<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RS / MP Lesson 5: “The Creation” (Gospel Principles Manual) &#8211;JF</title>
	<atom:link href="http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/</link>
	<description>A blog focused on LDS scriptures and teaching</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:00:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30627</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;I wonder the extent to which we should think about Christ as the Only Begotten in a covenantal sense rather than a literal/physical sense.&quot;

I have a feeling it&#039;s gotta be more towards a covenantal sense. Because... If it&#039;s a &quot;literal/physical sense&quot;, then these father(s) of these &quot;begotten&quot; sons/daughters are playing favorites over other siblings(which is common in the Old Testament AND EVEN in today&#039;s terms).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;I wonder the extent to which we should think about Christ as the Only Begotten in a covenantal sense rather than a literal/physical sense.&#8221;</p>
<p>I have a feeling it&#8217;s gotta be more towards a covenantal sense. Because&#8230; If it&#8217;s a &#8220;literal/physical sense&#8221;, then these father(s) of these &#8220;begotten&#8221; sons/daughters are playing favorites over other siblings(which is common in the Old Testament AND EVEN in today&#8217;s terms).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert C.</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30623</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert C.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ryan, there&#039;s a &lt;a href=&quot;http://feastupontheword.org/John_3:16-20&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;brief note at the wiki&lt;/a&gt; for John 3:16 on this that you might find interesting. 

Also, I think Hebrews 11:17 is very interesting in that it refers to Isaac as Abraham&#039;s &quot;only begotten&quot; son (in the KJV, alluding to &quot;thine only &lt;i&gt;son&lt;/i&gt; Isaac&quot; in the KJV of Gen 22:2). This is very interesting, I think, because the Genesis account makes it very clear that Isaac had a brother, viz. Ishmael. So, if we are to take this verse in Hebrews seriously, it seems we should understand Christ as the Only Begotten in a similar sense that does not rule out---at least in any absolute, literal sense---the possibility of brothers and/or sisters. 

I wonder the extent to which we should think about Christ as the Only Begotten in a covenantal sense rather than a literal/physical sense. A &lt;a href=&quot;http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/01/09/rsmp-lesson-2-%e2%80%9cour-heavenly-family%e2%80%9d-part-1/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;few weeks ago&lt;/a&gt; I tried to work through some scriptural passages that talk about our relation to God in terms of sons and daughters, and I was rather struck by the frequency that we read about this relation only as a conditional relation. This is why I&#039;m interested in the possibility of reading &quot;Only Begotten&quot; in terms of the unique covenantal relation between the Father and the Son---a relation which is typologically prefigures the relation each of us can have with God, but a relation which in some significant sense (which I don&#039;t feel I understand very well...) is unique to Christ (either because Christ was first, or because of Christ&#039;s unique atonal suffering, or some other reason altogether...?).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ryan, there&#8217;s a <a href="http://feastupontheword.org/John_3:16-20" rel="nofollow">brief note at the wiki</a> for John 3:16 on this that you might find interesting. </p>
<p>Also, I think Hebrews 11:17 is very interesting in that it refers to Isaac as Abraham&#8217;s &#8220;only begotten&#8221; son (in the KJV, alluding to &#8220;thine only <i>son</i> Isaac&#8221; in the KJV of Gen 22:2). This is very interesting, I think, because the Genesis account makes it very clear that Isaac had a brother, viz. Ishmael. So, if we are to take this verse in Hebrews seriously, it seems we should understand Christ as the Only Begotten in a similar sense that does not rule out&#8212;at least in any absolute, literal sense&#8212;the possibility of brothers and/or sisters. </p>
<p>I wonder the extent to which we should think about Christ as the Only Begotten in a covenantal sense rather than a literal/physical sense. A <a href="http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/01/09/rsmp-lesson-2-%e2%80%9cour-heavenly-family%e2%80%9d-part-1/" rel="nofollow">few weeks ago</a> I tried to work through some scriptural passages that talk about our relation to God in terms of sons and daughters, and I was rather struck by the frequency that we read about this relation only as a conditional relation. This is why I&#8217;m interested in the possibility of reading &#8220;Only Begotten&#8221; in terms of the unique covenantal relation between the Father and the Son&#8212;a relation which is typologically prefigures the relation each of us can have with God, but a relation which in some significant sense (which I don&#8217;t feel I understand very well&#8230;) is unique to Christ (either because Christ was first, or because of Christ&#8217;s unique atonal suffering, or some other reason altogether&#8230;?).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kirkcaudle</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30619</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kirkcaudle]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 03:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And then as we become &quot;born again&quot; or &quot;begotten&quot; by The Father we at some point end up as he is. Pretty cool, eh? :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And then as we become &#8220;born again&#8221; or &#8220;begotten&#8221; by The Father we at some point end up as he is. Pretty cool, eh? :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30618</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30618</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks!

I&#039;ve been pondering over this, as Jesus being the &quot;ONLY begotten&quot; of Heavenly Father. It goes along the lines of what you said in the beginning of your response to me.

Since Jesus was conceived in a miraculous fashion by Mary becoming pregnant before she married Joseph. Joseph technically isn&#039;t the biological father of Jesus, but Heavenly Father is. Therefore, Jesus is Heavenly Father&#039;s &quot;only begotten&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks!</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been pondering over this, as Jesus being the &#8220;ONLY begotten&#8221; of Heavenly Father. It goes along the lines of what you said in the beginning of your response to me.</p>
<p>Since Jesus was conceived in a miraculous fashion by Mary becoming pregnant before she married Joseph. Joseph technically isn&#8217;t the biological father of Jesus, but Heavenly Father is. Therefore, Jesus is Heavenly Father&#8217;s &#8220;only begotten&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kirkcaudle</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30617</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kirkcaudle]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 08:21:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ok Ryan, I finally got around to posting this. Sorry it took so long!

This is taken from Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (chapter 23). Here he attempts to explain how Christ was &quot;begotten, not created.&quot; He does this by explaining what he sees as the difference:

&quot;We don&#039;t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set-or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set : say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.&quot;

Therefore, in order to be like God you cannot just be created by Him, but rather begotten by him. Being begotten causes us to be born again. Thus:

&quot;We are the statues and there is a rumour going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ok Ryan, I finally got around to posting this. Sorry it took so long!</p>
<p>This is taken from Mere Christianity by CS Lewis (chapter 23). Here he attempts to explain how Christ was &#8220;begotten, not created.&#8221; He does this by explaining what he sees as the difference:</p>
<p>&#8220;We don&#8217;t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set-or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set : say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.</p>
<p>Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.&#8221;</p>
<p>Therefore, in order to be like God you cannot just be created by Him, but rather begotten by him. Being begotten causes us to be born again. Thus:</p>
<p>&#8220;We are the statues and there is a rumour going round the shop that some of us are some day going to come to life.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30599</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:36:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30599</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KirkCaudle</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30595</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[KirkCaudle]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30595</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[First off, I could have guessed that Jim wrote this lesson even if I had the name covered up at the top. He takes his own advice well, &quot;Be willing to wait quietly for people to begin responding to your question. Don’t yield to the temptation to jump in and answer it.&quot; :)

Secondly, Ryan, CS Lewis gives an interesting definition of &quot;begotten&quot; in Mere Christianity. I do not have the book in front of me at the moment because I am not at home. However, I will try to quote a few lines from him on the subject that you mind find helpful.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off, I could have guessed that Jim wrote this lesson even if I had the name covered up at the top. He takes his own advice well, &#8220;Be willing to wait quietly for people to begin responding to your question. Don’t yield to the temptation to jump in and answer it.&#8221; :)</p>
<p>Secondly, Ryan, CS Lewis gives an interesting definition of &#8220;begotten&#8221; in Mere Christianity. I do not have the book in front of me at the moment because I am not at home. However, I will try to quote a few lines from him on the subject that you mind find helpful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim F.</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30593</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jim F.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30593</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I can&#039;t think of any meaning of the word but &quot;procreated.&quot; Obviously in many scriptural uses the word is used metaphorically, but I assume that the metaphor is essential to the meaning: to be begotten is to be brought into being.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t think of any meaning of the word but &#8220;procreated.&#8221; Obviously in many scriptural uses the word is used metaphorically, but I assume that the metaphor is essential to the meaning: to be begotten is to be brought into being.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://feastuponthewordblog.org/2010/03/07/rs-mp-lesson-5-%e2%80%9cthe-creation%e2%80%9d-gospel-principles-manual/#comment-30585</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ryan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 01:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://feastuponthewordblog.org/?p=1500#comment-30585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m curious about the word &quot;begotten&quot;. From what I can understand... It&#039;s used a couple different ways, depending on the subtext it is used in. How can I distinguish or explain the differences if needed when I give this talk on Sunday?

Jesus is the only &quot;begotten&quot; like it is stated in Moses 1:6, &quot;And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth&quot;

AND

D&amp;C 76:24 it states, &quot;That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God.&quot;

What say ye???]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m curious about the word &#8220;begotten&#8221;. From what I can understand&#8230; It&#8217;s used a couple different ways, depending on the subtext it is used in. How can I distinguish or explain the differences if needed when I give this talk on Sunday?</p>
<p>Jesus is the only &#8220;begotten&#8221; like it is stated in Moses 1:6, &#8220;And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth&#8221;</p>
<p>AND</p>
<p>D&amp;C 76:24 it states, &#8220;That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants are begotten sons and daughters unto God.&#8221;</p>
<p>What say ye???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

