|  New Posts
 
ReasonableFaith.org > Forums > Choose Your Own Topic > Was Jesus the begotten son of God?
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
knowethGod
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #1 
I was wondering if anybody can answer my query as to if Jesus was the only literally begotten Son of God according to the Bible?
Lightfoot
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #2 
Yes, Jesus was the only begotten Son of God
knowethGod
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #3 
Thank you for your reply but you seem to have missed the last part of the question! The question is: if Jesus was the only literally begotten Son of God according to the Bible?
You need to give proof from the Bible to establish that Jesus was the only begotten son of God.
                        

Lightfoot
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #4 

Its a translation of the greek word monogenes; (some people don't like the translation as "only begotten") its just translators trying to get at the best rendering, since we don't have an exact corresponding term in english
monogenes

"mono" for one
 "genes" for begotten

James White says the following; (The Forgotten Trinity  pages 201)
The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu�s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found in monogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai but gignesthai/ginmai, and the noun form, genos. G. L. Prestige discusses the differences that arise from these two derivations in God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1952), 37-51, 135-141, 151-156.

Genos means "kind or type", ginomai is a verb of being. Hence the translations "one of a kind," "one and only," "of sole descent." Some scholars see the -genes element as having a minor impact upon the meaning of the term, and hence see monogenes as a strengthened form of monos, thereby translating it "alone," "unique," "incomparable."
knowethGod
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #5 
Again, I appreciate your reply but yet you haven't qouted anything from the Bible! You have qouted James White but once again you missed "according to the Bible?" My question is where in Bible does  it say Jesus is the begotten son of God in its absolute form, sense and meaning? Please read my post carefully before you start writing your reply. Thank you.
Matthias
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #6 
In Luke, Jesus is literally begotten. In John, Christ definitely originates (if ever) through means other than literal begetting, though nothing contradicts that the Logos might have incarnated as Jesus by begetting. Monogenes could be interpreted as "only begotten son" or "only son of any sort" or (per Lightfoot's reading) "only son of some particular kind;" since the second meaning is obviously contraindicated ("son of God" being used in all sorts of ways) and the first is a subset of the third, the most cautious reading would seem not to completely preclude God's having literally begotten other sons.

But as a nonbeliever, of course, my prejudice would be to take each Gospel's intended meaning in isolation from one another, in which case this question never really arises in the first place.
knowethGod
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #7 
If you are a non-believer then I can't assume this discussion is going to bring any constructive conclusion. However, I will reply to your posts as an accademic discussion. Jesus is not begotten in Luke rather in John if I am not wrong; John 3:16  (King James Version) " For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". This is the only mention of Jesus being begotten son of God. But according to RSV (Revised standard Version of Bible and many others) this phrase has been thrown out of the Bible!
The meaning of John 1:1 (King James Version) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" is absurd! How? lets replace the word WORD with GOD and see if it makes any sense at all! In the beginning was the GOD, and the GOD was with God, and the GOD was God! Does it make any sense to you?
Matthias
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #8 
John 1:1 can be understood in a Trinitarian manner, with the Word being a proper subset of God.

Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18 are the closest to referring to a literal begetting, probably Luke moreso. This is admittedly awkward from a Trinitarian perspective because it seems that the Holy Spirit is doing the begetting rather than the Father, but regardless of which person is begetting, God would seem to be. 
Lightfoot
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #9 
knowethGod,

Then no english word is in the bible~! We are dealing with "translations" of the meaning.

John 3:16, would be a place where you find the term.

Your misinterpreting John 1:1 there. The trinity holds that there are 3 persons, so the Word would be the Son who is God. One being manifested in 3 persons.

I John 1:

2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.


John explains this further. The word was with the Father. The Word of Life that is.
knowethGod
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #10 
I didn't refer John 1:1 to trinity in any sense rather I brought it to your attention if it realy makes any sense at all, even gramatically!
If we interpret Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18 as Jesus being begotten then we have to also agree that David, Jacob and Ephraim  have more right to be Begotten Sons of God than Jesus. Psalm 2:7 "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee". Exodus 4:22 "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel(Jacob) is my son, even my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 "........and Ephraim is my firstborn"
In all these places God himself has explicitly said that he begot them but not one in case of Jesus. So if we conclude Jesus was the begotten son of God, we have also to agree that David, Jacob and Ephraim are also the begotten sons of God!
knowethGod
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #11 

Lightfoot,
Yes I know there are no English words in the Bible and lets see if I am misinterpreting John 1:1. Since the manuscripts of the 27 Books of the New Testament are in Greek lets see what was the Greek Word for "GOD" the first time it occurs in the quotation - "and the Word was with God"? the word was HOTHEOS, which literally means "THE GOD" Since the Europen (in cluding the North American) has evolved a system of using capital letter to start a proper noun and small letters for common nouns, we would accept a capital "G" for God; in other words HOTHEOS is rendered "the god" which in turn is rendered - God. Now lets see what is the Greek word for God in the second occurrence in the quotation - "and the Word was God"? the word was TONTHEOS, which means "a god". According to the system of translating the translators aught to have spelt this word God a second time with a small "g" i.e. god, and not God with a capital "G"; in other words TONTHEOS is rendered "a god". Both of these, "god" or "a god" are correct.
But in 2 Corinthians 4:4 it has been dishonestly reversed the system by using a small "g" when spelling GOD - "(and the devil is) the god of this world." The Greek word for "the god" is HOTHEOS the same as in John 1:1. Why have the translators not been consistent in the translation? If Paul was inspired (?) to write hotheos - the God for the Devil, why begrudge him that capital 'G'?
And in the Old Testament, the Lord said unto Moses, "See, I have made thee a god to Pharoach"(Exodus 7:1). Why do the translators use a small "g" for "GOD" when referring to Moses instead of a capital "G" as they do for a mere word - 'WORD' - "and the Word was God."?

You talked about trinity. Does it even exist in the Bible? The word "Trinity" has never occurred in the Bible. It is strange that the building block of Christian doctrine is not to be found in the Bible rather it is to be interpreted!
Lightfoot
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #12 
knowethGod,

Not really. Jesus is "the only Begotten Son"-

Its in a similar fashion, that Abraham son Issac is the only son;

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son,


It doesn't mean that Issac was the only son here, because, the writer full well knows that Ishmael was another son, yet not a son of the promise, so Issac is unique in this role.


I don't quite understand what you mean by saying that John 1 doesn't make sense grammatically?
Lightfoot
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #13 
knowethGod,

If Jesus is another "god" alongside "God" he would be a "false" god. Since, anything called god is false in the sense no other god but God is God by nature. There is only one true God.

What John is doing, is making a distinction between "God the Father" and the "Word"

Genesis 19:24
Young's Literal Translation
and Jehovah hath rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah, from the heavens;


The distinction between Jehovah on earth and the one in heaven is seen in this early passage in Genesis.
johnBee
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #14 
The term Son of God seems specific to Jesus when we compare terms such as son(s) of God, which seem to included spirit creatures and humans(SEE: Adam).

I don't know if these help with your inquiry but here are a few highlight that I think may address the issue in some way or another:
  • In John 3:16 Jesus makes the following statement: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Two verses later, Jesus claimed to be the only-begotten Son of God(John 3:18).
  • When the Jews accused Jesus of blasphemy, he asked "do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?"(John 10:36).
  • When Jesus died, the soldiers at the scene declaring "When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!"(Matthew 27:54)
  • God himself testified that Jesus was his Son whe Jesus was baptized: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”(Matthew 3:17)
  • John the Baptizer(who baptized Jesus) testified: “"I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."(John 1:34)
  • On another occasion a similar event happened when a voice came out of the cloud, saying: "Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!"(Luke 9:35)
  • In these examples we find God the Father(the Creator) declaring that He sent his Son(Jesus Christ) to do God’s work. That is why, time and again, we find Jesus making statements such as:
  • The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing(John 5:19).
  • I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me(John 6:38).
  • What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me(John 7:16).
  • I know him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me forth(John 7:29).
  • Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him(John 13:16).
  • Jesus likened his Father to the owner of a vineyard who sent a slave saying ..."I will send my son, whom I love(Luke 20:9-16).
  • Jesus was created by God. Revelation 3:14 “...The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation”.
  • h) Similarly in Colossians 1:15, we find: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him". Thus, Jesus is rightfully called the firstborn, and only-begotten.
  • After Jesus was resurrected, Stephen had a vision which showed the glory of God and Jesus standing at His right hand(Acts 7:55). (1) God and (2) Jesus the Son.
In view of these facts, the bible clearly shows that Jesus Christ is the beloved Son of God. A Son who had such love for his Father that he was willing to be obedient to the death.
lapwing
Posted 05/19/12 Reply with quote  #15 

knowethGod

 

You have to be careful when comparing words and concepts between OT and NT.

2 Sam ch 7 esp v14 explains that God treated kings of Israel as adopted sons.

 

In Psalm 2:7 the reference is to the installation by God of the king to mount Zion so it is not a literal begetting of a child.

 

In Ex 4:22 Israel is called God's "firstborn" even though Jacob was not the firstborn son of Isaac and Rebekah. The reference is then clearly to the nation of Israel, not Jacob. God is emphasising his special love for Israel as people cherished their firstborn in OT times.

 

Jer 31:9 Similarly Ephraim was the younger son of Joseph but Jacob blessed Ephraim as if he were the firstborn (the other son was Manasseh). In the later history of the two kingdoms, Ephraim was the ascendant of the ten northern tribes initally under Jeroboam I. Ephraim is apparently God's favourite of the ten tribes (Jer 31:20). Firstborn here emphasises this favoured status: it is not a literal begetting.

 

You have fallen into the trap of looking at verses in isolation and out of context. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.