Unique, Not Only-Begotten
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Hi 7thMoon
Sure! I'm down with that. There has never been anyone to walk this earth like Jesus. That does make him unique. However, the Scriptures refer to Jesus as only begotten, because of the promise. Jesus had to be born of a woman. A virgin woman to be precise. Because God had promised all of mankind that, when he laid out the promise to come from the curse of Adam's sin.
The Scriptures are correct that Jesus is God's one and only begotten Son. Now, if we want to add the word 'unique' as one of the qualities of Jesus' existence, that's fine, too. But it does not in any way change that Jesus is God's one and only begotten Son. Just as God's words to us confirm.
God bless,
Ted
Hi SolaScriptura
No, I didn't read the entire treatise. I'm not one who gets too involved with those who try to make the case that, "Oh, we've never understood this piece of Scripture until now." My response comes from the title of the thread where you make the claim 'unique' NOT 'only begotten. And also from the first paragraph of your claim.
Friend Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Now, if you want to add to that that he is also unique in his human existence, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. That is also a quality of Jesus that we find in the Scriptures. But... Jesus is God's only begotten Son, according to 2,000 years of Scripture teaching and no, I don't put much faith in someone 2,000 years later saying that we've misunderstood some piece of Scripture for that long.
And of course, looking throughout the Scriptures and understanding that the word 'begotten' means to be born from another, then Jesus was begotten. And as far as we know, according to the teaching of the Scriptures, he is the only begotten (born) Son of God.
God bless,
Ted
No, I didn't read the entire treatise. I'm not one who gets too involved with those who try to make the case that, "Oh, we've never understood this piece of Scripture until now." My response comes from the title of the thread where you make the claim 'unique' NOT 'only begotten. And also from the first paragraph of your claim.
Friend Jesus is God's only begotten Son. Now, if you want to add to that that he is also unique in his human existence, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. That is also a quality of Jesus that we find in the Scriptures. But... Jesus is God's only begotten Son, according to 2,000 years of Scripture teaching and no, I don't put much faith in someone 2,000 years later saying that we've misunderstood some piece of Scripture for that long.
And of course, looking throughout the Scriptures and understanding that the word 'begotten' means to be born from another, then Jesus was begotten. And as far as we know, according to the teaching of the Scriptures, he is the only begotten (born) Son of God.
God bless,
Ted
It is much more nuanced when it comes to Jesus. This should be immediately obvious by the above passages clearly referring to physical procreation between a husband and wife.
First, monogenes is used only nine times in the NT, five of those times it is used of Christ and even then, only by John (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). The other four times, the KJV translates it as “only” (Luke 7:12; 8:42), “only child” (Luke 9:38), and “only begotten” (Heb 11:17). It is never translated as “conceived” and does not refer to “begetting” in the sense of being created or coming into existence at a point in time. Monogenes really just means "unique," "only," "one and only."
Second, there are at least five words—gennao, sullambano, tithemi, koite, and katabole—that are translated (by the KJV) as “conceive” or “conceived,” but never monogenes.
Third, each instance of monogenes is speaking of the relationship of parents to their children, not their conception or their physical begetting. And, in fact, this is precisely what we see in John 1:18. We already know from John 1:1-3 that the preincarnate Son “was with God and was God,” which completely rules out the idea that there was ever a time when the Word, the pre-incarnate Son, did not exist. So, verse 18 can only be speaking of the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son. This is also supported by 1:18 itself: “which is in the bosom of the Father.” That being so, it simply cannot be speaking of conception; that does not at all fit the context nor the usage of monogenes.
Here is M. R. Vincent on John 1:14's use of monogenes:
"Μονογενής distinguishes between Christ as the only Son, and the many children (τέκνα) of God; and further, in that the only Son did not become (γενέσθαι) such by receiving power, by adoption, or by moral generation, but was (ἦν) such in the beginning with God. The fact set forth does not belong to the sphere of His incarnation, but of His eternal being. The statement is anthropomorphic, and therefore cannot fully express the metaphysical relation."
Last edited:
Hi Free
Thanks for your input here. And again let me state that I'm not against understanding Jesus as unique, among mankind on this earth. I mean, I'm in full agreement that the only reason that Jesus could take our place for our sin is that he didn't have any sin attributable to himself. That alone makes him unique. But, as the Scriptures declare, he was also the only direct line child born of a woman, and thus, begotten.
God bless,
Ted
Thanks for your input here. And again let me state that I'm not against understanding Jesus as unique, among mankind on this earth. I mean, I'm in full agreement that the only reason that Jesus could take our place for our sin is that he didn't have any sin attributable to himself. That alone makes him unique. But, as the Scriptures declare, he was also the only direct line child born of a woman, and thus, begotten.
God bless,
Ted
If you can't take the time to read the opening post then you will not understand what I have written. You cannot comment on the title without reading reasoning
Again, how is this relevant to the discussion?
Yes, you are. The indefinite article very often implies there is more than one and is used when the identity of a noun is unknown. When used of God, "a God" is indefinite and can mean there is more than one or that his identity is unknown (which in reference to deity, implies there is more than one). That is precisely why the definite article is very often used of God, as it always gives the identity of God; that there is only one, true, living God. Even when theos is used anarthrously of the true God, it never means "a God," because he is the only one.
But that is my point--"begotten" does not refer to his incarnation but his eternal relationship with the Father as the Son. If it were to refer to his incarnation in verse 14, it would conflict with the meaning in verse 18.
Hi Free,
Look, I'm all for looking into your claim. Show me somewhere in the Scriptures where the word 'begotten' was used as you want to describe it. Begotten, throughout the entirety of the Scriptures is only used to refer to a child born of parents. Specifically, as God has told us about His Son, born of a woman.
Please show just exactly 'how' such an understanding conflicts in the two passages that you reference.
God bless,
Ted
Polytheism is the trust in more than one God or the belief that no God is unique. I am a monotheist. You are a monotheist only when Jesus is human.
[John 10:34 KJV] 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
YHWH cannot die.
I've already given the verses.
There are different words for "begotten" that have
The onus is on you to show where monogenes is used in this case.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (ESV)
If verse 14 refers to Jesus's incarnation and "the only [monogenes] God" in verse 18 refers to his eternal relationship with the Father, then there is a conflict. Besides, other passages such as John 3:13; 6:28; 8:24, 58; 16:28; 17:5; Phil 2:5-7; Col 1:16-17; etc., all show that the Son has existed eternally. He didn't become the Son at his incarnation.
Polytheism is the belief that more than one god exists. It has nothing to do with trust or uniqueness.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polytheism
Then you need to line up your belief with what the Greek grammar actually states.
What do you mean by this?
What is this supposed to show?
No one is claiming that he can or did.
That is not what the Mariam Webster's says. Read it.
Greek grammars don't state theology, nor should they.
Your God is only unique when it doesn't have idolatry tied to it. You worship what you don't understand.
It shows that your definition of polytheism is also biblically wrong.
You claim Jesus shares the name YHWH. You fooled me.
I did and it does.
"belief in or worship of more than one god"
I said that "polytheism is the belief that more than one god exists." That is precisely what MW says.
Yes, it does. It isn't a matter of whether or not it should, it's that it cannot but do so. Proper grammar is essential to proper communication of truth; that's just the way it is. There is an infinite difference between "a god" and "the God." In the first, the god has no identity and is one of at least two. In the second, it can only mean the one, true, living God of the Bible who created all things.
That's why ho theos, "the God," is used in John 1:1b, so that there is no confusion about who is being mentioned. It's also why ho logos is used, so we know that there is one particular logos being spoken of.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
This is a violation of the ToS.
Probably best you understand what Jesus said before making false claims.
Because he does. Please at least try to understand what I and others are saying, and try and understand what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. Stop taking things piecemeal and making a mess of what both the Bible and others are saying.You claim Jesus shares the name YHWH. You fooled me.
I have consistently and continuously stated, as all Trinitarians believe, that Jesus is both truly God and truly man; two natures.
: belief in or worship of more than one god
I don't believe in other gods, but I know other gods exist.
You have an image that God is Jesus. image-worship = idolatry.
'Tis the truth. You don't understand because like the Samaritan you have modeled him as a man.
It's impossible, and defames God's greatness by making him error for mankind, while not explaining why God can be picky. Poor Job, but at least, Job doubled his efforts. There is no guarantee that God rescues people, which is the point of life.
He was saying the sons of God will die like Adam, and that if he is not the beloved son, don't believe him. Look at the psalm.
Ultimate reality is that only one actual, living God exists. The rest are deaf and mute idols and not really gods at all. They are only called "gods" because people worship them and attribute power to them.
Grammar matters. I have never stated nor do I believe that "God is Jesus." I have been consistent in stating that Jesus is God, because that is what the Bible teaches.
Still intent on violating the ToS, I see.
How, exactly, is it impossible that Jesus can be both truly God and truly man? You saying so does not make it so. You need to show how.
I have no idea what you're saying here. Again, grammar matters.