboy
Posts: 4,542

.... They had also sent missionaries to the desart tribes of the Bedouins in what is now Arabia. It is very likely, in fact, that Mohammad met and talked with some of these Arian missionaries.


>>>>>>> There are speculation about it from certain people.


By the Muhammad (PBUH) came to live, people evolved and his life has been documented at every steps [ Almost all his practices, saying, advice etc has been documented seperately from the Qur'an ----"Word of God"]


Since Muhammad was a direct desendent of Abraham (PBUH) there were monotheists living among the Arabs [ Known as Hanif at that time]. Most people including family members of Muhammad became idol worshippers and people of Mecca use to earn a lot of money from pilgrims to Kabba [ This was originally built by Abraham and Ishmael but turned into a idol worshipping place during childhood of Muhammad].


During the last part of his life Muhammad came in contact with Jewish people after he migrated to Medina. Only very few Christians met Muhammad during his lifetime. Most Christians lived near Palestine, Syria, Lebanon at that time.


The Council finally concluded that Arius, while cleaver, had been wrong about the nature of God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity was clearly declared to be the teaching of the Church. The Nicene Creed was composed to make the case against Arius airtight.


 


Is that what you are referring to?


>>>>>>> Partly.


I am also interested to know about any modern movement on this topic. I heard some anglican, Mormon church followers do not accept the "begotten" part. Also few other movements. There are some sites on it.


www.truegospel.com/begottensonchrist.htm...


www.mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/denyjesus....


"unique son" of God but not the "only begotten son" of God


The last link has a different explanation of the term "begotten" which is really close to Islamic point of view of Jesus. Muslims feel Jesus had no earthly father and he was a "Word of God" [ implying God ordered him to come into being and he was.....similar to how Adam was created].


  The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.


[  Al Qur'an 003:059]


It is interesting that the names "Jesus" and "Adam" were mentioned equal times in the Qur'an ( 25 times for both names). The name "Muhammad" occured 4 times only.


Anyway, I was interested to know a bit more about that movement. I know about those who follow the "begotten son" theory already.


May you have a blessed day!

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2010 - 8:08PM #9
Xapisma
Posts: 155

Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:


I am also interested to know about any modern movement on this topic. I heard some anglican, Mormon church followers do not accept the "begotten" part. Also few other movements. There are some sites on it.


www.truegospel.com/begottensonchrist.htm...


www.mmoutreachinc.com/mormons/denyjesus....


"unique son" of God but not the "only begotten son" of God



I checked these links. All I can say is that any fool with a computer can create a website. Those two are the creations of some rather fringe elements. Their purpose, it seems, is to refute other fringe elements who think differently from them. If you want to know what the mainstream of Christianity believes, read the Nicene Creed. That has not changed (with one exception*) since AD 325.


The second link seems to be specifically designed as a refutation of the Mormons, aka, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Mormons are an odd group. They have, over the years, claimed that they are not Christian, and at other times have insisted that they are Christian. I have studied some of their scriptures (the Book of Mormon, et alia) and I am of the opinion that they have some similarities to mainstream Christianity, but that they also believe some things which no one else would accept.


For example, they believe that once upon a time, millenia ago, God the Father of Jesus and Jesus's brother Satan (yes, they believe that!) was a human being on another world/planet. They believe that Jehovah (that is God's name, apparently) was such a good Mormon that he earned the status of god, and thus he was given his own world to rule, namely, Earth. They further believe that if they are good enough Mormons in this world, they will also be rewarded with their own worlds which they will then rule as gods.


If I know anything at all about Islam, then I feel safe in assuming that this is not in accordance with your fath? Because it certainly isn't in accordance with the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.


Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

The last link has a different explanation of the term "begotten" which is really close to Islamic point of view of Jesus. Muslims feel Jesus had no earthly father and he was a "Word of God" [ implying God ordered him to come into being and he was.....similar to how Adam was created].


  The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.


[  Al Qur'an 003:059]



I had not heard that before. I must remember that next time I teach that course on Comparative World religions. It is interesting to me that the Qur'an uses the word "similitude". Is that an accurate translation of the Arabic? That is exactly the word which was debated at Nicea. It is part of the argument between óμοουσιος and óμοιουσιος. Yep, one tiny letter which made all the diference in the world to the Orthodox Christians and the Arians. The Arians said óμοιουσιος or of similar Being or Substance as the Father, while the Orthodox insisted that Jesus and the Father are óμοουσιος, or of the same/identical Being or Substance. Arius would have agreed with Mohammad in this passage.


Orthodox Christians have a somewhat different look on the term Word of God. The New Testament was written in Greek, and circulated originally within a Greek speaking world. In Greek thought and philosophy, the term Λογος was more than just the word of "word" (that would have been ρéμα). Logos is the Word or Reason, or Logic (our English word "Logic" derives from the Greek "Logos") John begins his Gospel speaking of the Logos made flesh. This the the Word by which God spoke, and the world came into being. It was through the Logos that all things were made. And now, John says, this same Logos has become flesh and dwelt among us. Is God's Word separate from God? The Church says no.


 


Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

It is interesting that the names "Jesus" and "Adam" were mentioned equal times in the Qur'an ( 25 times for both names). The name "Muhammad" occured 4 times only.


Anyway, I was interested to know a bit more about that movement. I know about those who follow the "begotten son" theory already.


May you have a blessed day!




I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with words here. I hope this helps with mutual understanding.


*that exception being the infamous filioque clause. which has been a thorn in the relations between the Eastern Orthodox and the Western Catholic/Protestant churches for over 1,000 years.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Oct 15, 2010 - 5:55AM #10
BDboy
Posts: 4,542

Oct 13, 2010 -- 8:08PM, Xapisma wrote:


Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:


 


If I know anything at all about Islam, then I feel safe in assuming that this is not in accordance with your fath? Because it certainly isn't in accordance with the ministry and mission of Jesus Christ.




>>>>> Yes Islam is pretty close to Christianity [ Spiritually closest to Christians stated in the Qur'an as well ( Chapter 5:82-83)] with a slightly different "Concept of God". If you go by the Bible and what Jesus son of Mary spoke about, we are really close. Muslims object to what Paul introduced to Christianity and concept of God.


Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:


  The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.


[  Al Qur'an 003:059]


I had not heard that before. I must remember that next time I teach that course on Comparative World religions. It is interesting to me that the Qur'an uses the word "similitude". Is that an accurate translation of the Arabic? That is exactly the word which was debated at Nicea. It is part of the argument between óμοουσιος and óμοιουσιος. Yep, one tiny letter which made all the diference in the world to the Orthodox Christians and the Arians. The Arians said óμοιουσιος or of similar Being or Substance as the Father, while the Orthodox insisted that Jesus and the Father are óμοουσιος, or of the same/identical Being or Substance. Arius would have agreed with Mohammad in this passage.



>>>>>> You are right. What little I know about this Nicean council, both parties argued about it and Arians lost the debate and modern trinitarian point became "Official" in Christian world. Albeit both parties claimed to follow Jesus's teaching.


As I stated before ( As per teaching of Islam) Muhammad  did not start a new religion. Rather he just completed God's revelation to humanity. All previous messengers of God ( Noah, David, Solomon, Joseph, Abraham, Moses...etc) were sent to certain tribes or nation. Muhammad was meant for humanity and he was the last messenger of God until the last day. Therefore, like previous messengers of God, Muhammad was a strict monotheist.


Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:


Orthodox Christians have a somewhat different look on the term Word of God. The New Testament was written in Greek, and circulated originally within a Greek speaking world. In Greek thought and philosophy, the term Λογος was more than just the word of "word" (that would have been ρéμα). Logos is the Word or Reason, or Logic (our English word "Logic" derives from the Greek "Logos") John begins his Gospel speaking of the Logos made flesh. This the the Word by which God spoke, and the world came into being. It was through the Logos that all things were made. And now, John says, this same Logos has become flesh and dwelt among us. Is God's Word separate from God? The Church says no.



>>>>>> As per my understanding it is a conceptual difference only among these faith traditions. If you want it would be easy for either group to offer very "Logical" explanation of their point of view. ;-)


Some Muslim theologians points to the fact that, people around Jesus mostly to spoke in Hebrew and Aramic but the "First Bible" was written in Greek [ Not a native language of Palestine]. Therefore, maybe some teaching were translated/interpreted differently than intended. At the same time, I think our differences are fewer than differences you have among different denominations among Christians.

 


Oct 11, 2010 -- 5:52PM, BDboy wrote:

 I


 


I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with words here. I hope this helps with mutual understanding.





>>>>> Let me assure you that, you have not. I enjoyed this discussions. Learning new things beside sharing my point of views as well. I appreciate you taking the time and giving me in deapth answers.


For your future classes you may use the following book if you needed an authentic "Islamic" point of view.


Abraham: The Friend of God


It was written by Dr. Jerald Dirks. Dr. Dirks holds B.A. and M.Div. degrees from Harvard University, M.A. and Psy.D. degrees from the University of Denver, and a Sessions Program Certificate from Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University. He is a formerly ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, and has been a practicing Muslim for over nine years. After retiring from the practice of clinical psychology..............


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook