Monogenes

[Artizan007]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 05 2008,13:41)

Hi A7, Have you been overcome by the worldly religious ideas of men having been so promising?

Please explain your statement.

[gollamudi]

Quote (Artizan007 @ June 05 2008,12:33)

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 05 2008,01:42) Artizan…you misinterpret… Jesus being begotten means….THAT HE WAS THE ONLY SON OF GOD CREATED DIRECTLY BY GOD's HANDS…Yes god had other sons..but not begotten sons…All of Abrahams sons were begotten by him…THERE IS THE DIFFERENCE Hi dirtyknections, I think you presume to much in making this statement. Where in the Scriptures does it say what you have said. Where does it say God created the angels and did not beget them? What is the difference anyway… IF God brought them to life, he begat them. To be born, to beget, or to form and to give life means something comes into existence that before it was born or it was formed did not exist. How was the first man formed? Directly by God's hands – God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into him the breath of life… “holy ruach” life. And adam [man, human, humanity] became a living creature – Adam who was called the son of God! You are right Abraham that begat all his son's, so how then was Isaac his “only begotten” son, or his “one and only” son… Again I say, it was because he was the only son born of a promise. Isaac was the miracle child, whereby God breathed life, opening up Sarah's womb [in her old age] and she begat the promise; Isaac – so that God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 12 would come to pass. How could this be? Because like Elisabeth whose womb God opened [in her old age], she begat her son of promise – John, why FOR NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH GOD!!! Notice the angel said this of Elisabeth and not of Mary's conception. But both “conceived”! This term “only begotten” seems to me to only surface in the books affiliated with John and once the book to of Hebrews. Matthew, Mark and Luke all say “Beloved” – this gives a very different picture. the Gospel of “John” I use parentheses because we do not know if John actually wrote this gospel, turns all the other gospels on their head… for example; Mark says nothing of the light, Matthew says “we are the light of the world”, those living in darkness have seen a great light, (not a person, but revelation) and Luke says, John the B is come to bring light to those who sit in darkness and to guide their feet to a way of peace, we are the light, dont hide your light, and he compares the children of light to the children of darkness. However John spins this on its head… Jesus becomes the Light of the World a concept unique to John as is the term “only begotten”… all the others use “beloved”.

Hi Arti, wonderful post I think DK questions to me to prove the word begotten as “unique or only” is expalined in details with examples what else he needs on that?
Thanks.
Adam

[NickHassan]

Hi A7,
I remember your freshness and enthusiastic searching for truth.
Are you still like that?
I hope so.

[Artizan007]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,20:15)

Ps2 Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Tell me, how is this talking about Jesus… David the writer of the psalm says, I will proclaim the Lord's decree: He said to ME, “you are my son; today I have begotten you. This is of David – he is not saying I will proclaim the Lord's decree: HE said to me about the Messiah. David is the Messiah spoken about in this passage, he is God's anointed one – anointed by Samuel to be king of Israel in the stead of Saul.

Few things:
Firstly v 5 says it is God who rebukes them in his anger, and terrifies them with his Wrath.
Then in V 12 it says this again, Kiss HIS son, or HE will be angry with you. This does not say, Kiss the Son of God, or the Son that pre-existed and will become an Anointed One. No it says, “David is the son who was begotten”, and who God had installed as King on Zion. Likewise, this term is used of David's son Solomon. God says in 1 Chronicles 22:10-11 He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of hiskingdom over Israel for ever. Then in 1 Chronicles 28:5-6 this thought is reiterated: Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom overIsrael.  6He said to me, ‘Solomon, your son, shall build My house and my courts; for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

Secondly, why would as you suppose, the one who God the father made everything through have to ask for the nations as his inheritance and the ends of the earth as his possession… it makes no sense, if this psalm was referring to Jesus.

Tell me did the kings of the earth arise up against Jesus, the Anointed One. I do not think they even knew of him. Certainly localised leaders knew of Jesus, like King Herod, and Pilate, but apart from that, was there any conspiracy by any of the known world rulers at that time to fight against Jesus. You may say, this points to His second coming but it is not in keeping with the context of the Psalm. The kings did rise up against David, who was always at war, fighting to establish peace in his Kingdom. David is talking of himself and his God given rule in Israel.

Well that is my take on it.

[Artizan007]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 05 2008,15:03)

Hi A7, I remember your freshness and enthusiastic searching for truth. Are you still like that? I hope so.

Hey Nick,

Thanks for you concern, I am here to learn and I do everytime I come to this site.

Even more so now, but a lot less willing to accept just anything, and i dont want to settle for trite answers, so I will challenge the core of my beliefs and hopefully these questions will lead to more seeking of God's word – if it is truth, it will stand the quest.

My greatest challenge, and one I hope to find some answers is the Old vs New testaments, and how they can be merged without falling short of the promises given.

[Not3in1]

Quote (Artizan007 @ June 05 2008,15:50)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 05 2008,15:03) Hi A7, I remember your freshness and enthusiastic searching for truth. Are you still like that? I hope so. Hey Nick, Thanks for you concern, I am here to learn and I do everytime I come to this site. Even more so now, but a lot less willing to accept just anything, and i dont want to settle for trite answers, so I will challenge the core of my beliefs and hopefully these questions will lead to more seeking of God's word – if it is truth, it will stand the quest. My greatest challenge, and one I hope to find some answers is the Old vs New testaments, and how they can be merged without falling short of the promises given.

Hi Art,

You and I are not too far apart in age and I relate with your desire to search out truth.  Be careful though, some here do not look too kindly on “searching”.  

However I admire your spirit already and hope you stay and challenge your beliefs.  God is big enough to hold us while we question and search.  We are in good hands.

Bless you bro,
Mandy

[NickHassan]

Quote (Artizan007 @ June 05 2008,15:44)

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 21 2008,20:15) Ps2 Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Tell me, how is this talking about Jesus… David the writer of the psalm says, I will proclaim the Lord's decree: He said to ME, “you are my son; today I have begotten you. This is of David – he is not saying I will proclaim the Lord's decree: HE said to me about the Messiah. David is the Messiah spoken about in this passage, he is God's anointed one – anointed by Samuel to be king of Israel in the stead of Saul. Few things: Firstly v 5 says it is God who rebukes them in his anger, and terrifies them with his Wrath. Then in V 12 it says this again, Kiss HIS son, or HE will be angry with you. This does not say, Kiss the Son of God, or the Son that pre-existed and will become an Anointed One. No it says, “David is the son who was begotten”, and who God had installed as King on Zion. Likewise, this term is used of David's son Solomon. God says in 1 Chronicles 22:10-11 He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of hiskingdom over Israel for ever. Then in 1 Chronicles 28:5-6 this thought is reiterated: Of all my sons (for Yahweh has given me many sons), he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of Yahweh’s kingdom overIsrael.  6He said to me, ‘Solomon, your son, shall build My house and my courts; for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. Secondly, why would as you suppose, the one who God the father made everything through have to ask for the nations as his inheritance and the ends of the earth as his possession… it makes no sense, if this psalm was referring to Jesus. Tell me did the kings of the earth arise up against Jesus, the Anointed One. I do not think they even knew of him. Certainly localised leaders knew of Jesus, like King Herod, and Pilate, but apart from that, was there any conspiracy by any of the known world rulers at that time to fight against Jesus. You may say, this points to His second coming but it is not in keeping with the context of the Psalm. The kings did rise up against David, who was always at war, fighting to establish peace in his Kingdom. David is talking of himself and his God given rule in Israel. Well that is my take on it.

Hi A7,
Did the anointed man Paul not show us these verses related to Jesus? Should we need to ask anyone else?

[Artizan007]

Quote (Not3in1 @ June 05 2008,15:54)

Artizan007,June wrote: [quote=Nick Hassan,June 05 2008,15:03]Hi A7, Be careful though, some here do not look too kindly on “searching”.

Thanks Mandy, I am not too worried.

[dirtyknections]

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 05 2008,03:43)

Hey GM..my brother.. John 3:16 If you notice no other son of God is said to be “begotten”…the reason for this is because they were created by God THRU jesus…therefore they are not able to be properly called “begotten sons” etymology: beget-beget O.E. begietan “to get by effort, find, acquire, attain, seize,” from be- + get (q.v.). Sense of “to procreate” is from 1205. also notice the related etymology of this word: progeny c.1300, from O.Fr. progenie (13c.), from L. progenies “descendants, offspring,” from progignere “beget,” from pro- “forth” + gignere “to produce, beget.” beget Verb [-getting, -got] or -gat;-gotten or -got Old-fashioned 1. to cause or create: repetition begets boredom 2. to father [Old English begietan] beget verb 1. (Old-fashioned) cause, bring, produce, create, effect, lead to, occasion, result in, generate, provoke, induce, bring about, give rise to, precipitate, incite, engender verb 2. father, breed, generate, sire, get, propagate, procreate Beget \Be*get”\, v. t. [imp. Begot, (Archaic) Begat; p. p. Begot, Begotten; p. pr. & vb. n. Begetting.] [OE. bigiten, bigeten, to get, beget, AS. begitan to get; pref. be- + gitan. See Get, v. t. ] 1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; — commonly said of the father. Yet they a beauteous offspring shall beget. –Milton. 2. To get (with child.) [Obs.] –Shak. 3. To produce as an effect; to cause to exist. Love is begot by fancy. –Granville. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

hEY..aRT

Show me a scripture that says the any other angel was begotten…don't worry trying to find one…its not there…therefore as the bible clearly shows..Jesus is GODS ONLY begotten son

[NickHassan]

Hi,
Another wrong understanding of monogenes – posted by WJ in another thread.
Posted: June 21 2008,10:54

——————————————————————————–
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 21 2008,09:16)
Hi WJ,
Surely you know “monogenes” does not mean he is the ONLY begotten Son?

NH

“Only begotten”

Monogenes… strongs #3439

1) single of its kind, only

a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

Only One Monogenes/Unique Son of God.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 21 2008,11:50)

Hi, Another wrong understanding of monogenes – posted by WJ in another thread. Posted: June 21 2008,10:54   ——————————————————————————– Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 21 2008,09:16) Hi WJ, Surely you know “monogenes” does not mean he is the ONLY begotten Son? NH “Only begotten” Monogenes… strongs #3439 1) single of its kind, only a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents) b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God Only One Monogenes/Unique Son of God.

NH

Strongs definition disagrees with you.

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
What I am getting at is that this word does not mean he is the only son,
or the only son who is begotten

[dirtyknections]

The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes “only generated.” As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated–or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean “one,” or even “one and only.” It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the “only” son of God.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 21 2008,13:17)

Hi WJ, What I am getting at is that this word does not mean he is the only son, or the only son who is begotten

NH

But the word begotten does not apply to Yeshua preincarnation.

“Monogenes” and “gennao” are two different words.

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
Different issue.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 21 2008,13:36)

The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes “only generated.” As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated–or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean “one,” or even “one and only.” It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the “only” son of God.

Dk

Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only,38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. Jn 1:14 NET

38tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

No one has ever seen God. The only one 45, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. Jn 1:18 NET

The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

Source.

[dirtyknections]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 21 2008,14:01)

Quote (dirtyknections @ June 21 2008,13:36) The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes “only generated.” As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated–or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean “one,” or even “one and only.” It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the “only” son of God. Dk Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only,38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. Jn 1:14 NET 38tn Or “of the unique one.” Although this word is often translated “only begotten,” such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means “one-of-a-kind” and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God, Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18). No one has ever seen God. The only one 45, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. Jn 1:18 NET The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ �1,13 � lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. �75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in �66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo” hn Jo logo”) means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text. tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh”) see the note on “one and only” in 1:14. Source.

WJ…

Gimme a few minutes to digest this brother…

[NickHassan]

Hi WJ,
MONO certainly encompasses uniqueness.
GENES?

[Lightenup]

Good question Nick,
LU

[NickHassan]

For tt

[Author]

Posts