JESUS TUVO UN COMIENZO (JESUS HAD A BEGINNING)

Jesus Has A Beginning
By Sean Finnegan
www.HigherGroundOnline.org

—Trinitarian—
The Son has no beginning;
he has always existed



—Arian—
The Son has a beginning;
he was created before the universe



—Unitarian—
The Son was brought into existence in Mary’s womb

This time of year, we are saturated with songs about the birth of Christ. However, there is disagreement about what exactly happened at his birth. What
you believe about the birth of Christ depends on your belief about when he began. There are several models of understanding Christ. Some believe that Christ had no beginning—that he was never created. Others believe that he was brought into existence at a set point in time. Some place his beginning just before creation, and others regard Christ as having come into existence for the first time when he was born of Mary.
The first question that needs an answer is: "Does Jesus have a beginning?" The majority of Christians believe that Jesus has always existed. In order to tackle this question, consider the following quote from the Nicene Creed of 325AD.1


"We believe in one God the Father…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, the only-begotten, begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father…And those who say "there once was when he was not," and "before he was begotten he was not," and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or substance, affirming that the son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic
and apostolic church anathematizes[bans/curses/excommuni-cates]."2

At the center of the controversy surrounding the issue of beginnings, is the term
"begotten." According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, "begotten" means to procreate as the father. The word "procreate" is comprised of two words,"pro" meaning forth and "create" meaning to bring into existence. Putting this all together yields the following definition for "begotten"—to bring forth into existence
as the father. Let me say that again: to be begotten means that you have been
brought into existence by your father. It is easy to see why this little word could cause so much trouble for those who believe Jesus has always existed.3


The creed quoted above defines Jesus specifically as "only-begotten, begotten from the Father," but later it goes on to excommunicate anyone who says,
"before he was begotten he was not." This seems very confusing. Was Jesus begotten? Yes, the creed has already stated this. Then that means that he was brought into existence by a father. Thus, if he was brought into existence, there was a time when he did not exist. But if someone says, "there was when he was not," that person is excommunicated. I find this very confusing. Thankfully, the Scriptures are our standard for truth and not the creeds of men.
What does the Bible say about the beginning of Jesus? Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say, "YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVEBEGOTTEN4 YOU"? And again, "I WILL BE A FATHERTO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?


This section is talking about the superiority of Jesus to the angels. None of the angels was called God’s son. Nevertheless, why is Jesus called the Son? This is because "today" God begot him. I repeat, Jesus is the Son of God because God begot him on a certain day. There is a day when the Son came into existence. Otherwise, the Father could not say, "today I have begotten you" (see Psalms
2:7; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). If this verse is true, then there was a time before the Son was begotten. We have already seen that "begotten" means to come into existence; thus, there was a time before the Son came into existence.
It is impossible for someone to exist before he comes into existence. Furthermore, the second half of this verse applies the prophecy found in II Samuel 7:14 to Jesus. There was a time when God became the Father of Jesus. Otherwise said, God was not the Father of Jesus until He became his Father. This prophecy was given by Nathan to David in approximately 1,000BC. As of this date, God was speaking about the Son in the future tense—"I will be his father." Thus, either the Son did not exist at this time, or, if he did exist, he did not enjoy a father-son relationship with God.


When did God become the Father of the Son? I believe that this text brings these two Old Testament quotes together in such a way that answers this question. God became the Father of the Son when the Son came into existencethrough the Father’s begetting. This seems to be the plain reading of this verse (Hebrews 1:5). In fact, this is confirmed in what Gabriel said to Mary:


Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God."

How did God accomplish the act of begetting His Son? It was done when the
holy spirit (power of God) overshadowed Mary. As a direct result of this virginal conception, Jesus is called the Son of God. This makes perfect sense! What Hebrews 1:5 alludes to, Gabriel states plainly—Jesus is the Son of God because his origin is through a special creation of God in the womb of his mother. In order for Jesus to exist before he was born, there must be a distance wedged between this event and the begetting of the Son. Yet, here they are linked together.


There is another man who was specially created by God (i.e., he did not come into existence through the normal process of two parents). Adam was formed from the dust of the earth by God. Thus, if our understanding is correct, Adam would also be called the son of God.


Luke 3:23, 38
When He began his ministry, Jesus himself was about thirty years of age, being,
as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…the son of Enosh, the son of
Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.


As Adam was the son of God, so is Jesus the Son of God. In fact, Paul refers to Jesus as the second Adam because their origins and functions are so similar (I Corinthians 15:21-23; Romans 5:12,ff). Now, has anyone suggested that Adam existed before he was born? Certainly not; this is foolish. So why is it entertained when the discussion moves to the second Adam, Jesus?


Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born5 of a woman,born6 under the Law,


When it was finally the right time, God sent (commissioned) His Son. The Son was born (brought into existence) of (out from) a woman. The word translated
"born" literally means, to come into existence; to be created, exist by creation. The word translated "of" in the phrase "born of a woman" literally means: of, from, out of, denoting origin or source. Putting this all together explains that the origin (beginning point) of Jesus’ life was when he was brought into existence out from a woman. He was also born (brought into existence) under the Law—he was alive before the Law had been fulfilled. This statement about the origin of the Messiah is marvelous. (Compare this verse to Romans 1:3 where the same word "born" and the same word "of" are used in this way).


All of these texts and others (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Romans 1:3; I John 4:9;
5:1,18) make clear that Jesus was begotten/born and that he did, in fact, have a beginning. If Jesus had a beginning, then he cannot be God; but there is still more to determine….
The second question that needs to be answered is: "When did that beginning occur?" The Arian position states that God the Father alone is eternal, that Christ was created out of nothing as the first, and greatest, of all creatures, and that he in turn created the universe."7 This is what six and a half million Jehovah’s Witnesses believe.
In order to answer this second question, consider the following Scriptures. Matthew 1:18
Now the birth8 of Jesus Christ was as follows: when his mother Mary had been
betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.


The Greek word for "birth" is the same as the English word "genesis." "Genesis" means beginning, which is why it is the name of the first book of the Bible. Thus, this verse tells us that the beginning of Jesus Christ was a result of his mother being "with child by the holy spirit." This is absolutely essential to understand— Jesus has a genesis (beginning), and it was related to the miracle in the womb of Mary(remember Luke 1:35).


Matthew 1:20
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him
in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the child who has beenconceived9 in her is of the holy spirit."


Most translations say "the child who has been conceived in her" instead of "the child who has beenbegotten in her." This is the only time in the NASB when this Greek word is translated "conceived!" Why would they not translate the word
"begotten" as they do in the other places that this word is used? I believe the answer is that this is a clear statement that Jesus was begotten (brought into existence by his Father) in Mary through the holy spirit. That is the whole package in one verse! Jesus, the Son, was brought into existence (begotten), and that beginning was in Mary as a result of the creative power of the holy spirit. How simple, how elegant is this understanding! There is no confusion about being begotten twice. Words can be taken at their plain meaning rather than hiding them through interpretive translating tricks.10 Besides, if Jesus was not a human like Adam, then why should it matter that he lived perfectly? If he is really the second Adam, then hecould have sinned. He couldhave messed up, but he did not. What an example for us to emulate!


Acts 1:1
"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach,"
Luke wrote the books of both Luke and Acts to Theophilus. Here in Acts (the second volume), Luke makes reference to his first volume (the book of Luke). He says that in the former volume, he told about what Jesus began to do and teach.
If Jesus began to "do and teach" in the book of Luke (which starts with his birth in the first chapter; remember Luke 1:35?), thenJesus could not have done anything or taught anything before he was born!


Hebrews 1:1 and 2
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and
in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world [ages].

If the Son were there in the Old Testament times, what was he doing? This text tells us that only in these last days has God spoken through His Son. This
makes a lot of sense if His Son did not exist before. But it sure would be boring to have existed for millennia without being permitted to speak or participate in the project of God’s creation.


Jesus had a beginning, and if he had a beginning, then he cannot be God. There was a time before the Son existed! The Son came into existence within the womb
of Mary by a direct act of God Himself. Jesus is the Son of God, not because he was begotten before the creation of the universe, but because he was begotten
in Mary. And this is what is so special about the birth of Christ.

It kind of makes me feel like singing....






FOOTNOTES:
1 THIS CREED IS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ALL ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.
2 TRANSLATION TAKEN FROM DECREES OF THE ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, ED. NORMAN P. TANNER, SEE WWW.PIAR.HU/COUNCILS/
3 THIS IS PROBABLY WHY MOST MODERN TRANSLATIONS HAVE CHANGED THE PHRASE "ONLY BEGOTTEN"
TO "ONE AND ONLY" (SEE NIV/HCSB/NLT/NRSV/BBE ON JOHN 3:16).
4 GEGEN N KA = 1ST PERSON SINGULAR PERFECT INDICATIVE ACTIVE OF GENNAW (TO BEGET)
5 GENOUENON = ACCUSATIVE SINGULAR MASCULINE OF AORIST 2 OF GINOUAI (TO COME INTO EXISTENCE)
6 SAME EXACT WORD AS ABOVE (FOOTNOTE 4)
7 WYCLIFFE DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY BY HARRISON, BROMILEY, AND HENRY, P63
8 GENNH SI = GENESIS, BIRTH, WHAT HAS COME INTO BEING
9 GENNH YEN = NOMINATIVE SINGULAR NEUTER PARTICIPLE AORIST 1, PASSIVEGENNAW (TO BEGET)
10 FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BIAS OF THE TRANSLATORS ESPECIALLY IN REFERENCE TO THE SUBJECT OF CHRIST, SEE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE BY BART EHRMAN OR TRUTH IN
TRANSLATION BY JASON BEDUHN.

THE "KEY SIGN" OF THE RETURN OF CHRIST TO THE EARTH

By Mario A Olcese

The crucial Questions:

In Matthew 24:3 the disciples ask the following question to the Lord: “Tell us, when will this take place, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end (the completion, the consummation) of the age?” Here we find basically two questions: One, When will these things be? That is, when the temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed (v.1,2), and the other one: And what sign (see the singular) will there be of your coming and of the end of the age? Some say that there are three questions, but I see only two. Now, many Bible students have not stopped to meditate for themselves that the disciples asked a concrete and specific sign that would indicate for them the real coming or return of the Lord (not his proximity!) and of the end of the world. Yes, the disciples wanted to know A SIGN And only ONE SIGN! This particular detail we all must KEEP IN MIND, because many Bible students have failed to notice it, and are continuing to look for many signs. So, we must focus our attention on the manner of Jesus coming, the same manner as is given by Jesus in Matthew 24:30 and by the angels of God in Acts 1:11.

The Sign of Jonah and the Sign of the Son of Man

¿Which will be that singular sign requested by the disciples to Jesus in Matthew 24:3? In order to understand what we want to say for the sign, let's see the so-called Sign of Jonah pronounced first by Jesus in Luke 11:29-30, and that says: "As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation." (See that also in Matthew 24:30 Jesus expresses us a similar sentence, but this time as: The Sign of the Son of Man). Here basically Jonah's Sign is the same Jonah, because Jesus said that Jonah himself was sign to the ninivites. In the same way, Jesus himself would serve as a sign, or would be sign, for a perverse generation. From there that Jesus spoke about the sign the Son of Man. It is not an extraordinary or mysterious sign like that one of a cross in the sky, or a sound of any trumpet, or any brilliant light, or any spaceship, or some out of common meteorological event. The sign of the Son of Man, as it was with the sign of Jonah, refers to the same mentioned person —that is, to Jesus, the Messiah! Again, Jesus, as Jonah, would be A SIGN. This concept must be kept in your mind: ¡Jesus himself would be a SIGN for a perverse generation that would see His parousia and the end of the age"! Later on we will see how Jesus will be useful as a SIGN for a malignant generation.

His Proximity's Signs:

In verses 4-6 of Matthew 24 Jesus says that before his return, and of the end of the world, many false Christs would say that they are the promised Messiah, or the Christ incarnated in them. Examples of these are many through the centuries. Recently we can mention Jim Jones who died in Guyana with his church, and David Koresh, who died with 80 of his followers in Waco, Texas. Right now, new false leaders (as Reverend Moon) are passing themselves off as the Messiah, and are deceiving a great number of sincere followers (v.5). Also Jesus talked about wars and rumors of wars (v.6), but these wars would not be the sign of the end! (v.6) At this point Jesus does not give us a single or specific sign of the end of the age. In verses 7-14 the Lord Jesus clearly prophesied the international conflicts (v.7). Then Jesus talked about the great tribulation that will come to his chosen because of his name (v.9), and the surging of false prophets or fraudulent teachers eager for money and power (v.11). In verse 14 Jesus announced that the gospel of the kingdom will be preached to all over the world as a testimony ... and then the end will come. But even here we do not have the UNIQUE or singular SIGN that was requested by the disciples about His coming and the end of the world. Many Christians mix up these signs of the proximity of His coming as if it were proof of his real coming. Being about to come does not mean that His coming already took place. Another group of Christians believe that the sign is really a set of signs. But this idea is an error! The disciples are asking Jesus for A sign, and Jesus will openly and immediately reveal it to them without evasiveness.

Moving on to verse 23, Jesus predicts again the coming of false Christs. Verse 24 repeats the same thing and adds the coming of false prophets that will do portents and will deceive many, even the chosen ones belonging to God. 26 Jesus notices the coming of false Christs and false prophets that will appear (“horizontally”) in the deserts and rooms (Notice: Not from heaven, or “vertically”, of up- down), and whom we must not believe.

It’s in verse 27 where Jesus begins to unroll, so to speak, the unique SIGN (singular) of His true coming or return, contrasting with those false comings of false Messiahs or Christs that shows up from the deserts and rooms (hotels, houses, splendorous temples, etc) of verse 26, and to whom we must not believe. Jesus reveals in verse 29 that after the happening of all the events of verses 4 to 27, 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken”. These strange and hair-raising events that will happen in the sky, PRECEDE the manifestation of the UNIQUE OR SINGULAR expected SIGN.

In verse 30 we find, at last, the clear and concise SIGN given by Jesus of His true Paruosia or second coming in glory and power. He says: "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and ]beat their breasts and lament in anguish, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory [in brilliancy and splendor].”

In response to the question of the disciples about a clear and singular SIGN of his coming (not His proximity!) and of the end of the world, Jesus says to them that the SIGN IS HIMSELF, PER SE, DESCENDING CONSPICUOUSLY FROM ABOVE (not from the deserts and rooms) WITH POWER And GREAT GLORY. Unlike the false Christ that appear horizontally and secretly, the true Christ comes vertically and visibly, from above downwards, to the earth.

So, if any so called “Christ” does not come VISIBLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY from above downwards, to the earth, with the angels of His power and with great glory, THAT CHRIST IS NOT THE REAL ONE!. There are men that use to proclaim themselves as The Messiah, but THEY HAVE NOT COME vertically from above to the earth, with power and great glory. Besides, no man has yet been seen descending from heaven to the promised land in the biblical way. But when Christ returns in the exact way as it was prophesied, we will know that He is the expected Messiah, and therefore, there will immediately follow a resurrection of the saints (John 5:28,29; 1 Thess 4:16,17). The false Christ will not be able to descend from heaven, neither will he have the power to rise all the faithful dead, in order that these, along with the alive Christians, may be snatched away by Him to the clouds to meet Him (read Again 1 Thess. 4:16,17— see the word meet of verse 17).

Additionally to what has been said previously, in Acts 1:11 we read that two angelic creatures gave more details of the true Parousia of the Messiah, with these words: “Men of Galilee, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven”.

Further, in Revelation 1:7 we read: “He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen”. This prophecy never happened before. Not every eye in 70 AD from all people of the earth saw Jesus coming in the same manner as He returned to heaven. In 70 AD Jesus never descended from heaven and touched the Mount of Olives, as it is prophesied in (Zacariah 14:4 NKJV) "And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south."
Summary:

In Matthew 24:3, the disciples asked Jesus for a single sign that would indicate to them His coming from heaven and the end of the world, and, of course, the Lord Jesus will give them very clearly and without evasiveness that single sign in verse 30.

The other supposed signs of the verses 4-29 are events that will be presented before His glorious coming, and that they would become more and more notorious and generalized in the measure that Christ's coming came closer, as the pains of a pregnant woman's childbirth. To affirm that wars —including that of the Jews with the Romans— and the rumors of wars, were a sign of Jesus' arrival in glory and in His kingdom in 70 A.D, is to twist what the same Christ taught us concerning His return. Jesus said in Matthew 24:6 that wars, and rumors of wars, would not indicate the end of the era or His second coming but His proximity (Luke 21:9—“for all this must take place first, but the end will not come immediately”). So the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place by the war of the Jews with the Romans, was not the sign of Christ's second coming and the end of the age. Jesus never said that the destruction of Jerusalem would be the sign of His paruosia, or second coming.

The singular Sign that Jesus left us of His real parousia, or second coming, is His personal descending, coming with the celestial clouds in power and great glory. The false Christ have appeared "horizontally" from among men in the deserts and rooms. On the other hand, the true Messiah will come "vertically;" that is, from above downwards, visibly, personally (the same risen human Jesus) from the clouds of heaven with the angels in His power. These specifications given by Jesus Himself and later by the angels for the parousia, were never mentioned by Josephus in his writings for his supposed coming in 70 AD.

http://www.apologista.wordpress.com/

http://www.ladoctrinadedios.blogspot.com/

http://www.elevangeliodelreino.org/