God Begets God?

One of the claims that many use as a proof that Jesus is God is the idea that "God begets God". For example, the CBN site has a study entitled "Can You Prove Jesus is God?" We are not going to address everything on that site (most, if not all, of what is claimed there we have addressed in other studies on this site and other sites), but we will present what is stated there concerning our topic. It is claimed:

Logic alone would tell us that the “Son” of God would possess the same deity as the Father. Man begets man. God begets God.

But is the really using sound logic? Or, is it a method of tricking one's mind into using one fact to prove an alleged principle that is not actually the same principle as the fact presented, although on the surface it may appear to be so? The first statement is that "Man begets man." This is a fact, and it is stated as such in Genesis. This is often called the law of reproduction.

The claim is that since man begets man, then God begets God. I am sure that by God is meant "Supreme Being". What it is saying, in effect, is that Supreme Being begets Supreme Being because as demonstrated that a human being begets a human being. 

There are at least four things that are wrong with the line of argument as related to trinity dogma. 1) It assumes that God is under the same rules of reproduction as is man. 2) When a man reproduces, he does not beget the same human being -- the same one man -- who would be himself. Thus if the Supreme Being begets a being who is also Supreme in his being, you would actually have two Supreme Beings, not one Supreme Being. 3) This idea that "God begets God" would limit God's ability to produce a Son who is not the Supreme Being, based on the limited procreative powers that God placed upon the material creation. (Genesis 1:11,12,21,25) 4) No such idea that "God begets God" is anywhere to be found in the "faith once delivered to the saints" as given in the Bible. -- Jude 1:3.

We do believe that before Jesus became a human he was the only-begotten firstborn mighty one (THEOS) of the Most High (John 1:1,18; 3:16-18; Colossians 1:15), having celestial, spiritual body glory (1 Corinthians 15:39-41) that is one step above the angels (since the angels were made through Jesus — Colossians 1:15,16,18), and thus Jesus was never actually equal to the angels. However, as a human, he was the terrestrial, fleshly, physical glory of man,  one step below that of the angels. (John 1:14; Colossians 15:40; Hebrews 2:9; 5:7) After his being raised from the dead, he was exalted far above the angels. (Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:18; 2:9,10; Philippians 2:9; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22) Through all three phases of his existence, however, he remains the Son of his God.

Many, however, proclaim that the Jews of that time believed that “God begets God,” and thus for God to beget a son, the son would be equal to God who begot the son. As yet no one has produced any proof that the Jews of that age actually took such a view. They do present some scriptures that attribute such an idea as having that idea. However, it is possible that the Jews may have adopted such a view from Hellenistic philosophy.

The idea we have seen presented is that since man begets man, dog begets dog, and bird begets bird, then God begets God. Such a view actually brings God down so as to be subject to reproductive limits that God set for his physical living creatures on earth. To take this kind of reasoning to its logical conclusion, however, would necessitate that God needs a wife with whom to have intercourse before any begettal could take place.

To accommodate this, some trinitarians have claimed that God did have a wife — claiming the “person” of God’s holy spirit is God’s wife. Thus, it would appear that, according to this view, God had sexual intercourse with his holy spirit and thus produced the only-begotten son, although they claim that none of this happened at any point in time, but rather it is alleged to have happened outside of all time, in an alleged dimension in which time of any sort does not exist, etc. This theory would, in effect, have it that the son of God is now and for all eternity past and for all eternity future being begotten by sexual intercourse of God with his Holy Spirit! Of course, nothing in the Bible ever presents any such idea, nor is there any scriptural reason to create all of this and add this to the Bible.

Of course, most trinitarians do not claim that God’s wife is his holy spirt, but most do claim that for God to beget another person, that person has to be God, in effect, since there is one God, that one God begets the one God who is the one God who does the one God begetting. To accommodate this apparent self-contradiction, the trinitarian has conjured and added to the scriptures a story about one person of God who begets another person of God who is not the first person of God but yet who is the one God who has existed from all eternity! Most trinitarians do argue that this begetting is in an alleged eternity that is totally outside of any time, which, as stated before, would actually mean that right now Jesus is and always will be in the condition of being begotten by God (which they would take to mean only the person of God that they call “God the Father” who is not part of God, but all of God, as distinct from the person of God whom they call “God the Son”, who is also not part of God, but all of God.)

Some point to John 10:33 as proof that the Jews believed that God begets God. In John 10:33, the claim of the Jewish leaders was that Jesus was a human sinner, not the Son of God as Jesus claimed to be. And then, because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, it appears that they may have added to this the false claim that Jesus was claiming to be God. If this was their claim, then this not something that Jesus claimed for himself. However, if their claim was that Jesus, by calling God his father, was making himself “god” in the sense that an angel, as a son of God, is elohim -- a mighty one, Jesus most certainly was that in his pre-human existence, even if had been equal to the angels, and even more so if he had indeed been more than an angel.

However, if the trinitarian does not claim that God needed a wife to bring forth a son, then they partly -- perhaps unwittingly -- acknowledge that the reproductive laws God placed upon living creatures here on earth do not apply to God. If this is acknowledged, it should be understood that "one God" of whom are all (1 Corinthians 8:6) does not have to bring forth a son who is also the "one God" of whom are all.  

Since there is nothing anywhere in the Bible that says that if the Supreme Being begets a son, that son has to be Supreme in his being, we should recognize that this is man's reasoning, which has to be imagined beyond what is written, and actually places the Supreme Being as though he were under the reproduction laws which God has placed upon his earthly living creation. And to get "trinity" into this, the trinitarian has to then further create several assumptions that would have to alter the logic as given to make it appear to conform to the idea of three persons all of whom are the one Supreme Being. We believe that it is best to simply stay by what the Bible says -- not what has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the Bible.

For links to some related studies:
https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/son-of-god-vs-son-of-man.html

One has claimed: "In Psalms we have an elohim with companions which would mean others like him. Don't you think it is likely that the elohim chosen from the other elohim due to his righteous was how that elohim became begotten?" This evidently is in reference to Psalm 45:6,7. The assumption appears to be that the word "begotten" is used, not to mean "brought forth" into existence, but rather it is evidently viewed as meaning something like "to choose".  It would appear, however, that such a meaning would only mean such in the Bible when a form of begat is applied to God's firstborn. (Colossians 1:15) We know of no reason to create such an assumption and add such an assumption to the Bible.

The same person has asked the following question: "If Jesus was begotten due to his creation were the rest of the sons of God that existed before the earth was formed also begotten?" Evidently, this is in reference to "sond of God" spoken of in Job 38:4-7. The assumption appears to be that these "sons of God" were not begotten. Such would mean, in effect, that they were never brought forth into existence. The very fact that they do exist as "sons", however, signifies that they were indeed brought forth into existence. 

***************