Featured Monogenes

No one is saying that. What it means is that he is a begotten being.

• If you place the begetting in time and ascribe that begetting to his flesh - then you preserve the deity of Christ.

• If you place that begetting in eternity and thus ascribe it to his spirit - then you deny [practically] the deity of Christ.

 

Yes. That does not disallow the Son having always being the Son.

 

No. you and i are born of the SPIRIT in time, Jesus (Logos) is the only begotten of the FATHER emanating from His inner most being from eternity.

from the bosom of the father - part of His essential being.sharing in the essence of deity.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

from eternity

baptism formula
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (singular-YHWH) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.


AND THE JOHANNINE COMMA WHICH I BELIEVE IS SCRIPTURE

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

You say "begotten"....I will just use "μονογενες" since we translate it a different way.

When John uses μονογενες (unique or "only begotten"), it is referring to Jesus after the incarnation. Jesus was not μονογενες until that point. It is putting on flesh that made Him completely "unique" among all beings, even among the God head.

Jesus was still the person and being He is today....but the uniqueness that he achieved in the incarnation was not yet manifest.

The fact that the μονογενες started at the incarnation is why I feel "unique" is better than "only-begotten". In my opinion the latter completely misses John's point...or at minimum clouds it unnecessarily.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Brother...Jesus Christ was begotten in the gospels- Matthew/Mark/Luke/John, in Bethlehem, in Israel, under Rome.

That's when the eternal Word of God incarnated as the Son of God.

the Son of God has nothing do to, in scripture, with "emanating from His inner most being from eternity" as a brother said, it has to do with the fact that Jesus is the only man in history whose FLESH, FLESH, FLESH, was born of the Holy Ghost, hence the ONLY begotten Son of God.

 

You're close, but if you have time, please read up on my posts. only begotten is exactly what it should say and what the Holy Ghost correctly said.

 

Nonsense. My position is the Son was not caused in any way to be the Eternal Son. He was always the Son.

 

You know guys, it's amazing to just sit back, and read all the paradoxical philosophy of continuous begetting in eternity past, and always sonship in eternity past, and such jazz, when the scriptures told us most plainly that the only begotten Son means that Jesus is the only man whose FLESH was born of the Holy Ghost.

It's amazing how philosophy can cloud the mind of an intellectual to even the plainly declared truths of scripture.

And here we are with "scholars" all too eager to correct the Holy Ghost own words of only begotten Son so they can prop up a paradoxical and silly notion of Christ always being the Son [I didn't say the Word, I said the Son] out in eternity past and being continually begotten....what.a.mess.

 

I think it is clearer to say that it opens Jesus up to being a created "g"od. Certainly this is how we see cults using the term, as that fits with English usage.

Granted, an orthodox Christian will never read "only-begotten" that way. Though I have seen several, even after a profession of faith, greatly struggle with that phrase "only-begotten". I had to teach a class last year on thr Trinity and address this verse last year because Mormons had targeted multiple members and none could answer the Mormon claims or even explain "only-begotten" in a satisfactory way.

That God the Father, beget (produced) another god who is his offspring.

This of course is not the only reason many feel "unique" is superior.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

the scriptures told us most plainly that the only begotten Son means that Jesus is the only man whose FLESH was born of the Holy Ghost. That's it, that's all.

 

This sentence is foggy best.
This is an example of how we do not clear convey who Jesus is. You just said Jesus has an origin. You did not specify spiritual, or physical. To a Muslim you just contradicted youself within 1 sentence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

True. I can confirm as one who was born and raised in a mostly Muslim country.
The specification concerning the FLESH, as I've been constantly posting, is the key that solves it.

 

In the womb of MARY He was begotten as the human GOD-man Jesus Christ, as the Logos HE emanated as the Son of God from the inner being of the Father from eternity.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.

This is the Arian/Trinitarian controversy settled by Athanasius/Council of Nicaea as Trinitarian.

 

That would be the historical orthodox view of the English phrase "only-begotten".

That is not how enemies of the faith read that phrase.

Regardless of if one says, "only-begotten" or "unique"....to not read this word in light of the incarnation will lead to a heresy.


Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Brother, no one here is denying the deity of Christ.

What I'm saying is that the expression the only begotten Son of God specifically, just means that Jesus is the only man whose FLESH was born of the Holy Ghost.

Of course Jesus Christ was thus manifested as God in the flesh, but again, the issue under discussion is the meaning of the above expression - specifically.

 

Agreed, but I say that to use "unique" is to A) change the words of God and B) does not explain how he is unique.
How the enemies of the faith read it is their problem. I just explain it.
The Holy Ghost had it right: only begotten Son of God.
Because let me tell you what else the Muslims use, in fact their #1 attack: that we change the words of the King James Bible - and they are right!

 

Chapter 1 of John is where Scripture makes it very clear.

I don't think anyone is questioning the Holy Spirit on either thread. Just man's translation of μονογενες.

I have never interacted with one that has used the KJV as their starting place. The ones I have spoke with in Western Kentucky all start with textual variants in the Greek.




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Man's translation, according to several Bible examples (Luke 4:21, John 5:39, Acts 8:32, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:24, Acts 18:28, Romans 15:4, Romans 16:26, 2Timothy 3:15, 1Peter 2:6, 2Peter 1:20), is the same thing as the Holy Ghost's words.
God, not man, said only begotten Son. It is not for man to correct that.
The autographs are not here anymore. How convenient for men because now we can change any of God's words while claiming that they're simply men's words. Yeah, no.

Any Muslim that begins with Greek textual variants is not your typical Muslim, I guarantee that.

 

Again you and I are born of the SPIRIT, Jesus is begotten of the FATHER. He is unique.

The unique son of the Father.

The controversy continues because the scripture does not specifically assign eternality to Him.
It is clearly implied especially in John 8:58 and 1 John 5:7.

He is called the Son of God preincarnate because of the scripture "In the bosom of the father".

It is true that it took several centuries for the church to develop the Trinitarian doctrine.