View RSS Feed

Freelight-express

'only begotten Son' or 'only begotten God'?

Rate this Entry
~*~*~

Hello all,

We debate and explore this question concerning John 1:18 here & here.

These shall suffice for now with corresponding commentary links. The key consideration here is that while 'only begotten Son' seems to be the most appropriate translation...even if we use the early Alexandrian manuscripts with the rendering ' only begotten god'...a Unitarian interpretation is tenable here...since Jesus is he who reveals the invisible 'God' being God's representative, the one making him known.

Jesus maintains his special Sonship status as the Son of Man/Son of God....and while serving as God's Agent can also be called 'god' (elohim; one in divine standing or rule).....being a 'god', not The 'God' (the One and Only Deity-Father). Jesus logically forever maintains his Sonship by virtue of the Father being his father ( and God), he being begotten or generated out from Infinite One, who is the Father of all.

Study aids:

John 1:18 Revealed

Only begotten God?

King James Bible perspective

“Only begotten Son” or “only begotten God”? (John 1:18)



pj
Categories
Theology , Religion

Comments

  1. freelight's Avatar
    1 Timothy 3:16, an interpolation? - well,...the earliest manuscripts do not have the word 'God' in this verse, such being an error or interpolation by later scribes, although some Trinitarians defend the word 'God', since it becomes another proof-text for Jesus divinity. However,...the passage IMO is about Jesus, not 'God', Jesus manifesting the mystery of godliness (righteousness/piety), but this in no wise makes Jesus 'God'. For a much more comprehensive expose of this particular passage, see my commentary and videos in this portal-post here

Trackbacks

Total Trackbacks 0
Trackback URL:
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us