The only god who is

[Lightenup]

Nick,
That is not what the Bible says. It says that He is the only begotten son many times.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
And you think MONOGENES means he is the ONLY begotten son?
As a greek student you surprise me.

[Lightenup]

Nick,
Many Greek scholars have also translated it that way. In fact, all the Bibles that I have read use the word “only” but I already told you that a while ago.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Since God has named others as His sons you will have to align all this information.
You cannot do so at present if you claim he is the ONLY son.

[Lightenup]

Nick,
He is the only begotten Son, not an adopted son, not a created son. A unique type of son that we cannot follow Him as. An adopted son can never be a literal offspring like a true son can. You are a doctor, you should know that.

[Lightenup]

Nick,

This thread is not about the monogenes theos part of the verse. We have beaten that horse to death.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Then tell us of the other sons of God shown in scripture.
Even Isaac was not the ONLY SON of Abraham.[Heb11.17]

[Lightenup]

Nick,
Isaac was the only son of the promise though.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
So it has to do with SONSHIP by a promise and not begettal?

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
Sonship according to a promise could fit with Ps2 and the Jordan

[Lightenup]

Nick,
You know that Abraham's attempt to offer up Isaac was a much bigger act of faith because Isaac was the only one promised to Abraham to fulfill God's covenant with Him. It wouldn't have been such a big deal if Abe had two sons to choose from, one dies, one lives and fulfills the promise. Nope, only one son was begotten that could fulfill the promise. Isaac was indeed the only begotten that could fulfill the promise.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 01 2010,11:59)

He became deity from His onset.  Much like a child becomes human from their onset.  God the Father was God before anything at all was created, right?  The Most High God didn't need to do anything to be God.  Likewise, the Most High God's only begotten Son didn't have to do anything to be deity.  Just being the literal Son of God caused Him to be deity.  If you have a son, he didn't have to do anything except come from you as an offspring to be like you-human.

Hi Kathi,

If Jesus became deity from his beginning because he was brought into existence from God, then wouldn't all of creation be deity?  All other things came from God (a god), through Jesus (a god).  Angels wouldn't have had to do anything except come from a god or gods as an offspring to be deity.  And since all living things have spirit from God, we are deity too.  (This is not my belief, I'm just trying to follow your thoughts through.)  

And one last thought – when we talked about whether Christ was created or begotten, I said that they both meant basically “were caused to exist”.  You put more weight on the word “begotten” than I do.  But Irene reminded me of Revelation 3:14 in which Jesus describes himself as, “the beginning of the creation by God.”  Apparently, Jesus is all right with being “created”.  IMO

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2010,22:37)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 01 2010,11:59) He became deity from His onset.  Much like a child becomes human from their onset.  God the Father was God before anything at all was created, right?  The Most High God didn't need to do anything to be God.  Likewise, the Most High God's only begotten Son didn't have to do anything to be deity.  Just being the literal Son of God caused Him to be deity.  If you have a son, he didn't have to do anything except come from you as an offspring to be like you-human. Hi Kathi, If Jesus became deity from his beginning because he was brought into existence from God, then wouldn't all of creation be deity?  All other things came from God (a god), through Jesus (a god).  Angels wouldn't have had to do anything except come from a god or gods as an offspring to be deity.  And since all living things have spirit from God, we are deity too.  (This is not my belief, I'm just trying to follow your thoughts through.)   And one last thought – when we talked about whether Christ was created or begotten, I said that they both meant basically “were caused to exist”.  You put more weight on the word “begotten” than I do.  But Irene reminded me of Revelation 3:14 in which Jesus describes himself as, “the beginning of the creation by God.”  Apparently, Jesus is all right with being “created”.  IMO peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,

You say:

Quote

If Jesus became deity from his beginning because he was brought into existence from God, then wouldn't all of creation be deity? All other things came from God (a god), through Jesus (a god). Angels wouldn't have had to do anything except come from a god or gods as an offspring to be deity. And since all living things have spirit from God, we are deity too. (This is not my belief, I'm just trying to follow your thoughts through.)

No, creation didn't come into existence through Jesus in a begotten way, it came in a created way.

Now, regarding Rev. 3:14…
Here are several translations of Rev. 3:14. You can see that it can mean ruler of creation or orginator of creation.

Quote

Revelation 3:14 NET © “To 1 the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: 2 “This is the solemn pronouncement of 3 the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator 4 of God’s creation: NIV © “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. NASB © “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: NLT © “Write this letter to the angel of the church in Laodicea. This is the message from the one who is the Amen––the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation: MSG © Write to Laodicea, to the Angel of the church. God's Yes, the Faithful and Accurate Witness, the First of God's creation, says: BBE © And to the angel of the church in Laodicea say: These things says the true and certain witness, the head of God’s new order: NRSV © “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: NKJV © “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:

Here is some NET Bible comments on the issue:

Quote

tn Or “the beginning of God’s creation”; or “the ruler of God’s creation.” From a linguistic standpoint all three meanings for ἀρχή (arch) are possible. The term is well attested in both LXX (Gen 40:13, 21; 41:13) and intertestamental Jewish literature (2 Macc 4:10, 50) as meaning “ruler, authority” (BDAG 138 s.v. 6). Some have connected this passage to Paul’s statements in Col 1:15, 18 which describe Christ as ἀρχή and πρωτότοκος (prwtotoko”; e.g., see R. H. Mounce, Revelation [NICNT], 124) but the term ἀρχή has been understood as either “beginning” or “ruler” in that passage as well. The most compelling connection is to be found in the prologue to John’s Gospel (1:2-4) where the λόγος (logos) is said to be “in the beginning (ἀρχή) with God,” a temporal reference connected with creation, and then v. 3 states that “all things were made through him.” The connection with the original creation suggests the meaning “originator” for ἀρχή here. BDAG 138 s.v. 3 gives the meaning “the first cause” for the word in Rev 3:14, a term that is too philosophical for the general reader, so the translation “originator” was used instead. BDAG also notes, “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable.

Good questions though Mike.

Blessings,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 28 2010,22:27)

Hi LU, So it has to do with SONSHIP by a promise and not begettal?

Nick,
Isaac wouldn't have been the promised son if he wasn't begotten.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 28 2010,22:28)

Hi LU, Sonship according to a promise could fit with Ps2 and the Jordan

But Nick,
The Son was begotten before any promise was made or even necessary and He was the one that fulfilled the promise that eventually was made.

[NickHassan]

Hi LU,
So you fall back onto tradition?

[Lightenup]

What tradition Nick?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 01 2010,14:53)

Here is some NET Bible comments on the issue: Quote   tn Or “the beginning of God’s creation”; or “the ruler of God’s creation.” From a linguistic standpoint all three meanings for ἀρχή (arch) are possible. The term is well attested in both LXX (Gen 40:13, 21; 41:13) and intertestamental Jewish literature (2 Macc 4:10, 50) as meaning “ruler, authority” (BDAG 138 s.v. 6). Some have connected this passage to Paul’s statements in Col 1:15, 18 which describe Christ as ἀρχή and πρωτότοκος (prwtotoko”; e.g., see R. H. Mounce, Revelation [NICNT], 124) but the term ἀρχή has been understood as either “beginning” or “ruler” in that passage as well. The most compelling connection is to be found in the prologue to John’s Gospel (1:2-4) where the λόγος (logos) is said to be “in the beginning (ἀρχή) with God,” a temporal reference connected with creation, and then v. 3 states that “all things were made through him.” The connection with the original creation suggests the meaning “originator” for ἀρχή here. BDAG 138 s.v. 3 gives the meaning “the first cause” for the word in Rev 3:14, a term that is too philosophical for the general reader, so the translation “originator” was used instead. BDAG also notes, “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable.

Hi Kathi,

Sounds like a whole lot of five dollar words to come to the conclusion of “we don't know”.

And what does this mean?

Quote

“but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable.

To translate it as “beginning” is “linguistically probable” but is “unlikely”.  Am I reading this wrong, or is it double-talk?

Forget your other translations though, the Greek Interlinear says, “the   beginning   of the   creation   of the   God”.

And in the “firstborn of all creation” Scripture, you like to put more emphasis on the “born”.  But I think you gloss over the “OF CREATION” part.  Jesus is a part of creation, therefore, he was created.  IMO

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2010,23:30)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 01 2010,14:53) Here is some NET Bible comments on the issue: Quote   tn Or “the beginning of God’s creation”; or “the ruler of God’s creation.” From a linguistic standpoint all three meanings for ἀρχή (arch) are possible. The term is well attested in both LXX (Gen 40:13, 21; 41:13) and intertestamental Jewish literature (2 Macc 4:10, 50) as meaning “ruler, authority” (BDAG 138 s.v. 6). Some have connected this passage to Paul’s statements in Col 1:15, 18 which describe Christ as ἀρχή and πρωτότοκος (prwtotoko”; e.g., see R. H. Mounce, Revelation [NICNT], 124) but the term ἀρχή has been understood as either “beginning” or “ruler” in that passage as well. The most compelling connection is to be found in the prologue to John’s Gospel (1:2-4) where the λόγος (logos) is said to be “in the beginning (ἀρχή) with God,” a temporal reference connected with creation, and then v. 3 states that “all things were made through him.” The connection with the original creation suggests the meaning “originator” for ἀρχή here. BDAG 138 s.v. 3 gives the meaning “the first cause” for the word in Rev 3:14, a term that is too philosophical for the general reader, so the translation “originator” was used instead. BDAG also notes, “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable. Hi Kathi, Sounds like a whole lot of five dollar words to come to the conclusion of “we don't know”. And what does this mean? Quote “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable. To translate it as “beginning” is “linguistically probable” but is “unlikely”.  Am I reading this wrong, or is it double-talk? Forget your other translations though, the Greek Interlinear says, “the   beginning   of the   creation   of the   God”. And in the “firstborn of all creation” Scripture, you like to put more emphasis on the “born”.  But I think you gloss over the “OF CREATION” part.  Jesus is a part of creation, therefore, he was created.  IMO peace and love, mike

Mike,

You ask:

Quote

Sounds like a whole lot of five dollar words to come to the conclusion of “we don't know”.

Well, they have a good hunch anyway

Quote

And what does this mean? Quote “but the mng. beginning = ‘first created’ is linguistically probable (s. above 1b and Job 40:19; also CBurney, Christ as the ᾿Αρχή of Creation: JTS 27, 1926, 160-77).” Such a meaning is unlikely here, however, since the connections described above are much more probable. To translate it as “beginning” is “linguistically probable” but is “unlikely”.  Am I reading this wrong, or is it double-talk?

I think the term “linguistically probable” gives “beginning of creation” a chance based on the grammar construction but when taking into account other scriptures on the topic, there are more probable translations of the term that also fit the grammar construction, like “originator.”

Quote

Forget your other translations though, the Greek Interlinear says, “the   beginning   of the   creation   of the   God”.

That depends on which Greek interlinear you use.  I have a NIV Greek interlinear and it says “ruler.”

Quote

And in the “firstborn of all creation” Scripture, you like to put more emphasis on the “born”.  But I think you gloss over the “OF CREATION” part.  Jesus is a part of creation, therefore, he was created.  IMO

If the Son of God was a created part of creation as a firstborn, then He would have had to come from a created being.  He was not from a created being before all things were created through Him.  He was from God.  God always existed.  
Adam is never referred to as the firstborn of all men and Eve isn't the firstborn of Adam even though she was made up of what was in Adam (his rib-“ouch”).
 

My opinion,
Kathi

[NickHassan]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 01 2010,15:13)

What tradition Nick?

Hi LU,
You were explaining how ONLY BEGOTTEN relates to a son of promise but now withdraw that when it comes to Jesus?

[Author]

Posts