The Trinity?

[whatisthis]

Originally Posted By: o2bwise

I would that you knew Bill AND Tom.

And I advise you not to conclude that Tom is Bill!

I love this explanation!

[o2bwise]

thx!

[Ted Oplinger]

Modalism, pure & simple. Unbiblical!!!

I'm not sure what his doctrine is - whether it is Arian, modalism, or monarchianism. All were deemed unBiblical 200 years before Rome took over Christendom.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

It is my understanding that not knowing the proper number of participants within the plurality of YHWH Elohim does not invalidate nor abrogate any of the Promises within the Covenant He has made for our salvation. I DO know that plural Elohim means at minimum two Eloha participants within Elohim - and the Bible makes very strong cases for a Father participant and a Son participant. It is the Father and Son around whom the Great Controversy swirls, and in particular, the Son.

Agreed

How do we know this, my understanding of scripture is that Elohim is used in reference to single individuals as well as a plurality of gods why in reference to the God: must it be plural? Consider all of Genesis 1 onward, why when we hit Genesis 3:22 does it all of a sudden become plural just because Moses doesn't say who the LORD God is talking to?

Genesis 3:8 "and they heard the voice (singular) of the LORD God (elohim) walking in the garden in the cool of the day:"

Who are we told walked in the garden with Adam?

Note: EX 7: "I have made thee a "elohim" to Pharoah" speaking of Moses. I believe we stretch the use of the language to edify a preconceived idea instead of taking a simple stated phrase as it reads. Are we not warned about this in Revelation & in Deuteronomy.

Quote:

The take home on the history within the SDA church was that EGW never made the Trinity a test of fellowship - as had nearly every Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian congregation before. The Arian was as welcome to worship and fellowship as the Trinitarian. This was in spite of her clear convictions of the Trinity.

Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?

I would ask can two go to war under one banner if not united behind one leader?

Her husband was very vocal about his views, also very defined in what it meant (Trinity) and how it effected our view of divine revelation.

Just a note Ted you are the first I have ever entered into discussion with that viewed E.G.White as having been Trinitarian all along, excepting those that have claimed she changed here view point gradually from 1888 on and especially in DA.

I would certainly agree with one comment you made about PP, it would be a real stretch to find full Trinitarian meaning in the great controversy as it is laid out by her in PP.

Getting late Happy Sabbath

Really appreciate the dialogue!

Enabled,

"Elohim" is the plural form of the Hebrew word "Eloha", meaning "God" (or "god" when speaking of pagan deities).

In every language I've encountered - particularly of the Indo-European language group (to which both Hebrew and Greek belong), plural means just that: more than one. I would consider the singular/plural word associations point valid if Hebrew never used a singular form of the word in Scriptures - but Scripture does refer to 1 Eloha in referencing the Living God. Elohim is plural because it is the plural form of the word.

Moses made it clear the Living God was a plurality, not singularity, when using the word "Elohim". Deuteronomy 6:4 is the great declaration of the mystery of God: YHWH is a plural God, YHWH is one. A plurality which is one.

Consider this: Genesis one refers to God only by the word "Elohim". It is use in the plural form by Moses, because it is the same plural form God doing the creating each and ever day. The conversation this plurality has with itself in verses 26, 27 (as written in the Hebrew) is firm indication Elohim is indeed plural.

What Moses communicated is what I posted earlier in this thread: YHWH Elohim YHWH one is a plural Deity which is ONE - a plurality which speaks with one voice, acts with one accord, and wills with one will. To emphasize that, Moses used singular forms of the verbs to describe this unity of YHWH Elohim.

So...who was it who walked with Adam in the cool of the days? YHWH Elohim. The same YHWH Elohim Moses declared YHWH one. It's not that Moses didn't know which "one" was doing the action; I just consider it a valid point that YHWH Elohim who is the "God is agape" of 1 John 4:8 would ALL want to walk with Adam. It's not a "which" to me, Enabled; it's an "all".

In Exodus 7, Moses was not lifted to Deity status. God must be making a different statement here. Considering Pharoah deemed himself a god on earth...God working His power through Moses would have be the equivalent of making Moses a higher "god" than Pharoah claimed (humanly speaking, of course). In truth, who the "Pharoah god" pitted his will against was the YHWH Elohim in Moses.

As for the division...Christianity was indeed united on the Trinity coming out of Apostolic tradition. All of the various arguings over the nature of Christ came in after the Trinity was already settled into the church. Mithraism was the first attempt by Satan to attack the church using a monotheistic pagan god. Docetism, Gnosticism, and Subordinationism were next. Subordinationism paved the way for monarchainism, modalism, and Arianism. Arianism was the first form of Christianity to use the power of the state to persecute its enemies.

History is clear that each of these "isms" came in after the Apostolic period. Every single one of these "isms" is an attack on one point, and one point only: the nature of Christ. The only object of these "isms" is to break up in the Christian mind Christ was full Divine in His own right, and was fully human at the same time. Perhaps since Satan could not get Christ to doubt His relation to the Father (Matthew 3:17-4:4), he would in turn cause as many within the body of Christ to doubt that relationship as possible.

With regards to my statement about PP - you distinctly misunderstood me. In those scenes where she depicts the rebellion in heaven, and the need for the plan of salvation for man, Christ is portrayed as a unique member of Deity, not a mere blob extension of the Father. One cannot come away with the idea EGW was Arian, based upon her writings, for she wrote of Christ in a decidedly non-Arian way - regardless of what her husband's views were.

Blessings,

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite

You answered: "One Elohim called YHWH"

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the living God, taught that there is only one true God who is one person who is his Father. See John 17:3

Here is Jn 17:3, ESV | ýJn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God AND Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Jesus has this to say in John 17:5 - "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was."

The "only true God" and "Jesus Christ" shared glory together before the world was. That makes Jesus equal with God - and fully God.

Christ being anything but Deity makes this a blasphemous statement, as He is clearly not giving all the glory to the Father, but asking it to be shared with Him in a pre-existent manner.

Blessings,

[John317]

Quote:

Of course. Christ is the eternal, self-existent, omnipotent Son of God.

If he's "self-existent" he's nobody's son. Otherwise the "Son of God" characterization is inappropriate. And it's been used so frequently.

You are exactly right that if the pre-existent Christ was "self-existent," then He could not have been anyone's literal "son"-- that is, speaking of the word of God as referred to in John 1: 1.

But then the Bible does not teach that the pre-incarnate Son was a literal son of anyone.

Christ's being "the eternal Son of God" does not mean that He was a literal son. "The Son of"= the order of. IOW, Christ is just like God the Father. Christ was the Son of God in the sense that He was the perfect image of the Father's essence or person, and that Christ had a loving relationship with the Father much like the loving relationships between earthly fathers and sons.

However, when Christ was conceived as a human within Mary's womb, the Father became Christ's literal "Daddy" and Christ became the literal Son of God.

Ellen White herself says that when Christ was born as a baby, He became "the Son of God in a new sense." When God became a man, He developed a human personality, something that God did not have before. He continues to have that same human personality today, and so He is truly our elder Brother. We have an elder brother on the throne of God in heaven right now. He is one of us, genuinely and altogether human, yet He is God.

[John317]

It is my personal belief that the confession that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God is foundational. Furthermore, that the truth of the Godhead fully endorses what would be the most apparent, literal meaning of the above.

How are you understanding and defining the word "begotten"?

What's the signifance of the Greek noun, monogenes?

Jesus Christ is unquestionably the one and only Son of God-- that is, the unique Son of God.

Where does either the Bible or the SoP teach that the "eternal, self-existent Son" had a beginning?

Notice this very clear statement by Ellen G. White, and please notice how she defines "Godhead"--

Quote:

The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave Themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption. In order fully to carry out this plan, it was decided that Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, should give Himself an offering for sin. What line can measure the depth of this love? God would make it impossible for man to say that He could have done more. With Christ He gave all the resources of heaven, that nothing might be wanting in the plan for man's uplifting. {CH 222}

And this:

Quote:

Here is where the work of the Holy Ghost comes in, after your baptism. You are baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. You are raised up out of the water to live henceforth in newness of life--to live a new life. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. You are to reveal that you are dead to sin; your life is hid with Christ in God. Hidden "with Christ in God,"--wonderful transformation. This is a most precious promise. When I feel oppressed, and hardly know how to relate myself toward the work that God has given me to do, I just call upon the three great Worthies, and say; You know I cannot do this work in my own strength. You must work in me, and by me and through me, sanctifying my tongue, sanctifying my spirit, sanctifying my words, and bringing me into a position where my spirit shall be susceptible to the movings of the Holy Spirit of God upon my mind and character. {7MR 267.2}

And this is the prayer that every one of us may offer. . . . {7MR 267,8}

QUESTION: How can anyone who understands the above statements-- and many more like them-- believe that Ellen White was anti-Trinitarian?

[epaminondas]

I have also been studying the same subject for several decades off & on. I am convinced that the Bible speaks of 3 persons who are one.

What about a quoting a clear passage unambiguously stating that?

[epaminondas]

Quote:

How are you understanding and defining the word "begotten"?

That's a good question. Obviously, the root word is "beget."

Dictionary.com says:

Quote:

be·get

/bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled [bih-get] Show IPA

verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.

1.(especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).

2.to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

Synonyms

1. spawn, sire, breed, father. 2. occasion, engender, effect, generate.

The World English Dictionary says:

Quote:

beget (bɪˈɡɛt) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— vb , -gets , -getting , -got , -gat , -gotten , -got

1. to father

2. to cause or create

Clearly, it's impossible to 'beget' anything already existing. Although, in the trinitarian world that is exactly what it means:

Quote:

beget (bɪˈɡɛt)

to be in some weird and wonderful way responsible for the existence of something already existing

To find out what a word means, go to the dictionary.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I have also been studying the same subject for several decades off & on. I am convinced that the Bible speaks of 3 persons who are one.

What about a quoting a clear passage unambiguously stating that?

Shall we go over the passages that have been hashed and rehashed all over again? The problem is, when one does not believe a passage clearly says, it is then deemed as ambiguous.

[Gerr]

I have already answered that question. Jesus was "begotten" when He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was "begotten" when He was baptized. He was "begotten" when He was resurrected. He was "begotten" when He became High Priest.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

The Bible clearly speaks of a Father, Son, & a Holy Spirit who are all called "God", and yet are one.

The word theos in Greek translated god and God can also refer to idols and is used as such in the New Testament. Quote a passage saying what you assert.

Quote:

You stumble over 1+1+1=1, yet you have no problem with 1+1=1, or 1+1+1+1+1+1 to the nth power = 1!!!

What nonsense. Of course I have a problem with 1 + 1 = 1. 1 + 1 = 2.

And I also have a problem with 1+1+1+1+1+1 to the nth power = 1. First, 1+1+1+1+1+1 = 6. 6 to the 2nd power is 36, to the 3rd power is 216, and so on.

I'm not angry at you. Rather I pity you. I don't know your circumstances. Clearly, for whatever reason, your number skills are extremely rudimentary. Do not put yourself in a place where your mistakes are so obvious. Silence is golden.

As an aside, two songs with the same name, Silence is golden, by two different groups, were at the same time in the sixties hits in many countries. This is the only time I know of this has happened.

[epaminondas]

I have already answered that question. Jesus was "begotten" when He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was "begotten" when He was baptized. He was "begotten" when He was resurrected. He was "begotten" when He became High Priest.

My, seems to me "begotten" can mean many things. What a handy word. One can use it to make almost any point.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Shall we go over the passages that have been hashed and rehashed all over again? The problem is, when one does not believe a passage clearly says, it is then deemed as ambiguous.

I'm talking about clear passages here. In case anyone has quoted any clear passages in favour of the trinity I must have missed them. Just humour me and quote them again.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

Where does either the Bible or the SoP teach that the "eternal, self-existent Son" had a beginning?

You're not going to like this.

As you can see, "creation" is genitive, indicating something belongs to it. The only candidate for this something is protokos, firstborn. Therefore, firstborn of all creation, and "of" in the sense of belonging to. It maybe the first or the most important or both, but it is still belonging to all creation.

This is much clearer and more straightforward than all trinitarian arguments.

[BobRyan]

"Before Abraham was -- I AM" John 8.

Jesus is said to exist "from all eternity" past - without end "from everlasting to everlasting" in the same sense as it can be said of YHWH according to the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

The word theos in Greek translated god and God can also refer to idols and is used as such in the New Testament. Quote a passage saying what you assert.

Quote:

You stumble over 1+1+1=1, yet you have no problem with 1+1=1, or 1+1+1+1+1+1 to the nth power = 1!!!

What nonsense. Of course I have a problem with 1 + 1 = 1. 1 + 1 = 2.

Oh, you don't have a problem with 1+1 = 2?

ESV | ýMk 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ý8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Or 1+1+1+1+1 etc. = 1?

ESV Jn 17:21 "...that they may be one even as we are one,"

But have a problem with 1+1+1 = 1?

[o2bwise]

Hi,

Quote:

How are you understanding and defining the word "begotten"?

In a manner compatible with it being used in connection with Christ's Sonship to His Father. Literally born.

Quote:

What's the signifance of the Greek noun, monogenes?

Can it refer to "only" or "unique?" If so and should Christ be begotten of God, He'd be the only one, wouldn't He? I mean...that certainly qualifies as compatible with monogenes, does it not?

Quote:

Where does either the Bible or the SoP teach that the "eternal, self-existent Son" had a beginning?

Where is it taught that He did not have a beginning?

I believe it is implied by Christ being referred to as God's Son.

Quote:

Notice this very clear statement by Ellen G. White, and please notice how she defines "Godhead"--

If that quote is all I had to go on, I suppose I would be tritheist. I still wouldn't be trinitarian as trinitarianism states that the Son does not have independent consciousness and is perpetually begotten of the Father.

By the way, do you endorse the trinitarian view of what it means for the Son to be begotten?

Blessings,

o2

[o2bwise]

Quote:

My, seems to me "begotten" can mean many things. What a handy word. One can use it to make almost any point.

Well, the words around the word likely lend a hand. Such as:

only begotten Son of God.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

I have already answered that question. Jesus was "begotten" when He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. He was "begotten" when He was baptized. He was "begotten" when He was resurrected. He was "begotten" when He became High Priest.

My, seems to me "begotten" can mean many things. What a handy word. One can use it to make almost any point.

1. ESV | ýHeb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, ý2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. ý3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ý4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. ý5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?

2. ESV | ýHeb 5:5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”;

3. In his spiritual, holy nature he was declared the Son of God. This was shown in a powerful way when he came back to life.

GOD'S WORD Translation. 1995 (Ro 1:4). Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group.

4. ESV | ýMt 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

5. ESV | ýMt 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; ý17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

[o2bwise]

Hi Gerry,

Quote:

Oh, you don't have a problem with 1+1 = 2?

ESV | ýMk 10:7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, ý8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.

Or 1+1+1+1+1 etc. = 1?

ESV Jn 17:21 "...that they may be one even as we are one,"

But have a problem with 1+1+1 = 1?

Strong words, but the above is a fallacy.

Just because we can see specific cases where 1+1=1, it is not rational to conclude that this is always so. As an example, one might say, "Adult elephants are not little!" A person may respond, "But, flies are little. Do you have a problem with things being little?"

Of course, the correct answer is that there is no problem with the idea that SOME things are little. But, there is a HUGE problem with the notion that since SOME things are little, we must conclude it is OK to understand that ALL things are little.

This is sheer 100% fallacy and this is the fallacy you used in order to (seemingly) fashion an argument.

You also resorted to a fallacy when you said the three are one elohim. The reason being, there is a complete lack of QUALIFICATION of the thing you declare to be ONE. What is an elohim?

With that lack of qualification is perfect emptiness, hence nothing is really being said.

And so we must drill down and elaborate for this specific example. Just like one ought do with adult elephants before being confident that they are little since flies are little.

Oneness is associated with the number of conscious existences we are talking about. Now, I am gonna leave the Holy Spirit out of this part, but doing so will not cause my point to be missed (I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a person, but an influence).

If oneness is equated to "number of conscious existences," then the term "ONE GOD" is understood by many to pack the punch to require that we are referring to one conscious existence.

Most Christians see Father and Son as TWO distinct conscious existences and so we have:

1 conscious existence of the Father

-plus-

1 other conscious existence of the Son

-equals-

2 conscious existences

But, when one says 1+1 = 1

and if we are careful to associate the numbers with conscious existences, we have:

1 conscious existence of the Father

-plus-

1 other conscious existence of the Son

-equals-

1 conscious existence, which is God.

And so, the problem is that not all things are little! If you catch my drift.

The trinitarian position wrestled with this by asserting that the Son does not have independent consciousness.

The trinity is not a mystery. What is called a mystery is really quite simple. Even though we are told the Godhead can be understood by the things that are made (Romans 1) and even though we can look at this existence and understand that each and every being has its own singleness of conscious existence...

When it comes to God, we're just not gonna worry about that. We'll shove two (or three, whatever) and call it ONE even though the ONLY MEANING with respect to ONE is "one single conscious existence" never mind that Father and Son make up two.

So, we'll just obscure things with rhetoric and sometime referrals to "the mystery of the trinity."

Blessings,

o2

[o2bwise]

Hi Gerry,

Quote:

Jesus was "begotten" when He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

OK, for this example, begotten of whom?

Galatians 4 says that Christ was "born of a woman."

A foundational criteria is to look at the nature Christ acquired by virtue of the event.

At the incarnation, did Christ acquire a human nature or a divine nature? Clearly, a human one.

If one is begotten of a dog, one is a dog. If one is begotten of a cat, one is a cat. And so to be consistent, if you refer to a related event and see that the result of the event is the acquisition of a human nature...

It follows that with respect to that event, Jesus was begotten of a woman and Galatians 4 says just that, "born of a woman."

Jesus was begotten of God in such a way that a natural result of that event was His acquisition of God's nature (and not man's).

o2

[Ted Oplinger]

Quote:

You stumble over 1+1+1=1, yet you have no problem with 1+1=1, or 1+1+1+1+1+1 to the nth power = 1!!!

What nonsense. Of course I have a problem with 1 + 1 = 1. 1 + 1 = 2.

And I also have a problem with 1+1+1+1+1+1 to the nth power = 1. First, 1+1+1+1+1+1 = 6. 6 to the 2nd power is 36, to the 3rd power is 216, and so on.

I'm not angry at you. Rather I pity you. I don't know your circumstances. Clearly, for whatever reason, your number skills are extremely rudimentary. Do not put yourself in a place where your mistakes are so obvious.

No, Gerry raises a valid point.

You had no problem defining marriage (Genesis 2:24) as 1+1 = 1. Now, God is a liar for declaring 1 man + 1 wife one flesh?

You likewise had demonstrated no problem defining the redeemed of Christ (John 17:28, 29) as 1+1+1+...n...+1 = 1. Now, Christ is lying in proposing the Redeemed of all the ages, comprised of millions upon millions of individual taken together and made one?

Now you want addition to work like it is supposed to?

God isn't talking of sets, congruences, and intersections - it is the very same language of one used to describe God that describes marriage and the church body - a one-ness. To be consistent, whatever you would have to apply to the marriage and to the body of the redeemed would also apply to God - which you have demonstrated a rather hostile aversion to.

No, epaminondas, it would be you with the rudimentary number skills and understanding. You appear very much like one who treats the algebra equation y=mx+b as y=m+x+b. Likewise, you want to insert an addition model where the exponential fits the observations precisely.

The exponential goes thus:

Marriage: 1*1 = 1

God: 1*1*1 = 1

Body of Christ: 1*1*1*...n!....*1*1 = 1

It is not 1+1+1. It is 1*1*1. And 1 raised infinitely to whatever power is always 1. You asked me earlier to defend your silly addition model proposition. I didn't respond nor defend, as I don't regard it as a valid mathematical model for this issue.

The exponential rule better fits what I observe, and it is also just as good math as your beloved addition rule.

Is this how you would pursue data management in any other field - taking known observations and placing them into a poor modelling construct to achieve the answer you wish, instead of the answer that best fits the observations?

You can use whatever you wish...and you can continue to pity those who don't subscribe to your perspective.

Blessings,

[Gerr]

I'm not angry at you. Rather I pity you. I don't know your circumstances. Clearly, for whatever reason, your number skills are extremely rudimentary. Do not put yourself in a place where your mistakes are so obvious. Silence is golden.

As an aside, two songs with the same name, Silence is golden, by two different groups, were at the same time in the sixties hits in many countries. This is the only time I know of this has happened.

Yeah, I've never been a math whiz. It was my weakest subject. But just because I'm dumb in math doesn't make me a doofus in eveerything else.

BTW, I'd rather have someone angry at me than have a condescending jerk for a friend.

[Gerr]

Hi Gerry,

Quote:

Jesus was "begotten" when He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.

OK, for this example, begotten of whom?

Galatians 4 says that Christ was "born of a woman."

A foundational criteria is to look at the nature Christ acquired by virtue of the event.

At the incarnation, did Christ acquire a human nature or a divine nature? Clearly, a human one.

If one is begotten of a dog, one is a dog. If one is begotten of a cat, one is a cat. And so to be consistent, if you refer to a related event and see that the result of the event is the acquisition of a human nature...

It follows that with respect to that event, Jesus was begotten of a woman and Galatians 4 says just that, "born of a woman."

Jesus was begotten of God in such a way that a natural result of that event was His acquisition of God's nature (and not man's).

o2

KJV 1900 | ýMt 1:1 THE book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. ý2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; ý3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; ý4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; ý5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; ý6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; ý7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; ý8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; ý9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; ý10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; ý11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: ý12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; ý13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; ý14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; ý15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; ý16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Do you see anything there or anywhere where Scripture says, "Mary begat Jesus?"

Begat (gennao) and born (ginomai) are two different words.