The Adam Inheritance - The Myths of Armageddon 
The End-Time debacle -The Plague of Religion.

This beautiful valley of Jezreel/Megiddo will never see an end-time battle

His Promises - How valid?

Last site edit: September 21 2017

In defence of the sidelined God Jehovah, Creator of the Universe and Father of Humanity

Click sitemap here for ease of focused access

Contact: dieterhoffmann@iprimus.com.au

Only-Begotten-Son of God

The reality that Elephants are not of the same family as monkeys ought to effectively illustrate that a son of God can only be of the same kind as Father God Himself.  OK?

Well, a true son of God would need to be of the same quality of being as God.

That would make all sons of God Gods, right?

Who could ever claim to be or become a son of God in such completeness?

Christianity is awash with contenders.   

(More about our godlikeness, or otherwise, now and forever: link )


The biblical narrative contains just two only-begotten sons:

1. Isaac - Hebrews 11:17:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,  NKJV

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;  NAS

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son],  NWT '84


2. God's first creation the Archangel (chief messenger) Michael - John 1:18?

Not really, but God's only-begotten divine son

When John penned his Good News or Gospel toward the end of the first Century, he recounted the past in the light of a fulfilled present, oscillating, as it were, between his time with Jesus and the contemporary time of his authorship when all things Israel's Messiah had been fulfilled.

So, whenever John discusses or even mentions Jehovah's only-begotten son, he is referring to the elevated state of arch-angel/chief-messenger Michael after his promotion into Jehovah's divine family of Gods as the very first true son of the God kind after his proxy Jesus had died.

It is he whom God had offered to redeem the World* of Israel in John 3:16, and it is he who had been elevated to full sonship, as per Philippians 2:9, where Paul is not speaking about proxy sheep Jesus, who remains forever dead, but about the heavenly solely-begotten angel after his adoption into Jehovah's heavenly family of Gods.   
* Strong's 2889 - 1. Organised arrangement, government  2. Decoration, adornment


No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son*, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him  NKJV

No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NAS

No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god* who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. NWT '84

* God in centre column references — NAS centre column reference indicates that later MSS have son

* P75אc; P66א*BC*, “only-begotten god”; ACcItVgSyc,h, “the only-begotten Son.”


As for only-begottenness, at the human level it simply means that the father did it all by his lone self not just by engaging in a procreative exercise upon or with a compliant fertile womb with an ovum at the ready, but performing the same said act with an equally compliant but infertile womb with not even a hint of an ovum at the ready.

 

Jehovah and Abraham are the only individual life givers solely and single handedly responsible for also providing the material along with the life.

 

Just as Man is in the image of God so is this once-only act of solely producing an only-begotten son.


Life and matter are of course both sourced from God in the production of the only two solely produced sons ever in the entire universe in all of time.

 

Only Jehovah creates, man creatively fashions.  So it is with the begetting of children.   


In Abraham’s case, all procreative methodologies and ingredients having already an earthy presence, it was his act of solely producing Isaac on the basis of his implicit faith, that matches Jehovah’s solely producing His only-begotten son, where the only or sole-begetting is about the producer, the father and not the product, the son.


The son simply wears that label as he would family names and ethnic identities some future time.


Some reject unique as the definition of Monogenes for personal and doctrinal reasons, Greek having another unique word to expressly convey uniqueness may contribute to that, but action must always precede definition.

With reference to monogenes, does only-begotten-son mean that no other sons were ever begotten?  Isaac was not the only begotten son/child of Abraham, now was he?  


There were Abraham's firstborn Ishmael, six sons from Keturah and who knows how many sons via his concubines, perhaps even before Ishmael.


No idea why others are also focused on unique or one of a kind, but being the only child of the legitimate* Abraham/Sarah union and the only heir, would confer a certain measure of uniqueness to the person of Isaac as well as making him one of a kind in legal terms.

* in keeping with God's will and specific purpose.

   Traditionally, and quite OK with God, Man meets girl, takes her home to his family, has sex and
   is thus ‘married’.  That’s the ceremony; no formal signing etc. etc..   The joyous celebration prior

  to that sexual begetting , however, also served as a legal witness to the occasion.


The only-begotten status enjoyed by Isaac is nonetheless so exceptionally unique in every sense in its type and post-figurement* or rather the heavenly pattern* of the begetting of the only-begotten son of God, so as to bear a closer look to see why.   

* Like all things heavenly are the pattern for arthly matters connected with Jehovah’s purpose.


The Apostle Paul said that all things written aforetime are written for those who inherit the kingdom* -Romans 15:4.


So just as there were three individual characters in the type so it is in the antitype:


  Jehovah  -  only begotten son  - the sheep Jesus

 Abraham - only begotten Isaac - the sheep

* easily discerned from within the broader context of Scripture:

   Seed of Abraham Israel -Isaiah 41:8; Luke 12:32; Galatians 3:28-29.


The common denominator is the depth, profoundness and uniqueness of a sole-begetting of these sons in both the type and the antitype.

Although there was certainly a uniqueness in the creation of the 1st Adam and the last Adam Jesus. However, neither were only-begotten in the sense of being solely-begotten, since on both occasions the Creator used an assistant:

1. For Adam #1: the earth's elements directly . . . and

2. For Adam #2: the earth elements via the womb of Mary.

Greater detail about that farther down the page, but for now the focus is on the Only-begotten.

In the type it was impossible for Abraham to father a son via his wife Sarah:

(Romans 4:19) . . .”  And, although he* did not grow weak in faith, he considered his own body, now already deadened, as he was about one hundred years old*, also the deadness of the womb of Sarah.   NWT

(Hebrews 11:12)  Hence also from one [man]*, and him as good as dead, there were born [children] just as the stars of heaven for multitude and as the sands that are by the seaside, innumerable.  NWT

* Abraham

* Then he made a baby with Hagar, remaining fertile for much of his next 75 years.

However in his oneness of flesh with Sarah, he was as infertile as Sarah.

Though able to pass on life, He was like a dead man, without any corresponding means to receive it, material to work with or assisting medium.

Abraham had to do it all by himself as the sole human means to produce a son.   He did this in the two most significant ways possible:  

1. His absolute faith is God's promise that he would produce a son and  

2. Actually putting that faith into action by having meaningful intercourse with Sarah for that and only that reason and intent alone on that one occasion* on the basis of that faith.  
* since menopausal women can be the best sexually responsive partners a man could wish
   for, and having mutually satisfying relations with Sarah were to be expected anyway,
   one could easily conclude that to be the primary motivation for their post-promise
   sexual intimacy.  Not so, because the exclusive focus in their lives was to produce
   an heir to the promises.   
Nothing else mattered!

Thus at the human earthly level Abraham, who had no idea of Jehovah's miraculous intervention, begot Isaac solely through his own efforts.  Yes, it was exclusively so, because of his implicit faith and subsequent action, that he begot his unique, only solely-begotten by himself son Isaac.

Sarah's faith had nothing whatever to do with it.   She had already demonstrated having no faith in Jehovah's promise for her to conceive a son — Genesis 18:12.

Notwithstanding the initial phrase in Hebrews 11:11: ’by faith Sarah’  where that faith is generally interpreted to be Sarah's, it was solely Abraham's faith alone that allowed Jehovah to provide the ovum and Abraham to cause Sarah to conceive.   

The type was cast for understanding how Jehovah Himself produced His only-begotten son.

Jehovah created His only solely-begotten heavenly angelic son entirely by Himself without an assistant or medium.   

It is quite revealing how the antitype of the solely begetting of Jehovah's only begotten angelic son, predates the type of the solely-begetting of Isaac, while the reverse is true for the type of the sacrificial drama, which predates the fulfilling antitype of the most dramatic event in the life of Israel and its consequences for humanity.

This angelic creation was in actual fact not a true son of the God kind, a bit like a working bee is not a queen bee.   It was only after all the evidence was in of the angelic son's devotion to allow himself to be sacrificed by his Father in the manner of Isaac's willing compliance with Abraham's wishes, that he was elevated to the first complete son of God, literally like God, power and all*.

*Philippians 2:5-11 where unfortunate editing by apostates in the early Centuries inserted the name
and person of Jesus here, whereas Jesus is as dead as all Israel's atonement sacrifices gone before.

Please note that the above events are uniquely different from God's creation of the two Adams.

The first man Adam, named so after the physical source of his substance, was woven or wrought in the womb of earth as King David of Israel poetically expressed it relative to his own beginning in his mother's womb:

Psalm 139:13-16:

13  For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb.

14  I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well.

15  My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth.

16  Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. ASV

Here is the actual historical account where Jehovah God fashioned Adam from the earth and then passed onto the lifeless assembly of parts, what was to become the first man, the spark of life which has since been passed on from fathers to every other human being, except Jesus:

7  And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Genesis 2:7. ASV

Even though Muhammad read Leviticus 17:11 correctly, as he no doubt did all the book of the people of the book, albeit unfortunately through the severely tainted perceptions and ungodly practices of false Christians i.e. the adulterous bride of Christ, a drop of blood is not the source of life.  Blood simply sustains the spark of life already present in living cells.  An isolated drop of blood is a dead drop.

So when a person drops dead, all the drops have likewise dropped dead in unison.  

This is especially so in isolation from the body, which keeps the spark in each drop through complex respiratory processes from which it is now removed.

Life can only be passed on by fathers via the womb of a female.  The resulting offspring is entirely made of earth from the moment of conception even as are the sperm and the ovum.  In human cloning, the initial spark still needs to be provided by a male.

This is different, however, from the manufacture of the first human which proceeded without a sexual partner; the earth being the womb providing the ingredients –originally made by God– with Jehovah God, as the father, delivering the spark of life to start the engine, as it were, while remembering that God's heavenly only begotten Archangel son Michael was the means or the vehicle to accomplish that.

Thus Adam-I became God's first human son (Luke 3:38).  First?  Yes, for His second human son Adam-II, better known by his name Jesus, was also fashioned by God without a sexual partner, but assisted by Jesus' mother Mary who supplied the all earthly ingredients and the gentle, sweet nourishing environment, while Jehovah provided the spark of life in the manner used for Adam-I, along with appropriately designed DNA to complement Mary's so that all the parts of Jesus were correctly written in code. At the same time, and providentially so, God made sure that Jesus looked very much part of Joseph's Jewish family, as all who knew him perceived him to be.  ‑Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3.

16 your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing,. . . Psalm 139:16 - NWT

Jesus could not have been fathered by a Jewish father to remain free of Israel's collective debt of transgressions against the Law of Moses.

Note that in both instances there were helpers, facilitators.  

For Adam #1 there was the earth and the archangel through whom life was passed on.

For Adam #2 there was the earth via Mary and perhaps even the archangel's own life, since it was he, or rather the only-begotten son of God he was destined to become, whom Jehovah had offered to redeem His firstborn son Israel
Exodus 4:22; John 3:16.

The method is the issue.  Adam and Jesus were NOT Only-Begotten sons in the sense of solely-begotten.  Someone assisted God both times.  Yet both were unique in the way they were made.

There was only ever one only actual only begotten son singularly fashioned (solely-generated) by Jehovah entirely by Himself: the heavenly one.  

This was exactly as the earthly shadow or type of Abraham's only-begotten son Isaac.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the heavenly only begotten son's life was somehow miraculously popped into Mary's womb and became flesh.  Not so.

Jesus gave the word of God substance in the reality of physical form, whereas before, they were just words of promise from Jehovah as beautifully worded by Paul in 2 Corinthians 1:20:
For as many as may be the promises of God, in Him* they are yes; wherefore also by Him is our Amen* to the glory of God through us.

* inappropriately capitalised by Trinitarians.

* so be it


A little more about what or who became flesh:  link

Most significantly point here:

Adam was not Jesus' forefather, because he did not receive his life down the line of procreation from Adam, but directly from God.   At the same time he was a son of man via Adam through Mary, but only with respect to his son-of-man-ness, his humanity, a human of the Adam kind, the species.

Jesus consistently referred to himself as son of man as recorded in the NT some 87 times.  The use of this term by Jesus himself and others denotes his complete humanity as it did when Jehovah used it to address Ezekiel 93 times.

Just like the sheep that saved Isaac had not descended from Adam via Abraham, but descended from the very first ram created by God,  neither did Jesus the sheep have a human father, but was the direct  new creation, another Adam to be sacrificed in place of His only begotten son actually offered for the transgressor Israel's world as per John 3:16.  This was necessitated by Jehovah having already determined that:

1. no descendant from Adam would suffice as Israel's final atonement sacrifice -Psalm 49:7:

Jubilee Bible 2000
none of them can by any means ransom his brother, nor give God an
atonement for him;

King James 2000 Bible
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a
ransom for him:

American King James Version
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a
ransom for him:

American Standard Version
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a
ransom for him;

2. that Israel were to be given a once-and-for-all final atonement -Ezekiel 16:63:

a) here via the best clearly worded translation:

New International Version
Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed and never again open your mouth because of your humiliation, declares the Sovereign LORD.'"

b) and one that gives due credit to the author:

American Standard Version
that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I have forgiven thee all that thou hast done, saith the Lord Jehovah.

No human descended from Adam was ever to be sacrificed by or for God for any reason whatsoever including to save anyone ever.

As an interesting aside neither was Abraham's only begotten son Isaac.  Whether Abraham obeyed or otherwise was of no direct consequence to Isaac.  He was never meant to die!

A living creature from outside of the human family, a sheep, gave it's life instead.

That is why Jehovah provided another human being from outside the human family descended from Adam #1.

To repay Israel's collective debt to God for their wanton transgressions against the law, Israel had to die first as a rebellious son and secondly as an adulterous wife.

Israel was stoned to death:

17 But he (Jesus) looked upon them (The scribes and the chief priests) and said: “What, then, does this that is written mean, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, this has become the chief cornerstone’? 18 Everyone falling upon that stone will be shattered. As for anyone upon whom it falls, it will pulverize him.”
Luke 20: 17-18  NWT

Paul and Peter had something to say about this also:

31 but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to the law. 32 For what reason? Because he pursued it, not by faith, but as by works. They stumbled on the “stone of stumbling”; 33 as it is written: “Look! I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense, but he that rests his faith on it will not come to disappointment.” (Romans 9:31-33)  NWT

7 It is to you, therefore, that he is precious, because you are believers; but to those not believing, “the identical stone that the builders rejected has become [the] head of [the] corner,” 8 and “a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.” These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.  (1 Peter 2:7-8)  NWT

and this is what everyone was referring to:

14 And he (Jehovah) must become as a sacred place; but as a stone to strike against and as a rock over which to stumble to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and as a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many among them will be certain to stumble and to fall and be broken, and to be snared and caught.   (Isaiah 8:14-15)  NWT

Israel under the Law along with all its attendant services, structures and traditions was now destroyed by the rock-mass:

πέτρᾳ petra 4073 a (large mass of) rock


This allowed some of redeemed Israel, now freed from the enslavement of the law* and its debt of transgressions against it, to accept their salvation through their faith in the sacrifice of Israel's Atonement and Passover lamb Jesus.  The debt now cancelled, acquitted Israel completely from all their transgressions* and allowed a remnant to continue to run with the promises as Peter continued to point out in 2 Peter 2: 9-10 following on from the above quote:

9 But you are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 For you were once not a people, but are now God’s people; you were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been shown mercy.. . . (1 Peter 2:9-10)  NWT

This royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession promise of Exodus 19:3-8 was given exclusively to Israel in connection with a mutually binding covenant or agreement between Jehovah and Israel, which was an essential prerequisite for the Law covenant to be subsequently mediated and agreed upon.

*Galatians 4:21-26
*Romans 6:1-7 where verse 7 says acquitted in the NWT while most others use either freed or justified.


The Law of Moses, as mediated by Moses between God and Israel, commanded that adulterous wives as well as rebellious sons be stoned to death.  A horrible penalty?  Well, wives were free to choose that penalty by becoming adulterous.  It was a form of rebellion against God's arrangement under the law.  Whether modern females like it or not, wives were the property of men; initially fathers and then husbands.  This assured that the women and the children were adequately and, may I say, lovingly cared for.  This was for everyone's benefit and more specifically for the health and growth of the nation.

Rebellious sons were likewise put to death.

Did Jehovah enjoy arranging for this to occur?

The inspired bible writers say otherwise:

31 "Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?

32 "For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies," says the Lord GOD. "Therefore turn and live!"  (Ezekiel 18:31-32)    NKJV


5 Hence when he comes into the world he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. 6 you did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin [offering].’  (Hebrews 10:5-6)  NWT

The writer of Hebrews was quoting from Psalm 40:6, which in the NWT reads like this:

 6 Sacrifice and offering you did not delight in; These ears of mine you opened up. Burnt offering and sin offering you did not ask for. (Psalm 40:6)

How can Hebrews 10:5-6 be a quotation from Psalm 40:6?  It seems that the older manuscripts must have vanished or were doctored as anticipated by God.

Alas, not all is lost!  Here are at least two renderings which accurately reflect the source of Paul's quote from Psalm 40:6 in Hebrews 10:5, 6  first from the Septuagint:

6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole–burnt–offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.  LXXE

It is assumed that the Greek Septuagint is the Bible used by Jesus, apostles and early disciples. Why?  Well, while they may have had access to it, essential it was not for the Jews of Jesus' day.

Jesus spoke Hebrew.  Those he came for and to were Jews who spoke their native tongue, you guessed it: Hebrew.  The fishermen and other every-day plain and ordinary people in Jesus' day had no need for the Septuagint, because they spoke, you've guessed it again: Hebrew and not Greek.  The scrolls in the Synagogues were in, you've guessed it yet another time: Hebrew.

The Hellenistic influences impacted primarily on the Jewish intelligentsia, who felt that what God had given them was insufficient for their inflated egos.

In any case, it was Latin that was the lingua franca under the Roman rule Israel found itself in after the brief murderous Greek episode of Alexander, though the wanting nature of their culture lingered a little longer.

Albeit the Greek Septuagint became a necessity for many in the Diaspora who were no longer familiar with Hebrew and, of course, for proselytising gentiles.

More importantly, however, is the Septuagint a good reflection of the older and perhaps more accurate Hebrew text used in Egypt at the time of its translation in the second and third centuries BCE and, in the context of this essay, it does not deal with a hearing problem in Psalm 40:6, but accurately supports a prepared body, perfectly reported here in the Tyndale Rogers Coverdale
(Matthews Bible 1537):

6 ¶  Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not have, but a body hast thou ordained me: burntoffering* and sacrifice for sin thou hast not allowed. TRC

* Though correct at the time, the general use of English compound nouns passed permanently into grammatical history between the 11th and 14th centuries along with gender-nouns, inflections and pronouns.

Now back to Hebrews 10:5-10:

5  Wherefore when he cometh into the world*, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me;  6  In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure:  7 ¶  Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God.  8  Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law),  9  then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.  10  By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. asv

* The world here is Israel’s organized arrangement of things, government and decoration of God (world Strong’s 2889 kosmos) and not the world of chapter 1 verse 6, which encompasses the whole world of mankind (Strong’s 3625) into which God presented His firstborn son Israel the first time (Exodus 4:22).

* Jehovah God the Father of

* His Only Begotten son who was to die in place of God's firstborn Israel (John 3:16; Exodus 4:22)

* The prepared body of the sacrificial lamb, son of man Jesus who died instead of God's
only-begotten son
.


Now who is the he, there in Hebrews 10:5-10?

Why, the only begotten offered for the first-begotten or firstborn of Exodus 4:22.


Finally here is how some translators have dealt with the verses from the Psalm Paul quoted in Hebrews 10:5-10:

 

 


















Please note that this Psalm has no hearing problem in either the Tyndale (Rogers Coverdale) bible or the LXX, even it does not in any translation of Hebrews 10:5.    Why?  



Why not in Hebrews, when most translations of Psalm 40 have?  


Because the Trinity needed a human body to die for God #2!




Strong's manifold definitions of son:


Hebrew:














Greek:







































‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ End of this Essay ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑