No. Then there would be two gods. 
Has God begat a son?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 192
- Points
- 43
No. Then there would be two gods.
This is a question that has found time in my mind for years now, as it makes no sense to me.
The father only gives birth to daughters, there should be no sons. All worlds and celestial objects are herselves. The only himself is what you call the Holy Spirit or as I call him yourselves.
Only two ways I have been able to work this out. Every world has a himself only and a herself only like Adam and Eve. The son might be a himself from a world that could figure itself out many more times then anywhere else, but yet became nothing here. If that world died it is possible the father elevated himself to this level of son.
The second way is possible but I find no thoughts about it. It is possible that a celestial object became him as long as she did not figure herself out, this would give him more time then anything else to become something here.
The reason this was even a question is because the son was able to become the fathers myself. When the father ascends up through the dimensional timelines he has to become myself, he will become myself only once per dimensional timeline. As we ascend through the timelines we have to become something again 5 times per dimensional timeline, to become something all the time.
The next problem is that when the father ascended to the fourth dimensional time line he had the son become myself. Basically the son wore the skin of the father. This was done to keep everyone from figuring out that he was not here as everything here was starting to figure itself out.
you can see the conundrum nothing should be able to become myself but the son was able to.
Just a interesting puzzle that has left me asking questions over and over again.
powessy
One God, multiple distinctions. To my wife I'm her husband, to my niece I'm her Uncle, to my mother I was her son. Three independent distinctions within the same being. God however, is far more vast than I and can manifest those distinctions in tangible terms. This video explains it pretty well:
Now you bring in a third..
Was the Holy Spirit "begat" as well?
As stated, God has multiple distinctions. The part of my post you quoted, refers to the part you left out and the example given, 3 separate ways I myself am seen by others. Independent of one another, but all embodying the same person.
As to whether or not God was begat, I refer you to Exodus 3:14 which speaks to the nature of the divine.
How does “I will be what I will be” relate to begetting?
I am that I am, never a time God did not exist. Not born of woman.
powessy
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 401
- Reaction score
- 192
- Points
- 43
The trinity seems a little over thought, 11 dimensions and a tesseract to boot.
god is himself only nothing else. All that is, is because of this one thing, that nothing can become him and nothing can figure him out. All that is or will ever be is directly because of this fact.
I would say if it is anything other then he is himself only, we are not dealing with god.
powessy
god is himself only nothing else. All that is, is because of this one thing, that nothing can become him and nothing can figure him out. All that is or will ever be is directly because of this fact.
I would say if it is anything other then he is himself only, we are not dealing with god.
powessy
Ehyeh asher Ehyeh does not translate as I am that I am.
Nature is begotten of Spirit
Time is begotten of Eternity
Father and Son are human anthropomorphic terms used to describe a spiritual condition.
People get hung up on the words.
There are not two gods.
Time is begotten of Eternity
Father and Son are human anthropomorphic terms used to describe a spiritual condition.
People get hung up on the words.
There are not two gods.
Last edited:
Ok, I won't split hairs with you on that. I know Judaism favors "I will be what I will be" but translations vary and the link I provided to address MI's snark is from the KJV so I used that translation in my reply to you.
Agree.
It's the smiley
that makes it snark ...I wish @muhammad_isa would lose the snarky smileys. Have some respect. It's a serious subject to billions of people
Last edited:
badger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,245
- Reaction score
- 455
- Points
- 83
It depends .............No. Then there would be two gods.
The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had many Gods.
The Vikings had many Gods.
There must be hundreds of cultures out there who have or have had many Gods.
All the Israelites were the children of God. That's a lot of sons and daughters.
Surely you did know this, yes?
I believe that the tiniest particle of matter is 'of God'.
So tell me...what do you believe? It might be best to quote something so that we could get started.
Subjectively, this is also my own experience. I cannot remember any moment where I did not exist.
Objectively, things look a bit different.
What Moses heard can sound like a very subjective statement.
How would God reality-check their own subjective statements? I'm asking respectfully, knowing that this question must have been contemplated many times by very smart and deep people. What do they say? What are the thoughts of other members here?
It's better translated as "I will be what I will be", right? Is that a future tense, or something like "I shall be..."?
I'd imagine it's only subjective from our pov in the flesh and well beyond our ability to completely fathom at present. That's why God answered in the way that he did. I've never questioned it myself. To me it just means God is without beginning or end.
As in: I will be whatever I choose to be...
That sense of it at least included in the meaning?
...a burning bush, a cloud, a pillar of flame
Respectful question
Last edited:
I know that.
..but what about beget?
begat
(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
"they hoped that the King might beget an heir by his new queen"
- cause; bring about.
Did G-d "bring into existence" a son? Did G-d "bring about" a son?
How exactly did He do that .. and when?
There has been extensive discussion about "the son" being G-d as part of a trinity etc.
It doesn't make logical sense that G-d begets a son that has always been in existence .. does it?
From previous discussions about Arianism, it has been proposed, I think in Arius's own letters, that the Son was begotten of the Father before time began
Why does God have to be logical according to human reason? Quantum theory isn't logical. Schrodinger's cat isn't logical. Is Spirit required to conform to human degrees of reason and logic? How should man try to limit the Divine to performing for human reason? Why should God have to be understandable to limited natural minds? That supposition is what doesn't make logical sense, imo
Scriptures use human terms and symbolism and parables to try to explain spiritual processes and laws that are 'beyond the veil' of human ability to conceive.Language is limited. Father and Son are human terms. It's Plato's cave. We only see the shadow dance of true reality.
Some do not accept the mysteries of Christianity
It doesn't make them go away, imo