Monogenes

[George Antonios]

Thank you. Are you familiar with Dr Walter Martin's view? It is either the same or similar to yours. It is taught in his work, "The Kingdom of the Cults." One of his chief argruments is that he word of God nowhere teaches the Son is the "eternal Son." And that the Son of God became the Son in His incarnation.

I believe the Word was always the Son of God. Did not become the Son of God. Proverbs 30:4, "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" He was the Son when He created all things, ". . what is His Son's name?" John 3:13, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." I understand He did not become the Son of man until His incarantion. Isaiah 9:6, ". . . his name shall be called . . . The everlasting Father, . . ." Or Eternal Father. From the interpretation God was always the Father, there was always the Son. By interpretation, the Eternal Son. Like the term Trinity. And from my perspective, John 1:18, all apearences of God was "the unique Son." Makes it explicit to me He was always the Son.

Now if you would like to focus on one point of interpretation where we disagree. We can make sure we at the very least underded each others view as to why we have an opposing interpretation on said point. If you would like to.

Proverbs 30:4 (see Pro.30:1) and Isaiah 9:6 are both prophecies.

I was not aware of Dr. Martin's view although I know the book, thank you.
I got that view from reading and studying my Bible.

 

[George Antonios]

This needs to be looked at. First the one "begotten" was already the Son prior. "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." And that day refers to the day of His bodily resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 13:33. So it refers to the one who was already God's Son and the incarnate Son. It is explicite the passage cannot be used to claim God's Son is eternaly begotten nonsense. So the Paul wrote, Romans 1:4, ". . . And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . ."

I answered that in talking with @rlvaughn at end of post #79

 

[George Antonios]

No. "genēs" is from "ginomai."

Fine.

Strong's G1096 γίνομαι ginomai ghin'-om-ahee
A prolonged and middle form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen” -erate), that is, (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literally, figuratively, intensively, etc.): - arise be assembled, be (come, -fall, -have self), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, be done, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, + God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, X soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
Total KJV occurrences: 672

 

[Yeshua1]

False doctrine of Christ. The Son of God was never begotten to be the Son. Was always the Son.

Now as a prophecy of the incarante Son being raised from the dead was begotten. Psalms 2:7; Acts of the Apostles 13:33; Hebrews 1:5-6; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5.

He was eternally begotten of/by the Father.... he is the Word of God....

 

[George Antonios]

He was eternally begotten of/by the Father....

Only problem with that is that he was born in the gospels, in Bethlehem, in Israel, in the days of Augustus, 2,000 years ago; not in eternity...but hey, when couldn't philosophy overrule the scriptures? Right?

 

[Yeshua1]

please reread what i said BEGOTTEN FROM ETERNITY.

Begotteness is the eternal relationship of the Father and the Son.
it DOES NOT denote inferiority but equality.

The Logos (Jesus) emanates from the innermost being of the Father from eternity, equal to and with the Father.
This emanation from the bosom of the Father declares Him as the eternal Son of God.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, here we see that the Father and the Son equally share the essence of deity.

Still think that the biggest objection people have towards only begotten is that to them it seems to denote Jesus was a created being, like JW hold!

 

[Yeshua1]

Only problem with that is that he was born in the gospels, in Bethlehem, in Israel, in the days of Augustus, 2,000 years ago; not in eternity...but hey, when couldn't philosophy overrule the scriptures? Right?

I am referring to his Deity/divine nature, as his humanity was physical; born 2000 years ago only!

 

[Yeshua1]

I have not. Who is that?

One of the foremost Systematic theologians of present times, standard text book many seminaries!

 

[Yeshua1]

This needs to be looked at. First the one "begotten" was already the Son prior. "Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee." And that day refers to the day of His bodily resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 13:33. So it refers to the one who was already God's Son and the incarnate Son. It is explicite the passage cannot be used to claim God's Son is eternaly begotten nonsense. So the Paul wrote, Romans 1:4, ". . . And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: . . ."

The Word as always been begotten from by the Farher, and is Himself fully God, correct?

 

[George Antonios]

One of the foremost Systematic theologians of present times, standard text book many seminaries!

Which is why I've never heard of it!

 

[Yeshua1]

The question, folk, implied heresy on my part, but in actuality, Rhvaughn was attempting to misrepresent me. Can monogenes mean what Dan B. Wallace says it means? Yes. Can monogenes mean mean what the NIV translation team says? Yes, Can monogenes mean what the CSB translation team says? Yes, How about the LEB, NLT, ESV, WEB and NET? Yes.

Note how rather than addressing the arguments put forward, I am disparaged. This provincial behavior is typical of the KJVO advocates, who exemplify my way or the highway mentality.

last time I checked, the translators in the Nas/Nkjv were not Kjvo, nor was Dr Robertson nor those scholars in BDAG!

 

[George Antonios]

I am referring to his Deity/divine nature, as his humanity was physical; born 2000 years ago only!

Of course, and the expression the only begotten SON of God is a reference primarily-though-not-exclusively to his humanity.

No one on this thread is denying the deity of Christ.

 

[George Antonios]

The Word as always been begotten from by the Farher,

Incorrect.

and is Himself fully God, correct?

Correct.



Your sentence is an paradox. If the Word of God is fully God, then he cannot be being-begotten to begin with!



Have you read the preceding posts?

 

[Yeshua1]

You seem to be saying that systematic theology is good but it's bad.

All I said is that theology is important in Bible translation, so we have systematic theology courses in our M.A. on Bible Translation. I'll stick to my guns.

We use a good Baptist theology, Erickson. Have you read it? Also, I'm pretty sure our systematic theology proofs (me, too) have their their theology down well enough to correct any errors by Erickson.

As for the first two paragraphs in the OP, I didn't read them and won't, because I don't consider Van to be qualified in this or any other area related to Bible translation. I dare you to ask if he's ever read through a systematic theology.

Still seems that biggest problem some have with only begotten is that it makes to them Jesus seem to be a JW created being!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course, and the expression the only begotten SON of God is a reference primarily-though-not-exclusively to his humanity.

No one on this thread is denying the deity of Christ.

I am saying that some who object to term only begotten thinks that somehow denies Jesus is God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Incorrect.



Correct.



Your sentence is an paradox. If the Word of God is fully God, then he cannot be being-begotten to begin with!



Have you read the preceding posts?

yes, and the Father being the source/origin of Jesus does not make Him created, just tells to us that he is indeed very God of very God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Which is why I've never heard of it!

I have my issues with him, as he is I believe a "moderate Calvinist" as holds to 3 of 5 points of grace, but still worth consulting!

 

[George Antonios]

yes, and the Father being the source/origin of Jesus does not make Him created, just tells to us that he is indeed very God of very God!

hence my words "primarily though not exclusively"

And of course it doesn't make him created.

Again, no one on this thread is denying the deity of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

hence my words "primarily though not exclusively"

And of course it doesn't make him created.

Again, no one on this thread is denying the deity of Christ.

I agree, but my main contention is that only begotten does NOT mean Jesus is a Created being!

 

[Reformed1689]

Simply denying reality does not effect the denial.

"monogenes" is "mono" (single/only) "genes" (generated/begotten).

People may deny the undeniable sense because they have a hard time with the doctrine and it's just easier to correct the Holy Ghost who said "begotten". I'm pretty sure the Holy Ghost knows what "monogenes" means. All the "scholars" who correct the Holy Spirit of God can simply shut up.

What does the Holy Ghost have to do with meanings of words? Does God write words with different meanings than what they actually mean? Some mystical interpretation?