Unique, Not Only-Begotten

[SolaScriptura]

Monogenēs

Does this word mean “begetting” in any way, as some would argue?

Commentaries, like the Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, say of “monogenēs”, “It refers to His eternal generation from the Father”, on John 1:14. The words used in this verse by John, “monogenous para patros”, literally means, “the only One from the side of the Father”. Or “with the Father”. In John 1:1, a similar Greek preposition, “prós”, is used, with the same meaning as in verse 14. If we are to understand “generation”, then we would expect the correct Greek preposition to have been used, which is “ex (ek)” to have been used (monogenous ex patros).

If the Bible wanted to show that Jesus Christ is the “only begotten”, from God the Father, then we should see the correct Greek word used for this, which is, “monogennētos”. This is never used.

The early Church Creeds use language that is not from what the 66 Books of the Holy Bible Teaches, but, rather based on the theology of the time.

For example, when the Nicene Creed (AD 325), and others, use language like, “τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων”, “the One begotten out of the Father before all ages”, and “Φῶς ἐκ Φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ”, Light out of Light”, “True God out of True God”. This is clearly teaching a subordination in the Eternal Godhead, between the Father, Who is seen as “Fons Deitatis”, which is, “the source of Divinity”; and the use of the Greek preposition, “ἐκ”, is also for the purpose of showing that the Father alone is absolute God, and Jesus Christ is “God” in the sense that His Deity is “derived” from the Father. This is utter blasphemy! There is not a single hint in the entire Bible, to even suggest that the Father is in any way “primary” in the Godhead, and “greater” than Jesus Christ. Only during the Incarnation, Jesus Christ “humbled Himself”, as the God-Man, at which time He was “subordinate” to the Father; though completely coequal as Almighty God.

It is important to know, that the Nicene Creed, is based on the “creed” the Caesarean Creed of Eusebius, the historian, who was very much sympatric to the arch heretic, Arius! For the sake of compromise, and a fake “unity”, the Orthodox Church allowed this heretical “creed’s” language to be included in the Nicene Creed.

In 381 AD, we have the Creed of Constantinople, which focused on the Person of the Holy Spirit, especially to His Deity. In this Creed, there is a phrase on the Holy Spirit, “τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον”, “Who proceeds from the Father”. This is meant to be from Jesus’ own words in John 15:26. However, Jesus words are: “ὃ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται”. Note the preposition that Jesus uses, “παρὰ”, which means, “from beside” the Father. This “Creed” has perverted the words of Jesus Christ, by changing this to, “ἐκ”, to show that the Holy Spirit is “derived” from the substance of the Father, and is therefore “subordinate” to Him in the Eternal Godhead!

Biblically and theologically, if at any time, God the Father did “beget”, or “generate” the Son, in the Godhead, in eternity past, then there is no way that Jesus Christ can be GOD, and must be a created person. Nor can Jesus Christ ever be equal with the Father, as the teaching of “eternal generation”, is that the Father is the “source” of the Son, and therefore is alone God in the fullest sense of the word. This is totally against the very clear Teachings in the 66 Books of the Holy Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, where Jesus Christ is YHWH, and 100% COEQUAL with the Father and Holy Spirit in the Eternal Godhead.

The Greek adjective, “monogenēs”, is used 9 times in the entire New Testament, Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38; John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9. Out of these, only in the Writings of the Apostle John, is it used for Jesus Christ.

In the 3 passages in Luke, “monogenēs” is used for any “only” child. The verse in Hebrews is used for Isaac, a son of Abraham, where Versions like the King James, wrongly read, “only begotten”. Isaac is the second born son to Abraham, Ishmael was the Firstborn son.

In the Greek Old Testament, known as the Septuagint Version (LXX), “monogenēs”, is only used 4 times to translate the Hebrew word, “yâchîyd”. In Judges 11:34, the King James has “only”. In Psalms 22:20 and 35:17, it reads, “my darling”. In Psalm 25:16, it reads, “desolate”. Not once does the King James read, “only Begotten”. “yâchîyd”, is used only 12 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, Genesis 22:2, 12, 16; Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:20, 25:16, 35:17, 68:6; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10, and Zechariah 12:10. In these instances, the King James uses words like, “darling, desolate, only, solitary”, but never, “begotten”. In the passage in Genesis 22, when used for Isaac, the King James has, “only”, in each place. So, why did they translate the Greek “monogenēs, in Hebrews 11:17, which refers to this passage in Genesis, by, “only begotten”?

For the sake of word usage, the Apocryphal Old Testament, from the Greek, which was included in the 1611, King James Version, between the Two Testaments, “monogenēs, is used at least 6 times. In this edition of the King James, it uses, “only, one only, only begotten, alone desolate”. The one place that it has, “only begotten”, Tobit 8:17, “only” would have sufficed, as in the NRSV, “Blessed are you because you had compassion on two only children”

In the 3 places in Luke’s Gospel, the King James reads, “only”. In the other places, it reads, “only begotten”. The reference in Hebrews, is Isaac, who was the second son of Abraham, who has 12 sons. So, it is incorrect that “monogenēs” is translated as “only begotten” here, because Isaac was not the only child of Abraham.

In the Old Latin New Testament, “monogenēs”, is translated by, “unicus”, from where we get the English, “inique”. In the 4th century, when the scholar Jerome produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the Latin, “unigenitus”, which answers to the Greek, “monogennētos”.

In Bible translations like the King James, and some of the older ones, translate “monogenēs”, only when used for Jesus Christ, as “only begotten”. In the other instances it is usually, “only”, with a few exceptions.

On the meaning of “monogenēs”, we have:

"the only member of am kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, unique" (H G Liddell and R Scott; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.1144. Revised Edition)

"Lit. it means 'of a single kind', and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem.25.2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of 'only begotten' goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made" (Colin Brown, Ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. II, p. 725)

"Single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters...used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren" (J H Thayer; Greek-English Lexicon, p.417)

"only...Also unique (in kind) of someth. that it the only example of its category...'unique and alone'" (W F Ardnt and F W Gingrich; A Greek-English Lexicon, p.529)

"The Usage outside the NT. In compounds with genēs, adverbs describe the nature rather than the source of derivation. Hence monogenēs is used for the only child. More generally it means “unique” or “incomparable.” The LXX has the first sense in Judg. 11:34 and the second in Ps. 22:20. agapētós occurs in Gen. 22:2, 12 where monogenḗs might have been used (cf. Mk. 1:11), but while the only child may be “beloved,” the terms are not synonymous." (G Kittel and G Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 607. single vol ed)

“Μονογενής means only, one of a kind, unique (derived from μόνος and γένος). This basic meaning is found in Plato Ti. 92c (of the heaven: εἷς οὐρανὸς ὅδε μονογενής); Wis 7:22 (of the Spirit of Wisdom); Cornutus Theologia Graeca 27 [49:13] (of this one and only world: εἷς καὶ μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος; likewise Plutarch Moralia 423a); 1 Clem. 25:2 (of the phoenix).

(Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament)

For the Lord Jesus Christ, the definitions given by Kittel, “unique” or “incomparable”, are the best.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Cont...

In John’s Gospel, the very first verse clearly teaches the Eternity of Jesus Christ, “en archēi ēn ho logos”, “in the beginning was the Word”. This “beginning” is not Genesis 1:1, which is the Creation of the Universe, as this is in John 1:3. This is eternity past, as seen in the words of Jesus in John 17:5, “Now, Father, Glorify Me in Your presence with that glory I had with You before the world existed”. For those who doubt the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ, and His coequality with the Father, this one verse should remove any doubts. Jesus says that He had the SAME Glory that the Father has, which they have JOINTLY, since Eternity past! No one who is not Himself YHWH, can ever utter these words.

Back to John 1:1, we then read, “ho logos pros ton theon”, “the Word was in the presence of God the Father”, which shows their distinction as Persons. And then John goes on to say, “kai theos ēn ho logos”. There are some who totally misunderstand what John writes here. Had John written, “ho theos ēn ho logos”, then John would have meant by the repeated Greek article, “ho”, that “The Word” is “all of God”, and no one else, as the two terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. However, in the previous sentence, John as already show the distinction between “the Word” and “the God”. The use of “theos”, here without the article, is for the purpose of showing, WHO “the Word” is, that He is also GOD.

In verse 14, John goes on to say, that this “Word”, Who is “Almighty God”, as the Father, “became flesh”, at the Incarnation, through the Virgin Mary.

In verse 18, the original reading has, “theon oudeis heōraken pōpote ho monogenēs theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekinos exēgēsato”. Literally, “God no one has ever seen, the Unique God Who is forever in close relation with the Father, He has revealed”.

In this verse, which has the oldest and best textual support for “ho monogenēs theos”, shows the UNIQUENESS of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Eternally Almighty God, and Coequal with the Father, becomes Incarnate, as The God-Man, fully God and fully Man, except for sin, as before the Fall. As the Apostle Paul writes, "God was manifested in the flesh", as in the Original.

This verse also shows, against the heresy of “Unitarianism”, that there are TWO distinct Persons, Who are both called GOD. Note, that neither case is the definite Greek article used (theon, theos), which focuses on the Essential Deity of the Father and Jesus Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

Cont...

In John’s Gospel, the very first verse clearly teaches the Eternity of Jesus Christ, “en archēi ēn ho logos”, “in the beginning was the Word”. This “beginning” is not Genesis 1:1, which is the Creation of the Universe, as this is in John 1:3. This is eternity past, as seen in the words of Jesus in John 17:5, “Now, Father, Glorify Me in Your presence with that glory I had with You before the world existed”. For those who doubt the absolute Deity of Jesus Christ, and His coequality with the Father, this one verse should remove any doubts. Jesus says that He had the SAME Glory that the Father has, which they have JOINTLY, since Eternity past! No one who is not Himself YHWH, can ever utter these words.

Back to John 1:1, we then read, “ho logos pros ton theon”, “the Word was in the presence of God the Father”, which shows their distinction as Persons. And then John goes on to say, “kai theos ēn ho logos”. There are some who totally misunderstand what John writes here. Had John written, “ho theos ēn ho logos”, then John would have meant by the repeated Greek article, “ho”, that “The Word” is “all of God”, and no one else, as the two terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. However, in the previous sentence, John as already show the distinction between “the Word” and “the God”. The use of “theos”, here without the article, is for the purpose of showing, WHO “the Word” is, that He is also GOD.

In verse 14, John goes on to say, that this “Word”, Who is “Almighty God”, as the Father, “became flesh”, at the Incarnation, through the Virgin Mary.

In verse 18, the original reading has, “theon oudeis heōraken pōpote ho monogenēs theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekinos exēgēsato”. Literally, “God no one has ever seen, the Unique God Who is forever in close relation with the Father, He has revealed”.

In this verse, which has the oldest and best textual support for “ho monogenēs theos”, shows the UNIQUENESS of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Eternally Almighty God, and Coequal with the Father, becomes Incarnate, as The God-Man, fully God and fully Man, except for sin, as before the Fall. As the Apostle Paul writes, "God was manifested in the flesh", as in the Original.

This verse also shows, against the heresy of “Unitarianism”, that there are TWO distinct Persons, Who are both called GOD. Note, that neither case is the definite Greek article used (theon, theos), which focuses on the Essential Deity of the Father and Jesus Christ.

Hi SS
You've hit on one of my pet peeves in the language of the Christian faith.
The word BEGOTTEN.
Many times I've wished that word was not used.
Your post is very scholarly and I just hope it's not too long - it may lose some members/posters.
I like very much how you went through the history of the councils of 325 and 381, I can't remember if you mentioned the one of 430 or so which stated that the correct wording was in 325, Nicea.

One question: (I admit I didn't read every word)...
Could you please explain your last sentence?
What about the Holy Spirit as God?

This verse also shows, against the heresy of “Unitarianism”, that there are TWO distinct Persons, Who are both called GOD. Note, that neither case is the definite Greek article used (theon, theos), which focuses on the Essential Deity of the Father and Jesus Christ.

Thanks.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi SS
You've hit on one of my pet peeves in the language of the Christian faith.
The word BEGOTTEN.
Many times I've wished that word was not used.
Your post is very scholarly and I just hope it's not too long - it may lose some members/posters.
I like very much how you went through the history of the councils of 325 and 381, I can't remember if you mentioned the one of 430 or so which stated that the correct wording was in 325, Nicea.

One question: (I admit I didn't read every word)...
Could you please explain your last sentence?
What about the Holy Spirit as God?

This verse also shows, against the heresy of “Unitarianism”, that there are TWO distinct Persons, Who are both called GOD. Note, that neither case is the definite Greek article used (theon, theos), which focuses on the Essential Deity of the Father and Jesus Christ.

Thanks.

Hi Thanks. I fully believe that the Bible teaches in both the Old and New Testaments, that the Holy Spirit is Almighty God, as much as Jesus Christ and the Father.

In the Eternal Godhead there is no "primary" Person, the Three are Coequal, Coeternal and Coessential. Just because the Father is said to have "Sent" Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, this does not make Him "primary". I believe that this language is used to show that the Persons are very much distinct from each other, as the "sender" cannot be the same Person as the "sent". In Zechariah, chapter 2, verses 6-12, we have the Speaker Who is Yahweh, and He says that another, Who is also Yahweh, has "sent" Him. Both are here as "Yahweh", no difference in Who they are.

I just referred to the 2 Councils, though there are others that also used language that is totally unbiblical, mainly for the purpose of countering the present day heresies on the Trinity, etc

 

[donadams]

What about roles, a husband and wife are equal but have different roles, and the husband is head, just as a son is subordinate to his father!

There was an Orthodox Church in the 4th century?

And scripture that supports sola scriptura?

Thanks

Unity of Christian faith includes the trinity and the divinity of Christ!

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

2 cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

The most holy trinity is a sacred mystery!

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Dogma (thee faith revealed by Christ and taught by Holy mother church)

3. The nature of God is incomprehensible to man:

34. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three
Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.

41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

 

[SolaScriptura]

What about roles, a husband and wife are equal but have different roles, and the husband is head, just as a son is subordinate to his father!

There was an Orthodox Church in the 4th century?

And scripture that supports sola scriptura?

Thanks

Unity of Christian faith includes the trinity and the divinity of Christ!

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

2 cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

The most holy trinity is a sacred mystery!

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Dogma (thee faith revealed by Christ and taught by Holy mother church)

3. The nature of God is incomprehensible to man:

34. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three
Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.

41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

You cannot use human relationships to compare with the Persons in the Eternal Godhead. As far as what we know from what the Bible teaches, there is One Godhead, or Divine Nature, as Paul says in Romans 1:20, where he uses the Greek noun, "θειότης", which is defined as "divine nature" by the Greek Lexicons of Liddell and Scott; J H Thayer; Abbott-Smith, etc. Within this Divine Nature, there are Three distinct, equal Persons, Who are YHWH, Almighty God. In the Old Testament, there is no mention of God the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus in the Old Testament is very much coequal with the Father, Who is also YHWH. The Holy Spirit is also called YHWH, and The Creator, and Led the Israelites out of Egypt, etc.

The "Orthodox" Church in the 4th century, and earlier, is not the same as the denomination that calls themselves "Orthodox", like the Greek and Russian. There were many of the Christian leaders in the early Church, who were very much Bible-based, though their "theology" was not always "Biblical"

The Three "Persons" in the Godhead, are not the same. the Father is never the Son, or the Holy Spirit. the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons, Who are One in the Divine Nature. A good verse is John 10:30, where Jesus says, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", which is literally, "I and the Father One thing We Are". The "One" here is the neuter "ἕν", "One Nature", and not the masculine, "εἷς", which would mean, "One Person". The use of the plural, "ἐσμεν", is not simply "are", but, "We are". Jesus has just said in the verses before, that "neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (verse 28), and "no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand" (29). This shows the absolute coequality of Jesus with the Father, as their Power, Protection, Assurance, is one and the same. In Deuteronomy 32:39, we read, "‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded, and it is I who heal; And there is no one who can deliver from My hand". And, Isaiah 43:13, "“Even from eternity I am He, And there is no one who can rescue from My hand; I act, and who can reverse it?”. Clearly Jesus means in John 10:30, that He and the Father, are equally Almighty God

 

[Vinny37]

Monogenēs

Does this word mean “begetting” in any way, as some would argue?

Permit me to touch on but a few of your points, by sketching a few of mine.

As a trinitarian, my approach is to speak of God the father, God the son, and God the spirit, as noncarnate persons. I think that C S Lewis made a reasonable case that the father generates eternally the son (as coterminous imager to image), and that the spirit is generated between them eternally as full person-hood, beyond time/space. I deem deity to be, the eternal being, the eternal society, of three persons (not masks/modes). I take θεος to have its primary meaning as the father, although like the term adam can bear an individual or a corporate meaning, according to context. Thus there are deity texts vis-à-vis God’s son.

As regards the son, there was never a time when he was not. As regards Jesus, there was a time when he was not. We should not confuse Jesus, with God the son noncarnate—Jesus lacks the omnis. Jesus is neither God, nor God the son, but is God-the-son-incarnate, deific and human, an outraying of the son as the son noncarnate is an/the (?) outraying of the father. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated second person of deity, and rejecting Adoptionism I speak of his deificity, though rejecting Apollinarianism I speak of his common miracles as, like ours, being based on the spirit. The Creeds made reasonable attempts to systematise the biblical data—I like ὁμοουσια—but are not primary canon.

Re. translation, I agree that ‘begotten’ is a dubious way to put μονογενης, with Jerome watching the Creeds instead of watching John—unique, sui generis, or one-of-a-kind, would be more precise. On Jhn.1:18, begotten is indeed a terrible word to link to deity, suggesting a begotten deity. There are no types of deity: the NRSV does it reasonable justice.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Permit me to touch on but a few of your points, by sketching a few of mine.

As a trinitarian, my approach is to speak of God the father, God the son, and God the spirit, as noncarnate persons. I think that C S Lewis made a reasonable case that the father generates eternally the son (as coterminous imager to image), and that the spirit is generated between them eternally as full person-hood, beyond time/space. I deem deity to be, the eternal being, the eternal society, of three persons (not masks/modes). I take θεος to have its primary meaning as the father, although like the term adam can bear an individual or a corporate meaning, according to context. Thus there are deity texts vis-à-vis God’s son.

As regards the son, there was never a time when he was not. As regards Jesus, there was a time when he was not. We should not confuse Jesus, with God the son noncarnate—Jesus lacks the omnis. Jesus is neither God, nor God the son, but is God-the-son-incarnate, deific and human, an outraying of the son as the son noncarnate is an/the (?) outraying of the father. Jesus is the permanent temporal mode of the uncreated second person of deity, and rejecting Adoptionism I speak of his deificity, though rejecting Apollinarianism I speak of his common miracles as, like ours, being based on the spirit. The Creeds made reasonable attempts to systematise the biblical data—I like ὁμοουσια—but are not primary canon.

Re. translation, I agree that ‘begotten’ is a dubious way to put μονογενης, with Jerome watching the Creeds instead of watching John—unique, sui generis, or one-of-a-kind, would be more precise. On Jhn.1:18, begotten is indeed a terrible word to link to deity, suggesting a begotten deity. There are no types of deity: the NRSV does it reasonable justice.

The Bible is clear that The Father is YHWH. Jesus Christ is YHWH. The Holy Spirit is YHWH

In the Eternal Godhead none of the Persons are "greater" than the other, as they are 100% coequal as Almighty God.

When John writes, "καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", (1:1) he means that there are Two distinct Persons Who are 100% equally GOD

This is clear in the Original reading of verse 18, "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς", which says the same as verse 1, that there are Two distinct Persons Who are equally GOD.

Lewis, and those who hold the view of the Father eternally "generating" the Son, have fallen into grave, unbiblical heresy.

 

[Vinny37]

The Bible is clear that The Father is YHWH. Jesus Christ is YHWH. The Holy Spirit is YHWH

In the Eternal Godhead none of the Persons are "greater" than the other, as they are 100% coequal as Almighty God.

When John writes, "καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", (1:1) he means that there are Two distinct Persons Who are 100% equally GOD

This is clear in the Original reading of verse 18, "Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς Θεὸς", which says the same as verse 1, that there are Two distinct Persons Who are equally GOD.

Lewis, and those who hold the view of the Father eternally "generating" the Son, have fallen into grave, unbiblical heresy.

Short reply to your points, which are mainly in line with what I previously said.

1# Indeed Yahweh can, as Theos, mean the societal ousia. I’d note that the father-emphasis, at least with theos, is clear (eg 1 Cor.8:6).

2# Indeed no member of deity is greater ontologically. The idea of ontological joyful subservience remains valid.

3# Indeed—two noncarnate persons, one ousia. We may ad that the λογος (noncarnate son) was not Χριστος (incarnate son), but outrayed as Χριστος in space-time. The logos was with God the father, and was deity in essence.

4# Indeed—as to distinction and oneness, though perhaps with Jhn.1:18 John did carry his story on a tad?

5# Here alas we diverge on speculation, on educated guesswork, on making sense of the limited data to limited minds.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Short reply to your points, which are mainly in line with what I previously said.

1# Indeed Yahweh can, as Theos, mean the societal ousia. I’d note that the father-emphasis, at least with theos, is clear (eg 1 Cor.8:6).

2# Indeed no member of deity is greater ontologically. The idea of ontological joyful subservience remains valid.

3# Indeed—two noncarnate persons, one ousia. We may ad that the λογος (noncarnate son) was not Χριστος (incarnate son), but outrayed as Χριστος in space-time. The logos was with God the father, and was deity in essence.

4# Indeed—as to distinction and oneness, though perhaps with Jhn.1:18 John did carry his story on a tad?

5# Here alas we diverge on speculation, on educated guesswork, on making sense of the limited data to limited minds.

are you saying that "The Word" in John 1:1, and elsewhere, is not Jesus Christ?

The distinction and oneness of Jesus Christ is very clear in John 10:30, which I paraphrase from the Greek:

"I and the Father One Essence We Two Are"

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings SolaScriptures,

Monogenēs
Does this word mean “begetting” in any way, as some would argue?

I was interested in your thorough exposition even though I hold the belief that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Seeing you are an expert on the Greek related to this subject (or you quote from others), could you comment on the KJV margin rendition of the following:
Matthew 1:18–21 (KJV): 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Greek: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
I tentatively equate this with "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 3:16. Jesus is a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother.

This is also taught in the following:
Luke 1:30–35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Vinny37]

are you saying that "The Word" in John 1:1, and elsewhere, is not Jesus Christ?

The distinction and oneness of Jesus Christ is very clear in John 10:30, which I paraphrase from the Greek:

"I and the Father One Essence We Two Are"

1# Absolutely right. We must differentiate between the noncarnate son (beyond time-space) and the carnate son, Jesus the christ (within time-space). If not, it’s a bit like calling Moses a Jew! We may speak of the deificity of the mode, the outraying of the son, who could look upline.

2# The basic of Jhn.10:30, is oneness in the neuter, as you have said. Apropos messiahship (10:24), to what extent Jesus had in mind his link to God the son, I do not know. But his audience would assume that he spoke as a mortal man (which unless the docetists were right, he was). You add to the Greek the term, essence. I demure. I would tend to supply the term, will, or its outcome, work (eg 10:25,37). On the one hand we would not supply the term essence, to Jhn.17:22. But on the other hand, Jesus, knowing his ontological identity, might well have spoken an oblique reference to metaphysical overtones, unpackable after his resurrection (sensus plenior), as was his temple talk (Jhn.2:21). In context, though he identified himself as distinct from the father (10:25), nevertheless the charge against him was that effectively he made himself to be an equal to God (10:33—the audience assumed that deity was only one person), deific. Was that the original sin (Gen.3:5)? But he observed that a category of oneness with God could be biblically justified, and asked that if he were messiah, would he be less at one with deity? But his defence was unpacked as oneness as works, not essence. Granted, a deeper ontological union of a complete unwavering oneness of will with the father, was presupposed, but it was not surfaced (contra essence). Somewhat pacified, they dropped their stones (31) but sought to take him to court (39).

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings SolaScriptures,

I was interested in your thorough exposition even though I hold the belief that there is One God, Yahweh, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Seeing you are an expert on the Greek related to this subject (or you quote from others), could you comment on the KJV margin rendition of the following:
Matthew 1:18–21 (KJV): 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived (mg: Greek: begotten) in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
I tentatively equate this with "only begotten" in John 1:14, John 3:16. Jesus is a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother.

This is also taught in the following:
Luke 1:30–35 (KJV): 30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Kind regards
Trevor

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is YHWH

 

[SolaScriptura]

1# Absolutely right. We must differentiate between the noncarnate son (beyond time-space) and the carnate son, Jesus the christ (within time-space). If not, it’s a bit like calling Moses a Jew! We may speak of the deificity of the mode, the outraying of the son, who could look upline.

2# The basic of Jhn.10:30, is oneness in the neuter, as you have said. Apropos messiahship (10:24), to what extent Jesus had in mind his link to God the son, I do not know. But his audience would assume that he spoke as a mortal man (which unless the docetists were right, he was). You add to the Greek the term, essence. I demure. I would tend to supply the term, will, or its outcome, work (eg 10:25,37). On the one hand we would not supply the term essence, to Jhn.17:22. But on the other hand, Jesus, knowing his ontological identity, might well have spoken an oblique reference to metaphysical overtones, unpackable after his resurrection (sensus plenior), as was his temple talk (Jhn.2:21). In context, though he identified himself as distinct from the father (10:25), nevertheless the charge against him was that effectively he made himself to be an equal to God (10:33—the audience assumed that deity was only one person), deific. Was that the original sin (Gen.3:5)? But he observed that a category of oneness with God could be biblically justified, and asked that if he were messiah, would he be less at one with deity? But his defence was unpacked as oneness as works, not essence. Granted, a deeper ontological union of a complete unwavering oneness of will with the father, was presupposed, but it was not surfaced (contra essence). Somewhat pacified, they dropped their stones (31) but sought to take him to court (39).

We must look at the entire context in which Jesus uses the words: “ego kai ho patros hen hesmen”. In verse 28 Jesus says, "and I give them eternal life, and in no wise shall they perish forever" (Greek text). John 1:4 informs us the Jesus is the “source” of life, “in Him was life”. There is another reading of this verse, which is probably the original. Instead of “ζωὴ ἦν”, (was life, in the imperfect tense); we have “ζωὴ ἐστιν” (is life, the present, continuance tense). Both are from around the 2nd century A.D. The use of the “imperfect” tense in the Greek, does not always speak of “past action”, as in our English “was”, this can be misleading. In the Greek, it does also have the meaning of, “an incomplete action”, one that is still in its course, and not yet completed. It is like saying, was/is. In Acts 3:15, Jesus is called the "archegos of life" (Prince, KJV). The meaning is, “first cause, originator, author”, of all life. It is as the “Author” of all life, that Jesus is able to “give eternal life” to all those who believe in Him for their salvation. This would be impossible if Jesus Himself is not Almighty God, but, as some suppose, a mere created being! Jesus then goes on to say in this verse, “And not anyone shall snatch them out of My hand”. The life of the believer is completely “secure” in the Protective Power of the Lord Jesus Christ. These words spoken by Jesus here, are spoken by Yahweh of His People in Deuteronomy, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (32:39). Again, in the Prophet Isaiah we read, “Also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” (43:13). It is very clear from what Jesus says in John 10:28, and what we read from what Yahweh says in these passages in the Old Testament, that He means Absolute Power and Protection and Authority. Revelation 3:7, speaks of just this of Jesus, “...Who opens and no one will shut, Who shuts and no one opens.”. Further to this, in John 10:29, Jesus goes on to say, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand"

 

[donadams]

You cannot use human relationships to compare with the Persons in the Eternal Godhead. As far as what we know from what the Bible teaches, there is One Godhead, or Divine Nature, as Paul says in Romans 1:20, where he uses the Greek noun, "θειότης", which is defined as "divine nature" by the Greek Lexicons of Liddell and Scott; J H Thayer; Abbott-Smith, etc. Within this Divine Nature, there are Three distinct, equal Persons, Who are YHWH, Almighty God. In the Old Testament, there is no mention of God the Father of Jesus Christ. Jesus in the Old Testament is very much coequal with the Father, Who is also YHWH. The Holy Spirit is also called YHWH, and The Creator, and Led the Israelites out of Egypt, etc.

The "Orthodox" Church in the 4th century, and earlier, is not the same as the denomination that calls themselves "Orthodox", like the Greek and Russian. There were many of the Christian leaders in the early Church, who were very much Bible-based, though their "theology" was not always "Biblical"

The Three "Persons" in the Godhead, are not the same. the Father is never the Son, or the Holy Spirit. the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons, Who are One in the Divine Nature. A good verse is John 10:30, where Jesus says, "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν", which is literally, "I and the Father One thing We Are". The "One" here is the neuter "ἕν", "One Nature", and not the masculine, "εἷς", which would mean, "One Person". The use of the plural, "ἐσμεν", is not simply "are", but, "We are". Jesus has just said in the verses before, that "neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand" (verse 28), and "no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand" (29). This shows the absolute coequality of Jesus with the Father, as their Power, Protection, Assurance, is one and the same. In Deuteronomy 32:39, we read, "‘See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded, and it is I who heal; And there is no one who can deliver from My hand". And, Isaiah 43:13, "“Even from eternity I am He, And there is no one who can rescue from My hand; I act, and who can reverse it?”. Clearly Jesus means in John 10:30, that He and the Father, are equally Almighty God

Good job basically catholic dogma

3. God’s Nature is incomprehensible to men.

34. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three
Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.

41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Now any support for sola scriptura?

Thanks

 

[GodsGrace]

What about roles, a husband and wife are equal but have different roles, and the husband is head, just as a son is subordinate to his father!

There was an Orthodox Church in the 4th century?

And scripture that supports sola scriptura?

Thanks

Unity of Christian faith includes the trinity and the divinity of Christ!

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

2 cor 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

The most holy trinity is a sacred mystery!

Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Dogma (thee faith revealed by Christ and taught by Holy mother church)

3. The nature of God is incomprehensible to man:

34. In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three
Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.

41. The Three Divine Persons are in One Another.

Hi Don,,,,I have more time today than to just give you a LIKE.

By Orthodox church it's only meant that the teachings were orthodox - accepted by the church.
Unorthodox means teachings that are not accepted by the church.

As to roles of each Person of the Trinity:
Yes, they each one have their own role.
Do you know this or are you really asking??

 

[donadams]

Hi Don,,,,I have more time today than to just give you a LIKE.

By Orthodox church it's only meant that the teachings were orthodox - accepted by the church.
Unorthodox means teachings that are not accepted by the church.

As to roles of each Person of the Trinity:
Yes, they each one have their own role.
Do you know this or are you really asking??

Yes I figured that out, but the way he presented it it sounded the Orthodox Church not orthodoxy
Thanks

 

[Vinny37]

We must look at the entire context in which Jesus uses the words: “ego kai ho patros hen hesmen”. In verse 28 Jesus says, "and I give them eternal life, and in no wise shall they perish forever" (Greek text). John 1:4 informs us the Jesus is the “source” of life, “in Him was life”. There is another reading of this verse, which is probably the original. Instead of “ζωὴ ἦν”, (was life, in the imperfect tense); we have “ζωὴ ἐστιν” (is life, the present, continuance tense). Both are from around the 2nd century A.D. The use of the “imperfect” tense in the Greek, does not always speak of “past action”, as in our English “was”, this can be misleading. In the Greek, it does also have the meaning of, “an incomplete action”, one that is still in its course, and not yet completed. It is like saying, was/is. In Acts 3:15, Jesus is called the "archegos of life" (Prince, KJV). The meaning is, “first cause, originator, author”, of all life. It is as the “Author” of all life, that Jesus is able to “give eternal life” to all those who believe in Him for their salvation. This would be impossible if Jesus Himself is not Almighty God, but, as some suppose, a mere created being! Jesus then goes on to say in this verse, “And not anyone shall snatch them out of My hand”. The life of the believer is completely “secure” in the Protective Power of the Lord Jesus Christ. These words spoken by Jesus here, are spoken by Yahweh of His People in Deuteronomy, “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.” (32:39). Again, in the Prophet Isaiah we read, “Also henceforth I am He; there is none who can deliver from my hand; I work, and who can turn it back?” (43:13). It is very clear from what Jesus says in John 10:28, and what we read from what Yahweh says in these passages in the Old Testament, that He means Absolute Power and Protection and Authority. Revelation 3:7, speaks of just this of Jesus, “...Who opens and no one will shut, Who shuts and no one opens.”. Further to this, in John 10:29, Jesus goes on to say, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand"

The works and operations of God the son, whether noncarnate or incarnate, whether source or stream, were and are often spoken of in Christian circles by his Christian name, Jesus. But citing 2 Cor.8:9, and underlining the connect/disconnect of noncarnate to incarnate son, N T Wright reminded us that though we might casually call the noncarnate by his carnate name Jesus, the man christ Jesus is not trans-existent (N T Wright’s Colossians (TNTC), 1986:69). As you might know, functional translation can improve on formal translation, again because the message within the envelope can be more enlightening that the envelope it's in. [Largely taken from https://archive.org/details/the-fathers-gone-global-exploring-gods-heart-231118]

 

[donadams]

Context?

Jesus is not “the way” According to those who insist that you cannot take scripture out of context!

There are only two words on the whole Bible that say specifically “Jesus is the way”!

It is only found in one part of one verse of one chapter of one book of scripture!

Thanks

I suppose in denying that Jesus is the way they incur the penalty of
2 Tim 2:12 but that was also taken out of context?

Ex 20 only has 9 commandments in context or subject matter

 

[SolaScriptura]

The works and operations of God the son, whether noncarnate or incarnate, whether source or stream, were and are often spoken of in Christian circles by his Christian name, Jesus. But citing 2 Cor.8:9, and underlining the connect/disconnect of noncarnate to incarnate son, N T Wright reminded us that though we might casually call the noncarnate by his carnate name Jesus, the man christ Jesus is not trans-existent (N T Wright’s Colossians (TNTC), 1986:69). As you might know, functional translation can improve on formal translation, again because the message within the envelope can be more enlightening that the envelope it's in. [Largely taken from https://archive.org/details/the-fathers-gone-global-exploring-gods-heart-231118]

do you believe that Jesus Christ is Eternally YHWH, in the Godhead? I don't mean His "human nature", after The Incranation