John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 3:16
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.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Hebrews 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,

1 John 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.



These texts have always intrigued me, thus I propose to ask whether anyone has any insight regarding the meaning of "Only Begotten Son"...

I suppose it's all in the word "begotten".

Verb, Beget: To father; sire. To cause to exist or occur; produce.

The Greek word is monogenes and is used in every one of those verses. It means the only one of its kind. It is also used when referring to a parent when speaking about the single child in Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, and Luke 9:38. The Hebrews use of the word is quite interesting because it does not count Ishmael as Abraham's son...

But we do have a bit of a problem with the second chapter of Genesis when the "sons of God" looked upon the daughters of men . . . .

I know all the exegesis to explain away this phrase as angels, etc. but the fact remains that it was extremely unusual within Scriptural form to refer to the "sons of God."

Thus in your opinion the phrase indicates that the Son of God had a beginning, according to the analysis you posted?

Why do you say the Sons of God are angels? And naturally how do you suppose this applies to the texts in the OP?

You misunderstood me . . . . I said that there are those who want to explain away the Sons of Gods as being angels . . . . I did not say that it was my belief.

Ok, then what are they?

This is what it means:

Matt 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Matt 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

But if "begotten" simply means born of, that implies clearly that Jesus is not God and there is no Trinity, since Jesus too would have had to be eternal and without a beginning, in spirit or in body.

He is eternal. He existed before He was born physically.

Just because Jesus is called the Son of God does not mean that other instances of sons of God is referring to the same concept. The sons of God in Genesis 6:2 is translated as ben elohiym
and ben can mean other things besides son. Again in verse 4 the same term is used but it then mentions the mighty men of old and renown. The word for old is owlam and whenever it is used in other places of the Old Testament it has the meaning of perpetual, everlasting, forever, and always. The word for mighty is used two other times in Genesis and both refer to an attribute of Nimrod who founded Babel and Shinar. He is not normally considered a good character but an evil one.

Genesis 6:4 also mentions giants which is translated from the word nĕphiyl and the only other time that word is used is twice in Numbers 13:33 to refer to the sons of Anak. They were not treated as good characters either.

Why believed they were angels though?

Revelation 12:7-9 mentions the war in heaven and that angels were thrown to the earth. 2 Peter 2:4 mentions some angels sinned and were tossed into hell and will remain their until judgment day. Jude 1:6 mentions the angels who did not stay in their position of authority or their first estate, they left their own habitation or proper dwelling, and for that they were tossed into hell until judgment day. Clearly though the angels who rebelled according to Revelation 12 were thrown down to earth not to hell so why are some in hell unable to leave? Some conclude it was when they left their spiritual forms, took on flesh forms, and had intercourse with the daughters of mankind. And back to the fallen angels who never left their first estate or position of authority they are still on earth. There are definitely operating on earth according to Matthew 4:8-9, John 12:31, 2 Corinthians 4:4, and 1 John 5:19.

So it is up to the reader to conclude why some fallen angels remain on earth to influence while others are in hell until judgment day.

The other evidence we have of fallen angels having intercourse with human females is the Book of Enoch.



http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe009.htm

The book continues with a narrative of what the fallen angels taught mankind. Charms, enchantments, cutting of roots, knowledge of plants, swords and other weapons, metallurgy, jewelry, cosmetics, astrology, knowledge of constellations, clouds, the path of the moon, earth signs, sun signs. Chapter 10 mentions binding and casting some of the fallen angels into darkness until the day of judgment.

Oh chapter 69 also mentions they taught mankind abortions.





There is a difference between Jesus being born to Mary, clearly His flesh had a beginning, Jesus became flesh (John 1:14) which means before that He was something else since you cannot become something if you do not exists already. He is the Creator (John 1:3), the Alpha and the Omega (Revelation 1:8), the Great I Am who revealed Himself to Abraham (John 8:58), and Jesus was the One who guided the Israelites out of Egypt (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

So Jesus is God and chose to come down Itself in the form and existence of a human. In other words monogenes does not always have to mean literal offspring even though if you were to clone yourself, even if you were not a human but cloned yourself as one, what would you call it...a son or daughter? What would others call it? This is what God did.

There is also the term protokotos which is translated as firstborn or first begotten and used in several other scriptures throughout the New Testament.

Clovis, I really enjoyed this post. I'll get back to you on the details. You are one of the few people who has gotten close to what I have talked about a few times on this forum.

Just a question, how many "Sons of God" are there, at least according to known myth and folklore as well as biblical precedent?

Let us just say it's a trick question, Most people wouldn't know how to answer it anyways...

Maybe the sons of God.

Jesus was the only begotten son of God.


Adam was the created son of God.


All humans are sons/daughters of God.


I hope this helps.

That doesn't exactly tell us what you mean by the phrase "sons of God"? Physical natural, human beings, gods themselves, angels, ghosts, ... What?

That stll leaves us with the question of how this applies to Jesus, since clearly , according to your post, God has more than one son.

How is Jesus then, the only begotten son of God?

.....Becuase He is the only one of His own true essence. Its that simple. I believe as danielost posted, we are ALL sons and daughters of God, but the Christ, is the only one with the nature of divinity. Begotten out of Self, Self being God.....Christ as God, Jesus in matter. That is why there was a virgin birth. Un-natural because Jesus is not natural man of sin and death....he is, rather, the perfect Adam. Parallel to man, like two sets of train tracks. Goal is to merge with Christ-Consciousness and become ONE with Him.

Begotten son refers to the way Brother Jesus' spirit was incarnated on earth, it means he was of Fatyher and Mother only, and Mary, who is really his spirit sister, was only ba host for the Eg, which was already firtalised and sent down from Heaven, and implanted in to Marys womb.

Bro Jesus is the only son to have been birthed this way during the life of this world.

Even though Adam, was also begotten.

Love Omnaka

Well before I answer the question I will comment towards some of the other posts. I doubt that Adam was a proper name for a single person. The Hebrew word adam simply means mankind. I do have to agree with most of what brahman stated including the 'perfect Adam' term though I disagree with the gnostic teaching of the goal being 'to merge with Christ-Consciousness and become ONE with Him.' Allowing the Spirit, another manifestation of the One True God, there is no trinity, but allowing the Spirit to dwell within and guide us is the goal of Christianity, though it is not a goal that everyone in the world will strive for, and not everyone is meant to be a Christian, but all that is besides the main topic of discussion so...

...in answer to how many 'sons of God' there are the answer is I do not know. The Book of Enoch lists two hundred who actually took on fleshly forms and sires human offspring. It is said 1/3 though rebelled in heaven which is not the same as those who decided to take on fleshly forms. Revelation 5:11 states there are 'myriads and myriads and thousands of thousands' and some believe this is purely about the holy angels left in the service of God. Zoroastrians believed in 3,333 demons. The Talmud lists the number at 7,405,926 demons further divided into 72 groups.

And well as you can see I am basing the term 'sons of God' as being angels, fallen or not, so perhaps this is not the answer you want, it is the best answer I can give regarding what other people believe, my own belief is simply I do not know. As well there have been other numbers given to count the hosts by other belief systems and traditions.

So god split himself in two?




So Jesus was born through incest?

I'm not trying to be funny. That is, however, what I'm reading here.

My view is that God chose and had planned to become a human, in the form of the Holy Spirit, It impregnated Mary, the Spirit was in the womb, and in the form of Jesus once born He was a human who was powered by the Spirit, once He died before He was resurrected, It, as He stated He had to leave so the Father could send a Helper, it was the Spirit which was then able to then be dispersed so that any who choose the Spirit can have a tiny piece of God within them, as the Spirit wills, but it is the same Spirit that was within Jesus, so those with that Spirit have a tiny piece of what was inside Jesus way back then, of course this is all possible with the understanding that God can be in various forms at the same time yet remain the same One indivisible God, without having to be in different places at once, in It's creation it can do this. God is not confined to the spacetime continuum as we are or understand it to be. There is no twin, no trinity, no incest IMHO it is all the same One True God.

This was not the first time God chose to walk in the flesh. Genesis 18 has an account of God and two of It's angels walking the earth and appearing to Abraham.

Rashi though and I suspect most of Judaism consider them as three angels and nothing more. (link)

I can easily state that there are at least 2 billion demons. Since right now there are 6 billion humans on the planet.

So in other words the earliest populations, when there were less humans, had the chance to be possessed and oppressed by more demons than today? I think so even if it seems mankind is more corrupt now than say one hundred years ago...that just might be perspective and a faulty one at that. I also do believe in the mathematics of demons so that like electrical signals bouncing around a computer they can bounce around the population, some not having to stay in any place to long, to bring about a desired effect on their part, just long enough to implant a thought, pull a heart string for discord, or even check up on things, before moving on. Still the possibility of someone having legion I believe still very much likely...

My opinion is that Jesus is our spiritual brother.


As for Mary, God could have artificially inseminated her.




Yes, within the rules if any.

I added more to my previous post daniel just in case you missed it but I also agree there are rules. The ones who left their first estate broke those rules and were punished accordingly. Satan, God, and Job, the story of them and all of Job's family, illustrate some of the rules.

True. What everyone has missed is that Job, according to the rules, was untouchable by Satan. That means his family, his live stock, everything about him was untouchable. This is why Satan had to have permission.

Hmmm. Well, no and no. God did not split Himself in two......but became flesh.

Mary represents the divine feminine, IMO. I think that is essentially what he is saying. Again, the virgin birth. I believe this literally happened as the scripture said it did.

So then two thirds of the holy trinity are false since the father and the son are one and the same? In other words, there should only be a holy pair (god and the holy spirit).



What you're saying is that god simply entered Mary and morphed into a human being.

And this idea doesn't strike you as sounding strange in the least way?

well no, since the holy spirit is also god....so there is only one.....but split 3 ways....the shamrok was a good way of demonstrating this.

re: Jesus' incarnation....think of an ocean, then filling up one jug from it. Jesus is the jug full of ocean water.

at least thats the way i understand that part of it.




or perhaps think of it this way.....
God is the ocean....water is his substance
Creation is the land.
God cannot manifest totally in creation, to do so would destroy it.
The Holy Spirit is Humidity and precipitation (rain) which comes to land from the ocean.
and Jesus is the jug filled with rainwater....which is the same substance as God.

???

They were whatever the much earlier tales taken from regional mythologies told them to be. To try to identify these entities as if they were exclusive to Genesis will never find resolution. Obviously the tale had a much earlier source and was passed from generation to generation, altered and dilluted to suit doctrinal needs and finally included in Genesis. To even wonder if they were human, ghosts, gods, angels forces one to deny its most probable origin.

Hebrew Biblical experts believe that they were the descendants of Seth and that the women were the daughters of the descendants of Cain even though that exegesis does not appear to solve anything.

Thats a very profound perception lil gremlin Did you come up with that or is it a quote?

Irish

cheers irish, its all mi owen werk.

God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are not the same person. They are three individuals working toward a common goal. Your salvation.

And their existence, as known today throughout Christiandom, was permitted by the decision of a pagan emperor.

He's decision was that they were one person.

He wanted to resolve an old dispute and he told those who would not sign it that they would be put into exile.
He meant business and exiled Arius, two bishops . . . . Secundus and Theonas . . . . and various other priests to Illyria.

In short the creation of the trinity was basically a political process, just as was the formation of the Bible.

brahman,

I agree that what you have said is important is is in many respects what I'm looking for but I must also say that this aspect is only part of the big picture of what the "Only begotten Son of God" means. Leaving out your last phrase which, as you well know is not part of christian doctrine, I would aslo add that being the only begotten Son of God is an idea with two individual aspects. The 1st would be the word "begotten" and the 2nd would be the phrase "Son of God". Only by understanding both concepts completely can one come to appreciate the meaning of this "title", given to Jesus and its ramifications.

“Only begotten” is an unfortunately confusing translation, especially for modern readers. It sounds to us as though the “only begotten” Son had a beginning because we aren’t used to the old English word. The confusion should never have happened, though, since monogenes actually doesn’t mean “only begotten.”

The controversy extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For many years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms, monos (“only”) and gennao (“to beget, bear”).

Scholars of Greek linguistics have discovered, though, that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao, but rather the noun genos (“class, kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” with no connotation of time or origin or solitary existence.

The validity of this understanding is borne out by the New Testament itself. In Hebrews 11:17, Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenes, but it is crystal clear from the Old Testament that Isaac was not the only son Abraham had begotten, since he had also fathered Ishmael prior to Isaac.

The term must mean that Isaac was Abraham’s unique son, for he was the son of the covenant promises and the line through which Messiah would come. Just as Yahweh is an elohim, and no other elohim are Yahweh, so Jesus is the unique Son, and no other sons of God are like Him. Jesus is of the same unique essence as the Father.

The 2nd aspect of the "title" is the "Son of God", which I have no will be touched on in this thread to great detail.

Thanks Clovis for your attempt at this "trick question".

To answer the question we 1st have to have a sort of History lesson regarding the region we call Palestine or Canaan as it was called.



Israel was only one of many States in the are yet all of them shared a common heritage regarding their religious outlook. Perhaps the best known example of this is the material collected from Ugarit (Syria). This material has allowed us to draw many parallels between Israelite Religion and that practiced in the rest of Palestine.

One of these common beliefs, which can be found throughout the bible, is that of a Divine Council of Gods, ruled by The Father God. In the case of Ugarit, the presiding Deity was El who had 70 sons, the most prominent of which is quite well known, Baal. This by the way is the answer I was looking for, but there are instances where the number 70 has been replaced by 72, a number you mentioned.

Another important parallel found is that there was always a Co-Regent Deity who ruled in the Principal Deities place. In the case of Ugarit, this Co-Regents name was Baal, who later took the place of El as the Head God of the Ugaritic pantheon.

Now the interesting thing is that we can find these parallels in the biblical texts, which suggest quite clearly, a common perspective in relation to the Gods or "elohim" as they are commonly called in both Ugaritic and Israelite Theology.

1st in relation to the "Sons of God", the concept is found repeatedly in the old Testament, in phrases like "The Heavenly Court", The Divine Council, "Host of Heaven" and so forth. It is reapeated in the term elohim, in multiple instances, where God is speaking to othe "Gods" and these same Gods are also called the "Sons of God" in the very same contextual application as that of Ugarit.

An example of this can be found in Psalm 8:5.

Yet you have made him (mankind) a little lower than the heavenly beings (elohim) and crowned him with glory and honor.

The phrase is sometimes translated as "Angels", but the correct word is elohim (gods).

The following examples will be important because they will bring everything into context.

Deuteronomy 4:19

And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Deuteronomy 32:17

They sacrificed to demons that were not God, to gods they had never known,
to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded.

The important observation is that the Israelites sacrificed to demons, and those demonic recipients of the sacrifices are also called gods (elohim). If it is argued that the other elohim are just idols and don’t really exist, then we have to conclude demons aren’t real. This is poor theology.

Those who want to argue on other grounds that these references to other gods cannot be taken as reflecting what Israelites really believed don’t realize how that objection does injustice to both the biblical text and the God of Israel. What I mean here is that, if the above verses are not conveying factual information relative to biblical theology, then God’s superiority is a mockery.

For example, if Moses is comparing Yahweh to beings that don’t exist, how is Yahweh glorified? To have Moses saying “Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the beings that aren’t real” is to judge God’s greatness by nothing. We’re greater than something that doesn’t exist! So is a microbe. This view unintentionally brings God down quite a few notches, to say nothing of the deception involved on Moses’ part and even God’s since he inspired the words.

Saying “among the beings that we all know don’t exist there is none like Yahweh” is tantamount to comparing Yahweh with Mickey Mouse, Spiderman, or some fictional literary figure. This reduces praise to a snicker. It also makes the writer somewhat mentally unbalanced. He sings Yahweh’s praise before beings he really believes aren’t there? He commands the same imaginary beings to worship Yahweh (Psa. 29:1)? Worse yet, Yahweh presides over a council of beings that don’t exist? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire such nonsense?

Finally, we can Get to the answer...

Deuteronomy 4:19

And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Deuteronomy 32:8-9

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the LORD’s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

It seems that God gave the nations of the world to these gods but kept a portion to himself, a nation he would create for himself, the nation of Israel.

In Genesis 10 we have something called the "Table of the Nations". It is a list of all the known nations of the world at that time, and the number of nations is interestingly enough, 70.

70 Sons of God for 70 Nations.

This is not a coincidince, it was the accepted worldview of Israelitre religion.

It seems that by answering Clovis above, I inadvertantly answered you as well. We have clear indications of what those early people believed, they are recorded in the tablets of many different societies in and around Palestine. By the way, the information given above is supported by modern scholarship.

The idea that the Sons of God are human is a poor excuse of trying to explain away the obvious, it is an attempt by modern churches and some scholars, to do away with the spiritual aspect of the bible and an extreme disrespect to what the ancient cultures of the time expressed in their beliefs.

Gods exist, they are called the Sons of God (the Israelite God - Yahweh), the nations were given to them because of mans continual rejection of Gods word and will.

Untrue, since the concept can be clearly traced back to the Old Testament scriptures and the ancient Israelite worldview. It is an accepted point in Israelite religious material and the surrounding regional theology that God the father had a Co-regent, someone who ruled in the name of God the Father.

In Ugarit, that God was Baal, in Israelite religion, that place was occupied but someone called "The Word", which as we know is an Epithet for both God the Father and for Jesus as well.

Modern biblical scholarship disagrees with you. Even though Judaism today distanced itself from the concept of a Co-Regent, because of christianitys acceptance of Jesus as God and as Gods Co-Regent, it was an accepted point of view by ancient Judaism which can be veriefied quite easily by the biblical text.

It means, "you gotta give a little love and it all comes back to you! La nah la na na na na....

When real gifts come you gotta give a little Love to Hey-zoose, Hey brutha, give a little Love to Hey-zoose,

Please give me a reference to substantiate ". . . the concept can be clearly traced back to the Old Testament scriptures and the ancient Israelite worldview."

Now, I am not talking about any interpretation, exegesis or "the spirit of God." I am talking about a reference to an absolute trinity.

Please read to your hearts content:

The Divine Council and the Sons of God - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D.

The "only begotten" son of God - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D.

She said, He said - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D.

The Word of the Lord Came to Me - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D.

The Concept of a Godhead in the Old Testament - Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D. (Audio / Video)

I would doubt than any one of these would not be based upon interpretation or exegesis. I was referring to a Biblical quotation since you claimed that the concept of the trinity could "be clearly traced back to the Old Testament scriptures and the ancient Israelite worldview."

Friend, If you don't want to be bothered to read the sources from a linguist in Old Testament studies among a few more things, then nothing anyone says will satisfy your craving for self gratifying statements, unless they say what you want to hear.

From Jorel's opening post.....

'kindly' supplied by brother Jorel


Since Heiser's article is already well known and accepted by you Jorel....shouldnt you have phrased your proposed request "whether anyone else has any insight regarding....."?

Perhaps if you had started with an honest summary of Heiser's thoughts on the subject you might get the opinions of others without the painful drudgery of having to 'teach' less impressivley insightful minds as your own.

Well "friend,"
If you do not know the difference between interpretation and actual Scripture, then the question was wasted. It would have been much easier to confess that nothing is in the Old Testament supporting an actual trinity rather than trying to pawn it off on a group of authors offering their opinions, no matter how esteemed you believe they are.