Featured Any Bible translation to actually say . . . ?

No. That is a theological term.

It means:

Eternal (existing without beginning or end)
Generation (co-equal, of the same essence)

It was developed to extend the idea of the nature of one kind to an offspring (begotten) to a more general sence and this eternally.

The term only applies to the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

The Son is eternally Yahweh.

Jesus did not come into existence at His physical birth, is eternal and co-equal with the Father.


Other non-biblical terms include: Trinity, theology, Atonement, hyposyatic union, ketosis, Bible, pneumatology, anthropology, Christophany......

 

It is not an extrabinlical usage of an actual biblical word as the words are not unique to the Bible.

It means "coming forth" and is linked with "Eternal" as a theological term to apply "same essence" (like the son of a man is a man, the offspring of a duck is a duck) to to the Son.

It means that the Son is eternally Yahweh and is NEVER less than God.

It was written to combat arianism (the idea that the Son is created and not co-equal to the Father but is less than God.


This is basic orthodox Chriatianity.



Your argument is like rejecting the word "Christophany" because it uses "Christ" in a way not used in Scripture (preincarnate).


I think you are just upset that over 30 years ago you decided the doctrine was wrong and have stood against it in error - perhaps misleading others in the process (the caution Scripture offers to those who would teach other people).


Early on John MacArthur did the same. So don't feel bad. The only difference is MacArthur acknowledged the error as a mistake on his part and addressed his congregation to apologize and explain the doctrine.

 

No, for a couple of reasons.

1. Eternal Generation not an alternate (it has the exact same meaning)

2. It is not unbiblical. Jesus is "eternally co-equal and of the same essance as the Father".

IF you reject Eternal Generation THEN you believe Jesus is less than God and began at the Incarnation (Eternal Generation is simply that Jesus is eternally Yahweh, co-equal with the Fathet).


OWN your belief. Stop trying to redefine what you reject.

Since you continue to deny the divinity of Christ (that He is God, not less than God) you are a heretic.

You deny the Doctrine of the Trinity.
You deny that Jesus is eternally Yahweh.
You deny that the Son is co-equal to the Father.

 

No. The WORDS "begotten" and "generation" are finite.

The TERMS "Eternal Generation" and "the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages." link an infinite word with a finite word(s) to express the Biblical truth that Jesus is eternally YHWH, co-equal with the Father, of the same divine essence, without beginning or end.

You are being extraordinary dishonest for a Chriatian.

 

This issue is simple:

Eternal Generation- Jesus is eternally YHWH, co-equal with the Father, no beginning and no end.

One cannot reject Eternal Generation without rejecting "Jesus is eternally YHWH, co-equal with the Father, no beginning and no end" because that IS what Eternal Generation means.

Either one believes Eternal Generation or one does not.

The doctrine was developed to combat Arianism, which viewed Jesus as a created being and therefore less than God.

If one does not believe Eternal Generation then one rejects the Doctrine of the Trinity.

That is considered a "strong heresy" because it alienates one from orthodox Christianity.

 

I'm not a scholar, but my guess is that the "me" in the verse is Jesus. Same as the "he".

This does not make Jesus less than God or a created being that started at His physical birth (in the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God.....and the Word became flesh).

Jesus also identified as YHWH ("Before Abraham was, I AM").

The point is that, while there is a point in time that the Word became flesh, the Word existed eternally with and as God. All things came into being through Him. All things were created by and for Him.

 

Obviously I disagree with the "until then He was sinless".

My belief is that Jesus remained sinless (this was, in fact, the reason He was crucified - "He remained obedient unto death, even the death on a cross".

I also believe that He was made like us at the Incarnation, and He was tempted in all points as is common to man. He did not sin, yet He became us and placed Himself under the curse we lived under - the wages of sin.


In other words, I believe you have misinterpreted the passages you quote.

Being made sin equates to death. He became sin for us. Yet He remained without sin.

And if you continue in Isaiah 53, He is called Righteous, suffering an unjust punishment (we have to take these passages as a whole. Verse numbers were added much later).

BUT you knew I'd disagree before I posted.

Be honest, am I your favorite heretic or what?