60 replies to this topic

[Adanac]

The Only Begotten Son of God

Reading: John 3

John 3:16 said:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

About 1700 years ago a Christian council made a theological decision that has had repercussions that are still felt in the Christian world even today. In fact the debate that raged in the 4th century after Christ is just as strong today as it was back then.

The Council was held in the city of Nicea in 325AD. The question that arose is commonly called the Arian Controversy and surrounds a disagreement between two bishops, Arius and Athanasius, over the nature of God and his son the Lord Jesus Christ. Athanasius said that Jesus was, in his very nature, God. Arius disagreed and said that Jesus did not have the nature of God.

Constantine, a sun-worshipper who converted the Roman empire to Christianity, came down on the side of Athanasius. And from that time forward the Christian world changed for ever even until today. The doctrine of the Trinity, that Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father, was formulated as a result of the council and this doctrine of the Trinity became the central tenet of the Christian faith. Yet it could so easily, had Arius had enough support, gone the other way…

[Adanac]

Here is an excerpt from the Nicene Creed:

part of the Nicean Creed said:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

I have underlined the most relevant section for the purposes of this study. The controversy surrounding the nature of Christ centres around the word “begotten” and the idea that “true God from true God” means that God only begets God.

Here is part of a later creed that formulates the doctrine known as the Trinity:

part of the Athanasian Creed said:

- Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
- For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
- God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world;
- Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting;
- Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Again notice the use of words like incarnation and begotten – bringing with it the idea that Jesus shares in the essential physical nature of God and therefore is God.

Therefore central to the debate is the idea that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. I have debated with several Trinitarians over this very thing in which they will say that since Jesus is the son of God, or more especially the only begotten son of God, then this is proof positive that he is God.

[Adanac]

The logic surrounding this proof for the Trinitarian concept comes from the universal law that like begets like. The idea is that if Jesus is begotten son of God then like begets like – God begets God. This is a summary of that Law:

Organisms are Similar because of their Common Ancestry said:

For millennia it has been appreciated that organisms give rise to new individuals of the same kind (i.e., same species). Thus, humans give rise to more humans, dandelions give rise to more dandelions, Escherichia coli gives rise to more E. coli, and so forth. In essence,

like begets like begets like begets like etc. ad nauseam.

The continuity of a species is a consequence of the genes passed from each generation to the next. This is a static view of the biological world; without other processes, life could not change.

But is that really what the Bible says? And can we reduce the relationship of Jesus Christ, the son of God, with his Father down to biology, chemistry and physics?

[Adanac]

Let’s analyze that phrase – “only begotten son”.

John 3:16 said:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten <3439> Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

As you can see the Strong’s # for “only begotten” is 3439 (so it’s only one word in the original Greek). When we look this up in a concordance we see that the Greek word is monogenes. What does this word actually mean? That’s a good question because there is some controversy over it even among Greek scholars. Breaking the word apart we can see where the word “only” comes – mono. But what about second part, genes.

Historically scholars have been divided over the root of this part of the word monogenes. Some derive it from gennao which is the Greek word for “beget”. It even looks that way transliterated into English doesn’t it? Genes – the thing that are transferred when you beget a child.

But others will say that it comes from a different Greek word, ginomai, which simple means “to be”.

So what does it mean? Does it mean “only begotten” as in the King James version translation of John 3:16? Or does it mean “only one” if it is rooted in the word “to be”? Well let’s allow the rest of Scripture to answer this and I’ll also introduce you to some comments from a Greek authority.

[Adanac]

But first have a look at some other translations of John 3:16. Some, like the NASB, retain the famous KJV rendering. But other translate is somewhat differently:

‘one and only Son’ – NIV, The Message
‘only begotten ([a]unique) Son’ – Amplified
‘only son’ – NLT, ESV, CEV

As you can see various other translations miss out the word begotten altogether. The Amplified Bible includes it but adds the note that it can also be translated as “unique”. So the world of translation is divided. Some seem to favour the gennao root while others opt for ginomai.

Here’s what one Greek authority has to say on the matter:

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia in Five Volumes, on 1975, Vol A-C, p. 510, said:

BEGOTTEN (BEGETTING)

[…]

Christ, by contrast is, "son" of God, to John, but this verb is not used in the NT to describe God's relationship to Him. "Only-begotten" (1:14, etc.) is a mistranslation in older VSS of "only," "unique" prob. corresponding to Heb. yachiyd, of which "beloved" is another NT tr. See also SON OF GOD.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Abbot-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT (1937); W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (1957). [R. A. COLE]

That’s an interesting claim – that “only begotten” is a mistranslation of monogenes. In fact during my research I found that this was the prevalent view and the rendering of “only son” or “one and only son” is more accurate. However it’s when we turn to Scripture that we find out what the importance of the word is.

[Adanac]

The word monogenes is used nine times in total in the New Testament. Five of these time it is used by John to refer to Jesus as God’s “only begotten son” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). Three of the other four occurrences are used by Luke:

Luke 7:12 said:

Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only <3439> son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 8:42 said:

For he had one only <3439> daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38 said:

And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child <3439>.

It’s interesting to note here that the KJV translators have not chosen to include the word “begotten” in these verses even though the same word monogenes is used each time to refer to the only son or daughter. In fact when you think about it the word “begotten” would be rather redundant in these verses: if it’s someone’s son or daughter it would go without saying that they are begotten. We might expect something else only if it was a special case like they were a son or daughter by adoption.

The last occurrence of the word monogenes is very helpful for understanding its meaning:

Hebrews 11:17 said:

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten <3439> son

As we’ll see later this verse is the key to understanding what the phrase “only begotten son” means when referring to Jesus. We’ll see that Isaac is a type of Christ in this regard. But first we need to look at a couple more principles.

Just to summarize so far, what I am proposing is that Jesus is not really called “the only begotten son” at all but that what John 3:16 should say is that God gave his unique son, and the idea of like begetting like is really absent.

[Adanac]

But isn’t Jesus called begotten of God elsewhere in the Bible? Indeed he is, and we need to consider this before we move on. The passage in question comes from the Psalms.

Psalm 2 said:

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 ¶ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

We know this is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact we’ll look at the three times it is quoted of him in the New Testament in a moment. The Hebrew word for “begotten” in verse 7 is yeled and is usually translated as beget in the Old Testament and that’s what the word means.

So it seems as if Jesus is begotten of God after all. Well let’s have a look at how this verse is used in the New Testament. Firstly by the Apostle Paul:

Acts 13:33 said:

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The word translated “begotten” here is genneo, the Greek word for beget. But notice what this verse is actually saying. It’s not applying Psalm 2 to the birth of Jesus at all but to his resurrection. In fact this is true of each time Psalm 2 is applied to Jesus – it’s always in the context of his resurrection and glorification.

Hebrews 1:5 said:

For 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?

This verse contains two quotations from the Old Testament. The second one is from 2 Samuel 7 and the promise to David that his seed would be the king. In fact the theme of Hebrews 1 is about Jesus being superior to the angels because he is king (for instance verse 8 says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.”)

And that fits in with the theme of Psalm 2. It’s not about the birth of a baby at all but the coronation of a king, and that’s what the Psalm was used for historically. When the king was crowned it was as if he was declared to be the Son of God. Not only a king but a priest also, which is what the third use of Psalm 2 tells us:

Hebrews 5:5 said:

So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Again this speaks of the glorification of Christ, this time as high priest, which he became when he was raised from the dead and ascended to his father’s right hand.

So yes, Jesus is begotten of God as Psalm 2 says: but only in so far as his resurrection and glorification is concerned.

[Adanac]

Now draw your minds back to John 3 and let’s think of a related question to the idea that Jesus birth was an incarnation of God betting God.

John 3:31 said:

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

This verse seems to say that Jesus came down from heaven and so he must have existed in heaven before he was born. In fact this is one of the main verses used to teach the Incarnation of Christ. But let’s break this verse down:

Quote

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of <1537> the earth is earthly <1537>, and speaketh of <1537> the earth: he that cometh from <1537> heaven is above all.

As you can see the same word is repeated throughout the verse, Strong’s # 1537 representing the Greek word ek. But you’ll notice that it is translated either “of” or “from”. That’s not very consistent and makes it so the sense of the verse is lost. What John is doing it drawing a parallel:

He who is of/from the earth
He who is of/from heaven

Let’s suppose that this verse teaches us that Jesus preexisted in heaven in some form (i.e. as God the Son or the Logos to use Trinitarian language). So what would the parallelism teach us? That normal men and women preexist in the earth before they are born? Is that what this verse is really teaching us? Actually, in a sense, that is exactly what we are being told, but we’ll leave that for a little bit later.

[Adanac]

If it isn’t talking about existing before he was born, what does it mean that Jesus came “from above”? Well let’s look at the Greek once more:

Quote

He that cometh from above <509> is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

The phrase “from above” is translated from once Greek word (Strong’s #509 – anothen) and what’s of interest to us is that John has used it before in the same chapter:

John 3:3 said:

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born <1080> again <509>, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

We can see that the word “again” is the same word used in verse 31, and this time it is used of believers being “born again” or born from above. I’ve also highlighted the word born and it is the word gennao – to beget. So believers are, if we translate the phrase literally, begotten from above.

The implications of this become more important when we read what follows:

John said:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Look at what Jesus says here. Each time the word “born” is the same word genneo – to beget. What he’s doing is explaining what it means to be born again, or begotten from above – it is to be born of spirit. Furthermore he uses the universal principle that like begets like when he says “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”.

[Adanac]

The ramifications of this are tremendous, especially when we compare it with the Trinitarian idea that Jesus, by virtue of being begotten of God, is therefore God. What Jesus says here is that believers – normal men and women who believe the gospel – they are begotten of spirit and therefore are spirit! Moreover we have the words of John chapter 1:

John 1 said:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Not only are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ begotten of spirit but they are also begotten (the same word gennao is used here) of God! Now if like begets like and that which is born of spirit is spirit then it follows that which is born of God is God.

But how can this be? Are we really to assume that believers, by virtue of being born of God, somehow become God, become spirit beings? Nobody would suggest such a notion yet Jesus says “that which is born of spirit is spirit” and they are begotten of God. Far from Jesus uniquely being “begotten of God” we are told that all believers are. Therefore if Trinitarian logic is right logic dictates that the Godhead is made up of believers.

[Adanac]

Obviously there must be some other explanation. When a believer is born again they do not become spirit beings and they certainly do not become God. The answer to this conundrum will come when we consider the Scriptural explanation of what the word mongenes really means.

Remember that verse which describes Isaac as Abraham’s only begotten son:

Hebrews 11:17 said:

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten <3439> son

Notice the context Hebrews picks up on in calling Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son. The writer takes us back to the time when Abraham offered him up upon the altar. This takes us back to Genesis 22 where Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s only son a number of times:

Genesis 22 said:

1 ¶ And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

This is clearly what Hebrews refers to when it calls Isaac the only begotten son of Abraham. Notice in this passage, however, that the word “begotten” is absent. That’s because the Hebrew is yachiyd and does not mean “only begotten” at all. We actually saw this word in the quotation from a Greek authority earlier:

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia in Five Volumes, 1975, Vol A-C, p. 510 said:

BEGOTTEN (BEGETTING)

[…]

Christ, by contrast is, "son" of God, to John, but this verb is not used in the NT to describe God's relationship to Him. "Only-begotten" (1:14, etc.) is a mistranslation in older VSS of "only," "unique" prob. corresponding to Heb. yachiyd, of which "beloved" is another NT tr. See also SON OF GOD.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. G. Abbot-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the NT (1937); W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT (1957). [R. A. COLE]

Edited by Mark, 24 July 2010 - 12:38 PM.
Mended quote tag

[Adanac]

Now if we take the rendering of “only son” as we have it in Genesis 22 then the natural conclusion is that is what Isaac was – the only son of Abraham. However Isaac most certainly was not the only son of Abraham. Before Isaac was born Abraham had son called Ishmael:

Genesis 16:15 said:

And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Ishmael was definitely the son of Abraham. He and his wife, Sarah, had hatched a plan for Abraham to have a son by her handmaid Hagar. So if Ishmael is Abraham’s son too, why does Genesis 22 say that Isaac is his only son? Well perhaps Ishmael had died by this point?

Genesis 25 said:

8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre

So Isaac and Ishmael were alive when Abraham sacrificed Isaac, yet Isaac, for some reason, is called Abraham’s only son. The explanation for this puzzle comes from Scripture and a fundamental theme that runs through its pages. This is the doctrine that a true son is not a son by nature but a son by spirit.

[Adanac]

This is the point the bishops somewhat missed at the council in Nicea. In the later Athanasian creed, quoted from earlier, it says that Jesus is “God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father, begotten before the worlds”. But the very idea of substance or essence misses the point of what it means to be born of God – it’s not about sharing in a substance and contradicts the Scriptural notion of spirit. So what does Scripture have to say on it all? Let’s see what Paul has to say about Isaac:

Romans 9 said:

6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Notice what Paul says here. Firstly, in verse 7, he says that just because someone is a natural child of Abraham it doesn’t mean they are counted as a true child. This explains why Ishmael is discounted in Genesis 22. The context is about God’s purpose with Abraham and the promises – in other words it is a very spiritually charged chapter. When Abraham was buried, however, it was just a natural event and there Ishmael is referred to as his son. But when the special events of chapter 22 happened Isaac is called the only son of Abraham because it speaks of the principle described here in Romans 9.

Ishmael was what Paul describes in verse 8 as one of the “children of the flesh”. He says those children are not children of God but instead it is children of the promise who are counted as the true seed, or children, of Abraham. As we shall see in a moment this fits in perfectly with what we have read in John’s gospel record.

What does it mean to be a child of promise? Well let’s contrast it with being a child of flesh as Paul does here. If someone is born of flesh that means they are the product of a fleshly union. That’s doubly so for Ishmael – not only was he the natural child of the fleshly union between Abraham and Hagar but his birth was determined from the outset by the fleshly thinking and planning of Abraham and Sarah. God did not enter into the reckoning with his conception and birth – his begettal – at all.

[Adanac]

By contrast to be born of promise is to have God directly involved in the begettal of the child. How was Isaac a child of promise? Well Paul explains exactly how in the same passage – “this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son”. Here Paul quotes from Genesis and the time when God promised Abraham and Sarah that she would have a son born to her.

Genesis 18 said:

9 ¶ And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13 And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

God repeats the same promise to Sarah in verses 10 and 14. Paul’s point in Romans 9 is that Isaac was born because God said it or promised. The germinating power was not the flesh of Abraham and Sarah but the word of promise.

It’s probable that the phrase “according to the time of life” refers to the gestation of period of a baby and that this promise was made nine months before the birth of Isaac. That would make this the time when Sarah conceived the child, and while Abraham and Sarah would have slept together as husband and wife to all intents and purposes Isaac was born because God said it – he was born of the promise, born of spirit, born of God. Whether this was the time of conception or not it certainly fits in with the divine principle of the germinating power of the word of God.

[Adanac]

That this was a miraculous birth is beyond doubt. We learn in Genesis 11:30 that Sarah was infertile. Not only that but she had gone through menopause (see verse 11 in the passage quoted above); it was absolutely impossible for Sarah to have a child. Abraham and Sarah were also very old and Romans 4:19 says that Abraham’s body was as good as dead and Sarah’s womb was dead. Isaac therefore becomes an excellent type of Christ, who was also born in a miraculous way to a virgin. And he also teaches us about how we can become children of promise too:

Galatians 4:22-23, on 28, said:

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

We’ve already seen this principle before:

John 1 said:

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Ishmael was born of blood, of the will of the flesh and the will of man, whereas Isaac, the child of promise, was born of God. But notice in this context how it describes Jesus, the “only begotten of the Father” – as the word made flesh. There’s the germinating power that brings forth children of God, the word! We’ll see how this makes Jesus special and unique, i.e. the monogenes of God in just a moment. But first consider how the power of God’s word, his promise, is related to the new birth of a believer:

1 Peter 1 said:

22 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Again it’s the germinating power of the word of God that is important in a spiritual rebirth. That word is here likened to a seed, just as in a natural conception the seed of the man is planted in the womb of the woman to create a child. And with that in mind let’s return to another verse in John we looked at earlier:

John 3:31 said:

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

We looked at how this does not speak of Jesus existing in heaven before he was born. But I did say that in a sense it does speak of preexistence. This is how it relates to Jesus being the monogenes of God and it is all tied up with the principle we have looked at with Isaac being born of the word of promise.

[Adanac]

Take the word of God as a seed and contrast the spiritual birth with being born of the flesh. When a child is conceived in the womb of its mother the seed of the man unites with the egg and fertilizes it. That seed contains the blueprint for the child even before it starts growing. In fact even before sperm unites with egg the child preexists in the seed. Not in any literal sense, of course, but because the seed contains the genetic code of its parents that determines what that baby will look like. In that sense every child who is born into this world is, as John 3 puts it, of the earth.

But Jesus had no human father. The seed that was planted in the womb of his mother Mary was not the seed that came from men or from any fleshly union. Just as Isaac was born of the word of promise so was Jesus, but much more so. Isaac was born as the result of what God said to Sarah and from the promise that God had made previously to Abraham. But Jesus was the word made flesh. What this means is that Jesus is the result of all of God’s promises and all of God’s words since the beginning. Peter puts it this way, just before those words we looked at concerning being born again of the word of God:

1 Peter 1:20 said:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, God had a plan in his word – a word of promise – and it produced his son who was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And in that sense he is the monogenes of God, the unique, the one and only Son of God.

[twoofseven]

Thank you for this, Adanac! It's terrific!

[Colter]

"There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death."

Im sorry Adanac, I wish I could be Mr. agreeable with you but this is a great tragedy that you have put forth and demonstrated the core apostasy of Christadelphianism.

Maybe you could ask God in prayer why it was that Athanasius won. Do it, ask him!

[He-man]

Adanac, on Mar 24 2006, 01:47 PM, said:

Take the word of God as a seed and contrast the spiritual birth with being born of the flesh. When a child is conceived in the womb of its mother the seed of the man unites with the egg and fertilizes it. That seed contains the blueprint for the child even before it starts growing. In fact even before sperm unites with egg the child preexists in the seed. Not in any literal sense, of course, but because the seed contains the genetic code of its parents that determines what that baby will look like. In that sense every child who is born into this world is, as John 3 puts it, of the earth.

But Jesus had no human father. The seed that was planted in the womb of his mother Mary was not the seed that came from men or from any fleshly union. Just as Isaac was born of the word of promise so was Jesus, but much more so. Isaac was born as the result of what God said to Sarah and from the promise that God had made previously to Abraham. But Jesus was the word made flesh. What this means is that Jesus is the result of all of God’s promises and all of God’s words since the beginning. Peter puts it this way, just before those words we looked at concerning being born again of the word of God:

1 Peter 1:20 said:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, God had a plan in his word – a word of promise – and it produced his son who was born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And in that sense he is the monogenes of God, the unique, the one and only Son of God.

I found this interesting verse today that sets the events out plainly!
Ac 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens set out in detail, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

You will notice "heavens opened" is replaced by the original words:
διηνυμενουσ=set out in detail is the actual translation and not ανεφγρενουσ=having been opened Codex Vaticanus (B),( Codex Sinaiticus ) (Codicem Alexandrinum)

The use of the term Son of God in the case of Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth, simply means that He had something of the nature of God. The religious authorities, at that time, knew that for someone to call himself the Son of God was to claim in some way to possess something of the nature of God.
Hebrew and in turn Greek and Latin have influenced many other languages including the English language. Failure to understand the use of words in these languages sometimes leads to rather funny interpretations.

The word in question is 3439 monogenhv monogenes mon-og-en-ace'which the English translators of the KJV (King James translation of the Bible) chose, in some, but not all cases, to be represented by "only begotten". However the word "monogenes" does not accurately reflect the true meaning in the Hebrew Bible. "Monogenes" was chosen to represent an expression of endearment in the Hebrew. The term means any of three things:
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1Jo 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

ie. AV-only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1; 9;1) single of its kind, only; 1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); 1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
And secondly 1080 gennaw gennao ghen-nah'-o AV-begat 49, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered as in 1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

And thirdly 4416 prwtotokov prototokos pro-tot-ok'-os represents AV-firstborn 7, first begotten 2; 9; 1) the firstborn 1a) of man or beast
Re 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

The passage in Psalm 2:7 reads: 03205 dly yalad yaw-lad' AV-beget 201, bare 110, born 79, bring forth 25, bear 23, travail 16, midwife 10, child 8, delivered 5, borne 3, birth 2, labour 2, brought up

"I will declare the decree: The LORD said to Me. "You are My Son, today have I begotten you."
"The only way these things can be understood is in light of the words of our Sages about the suffering of Moshiach, "who suffers our illnesses and bears our pain." From their words we derive our faith that very soon we will merit the fulfillment of the verse "I have begotten you this day".

2. The term "3316 mesithv mesites mes-ee'-tace" is used of Messiah in the sense that He intercedes in the presence of God on behalf of believers for ratifying a covenant.
3. The Messiah taught that God was Spirit and that true worshippers would worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.(John 4:23). Messiah also taught that to enter the Kingdom of God one had to be born of the Spirit. He said: Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

[Simpleton]

Just can't see past that veil of his flesh. Jesus is that one Spirit that God is.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17).

The Lord Jesus is that Spirit, and the Spirit of the Lord is the Holy Spirit that proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him (1 Jn. 2:29).

We do have to be born again of the Spirit just as Jesus told Nicodemus. We must be born of God. Jesus is the one who performs this act of spiritual birth as shown (1 Jn. 2:29). Jesus is that Spirit.

Edited by Simpleton, 28 March 2006 - 01:40 PM.

[Martyn]

Oh boy.

[Colter]

Simpleton, on Mar 28 2006, 01:39 PM, said:

Just can't see past that veil of his flesh. Jesus is that one Spirit that God is.

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:17).

The Lord Jesus is that Spirit, and the Spirit of the Lord is the Holy Spirit that proceeds from both the Father and the Son.

If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him (1 Jn. 2:29).

We do have to be born again of the Spirit just as Jesus told Nicodemus. We must be born of God. Jesus is the one who performs this act of spiritual birth as shown (1 Jn. 2:29). Jesus is that Spirit.

[nsr]

Simpleton,

Can I just ask - did you actually read anything that Adanac wrote?

[Simpleton]

nsr, on Mar 28 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

Simpleton,

Can I just ask - did you actually read anything that Adanac wrote?

Bits and pieces; enough to see it does not fully agree with the word of God.

How about the verses I cited in my last post. The theology that Adanac has presented must exempt those verses. But since God's word is true, it is the theology of man that has to be corrected to agree with God.

[InChristAlways]

.........................

Edited by InChristAlways, 29 March 2006 - 12:58 AM.

[InChristAlways]

InChristAlways, on Mar 28 2006, 04:29 PM, said:

Simpleton, on Mar 28 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

nsr, on Mar 28 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

Simpleton,

Can I just ask - did you actually read anything that Adanac wrote?

Bits and pieces; enough to see it does not fully agree with the word of God.

How about the verses I cited in my last post. The theology that Adanac has presented must exempt those verses. But since God's word is true, it is the theology of man that has to be corrected to agree with God.

Quote

Colter: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death."

Im sorry Adanac, I wish I could be Mr. agreeable with you but this is a great tragedy that you have put forth and demonstrated the core apostasy of Christadelphianism.

Maybe you could ask God in prayer why it was that Athanasius won. Do it, ask him!

What would this forum be like without Colter and his Ark!!! LOL. Actually, I am trying to get some knowledge here on this topic to use with the muslims.

Btw, wasn't Isaac Abraham's "only son" also?

This may be up for auction soon:

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/...=0&#entry249060

[nsr]

Ok Simpleton, thanks. Could you perhaps point out where Adanac went wrong and why?

Might I suggest the problem is that you're not reading those verses correctly? Perhaps if you quoted just the verses without adding your own little commentaries to make them say what you want them to?

Or you could try providing some evidence to show that the verses mean what you think they do. You know, comparing Scripture with other Scripture, analysing the original Hebrew/Greek - the sort of things Adanac has been doing.

Edited by nsr, 29 March 2006 - 10:01 AM.

[He-man]

And Isaac was to be sacrificed on the same mountain as Jesus.
Some coincidence??

Edited by He-man, 29 March 2006 - 07:20 PM.

[nsr]

I don't think Jesus was sacrificed on Mount Moriah...that's where the temple was. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

[seanbam]

I don't care about the trinity any more because I have given up on God since he treats me like just like this system does. At least with the devil I know where he stands and where I stand with him unlike God.

But I had a thought perhaps there is similarity between Cain not offering his first fruits and God sacrificing his firstborn/only begotten?