|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Only Begotten
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
I've been wondering lately about the origin of the term "Only begotten" when referring to Jesus Christ. I can only find it twice in the gospel of John as well as once in the 1st Letter of John.
How reliable do we think the translation is of this expression?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:07: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Who else would you think might be considered "begotten of the Father"?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I would think the issue is what begotten means, not whether the translation is reliable.....?
But if you mean it's only in John and 1 John so should it be in the creeds, then yeah, reasonable question.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
Evensong is right I think my issue is with it's meaning. I have many Muslim friends who have issue with the idea that "begotten" denotes some kind of sexual activity as opposed to the understanding that we Christians tend towards which would be better translated as "created" or would it, what do we think?
Can anyone shed any light on the original greek expression?
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
The point of the term is precisely that we don't understand the Son/Word to be created. The Word was with God and the Word was God. And therefore, if God, not created. So we need a word to use of the Son that isn't 'created' and 'begotten' is Biblical. (To the extent that that matters - 'of one substance' is certainly not in the Bible, but why should it be?)
The understanding that the Fathers expressed through 'begotten' was that the Word shares the same nature as God - it is the same 'kind' of 'being' as God. The process in the created world that is closest to this, bringing into existence something of the same kind as the bringer is 'begetting'.
Obviously, there are things you can say to Muslims to counteract misunderstandings of how we understand the Trinity. You can talk of how religious language has to apply created language to the uncreated, and so you can't transfer across all of what it denotes when used of the 'created' order. When it comes down to it though, Muslims don't believe God is a Trinity and we do.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So what do Muslims think of Unitarians?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So what do Muslims think of Unitarians?
Possibly included as "People of the Book"?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The Greek word would be monogenes, which as you can see is the word for "one, only, solo" tacked onto the word you see in terms such as "generated, genealogy, genetics". It definitely means one-of-a-kind with respect to origin, and the "gen" part of of it suggests something more akin to biology or simple derivation (like a river which flows out of a snowpack?) than to creation, where the two things involved are totally different beings. With geneo, they are of the same kind--God of God, light of light, etc.
Monogenes is the word you would use of a human only-begotten son (the only one of his father), though I think it appears in one place of Isaac, who was in fact Abraham's second-born son. But for the purposes of the passage, Ishmael is totally out of the picture (not being the child of promise) and so Isaac gets monogenes.
The "begotten" part doesn't have to imply a particular action within time--all human begettings are like that, but God the Father's begetting of Christ is not (as if there ever were a time when Christ did not exist). Problem is, we have only human language to apply to a distinctly non-human situation, so you have to do some explaining when you use the term. Just as we do when we speak of the three "persons" of the Trinity, which does not imply separateness in the way that it would for three human persons. Oh the joys of language as applied to God. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
You know, the real fun comes in when you have to translate this into a language that HAS no specific word for siring, fathering, begetting, and so your choices for monogenes are the wimpy "only" or the feminine "bore, gave birth to". In Vietnamese, we've gone for the feminine (bearing a son) which is a bit odd-looking with all the masculine pronouns, but we wanted to preserve the emphasis on the bearer and born being both of the same kind.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
When it comes down to it though, Muslims don't believe God is a Trinity and we do. [/QB]
I have to say it and no offence meant but speak for yourself. I am a unitarian and I have to say that I get on much better with my muslim friends because of it.
That is really why I wondered at the original greek expression. Does it really support Jesus being God or as I believe, a god, ie of divine origin?
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The Greek word would be monogenes, which as you can see is the word for "one, only, solo" tacked onto the word you see in terms such as "generated, genealogy, genetics". It definitely means one-of-a-kind with respect to origin, and the "gen" part of of it suggests something more akin to biology or simple derivation (like a river which flows out of a snowpack?) than to creation, where the two things involved are totally different beings. With geneo, they are of the same kind--God of God, light of light, etc.
Monogenes is the word you would use of a human only-begotten son (the only one of his father), though I think it appears in one place of Isaac, who was in fact Abraham's second-born son. But for the purposes of the passage, Ishmael is totally out of the picture (not being the child of promise) and so Isaac gets monogenes.
The "begotten" part doesn't have to imply a particular action within time--all human begettings are like that, but God the Father's begetting of Christ is not (as if there ever were a time when Christ did not exist). Problem is, we have only human language to apply to a distinctly non-human situation, so you have to do some explaining when you use the term. Just as we do when we speak of the three "persons" of the Trinity, which does not imply separateness in the way that it would for three human persons. Oh the joys of language as applied to God.
You know, the real fun comes in when you have to translate this into a language that HAS no specific word for siring, fathering, begetting, and so your choices for monogenes are the wimpy "only" or the feminine "bore, gave birth to". In Vietnamese, we've gone for the feminine (bearing a son) which is a bit odd-looking with all the masculine pronouns, but we wanted to preserve the emphasis on the bearer and born being both of the same kind.
So what you are saying, forgive me if I've got it wrong, is that Jesus is the only one of the same genetic makeup as God, our Father. That makes much more sense to me and gives me something to tell my muslim friends. Have I got it right?
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Fascinating discussion -- but as it hinges almost entirely on the translation and meaning of a word in a Biblical text, it's much more in the purview of Kergymania than of Purgatory. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride, and please do continue the discussion over there.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Fascinating discussion -- but as it hinges almost entirely on the translation and meaning of a word in a Biblical text, it's much more in the purview of Kergymania than of Purgatory. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride, and please do continue the discussion over there.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Thanks Trudy
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, well, strictly speaking God hasn't got any genetics--I think you'd do better with the more general word "kind" or even the less-than-respectful "same kind of thing". The idea is that a duck begets a duck, a horse begets a horse, and God... well...
But never "a god." A god (lowercase god) is a different kind of thing altogether from the One True God that we know as the Holy Trinity. For Jesus to be the only begotten does NOT mean that he is outside the Trinity, rather it defines his position within the Trinity (in relationship to God the Father, I mean--Jesus is the SECOND person, not the First).
Lowercase gods (to run with the tangent for a moment) seem a lot closer to what we would call tutelary angels, or even patron saints, assuming that any of these things exist. Basically minor characters with a supernatural authority over one particular field (not all of life), and that authority delegated to them by the High God who made and upholds everything, and who could unmake them in a moment if he chose. Not the same "species" as the Trinity at all.
As for the Muslims, I'm afraid they won't be happy with your explanation no matter how you phrase it. To them, the notion of the Trinity is all tri and no unity. They honestly can't see how we can claim to believe in One God. No blame to them, really--the Trinity is humanly speaking incomprehensible, and believable only for those who have been given faith by the Holy Spirit. So your friends are bound to think you're tap-dancing around tri-theism, no matter how you phrase it. And that won't sit well with monotheists who don't recognize your own monotheism. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Was wondering ..
Here is a link to John1:14 (Blue Letter Bible with Greek provided)
Where the word we find translated as "only-begotten" is μονογενής (monogenēs). Verse 14 also provides a clear link to the word Word, so that the only-begotten in verse 14 is clearly the Word who was "with God, was God, and was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2)
These verses were and are critical to the traditional understanding that the Word made flesh was God the Son. The Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us. They have been subject to much detailed scholarship and much previous discussion in Keryg. Here is a link to a previous thread in Keryg looking at John1:1.
So I think the sense one makes out of "monogenes" is very much dependent on what sense one makes of the earlier context. Traditional Christian belief has been content with the understanding that these verses in John foreshadow Trinitarian belief. The Word who became flesh was God the Son, and he was there from the very beginning with God. Jesus the Son was not a creation of God the Father. He eternally was,is and will be the Son. So the term monogenes, because of its context, is not taken to mean begotten in the same way as humans "beget." As the
The roots of the Arian controversy and others are to be found here as well.
I'm with the traditionalists here. I'm happy that John 1 foreshadows not just a significant element of Trinitarian doctrine but also foreshadows the understanding of Jesus as fully God and fully man. They "saw his glory". Hence this summary from the Nicene creed.
"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."
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
(Sorry about the "As the". Missed it in preview and missed the edit time. Should have been deleted)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But never "a god." A god (lowercase god) is a different kind of thing altogether from the One True God that we know as the Holy Trinity. For Jesus to be the only begotten does NOT mean that he is outside the Trinity, rather it defines his position within the Trinity (in relationship to God the Father, I mean--Jesus is the SECOND person, not the First).
Lowercase gods (to run with the tangent for a moment) seem a lot closer to what we would call tutelary angels, or even patron saints, assuming that any of these things exist. Basically minor characters with a supernatural authority over one particular field (not all of life), and that authority delegated to them by the High God who made and upholds everything, and who could unmake them in a moment if he chose. Not the same "species" as the Trinity at all.
As for the Muslims, I'm afraid they won't be happy with your explanation no matter how you phrase it. To them, the notion of the Trinity is all tri and no unity. They honestly can't see how we can claim to believe in One God. No blame to them, really--the Trinity is humanly speaking incomprehensible, and believable only for those who have been given faith by the Holy Spirit. So your friends are bound to think you're tap-dancing around tri-theism, no matter how you phrase it. And that won't sit well with monotheists who don't recognize your own monotheism.
Why must the fact that Christ adn the Father are of the same "species" necessarily indicate a Trinity? Your explaination of the tutelery angel fits much better with me, why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.Does that make sense.
You are right that muslims will never accept Trinitarian Christians because they count them as the ones who as the Koran puts it "add gods to God" They will never accept any kind of Trinitarian explanation but they might accept an explanation that put Jesus as not equal to God.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Evensong is right I think my issue is with it's meaning. I have many Muslim friends who have issue with the idea that "begotten" denotes some kind of sexual activity as opposed to the understanding that we Christians tend towards which would be better translated as "created" or would it, what do we think?
No no no. We do not believe Jesus was created. We had this big fight back in the 4th century about this, and the phrase "begotten, not made" was included in the Creed just to rule this out. Whatever 'begotten' means, it does NOT mean 'created'.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.
Because then God didn't love us enough to suffer and die for us Himself, He just sent some other schmo to do it.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Because part of our salvation was uniting the human nature to the divine. This required somebody who, well, united the human nature to the divine. Uniting the human nature to the angelic isn't quite the same thing. At all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
You are right that muslims will never accept Trinitarian Christians because they count them as the ones who as the Koran puts it "add gods to God" They will never accept any kind of Trinitarian explanation but they might accept an explanation that put Jesus as not equal to God.
What Muslims "will never accept" is a matter for them, surely? If they understand that the basis of traditional Christian belief in Jesus is not about "adding gods to God" (I can assure you it isn't), then of course they are free to accept or not accept whatever they like. But suppose they do not understand? Do you understand clearly enough to explain these thing to your friends?
We've had Muslims on SoF before who have participated in discussions about tenets of Christianity and Islam. Such discussions sometimes clarify matters, resolve misunderstandings, bridge gaps. One can always try. Perhaps one or two of your friends might consider joining this website? Just a thought.
Peaceful co-existence (or at any rate more peaceful co-existence) between folks of different religious beliefs should not be dependent on folks of one faith changing their beliefs to suit the scepticism of folks of another. Trinitarian understanding was orthodox amongst Christians a long time before Islam came into being. So was a belief about living peaceably with all, in so far as it depends upon us. From Romans 12
quote:
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
We may not always have done a very good job in living up to that standard, but it's another aspect of Christian belief which does not need to change.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Why must the fact that Christ adn the Father are of the same "species" necessarily indicate a Trinity? Your explaination of the tutelery angel fits much better with me, why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.Does that make sense.
My apologies for assuming that you weren't a unitarian.
For what it's worth: - a tutelary angel is no more of the same species as God than a human being, or a cat, or a stag beetle, or an oak trees, or a prokaryote or a lump of pumice stone. An angel has infinitely more in common with a lump of pumice stone than it has with God.
- that being so, why would God go to all the trouble of making a special angel into flesh? A human being could do the job just as well. Besides, angels would have traits that conflict with being a human being - an angel could no more become a human being and stay an angel than a human being can genuinely become a cat and stay a human being. Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God, since God is so infinitely different from us that there isn't even any trait God has that's incompatible with any created trait. (Being a centimetre long is incompatible with being a kilometre long, but being red is so different from being a centimetre long that there's no incompatibility between them.)
Anyway, if Jesus is of divine origin, that either means he was created by God just like everything else created (in which case why would he be 'only-begotten'?) or else Jesus is God. There can't be any middle ground - it wouldn't make sense.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God,
I can see where you're coming from David...but this assumes we were not made in God's image. It means the gulf between man and God is huge....
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Anyway, if Jesus is of divine origin, that either means he was created by God just like everything else created (in which case why would he be 'only-begotten'?) or else Jesus is God. There can't be any middle ground - it wouldn't make sense.
Being a second person of the trinity doesn't make any sense either. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Psalm 2 is an interesting addition to the fray:
Psalm 2.7: I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.
God begot the King, his chosen one. The King in the OT was God's right hand man.
And we say the same in the creed. "Seated at the right hand of the father".
12uthy: Regarding your Muslims friends. I really wouldn't worry about trying to explain/make compatible the trinity with a Muslim idea of God.
Like Lamb Chopped said, it looks and smells like tritheism to them and fair enough.
The only way it isn't tritheism is if the "people" of the trinity are not static, but move around continuously. No one definition is able to catch and box any of them adequately...
For interfaith stuff.....its much more about working together for peace....not arguing doctrine IMO.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.
Because then God didn't love us enough to suffer and die for us Himself, He just sent some other schmo to do it.
And of course there is Hebrews 1. Particularly v 4 and its subsequent emphasis.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.
Because then God didn't love us enough to suffer and die for us Himself, He just sent some other schmo to do it.
And of course there is Hebrews 1. Particularly v 4 and its subsequent emphasis.
Neither Hart's atonement theory and the Hebrews verse suggests why Jesus has to be God IMO.
The atonement theory because God suffering and dying to forgive sin doesn't really work as God could easily forgive sin without suffering and dying.
The Hebrews line is from a Psalm and suggests Jesus is above the angels but not = God as later doctrine suggests.
Why does Jesus have to = God?
1) because we really shouldn't worship him otherwise. But we certainly began to in NT times
2) because then he would have had less status than the Roman Emperor who was also God. And that just wouldn't do. We know Jesus was better than the emperor.
But then we're left with the difficulties of the fact that he was a human being.
Hence, Jesus becomes both a human being and God.
Problem solved. As long as you don't expect an answer on how he is both at once.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
Yes Mousethief you are right we fought this argument in the 4th century but it was never won only conquered by the greater political power of the time. It was never satisfactorily argued only by creating an increasingly elaborate explanation which took the argument way beyond the simple common uneducated man. I know that God's ways are far beyond our own but by elaborating on the simple propitiatory sacrifice issue you are taking it beyond what the common man can comprehend and I don't believe that a loving God would want this; he always exulted the humble uneducated ones.
This was never meant to turn into another Arian Controversy so I am going to leave it there.
Thank you all for your contributions it's been fascinating especially thanks for the definitions of the monogenes, it helps a lot.
Thanks 12uthy
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thought I given my view on the question of Jesus = God earlier in the thread, Evensong.
I was just pointing out in the post you quote that the Epistle to the Hebrews rules out the possibility that Jesus was some kind of angel - since 12uthy had suggested that. Hebrews is generally reckoned to have a low Christology, but this, from Hebrews 1, doesn't strike me as very low. Pretty John 1:1-2 if you ask me.
quote:
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
So I'm not sure you can pray in aid the low Christology of Hebrews either.
(Tries to avoid junior Hosting hat).
The wider question of how Jesus could have been both fully God and fully human is a good one, of course and has been looked at a lot in Purgatory over the years. I'm just not sure it belongs in a Keryg thread looking at what "Only Begotten" means.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God,
I can see where you're coming from David...but this assumes we were not made in God's image. It means the gulf between man and God is huge....
But maybe woman and God are closer? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The gulf's so huge that it's not a gulf at all. Another way of putting it is that God is closer to each of us than we are to ourselves. You don't get more different than that.
Be careful of saying that we're in the image of God. Historically, the next question has usually been 'what about us is in the image of God?' and then you get various ideas about what particular bit of us separates us from animals, and so on. And once you focus on some particular identifiable characteristic, people usually started to point out that it didn't appear to be equally shared between people. So when the image of God is taken to mean some quality shared with God, it quickly becomes used to justify hierarchy in human society - for example, women are seen as having less share in the image of God. It also develops anti-ecological ideas. If you think we have more in common with God than other creatures do, then again we seem to get a hierarchy with other creatures existing for the sake of human beings.
There are other more recent interpretations of 'in the image of God' - for example, that we are representatives of God or represent creation to God - that don't require ideas of similarity and don't have such hierarchical implications.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Hmmmm - I doubt the virgin birth myself. I think Jesus was so full of God's Spirit that He was sinless - I don't think he was any different genetically from any other human.
I don't believe He was God either - He was 'full of God'. Thus a perfect example for us because we could be so too.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Why must the fact that Christ adn the Father are of the same "species" necessarily indicate a Trinity? Your explaination of the tutelery angel fits much better with me, why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.Does that make sense.
The short answer will be that in the case of God, the whole witness of the Scriptures, of Christ himself, and of God's people OT and NT is that there is only one God. If you don't mind my putting it baldly, they all make it clear that "God" is a species of which only one example exists. So the minute you acknowledge two (or three) Persons (via the whole "begotten" thing and the bits about God having a Son, Spirit, etc), you are also roped into the Trinity in Unity, the Three Personed-One who is only One God. It's the only way to do justice to what the Scriptures, and Christ himself, say, without pitching either the "one" or the "three" overboard. (NOTE: this is NOT to say that we understand it!)
As for why he could not be a lesser god, tutelary angel, or whatever, the problem is that begetting implies that the begotten is of the same kind as the begetter. Ducks beget ducks, again. Not woodpeckers. To descend from theology to natural science, even our own world teaches us that. We rightly disbelieve all those tabloid stories of women producing kittens or squirrels on the delivery table, because we all know that what you beget (or bear) is of the same nature as yourself. For Jesus to be a lowercase god or angel or demiurge of some sort, we would need to invoke creation, not begetting.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
You are right that muslims will never accept Trinitarian Christians because they count them as the ones who as the Koran puts it "add gods to God" They will never accept any kind of Trinitarian explanation but they might accept an explanation that put Jesus as not equal to God.
You are very right. The person and work of Jesus is precisely where the divide between Christianity and Islam comes, and there's no ducking that fact or smoothing it away. We can only pray for one another and do our best to live in charity.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Triune God saved us, lifted us up in to Himself, deified us by becoming human. From halfway through eternity of being continuously Begotten.
And it ain't partial mousethief. What's left?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was just pointing out in the post you quote that the Epistle to the Hebrews rules out the possibility that Jesus was some kind of angel - since 12uthy had suggested that.
Yes. Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hebrews is generally reckoned to have a low Christology, but this, from Hebrews 1, doesn't strike me as very low.
If you go through Hebrews, you actually get 50/50 on high and low Christology. Some of the highest Christology and some of the lowest in the entire bible. Go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God,
I can see where you're coming from David...but this assumes we were not made in God's image. It means the gulf between man and God is huge....
But maybe woman and God are closer?
The gulf's so huge that it's not a gulf at all. Another way of putting it is that God is closer to each of us than we are to ourselves. You don't get more different than that.
Be careful of saying that we're in the image of God. Historically, the next question has usually been 'what about us is in the image of God?' and then you get various ideas about what particular bit of us separates us from animals, and so on. And once you focus on some particular identifiable characteristic, people usually started to point out that it didn't appear to be equally shared between people. So when the image of God is taken to mean some quality shared with God, it quickly becomes used to justify hierarchy in human society - for example, women are seen as having less share in the image of God. It also develops anti-ecological ideas. If you think we have more in common with God than other creatures do, then again we seem to get a hierarchy with other creatures existing for the sake of human beings.
There are other more recent interpretations of 'in the image of God' - for example, that we are representatives of God or represent creation to God - that don't require ideas of similarity and don't have such hierarchical implications.
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I do actually think we are of the same substance of the father.....there is something of God in everything God has created....
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Yes Mousethief you are right we fought this argument in the 4th century but it was never won only conquered by the greater political power of the time. It was never satisfactorily argued only by creating an increasingly elaborate explanation which took the argument way beyond the simple common uneducated man. I know that God's ways are far beyond our own but by elaborating on the simple propitiatory sacrifice issue you are taking it beyond what the common man can comprehend and I don't believe that a loving God would want this; he always exulted the humble uneducated ones.
True story! I agree that it's insane that none but a hard core theologian can grasp the essentials of the trinity.
But saying that the early church controversy is just elaborating on a simple propitiatory sacrifice is wrong wrong wrong 12uthy.
It was never that simple. Scripture has alot of different options on what the life, death and resurrection of Jesus means.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. A few other instances of begotten in the bible.
Dunno if it's the same term used.
It's not the same term in any of the references cited. Leviticus and Job both construct the phrase differently. Ps 2 and Ezekiel (in the Septuagint version) both use a related, but different verb. The primary surviving text of 2 Esdras is in Latin. It does use the Latin unigenites which elsewhere is used as a translation of the Greek monogenes.
It doesn't appear at all in the Luke 3 reference. The other NT references are all quotations of the same verse from the psalms. They all use the same Greek verb as the Septuagint of Ps 2 and the Ezekiel (meaning begotten) but not monogenes.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
marzipan
Shipmate
# 9442
|
Posted
Here are some references I found for monogenes and monogene.(Using the text of the septuagint, which seemed the easiest way of searching for a greek term)
The hebrew for that seems to be yachid, yechidah (though I am not knowledgeable about either greek or hebrew).
Mostly the word is used to signify 'only child' (Isaac, Jairus's daughter, Jephthah's daughter etc) though the Hebrew term also apparently means darling or lonely.
[ 28. December 2010, 14:24: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]
Posts: 917 | From: nowhere in particular | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The short answer will be that in the case of God, the whole witness of the Scriptures, of Christ himself, and of God's people OT and NT is that there is only one God. If you don't mind my putting it baldly, they all make it clear that "God" is a species of which only one example exists. So the minute you acknowledge two (or three) Persons (via the whole "begotten" thing and the bits about God having a Son, Spirit, etc), you are also roped into the Trinity in Unity, the Three Personed-One who is only One God. It's the only way to do justice to what the Scriptures, and Christ himself, say, without pitching either the "one" or the "three" overboard. (NOTE: this is NOT to say that we understand it!)
As for why he could not be a lesser god, tutelary angel, or whatever, the problem is that begetting implies that the begotten is of the same kind as the begetter. Ducks beget ducks, again. Not woodpeckers. To descend from theology to natural science, even our own world teaches us that. We rightly disbelieve all those tabloid stories of women producing kittens or squirrels on the delivery table, because we all know that what you beget (or bear) is of the same nature as yourself. For Jesus to be a lowercase god or angel or demiurge of some sort, we would need to invoke creation, not begetting.
But even if you accept that ducks beget ducks and Gods beget Gods it still doesn't mean that the two are one person any more than my sons are the same person as me. Or indeed equal to me.I have authority over my children just as the father has authority over the son. There are several scriptures to indicate this (remembering that we are in Kerygmania)but none to indicate that they are equal in authority. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong there
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
God the Son and God the Father very definitely aren't the same person -- that's a key claim of Trinitarian theology. Denying this is modalism or Sabellianism or Patripassianism. In Tertullian's Against Praxeas he describes this view as "crucifying the Father and driving away the Paraclete."
The big problem with saying they're the same person is that it makes the Biblical scenes of Christ praying to the Father into play-acting, or lying as we call it in ordinary parlance. With more than one person in the Trinity, the Trinity becomes founded on relationship, the relationship that we see in Christ's prayer life, a relationship we can be drawn into.
I used to think like you that the Christological Controversies were simply 'politically' settled until I went back and actually read the texts. The orthodox position that emerged over time really is the only way, for me, of remaining faithful to the scriptures and preaching the Love of God. Is the language somewhat arbitrary? Sure. In fact that's the whole point: the position doesn't stretch the mystery to fit the philosophical paradigms, in fact it stretches the paradigms to fit the mystery. Hence, a few somewhat arbitrary choices had to be made about what word would be used for what.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I do actually think we are of the same substance of the father.....there is something of God in everything God has created....
There is something of sugar in every chocolate bar, but that doesn't make sugar and chocolate the same substance.
quote:
I agree that it's insane that none but a hard core theologian can grasp the essentials of the trinity.
That is insane, just not in the way you think. Hard core theologians can't grasp it either. The Trinity is a mystery, not an article in Popular Science.
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
But even if you accept that ducks beget ducks and Gods beget Gods it still doesn't mean that the two are one person any more than my sons are the same person as me.
We don't believe they're the same person. The Trinity is 3 persons. By definition.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I used to think like you that the Christological Controversies were simply 'politically' settled until I went back and actually read the texts. The orthodox position that emerged over time really is the only way, for me, of remaining faithful to the scriptures and preaching the Love of God. Is the language somewhat arbitrary? Sure. In fact that's the whole point: the position doesn't stretch the mystery to fit the philosophical paradigms, in fact it stretches the paradigms to fit the mystery. Hence, a few somewhat arbitrary choices had to be made about what word would be used for what.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Thank you BroJames and Cheesymarzipan for those contributions.
Which begs the question what the term was in the original creed.
I realised I didn't even know if the creed was written in Greek or Latin so a bit of googling came up with this:
Interpretation of the Greek text The original creed was written in Greek, the language of the eastern Mediterranean where both councils were seated. Most modern scholarly opinion believes that μονογενή means "only" or "unique" coming from μονο - "mono" meaning "only" and γενή coming from γενος "genus" meaning kind - "only one of its kind", thus the translation "only Son" in the above modern translation of the creed.
Older English translations as well as the Latin contain "only-begotten", "unigenitum" on the belief that γενή comes from the word for γενναω "born". On the other hand Old Latin manuscripts of the New Testament translate μονογενή as "unicus", "unique".
No doubt debate will continue as to the author's intentions both in the New Testament, as well as the separate issue of the intended meaning in the creeds. The Greek word ὁμοουσιον indicates in orthodox theology that The Father and the Son are "of the same substance" or "of the same essence" because the Son is begotten of the Father’s own being (εκ της ουσιας του πατρος) from here
And now I'm getting a bit confused.
Is it fair to say the original wording in the Greek creed was monogenes which can just mean unique?
But it's the latin version that brings in the whole
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
One thing that throws a wrench into the whole business, for me, is that μονογενῆ is used to describe Isaac vis-a-vis Abraham in Hebrews 11:17. We know he was NOT the only son that Abraham begat. Either the writer of Hebrews just screwed up, or μονογενῆ has a broader range of meaning than just "only begotten" or even "only".
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
My lexicon (BDAG) gives its meaning as something like "pertaining to being the only one of it's kind or class", which would apply to Isaac, since he was the only son in the covenant.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'd like one of our Greek experts to comment. Seems to me if you're saying someone is the only son of the covenant you'd have to include some reference to the covenant in the noun phrase.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
My lexicon (BDAG) gives its meaning as something like "pertaining to being the only one of it's kind or class", which would apply to Isaac, since he was the only son in the covenant.
What word are we discussing here? Monogenes? Is that the word in the creed too?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Yes, sorry Evensong, it is monogenes that I was commenting on.
Mousethief:
I think that the Abrahamic covt is on view in this verse, given the context of verses 8-12, where the language of the Abrahamic covt is clearly being used.
And also the following verse (18) where the quote from God comes from is from Gen 21:12 where the covenant preference for Isaac over Ishmael is the direct subject of the passage.
Hebrews 11
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
Could it be possible that the mono in monogenes does not mean only but means "of one" ie of the same one substance.
This would surely reconcile our problem with Issac making the translation "begotten" rather than "only begotten"
Or am I just being simplistic?
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm not sure that parsing the Creeds for literal or allegorical meaning tells us much, Evensong. The clear intention was to rule out Jesus as a creation of God, either in heaven or on earth. I think the long running Arian controversy demonstrated that in spades, and it cannot be "undemonstrated" by word analysis.
The world of Christian understanding might have been very different if some compromise had been found. No harm in revisiting the arguments, even arguing that Christianity might have benefited from allowing a greater diversity. Folks have done that. And I guess one can still "lobby for reform" along similar lines.
But I'm with Hart on the matter.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
But even if you accept that ducks beget ducks and Gods beget Gods it still doesn't mean that the two are one person any more than my sons are the same person as me. Or indeed equal to me.I have authority over my children just as the father has authority over the son. There are several scriptures to indicate this (remembering that we are in Kerygmania)but none to indicate that they are equal in authority. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong there
This is where I pick up the other bit of my argument, the one about God being a "species" of one. IF you accept that there is only one true God (and if you don't, we can argue that on some other thread!), and IF you also admit the evidence in Scripture as to there being more than one "person" rightfully bearing that title--in the case in point, we're talking about the only-begotten of the Father, Jesus--THEN you are forced into the Trinitarian position. It's the only way to reconcile the huge emphasis in Scripture on One God, One Only, and the equally strong emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God, as God himself, somehow the same yet distinct from the Father (and so also for the Spirit, which is another can of worms!).
Now you can deny either of those two premises, and get a rip roaring discussion going (probably in Purg?). But I don't want to derail things here, just point out that monogenes is one item of evidence under the second premise that ultimately leads to the Trinitarian conclusion.
***
As for equality and authority, that too is another huge Purg discussion, and I'd be happy to do it on another thread if you're interested. But monogenes of itself says nothing one way or the other about authority and equality with the Father. To get there, you have to rely on other Scripture.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd like one of our Greek experts to comment. Seems to me if you're saying someone is the only son of the covenant you'd have to include some reference to the covenant in the noun phrase.
No Greek expert, but just pointing out that you can use a term as the author of Hebrews does if your audience already understands what you're driving at. I really doubt any of the readers of Hebrew were particularly interested in Ishmael (or Keturah's sons!), and since the whole book is a theological discussion of the Promise, it would make sense to refer to Isaac as monogenes--he's the only one of Abraham's children who "counted" in that sense.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. A few other instances of begotten in the bible.
Dunno if it's the same term used.
It's not the same term in any of the references cited. Leviticus and Job both construct the phrase differently. Ps 2 and Ezekiel (in the Septuagint version) both use a related, but different verb. The primary surviving text of 2 Esdras is in Latin. It does use the Latin unigenites which elsewhere is used as a translation of the Greek monogenes.
It doesn't appear at all in the Luke 3 reference. The other NT references are all quotations of the same verse from the psalms. They all use the same Greek verb as the Septuagint of Ps 2 and the Ezekiel (meaning begotten) but not monogenes.
Okay. I'm still lost.
Barnabas said the John passages use the word monogenes. But you are saying all the NT references are not monogenes?
And I've finally understood monogenes is the word in the creed (original Greek version) but unigenites in the Latin version that has a different connotation?
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Could it be possible that the mono in monogenes does not mean only but means "of one" ie of the same one substance.
This would surely reconcile our problem with Issac making the translation "begotten" rather than "only begotten"
Or am I just being simplistic?
I think, from the url I quoted above, "of the same substance" is a different Greek word from monogenes. So two different words happening there.
Yet in the creed it seems only son and only begotten are conflated under the meaning of monogenes only?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure that parsing the Creeds for literal or allegorical meaning tells us much, Evensong. The clear intention was to rule out Jesus as a creation of God, either in heaven or on earth.
It may have been the intention of the creed, but if the word is only monogenes, then it has not expressed it well at all.
Which makes me wonder why.
And I was originally trying to find out if the same word was used in the creeds as it was in scripture. BroJames seems to think it wasn't, yet the link I said says it was.
Hence my confusion...
If you're trying to say not created, why use monogenes?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And I guess one can still "lobby for reform" along similar lines.
But I'm with Hart on the matter.
I'm not trying to reform anything at this point Barnabas. I'm trying to figure out what the creed means in its wording and in relation to scripture.
[ 29. December 2010, 12:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
