Kevin Deegan wrote:
Jesus is the ONLY Begotten son
I can not agree with your understanding of literal as defined
herein.
DAVEH: ??? I thought the question would be the meaning of
begat/begotten. Is there some thought in your mind about the meaning
of literal? From
Websters........http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/literal
Literal
Adjective
1. Being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something;
"her actual motive"; "a literal solitude like a desert"-
G.K.Chesterton; "a genuine dilemma".
2. Without interpretation or embellishment; "a literal translation of
the scene before him".
3. Limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; "a literal
translation".
4. Lacking stylistic embellishment; "a literal description"; "wrote
good but plain prose"; "a plain unadorned account of the coronation";
"a forthright unembellished style".
5. Of the clearest kind; usually used for emphasis; "it's the
literal truth"; "a matter of investment, pure and simple".
6. (of a translation) corresponding word for word with the original;
"literal translation of the article"; "an awkward word-for-word
translation".
...........From the same
source...........http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/begotten
Begotten
Adjective
1. (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child".
..........The author said that Jesus is not the literal Son of God.
My question to you is whether or not you agree with the author in that
conclusion. If Jesus was the ONLY Begotten Son of God, what do
you understand it to mean, Kevin?
DAVEH: Do you think Jesus could have done
what he did as God IF he did not have a physical body?
When did Jesus become a god? After his ressurection? Or at his
birth when he recieved a body? How is the Holy Spirit a god without a
body?
DAVEH: As I have said before, I don't feel it is necessary to have a
physical body to be a God. But I do believe it is necessary to have a
physical body to be an exalted God. May I assume you believe Jesus has
an exalted physical body today? IOW......You believe Jesus was God in
spirit form (in the pre-mortal existence) before he was born, but now
resides in heaven in a resurrected/exalted physical body....is that
correct, Kevin? (If not correct....don't let me put words in your
mouth....I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.)
DH As a physically begotten child born
into this world, is not Jesus the literal Only Begotten Son of God?
So how did this physical begetting take place & who was
involved?
DAVEH: Though Scripture does not detail the specific mechanics
involved, my personal belief is that it was a combination of Mary's
genetic material and Jesus' Father in Heaven's genetic material,
brought about by the power of the Holy Ghost. IOW....I believe Jesus
is the literal Only Begotten Son of God. Now that I have answered your
question, Kevin, will you be so kind as to reciprocate.
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: They could be spirit children of God, either
literally or adopted. But that would different than one who is a
physically begotten son. I do not recall Scripture referring to spirit
children as being begotten. Do you recall such
So one can be a physically begotten spirit? Another a
Spiritually (literal) begotten spirit child?
Is a physically begotten son, physical? eg. has a tabernacle
of Flesh?
DAVEH: That Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God.
Are you the literal son of your father, Kevin? If your father begat
you, then I would understand you to be his literal son, much as Seth
was the literal son of Adam as mentioned in Gen 6:4......
So all the spirit children of the Father are LITERAL
children by this measure.
DAVEH: They would be literal spirit children
of God. As a physically begotten child born into this world, is not
Jesus the literal Only Begotten Son of God? The rest of us can claim
to be literal spirit children of God. Or, as I understand your
position...we can be a sort of adopted child of God if we are born
again as a Christian. Am I portraying that correctly, Kevin?
Does a god require a Physical Body?
DAVEH: Do you think Jesus could have done
what he did as God IF he did not have a physical body?
So Kevin.......Did you ever answer my question........
do you agree with the author that Jesus is not the literal Son
of God???
Kevin Deegan wrote:
DAVEH: Thanx for the load Kevin, but you did
seemingly overlook one aspect of my post. So, do you agree with the
author that Jesus is not the literal Son of God???
IN LDS Theology: If Jesus is the "Literal" Son of God,
what is the difference between me & Him?
Are all other sons of God NOT literal?
DAVEH: They could be spirit children of God, either literally or
adopted. But that would different than one who is a physically
begotten son. I do not recall Scripture referring to spirit children
as being begotten. Do you recall such?
What makes it Literal?
DAVEH: That Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God. Are you the
literal son of your father, Kevin? If your father begat you, then I
would understand you to be his literal son, much as Seth was the
literal son of Adam as mentioned in Gen 6:4......
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight
hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.
.......So, wouldn't you agree that Seth is a literal son of Adam, since
Adam begat him?
What is the difference between "Only Begotten" & Literal?
DAVEH: I think I answered it above, though I'm not happy with the way
I phrased it. If you want me to try it again, let me know. A good
night's sleep might clear some of the cobwebs residing in my mental
mush.
DAVEH:
Thanx for the load Kevin, but you did seemingly overlook one aspect of
my post. So, do you agree with the author that
Jesus is not the literal Son of God???
-
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
|