- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 17 2010,01:33) Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 16 2010,19:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 16 2010,01:55) Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 15 2010,21:39) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2010,15:22) Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 15 2010,13:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 15 2010,13:38) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 15 2010,13:25) Hi,
Does any bible translate MONOGENES, relating to Jesus, as ONLY?
Why would you WJ and TT?
Most translations render it “Only Begotten Son” of God.STRONG'S G3439 – MONOGENĒS
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
WJ
Hi Keith,
Since Monogenes is an adjective, only begotten is what most translations would render it. If translated with the word “son” then the noun meaning “son” is also in the verse.Kathi
Hi KathiLong time no hear from! Hope you and yours are well and that you had wonderful Holidays!
Most translations do render it that way but not all.
So there is ambiguity over the word “Begotten”, but there is no ambiguity over the word “Mono” Only” which is also an adjective and is the first part of “Monogenes”
In Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38 Monogenes is translated “Only Son” and “Only Daughter” and “Only Child”!
So to say Jesus is the “Only Son of God” is a true statement!
WJ
Hi Keith,
Yes, I've taken a break from HN and noticed that HN helps me dig into the Word, so I'm back but I intend on continuing to cut down on my computer time. Thanks for noticing
My family is all well and our holidays were very nice. Thanks for asking I appreciated the verses that you mentioned. I noticed that all those verses supplied the separate word for “son” or “daughter” in the context within the Greek. There is a verse that does not supply the word for son or daughter in the Greek but has the word monogenes in it…here:
John 1:14
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
NASUGod bless,
Kathi
Hi KathiTrue, and to be truer to the text it should read…
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of “the One and Only“, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 NIV
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of “the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John 1:14 NET
How would 1 translation outway the use of the word in three examples? (Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38)
tn 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). Source the NET Bible!
But you already know this!
WJ
Hi Keith,
I do know that the NET Bible's translators used the term “one and only” as a translation for monogenes. I do believe that they treat it as though it is just the word “monos” and have lost the fullness of the term since “one and only” does not represent “genes” at all. They claim that “begotten” is often the translation but it is misleading since in English it would imply a metaphysical relationship. Well, I am not sure what they mean by “metaphysical relationship” but I certainly do think it is possible for the Most High God to have a true offspring which comes from Himself so I have no problem with the term monogenes theos used in John 1:18 to be translated as “only begotten God” as the NASB translates it. But you already know that.God bless,
Kathi
Hi KathiThe problem is other passages use the word “Monogenes” with the word (Son, daughter, child) as “Only” as I have shown!
And other translations render the word Monogenes as Only Son where there is no word Son in the text.
But the only time ever it is translated as Only Begotten God is the NASB and the term cannot be found in the NASB but only that once!
NASB is inconsistent because in Heb 11:17 the NASB translates Monogenes as “Only Begotten” without the word Son in referring to Isaac.
Abrahams Son was not called the “Begotten God” there by the NASB!
It’s even more interesting that just a few verses before John 1:18 in verse 14 again without the word Son they render it “the only begotten from the Father”, why didn't they render it like they did in verse 18, “Only begotten God”?
Even so it is a fact that John’s intention in his writing is to show the word “Monogenes” obviously applies to Jesus after the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
If the writer John would have intended what you say then he would have used the word “Strong's G1080 – gennaō”, which means…
1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born
b) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to childr
enUsed in Heb 1:5 and 5:5 where when Jesus already existing, post resurrection as a Son, the Father declares him to be his Begotten!
The compound root “Mono” Strong’s definition being “Only, Alone” and the word “ginomai” Strong’s definition being “1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being” does not in the definition have the word “Begotten” and even if it did, the context would be that he was “begotten” when the word was made flesh when he “came into being or existence as a man!
John did not write the Word was with God and the Word was the “Monogenes” God!
As the NET shows, in light of John 1:1 the word Begotten is misleading!
You should already know that!
WJ
Keith,
You said:Quote But the only time ever it is translated as Only Begotten God is the NASB and the term cannot be found in the NASB but only that once! The Greek term “monogenes theos” is found in the very manuscript that the NET Bible is using as well as many Bibles use, they just have chosen to translate it without the full meaning of the word monogenes.
It is translated as only begotten God in the NASB because “monogenes theos” is what they are translating. Btw, no Bible translator translates anything “triune God”, not even once so at least “begotten God” is in the Greek. Also, when you consider how many times He is called the Son of God, well, the two terms have the same implications…that is if you let the words mean what is obvious.
When the Bible speaks of a “son of man” you automatically understand that the term refers to a man. Why wouldn't it be the same for “son of God?” A literal Son of God would be God in a similar way that a literal son of man would be man. It really isn't a stretch when you think of it that way. As you know, the Messiah was considered an ONLY son of God, which distinguishes Him from the angels or men being called the sons of God.
Quote NASB is inconsistent because in Heb 11:17 the NASB translates Monogenes as “Only Begotten” without the word Son in referring to Isaac. Abrahams Son was not called the “Begotten God” there by the NASB!
The NASB is consistent. When the word theos (god) or huios (son) is not supplied in the greek or context, they shouldn't supply it in the translation. Abraham's son was not called the “begotten God” first of all because he wasn't but also monogenes theos wasn't the Greek that was being translated (as it is in John 1:18). The Greek word for son (huios) is not in the Greek and that is why it is in italics in the NASB in Hebrews 11:17.
When Hebrews 11:17 says that Abraham offered up his only begotten, it could mean his only begotten promised son and that, Isaac was. The two passages can't be compared anyway because the Bible speaks of no other literal “Son of God” than the Messiah whereas Abraham had another son by the maidservant.
Kathi
Kathi
Even so, it is a fact that John’s intention in his writing is to show the word “Monogenes” obviously applies to Jesus after the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,07:27) The Greek term “monogenes theos” is found in the very manuscript that the NET Bible is using as well as many Bibles use, they just have chosen to translate it without the full meaning of the word monogenes.
But the Greek definition for the root words ‘Monos” and “ginomai” does not contain the word “Begotten”.The compound root “Mono” Strong’s definition being “Only, Alone” and the word “ginomai” Strong’s definition being “1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being”, therefore in light of other passages that use Monogenes as “single of its kind and only”, the Net and NIV are truer to the text in John 1:18.
Even if it did imply “Only Begotten”, the context would be that he was “begotten” when the word was made flesh when he “came into being or existence as a man!
Interestingly John uses the term Monogenes in the same passage he uses the root word “ginomai” the second part of the compound word Monogenes!
The Word became (ginomai) flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of “the One and Only (Monogenes)“, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 NIV
Now the Word became (ginomai) flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of “the one and only (Monogenes) “, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John 1:14 NET
It is clear by this that Johns meaning of the word ‘Monogenes” in reference to Jesus is post incarnation when the Word became flesh!
So again I reiterate, John did not write the Word was with God and the Word was the “Monogenes” God in John 1:1!
As the NET shows, in light of John 1:1 the word Begotten is misleading and Jesus became the “Monogenes” when the Word was made (ginomai) Flesh!
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,07:27) When the Bible speaks of a “son of man” you automatically understand that the term refers to a man. Why wouldn't it be the same for “son of God?”
Because you are proposing that a “Class of Being” i.e. “GOD”, brings birth to a different “Class of being” i.e. little God!God begets God is an extra Biblical term!
WJ
Keith,
Man begets a little man is an extrabiblical term
Animal begets little animal is an extrabiblical term
If man beget a grown man…ouch is all I have to say about that.
So God beget God is just as logical as man begets man.
The word was made flesh…not the word was made a son.
If you can't see the Son as being a person before Mary then I see your difficulty but you must think of what existed prior to the flesh as an “it” then…a word as you say, and not a person. A word is not a person. So, does an “it” become flesh or a person with a mind and will of their own become flesh? An “it” does not have a mind or a will of it's own otherwise the supposed “it” would actually be a person.In Hebrews, God told the Son that He laid the foundation of the world in the beginning and that happened pre-incarnate. He was not talking about an “it” here.
My opinion,
KathiHi Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,22:42) Keith,
Man begets a little man is an extrabiblical term
Animal begets little animal is an extrabiblical term
But your logic fails because every species bears after its own kind and is genetically Identical. Dog begets Dog, not Dog begets something less than Dog!Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,22:42) If man beget a grown man…ouch is all I have to say about that.
Are you saying that The Father beget Jesus as a baby God that was to grow up into a full grown God?Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,22:42) So God beget God is just as logical as man begets man.
Then Jesus would be 100% God like the Father, Equally God with no difference!Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,22:42) The word was made flesh…not the word was made a son.
The Angel declared he would be called “The Son of God”. Luke 1:35.The Greek word for “called” kaleō is in the “future tense”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,22:42) If you can't see the Son as being a person before Mary then I see your difficulty but you must think of what existed prior to the flesh as an “it” then…a word as you say, and not a person. A word is not a person. So, does an “it” become flesh or a person with a mind and will of their own become flesh? An “it” does not have a mind or a will of it's own otherwise the supposed “it” would actually be a person.
True, but are you saying an “it” was with God and was God in John 1:1?As you know I believe that Jesus is the Word according to Rev 19:13, 1 John 1:1-3 spoken of in John 1:1.
And according to Phil 2:6-8 Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh.
“Who, being in the form of God, (The Word)” thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made “(ginomai)” in the likeness of men: Phil 2:6, 7
Paul agrees with John for he uses the same “(ginomai)” in describing Jesus being made in the likeness of men that John uses in John 1:14 describing the Word (Jesus) being made flesh!
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2010,22:42) In Hebrews, God told the Son that He laid the foundation of the world in the beginning and that happened pre-incarnate. He was not talking about an “it” here. My opinion,
Kathi
Agreed, but I think you know I believe that! Have you scraped your previous theory that somewhere in John 1:1-3 Jesus the “Word” was born from the Father?WJ
Kathi said to WJ:
Quote When the Bible speaks of a “son of man” you automatically understand that the term refers to a man. Why wouldn't it be the same for “son of God?” WJ replied:
Quote Because you are proposing that a “Class of Being” i.e. “GOD”, brings birth to a different “Class of being” i.e. little God! God begets God is an extra Biblical term!
Keith,
Your reply to Kathi here is most accurate. Also, Kathi assumes that everything begotten is in order a second which is not necessarily the case. A generator begets electricity but not a second generator. The electricity begotten is first and only.Jack
Hi Keith,
I have not scrapped my theory. I believe that the Son of God was a person from His beginning. I don't believe He had a created beginning, nor an uncreated beginning, but He likely had a beginning.The angel said that he would be called the Son of God in the future sense, I'm fine with that, but that does not mean that He wasn't the Son of God from the beginning. He just wasn't fully revealed as a Son till the New Testament. I heard of two people working at Walmart and didn't realize it for years but later discovered that one of them was the other one's mother (she gave him up for adoption). He was always her son but that fact wasn't revealed till they had known each other for a few years. See how you can be a son but not known as a son till it is revealed to you? Jesus is the Son of God but many do not know that but in the future will call Him that because God will reveal that to them…understand?
A begotten God can't be the source of Himself and therefore…not the source of all things, nor always existent and not equal to the Father who is the source of all things and self-existent. That doesn't make Him less than 100% God, it just does not make Him the Most High God. A begotten man can be equally man but not ever as old as the man that beget him. That doesn't make him less than 100% man does it.
My opinion,
KathiLU
you do not deal with God the way you deal with man ,God is a spirit and so his powers are spirit,
we do not understand this and the scriptures do not reveal this,
so if we say God the father total and full might and the son mighty god over all what as been create sins and through him, but God the father is God over all things.Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 18 2010,19:25) LU
you do not deal with God the way you deal with man ,God is a spirit and so his powers are spirit,
we do not understand this and the scriptures do not reveal this,
so if we say God the father total and full might and the son mighty god over all what as been create sins and through him, but God the father is God over all things.
terraricca,
I have a hard time getting the meaning of your posts. I might be wrong here but it seems that you leave out letters and punctuation. I'm not judging your grammar and don't expect perfect grammar on here nor do I use perfect grammar. I just have a hard time understanding what you write…sorry.My theory is very simple: The Most High God had a son…literally! How? We don't know for sure. We do know what the natural meaning of a son is though…an offspring like the one he came from. Many hundreds of years later, that son changed from the spirit body type to a flesh body type and took on all the limits of the flesh.
Scripture does reveal that He is the Son of God. I take it literally.
Kathi
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 18 2010,19:17) A begotten God can't be the source of Himself and therefore…not the source of all things, nor always existent and not equal to the Father who is the source of all things and self-existent. That doesn't make Him less than 100% God, it just does not make Him the Most High God. A begotten man can be equally man but not ever as old as the man that beget him. That doesn't make him less than 100% man does it. My opinion,
Kathi
Your age theory is lacking IMO, for you are comparing an infinite being to what you believe to be a finite being that was born. The difference is astronomical!Of course a Dog will never catch up to it parents in age, however the nature of dogs is to live about 14 to 18 years, so the dog may actually live longer than its parents!
Likewise every species bears after its kind a species that has the same approximate life span.
Since there is no proof of his (Jesus) beginning, that in itself is a huge indicator that the class of being God, or the Word that was with God and was God is also infinite!
Blessings WJ
Group: Members
Posts: 1251
Joined: Oct. 2009 Posted: Jan. 19 2010,11:25——————————————————————————–
LU
you do not deal with God the way you deal with man ,God is a spirit, and so his powers are spirit,
we do not understand this, and the scriptures do not reveal this,
so if we say God the father total and full mighty and the son mighty god over all what as been create sins and through him, but God the father is God over all things.how is this ??
Kathi said:
Quote The angel said that he would be called the Son of God in the future sense, I'm fine with that, but that does not mean that He wasn't the Son of God from the beginning. TO ALL:
Kathi ignores that the scripture EXPRESSLY declares that Christ was begotten as Son at His exaltation. It was in reference to Christ's exaltation that God said, “TODAY I have begotten you.” The begetting refers to His office as Mediator and not a generating by God as Kathi thinks. The name “begotten Son” in reference to Jesus refers to His rank as the administrator of the covenant of redemption and His headship over the family of God.
Kathi has fallen deep into the quagmire of confusion because she just won't allow the scriptures speak for themselves.
thinker
TT
Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Jn 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
Jn 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood itJn 1:9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
Jn 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.it seems some people have to go in to trouble before they understand what is so simple ,just read
Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 18 2010,22:14) Kathi said: Quote The angel said that he would be called the Son of God in the future sense, I'm fine with that, but that does not mean that He wasn't the Son of God from the beginning. TO ALL:
Kathi ignores that the scripture EXPRESSLY declares that Christ was begotten as Son at His exaltation. It was in reference to Christ's exaltation that God said, “TODAY I have begotten you.” The begetting refers to His office as Mediator and not a generation as Kathi thinks. The name “begotten Son” in reference to Jesus refers to His rank as the administrator of the covenant of redemption and His headship over the family of God.
Kathi has fallen deep into the quagmire of confusion because she just won't allow the scriptures speak for themselves.
thinker
Thinker,
It is clear that you don't know what I think so stop trying to explain me…you stink at it Stinker would be a better name for you… 
I wrote:
Quote He became begotten (gennao) in Hebrews 1 figuratively on the day He rose from the dead. I believe this is an expression “today I have begotten you,” that was said as part of the Davidic king ceremony when celebrating the one who finally begins his rule over the kingdom. Many men were told this and is totally different than being called the “ONLY BEGOTTEN” Son. Found here:https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=2986;st=20
That is quite different than the way you set out to represent me. You are a false witness towards me. Please stop harassing.
Thank you,
KathiQuote (terraricca @ Jan. 18 2010,20:51) Group: Members
Posts: 1251
Joined: Oct. 2009 Posted: Jan. 19 2010,11:25——————————————————————————–
LU
you do not deal with God the way you deal with man ,God is a spirit, and so his powers are spirit,
we do not understand this, and the scriptures do not reveal this,
so if we say God the father total and full mighty and the son mighty god over all what as been create sins and through him, but God the father is God over all things.how is this ??
terraricca,
Thanks for trying but what you wrote has 69 words in ONE sentence. The commas help but still very unclear…especially this part:Quote so if we say God the father total and full mighty and the son mighty god over all what as been create sins and through him, but God the father is God over all things. Sorry I still don't understand.
KathiLU
this is what i say;we could say that God the Father totally mighty and the son mighty god over all what as been created through him and for him, but Got the father is God over all things included the son.is this better
Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 19 2010,00:04) LU
this is what i say;we could say that God the Father totally mighty and the son mighty god over all what as been created through him and for him, but Got the father is God over all things included the son.is this better
terraricca,I got it…thank you! I agree.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2010,20:48) Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 18 2010,19:17) A begotten God can't be the source of Himself and therefore…not the source of all things, nor always existent and not equal to the Father who is the source of all things and self-existent. That doesn't make Him less than 100% God, it just does not make Him the Most High God. A begotten man can be equally man but not ever as old as the man that beget him. That doesn't make him less than 100% man does it. My opinion,
Kathi
Your age theory is lacking IMO, for you are comparing an infinite being to what you believe to be a finite being that was born. The difference is astronomical!Of course a Dog will never catch up to it parents in age, however the nature of dogs is to live about 14 to 18 years, so the dog may actually live longer than its parents!
Likewise every species bears after its kind a species that has the same approximate life span.
Since there is no proof of his (Jesus) beginning, that in itself is a huge indicator that the class of being God, or the Word that was with God and was God is also infinite!
Blessings WJ
Keith,
I think it is time to agree to disagree. We are only speculating anyway. What I can see…you can't. I don't think I know what else to say to help.God bless,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ Jan. 19 2010,00:30) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 18 2010,20:48) Kathi Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 18 2010,19:17) A begotten God can't be the source of Himself and therefore…not the source of all things, nor always existent and not equal to the Father who is the source of all things and self-existent. That doesn't make Him less than 100% God, it just does not make Him the Most High God. A begotten man can be equally man but not ever as old as the man that beget him. That doesn't make him less than 100% man does it. My opinion,
Kathi
Your age theory is lacking IMO, for you are comparing an infinite being to what you believe to be a finite being that was born. The difference is astronomical!Of course a Dog will never catch up to it parents in age, however the nature of dogs is to live about 14 to 18 years, so the dog may actually live longer than its parents!
Likewise every species bears after its kind a species that has the same approximate life span.
Since there is no proof of his (Jesus) beginning, that in itself is a huge indicator that the class of being God, or the Word that was with God and was God is also infinite!
Blessings WJ
Keith,
I think it is time to agree to disagree. We are only speculating anyway. What I can see…you can't. I don't think I know what else to say to help.God bless,
Kathi
KathiLikewise, what I see you cannot see!
Blessings Keith
Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 19 2010,15:39) Quote (thethinker @ Jan. 18 2010,22:14) Kathi said: Quote The angel said that he would be called the Son of God in the future sense, I'm fine with that, but that does not mean that He wasn't the Son of God from the beginning. TO ALL:
Kathi ignores that the scripture EXPRESSLY declares that Christ was begotten as Son at His exaltation. It was in reference to Christ's exaltation that God said, “TODAY I have begotten you.” The begetting refers to His office as Mediator and not a generation as Kathi thinks. The name “begotten Son” in reference to Jesus refers to His rank as the administrator of the covenant of redemption and His headship over the family of God.
Kathi has fallen deep into the quagmire of confusion because she just won't allow the scriptures speak for themselves.
thinker
Thinker,
It is clear that you don't know what I think so stop trying to explain me…you stink at it Stinker would be a better name for you… I wrote:
Quote He became begotten (gennao) in Hebrews 1 figuratively on the day He rose from the dead. I believe this is an expression “today I have begotten you,” that was said as part of the Davidic king ceremony when celebrating the one who finally begins his rule over the kingdom. Many men were told this and is totally different than being called the “ONLY BEGOTTEN” Son. Found here:https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=2986;st=20
That is quite different than the way you set out to represent me. You are a false witness towards me. Please stop harassing.
Thank you,
Kathi
Kathi,
Maybe my memory serves me poorly but didn't you say several months ago that Christ was “begotten” and “firstborn” TWICE? I ask rhetorically. I know you said this.It is good that you acknowledge that Jesus was begotten on the day of His resurrection. But this is NOT totally different then being called the “only begotten.” You are creating an artificial difference. In Hebrew culture the begotten Son was the mediator who officiated on behalf of the family in the place of the father. It therefore means, “The only Mediator-Son.”
Abraham had TWO sons but only Isaac was the mediator of the family. As such He was called Abraham's “only begotten son” (Heb. 11:17). Therefore, the expression “only begotten son” in reference to Isaac referred exclusively to Isaac's office as mediator.
The name “only begotten Son” has reference solely to Christ's office as our covenantal Head. The same is true of the name “Firstborn” in reference to Him. Jesus was NOT begotten or firstborn TWO TIMES in two senses as you have said in the past and which you seem to be saying now.
He was always the only begotten Son by decree. He was always the ordained Son of God before His resurrection. But it was at His resurrection that He became OFFICIALLY INSTALLED as the “only begotten Son.”
Kathi:
Quote Please stop harassing.
Would you like a little cheese with your whine? I have the right to reply to anyone's posts unless it is in the debate forum between two people.Jesus was not begotten twice Kathi. The begetting at the resurrection that was not “different” fom the name “only begotten Son.” The difference is an artificial one created by you.
“…the declaration of redemptive Sonship prophesied in Psalm 2:7 was conferred on Him in time, when He completed his messianic work.” Reformation Study Bible note on Hebrews 1:5
Pre-crucifixion: The only begotten Son of God by decree
Post-resurrection: Officially installed as the only begotten Son
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
