- This topic has 19,164 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
lightenup……..What did you mean your Christ was not created then, If he wasn't created then he wasn't a man being or angle or anything else Other them Almighty God Himself right. And we Know the God Jesus The Man was praying to wasn't Himself right, so your logic fails completely. We know that all men are a creation of God, but you some how exclude Jesus the (MAN) Jesus .
IMO…………gene
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,12:59) Quote (Not3in1 @ May 31 2008,20:25) Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,11:42) I'm on a different path but I will follow the Creator and not the creature. I follow Christ.
If this is the path you are on, please tell me how we are on different paths?I also follow Christ. I follow him all the way to his example. I worship and pray to his Father who is also my Father. The One, Almighty God. There is no other…..
Thanks,
Mandy
Mandy,
The Christ you follow is a creature, a created being, a created man. The Christ that I follow is not created but was used to create. Two different Christs, two different paths.Bless you,
K
Hi Kathi,“Bakin and debatin”, too cute!
OK, I think I understand you now. Yes, we have two completely different ideas of who Jesus is.
I believe Jesus is a “creature” as you put it, because he was conceived of a women. We cannot and must not forget Mary. I believe she played an important role that is bypassed with your theory. If Jesus is as you say, he could have been a part of some sort of body-snatcher's and just claimed any flesh. Anyway, that is how I make sense of what you are saying. Forgive me if I'm off base.
Anyway, save some cookies for me! You know, I would totally give you my address if you wantedt to mail me some!
Love,
MandyQuote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2008,12:40)
seek ………..Col 1: 12.giving thanks to the fathers who enabled us to share in the inheritance of the saints of light,he has rescued us from the power of darkness and transfered us into the kingdom of hid beloved son,in whom we have redemption , the forgiveness of sins , he is the (image) of the invisible God the first born of all creation ,question he is in the what (IMAGE) what is the image of God, is it not what God had in mind for all humanity, but Jesus was the firstborn to become that image, and the word image does not mean exact same as , it means to reflect or mirror something, but is never the actual being it he is reflecting nor does he have the same power either. An image of the invisible God is not God Himself.
for in him (God) all things were created in heaven and on the earth things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers- all have been created through him (God)and for him,he(GOD) himself is before all things, and in him (GOD)all things are held together. he (Jesus) is the head of the body, the church he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have preeminence.
Your making all of the text be about Jesus when all of it was not.
if you take all the bible into consideration all the other scriptures that show that God said He (ALONE)and By (HIMSELF) crated the earth and all thats in it. you could have easily properly understood the text. Your problem is your not taking (all) scripture into consideration before you draw a conclusion.All the rest of what you asked to be explained have been explained over and over, but if you don't get it, you simply don't get it.
peace to you………gene
Hi Gene,
wonderful post on Col 1:15-18, I never understood this passage with such in depth meaning.
Thank you my brother.
Peace to all
AdamQuote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,12:35) Hi 94,
For some reason my computer would not follow the link you provided to WJ's post. I remember it included the NET Bible's notes from the translators. So I have copied the verse as they have it translated and their notes. Note that in verse 18, son is not the word to use but “God” is correct. Technically, it can be only begotten God, (read the notes) they just can't have it that way because it throws off their theology.Anyway, do you like how they translate the verse to read that Jesus is the “The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father”. I thought he was just a man like us in your opinion doesn't that kinda mess up your theory?
1:14 Now 34 the Word became flesh 35 and took up residence 36 among us. We 37 saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, 38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John 39 testified 40 about him and shouted out, 41 “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, 42 because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 43 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but 44 grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father, has made God 47 known. 48
tc 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 Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 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.
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).
If you read the notes carefully, it explains why the translations that say “only begotten Son” is not the preferred reading and why.
Also, you will see that it is technically possible for it to read that Jesus is the only begotten God.LU
Hi Lightenup:John 1:18 in the interlinear bible does read the way that you have stated, but there has to be an explanation because there is no begotten God. I will have to do some studying and some praying about this. “Begotten God” is just not consistent with the rest of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God”.
God Bless
Hi 94,
You are on right track brother. No where in New Testament Jesus mentioned as if he was 'begotten God' rather he confirmed that he was the 'Son of God'. No need to get confused on these mistranslations.
Peace to you
AdamQuote (Gene Balthrop @ May 31 2008,22:46) lightenup……..What did you mean your Christ was not created then, If he wasn't created then he wasn't a man being or angle or anything else Other them Almighty God Himself right. And we Know the God Jesus The Man was praying to wasn't Himself right, so your logic fails completely. We know that all men are a creation of God, but you some how exclude Jesus the (MAN) Jesus . IMO…………gene
You really haven't been reading many of my posts have you?The spirit of the only begotten God was BORN not created of the Most High God before He was used to make all things in heaven and on earth and way before He emptied Himself and took on the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. By the way, He wasn't killed to accomplish that. His spirit just passed from one realm to another. Our spirit will do that someday also.
The spirit of Christ (the spirit of the only begotten God) is what I follow, not the skin and bones that at one time covered Him.
Hi 94,
Good for you to actually look it up in the interlinear and see for yourself that John 1:18 says “only begotten God”. It is good for you to pray about it. I don't imagine that you will hear anything unless you put your notions on the altar and give Him reign to show you what He wants to show you.God bless you, 94
94…….from my studies in the past the term (only begotten) should be rendered as (Uniquely Begotten), the first Adam was also uniquely begotten of God and the Second Adam also was uniquely begotten of God, but none the less (begotten) Which means brought forth by the hand of God.
Adam was the first Man born of God as it says and Jesus was the second Man born of God both were unique compared to normal humanity. But non the less pure Human beings, one was given the holy spirit and begotten of God as a son on the day he was baptized,Just as it say's “(This Day) (I) GOD Have begotten you not some time in the distant past as trinitarians would have you believe.
The other, the first Adam will receive the Holy Spirit later,and become a spiritual son of God just as Jesus is.
IMO……………..gene
Hi 94,
So Adam did not exist when he was begotten [does scripture say so?]
and Jesus was already a man when he was?Hi,
Look at the sequence of events shown in Heb 1
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
It seems the begettal came BEFORE his being brought into the world.
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2008,01:01) 94…….from my studies in the past the term (only begotten) should be rendered as (Uniquely Begotten), the first Adam was also uniquely begotten of God and the Second Adam also was uniquely begotten of God, but none the less (begotten) Which means brought forth by the hand of God. Adam was the first Man born of God as it says and Jesus was the second Man born of God both were unique compared to normal humanity. But non the less pure Human beings, one was given the holy spirit and begotten of God as a son on the day he was baptized,Just as it say's “(This Day) (I) GOD Have begotten you not some time in the distant past as trinitarians would have you believe.
The other, the first Adam will receive the Holy Spirit later,and become a spiritual son of God just as Jesus is.
IMO……………..gene
Hey Gene,
Where does it say that Adam was born of God or uniquely begotten of God? Here, I'll save you some time…it doesn't. He was “formed” of clay and yes, that was unique but that wasn't born of God. Adam was created.Definition from Studylight.org
Monogenes:
single of its kind, only
used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of GodAnother source:
NT:3439monogenes (mon-og-en-ace'); from NT:3441 and NT:1096; only-born, i.e. sole:
KJV – only (begotten, child).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright  1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)Gen 1:27
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
NASUIt doesn't say uniquely begotten, it says “created”.
Adam was created not begotten.
I gave you two definitions that say “only begotten” and “only born”. So the term monogenes is properly rendered as only begotten or only born.
Hey Mandy,
It couldn't be just any body that the Son of God took. Just any old body would have had the sin passed into it from the earthly father. Jesus could not have had a body with the inherited sin.Just my opinion.
And about the cookies, why don't you come to the bbq for my son's graduation and help yourself:) I'd love to have you.
KathiHi LU,
Mary was from our sinful estate.
Jesus, the captain of our salvation, overcame sin.Rom8
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,12:35) Hi 94,
For some reason my computer would not follow the link you provided to WJ's post. I remember it included the NET Bible's notes from the translators. So I have copied the verse as they have it translated and their notes. Note that in verse 18, son is not the word to use but “God” is correct. Technically, it can be only begotten God, (read the notes) they just can't have it that way because it throws off their theology.Anyway, do you like how they translate the verse to read that Jesus is the “The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father”. I thought he was just a man like us in your opinion doesn't that kinda mess up your theory?
1:14 Now 34 the Word became flesh 35 and took up residence 36 among us. We 37 saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, 38 full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. 1:15 John 39 testified 40 about him and shouted out, 41 “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, 42 because he existed before me.’” 1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. 43 1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but 44 grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father, has made God 47 known. 48
tc 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 Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 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.
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).
If you read the notes carefully, it explains why the translations that say “only begotten Son” is not the preferred reading and why.
Also, you will see that it is technically possible for it to read that Jesus is the only begotten God.LU
Hi LUQuote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,12:35)
Anyway, do you like how they translate the verse to read that Jesus is the “The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father”. I thought he was just a man like us in your opinion doesn't that kinda mess up your theory?Maybe it will mess up his theory, but I think it messes up yours also, respectfully.
John 1:18
NLT
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the
Father's heart; he has told us about him.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable TrustNIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Footnote:
a Or the Only Begotten
b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible SocietyESV
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Footnote:
a Greek in the bosom of the Father
b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway BiblesNET
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.Footnote;
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).I think contextually the Net and the above makes more sense because if John the writer believed Yeshua was the “begotten God” he could have cleared up a lot of confusion by starting the chapter with…
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the “Begotten God”.
So the term “Word was God” is consistent with the NET and others.
Not to mention the other scriptures that would contradict this concept of “a begotten God”.
94s link was Here.
The Word Monogenes simply means “Unique”, “Only one of its kind”. John used this term after his incarnation. There is no scripture that says Yeshua was begotten, or born before his natural birth. If this was so then that would mean Yeshua was born again when he came in the flesh.
I also disagree respectfully with your concept that there is a difference in being born and being created. I do not think there is a difference because of scriptures like these…
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3
If all things were made by him I assume that would include the born. Of course remember, “Without him was not anything made that was made”.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Col 1:16
So we see that all things that were born are created, but not all things that are created are born.
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isa 44:24
Blessings!
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,18:19) Hey Mandy,
It couldn't be just any body that the Son of God took. Just any old body would have had the sin passed into it from the earthly father. Jesus could not have had a body with the inherited sin.Just my opinion.
And about the cookies, why don't you come to the bbq for my son's graduation and help yourself:) I'd love to have you.
Kathi
Can I come too. In Spirit I will be there. Please tell your Son
Congratulation from Georg and Irene
What did He graduated from High School or College?Peace and Love Georg and Irene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2008,14:46) lightenup……..What did you mean your Christ was not created then, If he wasn't created then he wasn't a man being or angle or anything else Other them Almighty God Himself right. And we Know the God Jesus The Man was praying to wasn't Himself right, so your logic fails completely. We know that all men are a creation of God, but you some how exclude Jesus the (MAN) Jesus . IMO…………gene
I could be wrong, but I think lightenup is referring to:2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.So if ALL things were made through him, then was he also made through him(self)?
Also, Jesus partook of flesh, but that statement doesn't mean that he existed for the first time in flesh.
In fact we are told that he existed with divine nature and emptied himself and took on the likeness of a servant in flesh.
So when did he have divine nature or when did he exist in the form of God?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2008,18:43) Hi LU
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2008,12:35)
Anyway, do you like how they translate the verse to read that Jesus is the “The only one, 45 himself God, who is in closest fellowship with 46 the Father”. I thought he was just a man like us in your opinion doesn't that kinda mess up your theory?Maybe it will mess up his theory, but I think it messes up yours also, respectfully.
John 1:18
NLT
No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.
Footnote:
Some manuscripts read his one and only Son.
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable TrustNIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,,who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
Footnote:
a Or the Only Begotten
b Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible SocietyESV
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Footnote:
a Greek in the bosom of the Father
b Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version © 2001 Crossway BiblesNET
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.Footnote;
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).I think contextually the Net and the above makes more sense because if John the writer believed Yeshua was the “begotten God” he could have cleared up a lot of confusion by starting the chapter with…
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the “Begotten God”.
So the term “Word was God” is consistent with the NET and others.
Not to mention the other scriptures that would contradict this concept of “a begotten God”.
94s link was Here.
The Word Monogenes simply means “Unique”, “Only one of its kind”. John used this term after his incarnation. There is no scripture that says Yeshua was begotten, or born before his natural birth. If this was so then that would mean Yeshua was born again when he came in the flesh.
I also disagree respectfully with your concept that there is a difference in being born and being created. I do not think there is a difference because of scriptures like these…
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:3
If all things were made by him I assume that would include the born. Of course remember, “Without him was not anything made that was made”.
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Col 1:16
So we see that all things that were born are created, but not all things that are created are born.
Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; Isa 44:24
Blessings!
Hi WJ,
I have to appreciate your understanding about the God of the Bible. Though I differ in Trinity. Wonderful post it is indeed.
Peace to you
Adam
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
