72 replies to this topic

[k4c]

The fact that God is Jesus' Father has to have some effect on Jesus' DNA. For example, at the age of only twelve Jesus was full of widsom and understanding.

Luke 2:46-47 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.

The fact that Jesus was Mary's son as the Son of man and God's Son as the Son of God has to have some effect in that He has to be equally divine and human.

[Evangelion]

That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse.

Which they did not.

[Jeremy]

I think it also assumes that Jesus' DNA made him different from us, which is the opposite of what the NT says - i.e., that he shared our nature fully. That teaching alone refutes the notion of some half human, half divine hybrid.

[k4c]

Amen to all the above.

[Yahoshua]

I like to believe that Yahshua is Yah's son because of what the Davidic covenant indicates.

"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom....I will be his father, and he shall be my son...."

"Concerning his Son Yahshua the Anointed our Master, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of Elohim with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the ressurrection from the dead...." Romans 1:3-4

Edited by Yahoshua, 04 December 2008 - 12:22 AM.

[Matt Smith]

k4c, on Dec 3 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Amen to all the above.

What has been said by the others contradicts your original post, yet you now agree with them?

[Matt Smith]

Yahoshua, on Dec 3 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

I like to believe that Yah is Yahshua's son because of what the Davidic covenant indicates.

I'm sure you meant that the other way around... Yahshua is Yah's son....

Quote

"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom....I will be his father, and he shall be my son...."

We would agree that Jesus is the son of God, also based on passages like the one you quoted.

[k4c]

Matt Smith, on Dec 4 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

k4c, on Dec 3 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Amen to all the above.

What has been said by the others contradicts your original post, yet you now agree with them?

I'm having a discussion with a friend regarding the Trinity. He brought up these questions that I posted. My response to him was similar to the replies I got on this thread.

[Matt Smith]

k4c, on Dec 3 2008, 10:05 PM, said:

Matt Smith, on Dec 4 2008, 12:14 AM, said:

k4c, on Dec 3 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Amen to all the above.

What has been said by the others contradicts your original post, yet you now agree with them?

I'm having a discussion with a friend regarding the Trinity. He brought up these questions that I posted. My response to him was similar to the replies I got on this thread.

That doesn't answer my question...

[nsr]

I think he's saying that he posted the query his Trinitarian friend asked him, and he himself doesn't necessarily agree with the original proposition.

[Matt Smith]

nsr, on Dec 4 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

I think he's saying that he posted the query his Trinitarian friend asked him, and he himself doesn't necessarily agree with the original proposition.

Okay.... Thanks for that.... I'm a little thick at 4 AM.... And they want me to work at these hours....

[k4c]

Matt Smith, on Dec 4 2008, 11:00 AM, said:

nsr, on Dec 4 2008, 03:47 AM, said:

I think he's saying that he posted the query his Trinitarian friend asked him, and he himself doesn't necessarily agree with the original proposition.

Okay.... Thanks for that.... I'm a little thick at 4 AM.... And they want me to work at these hours....

Third shift ain't fit for man nor beast.

Here is a third shifter =

Edited by k4c, 04 December 2008 - 11:53 AM.

[Naphal]

Evangelion, on Dec 3 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse.

Which they did not.

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

[Jeremy]

Naphal, on Feb 7 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

What a curious thing to say. What on earth makes you think that?

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 7 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Dec 3 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse.

Which they did not.

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

I don't. What's your point?

[Evangelion]

Then his point is irrelevant. We're talking about the birth of Christ here, not human procreation.

[Naphal]

Jeremy, on Feb 7 2010, 12:10 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 7 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

What a curious thing to say. What on earth makes you think that?

Because its a fact. Man isnt limited to intercourse to cause a pregnancy. Artificial insemination accomplishes it so naturally God did not have intercourse with Mary to cause her to be impregnated.

This was a response to Evangelion saying, "That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse. Which they did not."

[Naphal]

Evangelion, on Feb 7 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 7 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Dec 3 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse.

Which they did not.

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

I don't. What's your point?

The point goes back to what you commented on:

"The fact that God is Jesus' Father has to have some effect on Jesus' DNA. "

You said that could only happen if Mary and God had literal intercourse (which you said didnt happen) but your theory isnt true about the effect of Jesus' DNA from God. Jesus would have had non-human DNA because he only had part DNA from his mother. The rest came from his Father and that happened despite the lack of human intercourse. Do you really think God only used the mother's DNA to create Christ and had no direct influence of his own on Christ's DNA? The very fact that Jesus is God's only begotten has to mean Jesus received soemthing such as DNA from God to be a part of forming his flesh body else Jesus could not have been begotten of God.

[Naphal]

Evangelion, on Feb 7 2010, 01:52 PM, said:

Then his point is irrelevant. We're talking about the birth of Christ here, not human procreation.

But you brought up human procreation ie: intercourse.

The topic is about Christ must have been born different because he has to have some type of heavenly DNA influence because he is the literal offspring of God. Not only a spiritual son but a literal, physical descendant of God and that means things such as DNA passed from God to Jesus. Evangelion states that is only possible if God had intercourse with Mary and I said that is not the only way it could occur and offered proof that even humans can accomplish it without intercourse and thus God can as well. I hope that caught everyone up.

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Feb 7 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 7 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Dec 3 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse.

Which they did not.

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

I don't. What's your point?

The point goes back to what you commented on:

"The fact that God is Jesus' Father has to have some effect on Jesus' DNA. "

You said that could only happen if Mary and God had literal intercourse (which you said didnt happen) but your theory isnt true about the effect of Jesus' DNA from God. Jesus would have had non-human DNA because he only had part DNA from his mother. The rest came from his Father and that happened despite the lack of human intercourse. Do you really think God only used the mother's DNA to create Christ and had no direct influence of his own on Christ's DNA? The very fact that Jesus is God's only begotten has to mean Jesus received soemthing such as DNA from God to be a part of forming his flesh body else Jesus could not have been begotten of God.

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to. We have no idea how He did it. The point is that even if He did create some brand new DNA for Jesus, it still wouldn't pass on any of His own attributes to His Son. It would just be regular human DNA, like He created for Adam and Eve.

[Naphal]

Quote

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to.

Of course he could. He could have made Jesus a metallic robot if he wanted to but if he only used Mary's DNA then Jesus would not have been "begotten" of God. That's what makes JEsus so unique that he is the only one who is literally a physical son of God.

Quote

We have no idea how He did it. The point is that even if He did create some brand new DNA for Jesus, it still wouldn't pass on any of His own attributes to His Son.

Thats why we know he didnt use DNA that was not coming directly from him. Anything but his own DNA would result in Jesus just being a created human being unrelated progeny wise to God.

Quote

It would just be regular human DNA, like He created for Adam and Eve.

No, it cant be just any "regular DNA" because it wouldnt make him God's begotten son.

If I was born to my parents but I had NONE of my father's DNA then I would not be a begotten son of my father! Understand?

Evangelion, on Feb 7 2010, 10:10 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 04:34 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Feb 7 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 7 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Evangelion, on Dec 3 2008, 09:47 AM, said:

That would only work if God and Mary had physical intercourse.

Which they did not.

Even mankind isnt limited to that to have a pregnancy. Why in the world would you think the one and only all powerful GOD was limited to physical intercourse to impregnate a human woman?

I don't. What's your point?

The point goes back to what you commented on:

"The fact that God is Jesus' Father has to have some effect on Jesus' DNA. "

You said that could only happen if Mary and God had literal intercourse (which you said didnt happen) but your theory isnt true about the effect of Jesus' DNA from God. Jesus would have had non-human DNA because he only had part DNA from his mother. The rest came from his Father and that happened despite the lack of human intercourse. Do you really think God only used the mother's DNA to create Christ and had no direct influence of his own on Christ's DNA? The very fact that Jesus is God's only begotten has to mean Jesus received soemthing such as DNA from God to be a part of forming his flesh body else Jesus could not have been begotten of God.

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to. We have no idea how He did it. The point is that even if He did create some brand new DNA for Jesus, it still wouldn't pass on any of His own attributes to His Son. It would just be regular human DNA, like He created for Adam and Eve.

[Richie]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 01:21 AM, said:

Quote

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to.

Of course he could. He could have made Jesus a metallic robot if he wanted to but if he only used Mary's DNA then Jesus would not have been "begotten" of God. That's what makes JEsus so unique that he is the only one who is literally a physical son of God.

No, the idea of being a physical son of God goes completely against Bible teaching. He is not physically the son of God. Sonship in Scripture is about character and so forth, spiritual things. Not physics. Nowhere is Jesus called begotten of God until after his resurrection.

[Naphal]

Richie, on Feb 8 2010, 06:14 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 01:21 AM, said:

Quote

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to.

Of course he could. He could have made Jesus a metallic robot if he wanted to but if he only used Mary's DNA then Jesus would not have been "begotten" of God. That's what makes JEsus so unique that he is the only one who is literally a physical son of God.

No, the idea of being a physical son of God goes completely against Bible teaching. He is not physically the son of God. Sonship in Scripture is about character and so forth, spiritual things. Not physics. Nowhere is Jesus called begotten of God until after his resurrection.

Resurrection has nothing to do with Jesus being literal progeny of God the Father. Scripture describes Jesus as being God's begotten prior to his being resurrected:


John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


God gave his begotten to be crucified meaning Jesus was the begotten before he was crucified.


1 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.

same thing here.

God sent his begotten son into the world, not that he sent "a son" into the world to become begotten.

Edited by Naphal, 08 February 2010 - 02:29 PM.

[Richie]

Check the Greek. And check this thread out: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...amp;hl=begotten

[Naphal]

Richie, on Feb 8 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Check the Greek. And check this thread out: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...amp;hl=begotten

Its gets confusing bouncing between diferrent threads on one issue. Please post what you feel is relevant here in this thread for our discussion. Thanks!

begotten hebrew

3205

03205 yalad {yaw-lad'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 867; v

AV - beget 201, bare 110, born 79, bring forth 25, bear 23, travail 16,
midwife 10, child 8, delivered 5, borne 3, birth 2, labour 2,
brought up 2, misc 12; 498

1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to bear, bring forth
1a1a) of child birth
1a1b) of distress (simile)
1a1c) of wicked (behaviour)
1a2) to beget
1b) (Niphal) to be born
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cause or help to bring forth
1c2) to assist or tend as a midwife
1c3) midwife (participle)
1d) (Pual) to be born
1e) (Hiphil)
1e1) to beget (a child)
1e2) to bear (fig. - of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
1f) (Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
1g) (Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)


H3205
ילד
yâlad
yaw-lad'
A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage: - bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).


"only begotten" greek

3439

3439 monogenes {mon-og-en-ace'}

from 3441 and 1096; TDNT - 4:737,606; adj

AV - only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1; 9

1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters
(viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God


G3439
μονογενής
monogenēs
mon-og-en-ace
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child).


The greek is even more specific in the sense that this does not only denote a literal, genetic child but the one and only. No one else can say they are a begotten child of God.

[Evangelion]

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

Quote

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to.

Of course he could. He could have made Jesus a metallic robot if he wanted to but if he only used Mary's DNA then Jesus would not have been "begotten" of God. That's what makes JEsus so unique that he is the only one who is literally a physical son of God.

Quote

We have no idea how He did it. The point is that even if He did create some brand new DNA for Jesus, it still wouldn't pass on any of His own attributes to His Son.

Thats why we know he didnt use DNA that was not coming directly from him. Anything but his own DNA would result in Jesus just being a created human being unrelated progeny wise to God.

Whoa! Now you believe that God has DNA?! Are you a Mormon?

Quote

Quote

It would just be regular human DNA, like He created for Adam and Eve.

No, it cant be just any "regular DNA" because it wouldnt make him God's begotten son.

If I was born to my parents but I had NONE of my father's DNA then I would not be a begotten son of my father! Understand?

Sure, I understand. But Scripture doesn't say "Jesus was God's begotten son because he had God's DNA." Scripture says that Jesus was God's begotten son because he was begotten. And how was he begotten? He was begotten by a normal human mother, in the normal human way. He was miraculously conceived, but his birth had nothing to do with the Father.

Where do you think Adam and Eve's DNA came from? Can you tell me that?

[Naphal]

Quote

Whoa! Now you believe that God has DNA?! Are you a Mormon?

No, I'm not a mormon, I am a non-denom. Christian. I believe for JEsus to eb God the Father's "only begotten" son means that JEsus was born ina human body that has the same "mixture" (for lack of a better term) of his two parents parental "donation" of genes and DNA and etc. Without that then Jesus would not be able to be the only begotten of the Father. All I know is that Jesus' human body would have influences of both his mother and his father. To simplify that I use DNA to represent that.

Quote

Sure, I understand. But Scripture doesn't say "Jesus was God's begotten son because he had God's DNA."

But it says "only begotten son" and when you are begotten of a mother and father you have their DNA among other things.

Quote

Where do you think Adam and Eve's DNA came from? Can you tell me that?

Since they were not begotten from any parents they were created from scratch, out of raw materials. Jesus being begotten was not created in the same way. They had no literal parents but Jesus had a literal Father and a literal human mother.

Evangelion, on Feb 9 2010, 01:46 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 8 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

Quote

I think that's absolute nonsense. God could have created Jesus in Mary's womb using only her DNA, if He'd wanted to.

Of course he could. He could have made Jesus a metallic robot if he wanted to but if he only used Mary's DNA then Jesus would not have been "begotten" of God. That's what makes JEsus so unique that he is the only one who is literally a physical son of God.

Quote

We have no idea how He did it. The point is that even if He did create some brand new DNA for Jesus, it still wouldn't pass on any of His own attributes to His Son.

Thats why we know he didnt use DNA that was not coming directly from him. Anything but his own DNA would result in Jesus just being a created human being unrelated progeny wise to God.

Whoa! Now you believe that God has DNA?! Are you a Mormon?

Quote

Quote

It would just be regular human DNA, like He created for Adam and Eve.

No, it cant be just any "regular DNA" because it wouldnt make him God's begotten son.

If I was born to my parents but I had NONE of my father's DNA then I would not be a begotten son of my father! Understand?

Sure, I understand. But Scripture doesn't say "Jesus was God's begotten son because he had God's DNA." Scripture says that Jesus was God's begotten son because he was begotten. And how was he begotten? He was begotten by a normal human mother, in the normal human way. He was miraculously conceived, but his birth had nothing to do with the Father.

Where do you think Adam and Eve's DNA came from? Can you tell me that?

[Richie]

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 04:02 AM, said:

Richie, on Feb 8 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Check the Greek. And check this thread out: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...amp;hl=begotten

Its gets confusing bouncing between diferrent threads on one issue. Please post what you feel is relevant here in this thread for our discussion. Thanks!

Well if you read my article it would explain everything - it will only take you fifteen minutes.

The gist of it is that monogenes means "only one" or "unique", i.e. one of a kind - not only begotten. The word for begotten is actually used in John 3 to describe the way in which believers are "born from above"! Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are begotten of God - it says it point blank in John 1. Therefore even if the miraculous birth of Jesus of Nazareth was a "begettal of God" the idea of divine begettal has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with biology, chemistry or physics.

Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son" in the KJV rendering of Hebrews 11. Hebrews refers to Genesis 22 where Isaac is described several times as Abraham's "only son". However Isaac was not Abraham's only son. In fact Abraham begat another son, Ishmael, who was alive at the time of Genesis 22. And if Isaac was begotten of Abraham then Ishmael was doubly so - before Abraham "considered his own body dead" for he was born by completely natural means with Hagar. But Isaac was born of promise, proving again that divine sonship is to do with spiritual things, not God's DNA or physical substance as if something like that even exists. Read my article, it explains these things in full.

[Naphal]

Ok, I am reading it.

Quote

But others will say that it comes from a different Greek word, ginomai, which simple means “to be”. So what does it mean? Does it mean “only begotten” as in the King James version translation of John 3:16? Or does it mean “only one” if it is rooted in the word “to be”?

Why do you alter the definition from "to be" to "one"? You accept mono means "only" and you state genes means "to be" and when you connect them you drop "to be" and insert "one" and arrive at "only one" rather than "only to be"...?

Richie, on Feb 9 2010, 06:12 AM, said:

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 04:02 AM, said:

Richie, on Feb 8 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

Check the Greek. And check this thread out: http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...amp;hl=begotten

Its gets confusing bouncing between diferrent threads on one issue. Please post what you feel is relevant here in this thread for our discussion. Thanks!

Well if you read my article it would explain everything - it will only take you fifteen minutes.

The gist of it is that monogenes means "only one" or "unique", i.e. one of a kind - not only begotten. The word for begotten is actually used in John 3 to describe the way in which believers are "born from above"! Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are begotten of God - it says it point blank in John 1. Therefore even if the miraculous birth of Jesus of Nazareth was a "begettal of God" the idea of divine begettal has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with biology, chemistry or physics.

Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son" in the KJV rendering of Hebrews 11. Hebrews refers to Genesis 22 where Isaac is described several times as Abraham's "only son". However Isaac was not Abraham's only son. In fact Abraham begat another son, Ishmael, who was alive at the time of Genesis 22. And if Isaac was begotten of Abraham then Ishmael was doubly so - before Abraham "considered his own body dead" for he was born by completely natural means with Hagar. But Isaac was born of promise, proving again that divine sonship is to do with spiritual things, not God's DNA or physical substance as if something like that even exists. Read my article, it explains these things in full.

[Richie]

Naphal, on Feb 9 2010, 09:47 AM, said:

Ok, I am reading it.

Quote

But others will say that it comes from a different Greek word, ginomai, which simple means "to be". So what does it mean? Does it mean "only begotten" as in the King James version translation of John 3:16? Or does it mean "only one" if it is rooted in the word "to be"?

Why do you alter the definition from "to be" to "one"? You accept mono means "only" and you state genes means "to be" and when you connect them you drop "to be" and insert "one" and arrive at "only one" rather than "only to be"...?

Because "only" and "be only" mean the same thing!