Posted by CB on 8/12/2001, 6:12 pm

Some notes and thoughts on this subject Posted by Steve B. on 6/20/2001, 8:55 am , in reply to "Jn 1:18 only begotten god" Cliff, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the same sort of things, and about what we were taught about them at the Chapel. Here are my notes on John 1:18 from the Advanced Unfolding Revelation of God class taught fall semester, 1981, by Mike Sabourin: John 1:18 A. Not an issue of trinitarianism vs. oneness—men from both camps on both sides of the question. B. Gk. reads: "the only begotten God." KJV reads "the only begotten Son"—W, K, all miniscules. C. the issue: which is the best reading, or translation, of the verse? "...God" supported by p66 (200 AD), Aleph, B, C, L, A—the preferred reading. D. but: abbreviation of the two words (theos and huios) was very common, and very similar: makes a ms. corruption very much more possible. E. the church fathers quoted it both ways. F. more difficult reading is generally preferred on principle, however. John's prologue a unique portion of scripture—the only place this expression is used) G. How can we understand theos here? 1. dual nature of Christ is the key: he is designated as both humanity & deity—begotten & yet God. 2. Theos is anartharous here—no article—emphasis on quality of the noun rather than identity, "the only begotten divine one" 3. monogenes—an adjective, or a substantive (two nouns in apposition: "the only begotten one, God" = the only begotten one who is also God)? A.T.R. p.650 (?)—there is no way to absolutely distinguish between subst. and adj. 4. translation of monogenes? fr. mono, "one" + genomai (?), "to become" "single of its kind, unique, only"—no implication of being born or begotten, no origin implied in the term. Best translation of phrase therefore: "a unique God" if taken as adj., or "a unique one, God" (substant.) the consummation of God's plan, of God's logos, Christ was absolutely unique: sinless man and also fully God. As you have probably seen (since you say you are struggling with this subject), in spite of the genuinely good scholarly apparatus used here, the Chapel essentially punted. It said the question is answered by the dual nature of Christ. Jesus is fully man and fully God. But the question is how can Jesus be both man and God? In the normal way of speaking that is a contradiction, the contradiction with which you are struggling. The answer the Chapel gave was that God the unchanging Spirit dwells fully inside of Jesus the man and is revealed uniquely through him, and that is why the Bible calls Jesus God. I have come to doubt the feasibility of that answer, given the other kind of things the New Testament consistently says about Jesus. To me it seems the Bible shows us that Jesus instrinsically possessed the quality of deity. That is, when the Bible speaks of the deity of Jesus it is not referring to the Father who dwells in him, but to Jesus' own nature. Though the Chapel told us we should not be comfortable with the idea, the Biblical authors (particularily John, but also the author of Hebrews, and Paul in passages such as Philippians 2) seemed to have no trouble writing of Jesus existing separately and consciously with God, in God, and as God from the beginning. If there are contradictions here, the Biblical authors do not seem to consider them to be important. If you've read any of the back postings on this board, you know that this realization has led me to reconsider trinitarianism. I now consider the Trinity to be a better picture of the God revealed in the Bible than the Oneness doctrine we were taught at the Chapel. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- The dual nature Posted by Dave Kenady on 6/20/2001, 9:49 am , in reply to "Some notes and thoughts on this subject" The dual nature concept is an attempt to keep all these biblical concepts in their place, yet still view Jesus as both God and man. You have criticized the people you have categorized as the "Jesus is not God" people, but actually, they have simply surrendered to the other extreme from Trinitarianism. Both ideas do not account for Jesus being truly human and truly divine. They view Jesus as only human, but I submit that the Trinitarian view denies the true humanity of Christ. It does not say that His human person was simply born of a woman, but that Jesus was eternally begotten, whatever that means. If Jesus is eternally begotten, than He is no brother of mine. He is a freak. The Trinitarian view has no problem ending up with contradictory concepts like a "begotten God" or a "forgetful God", a "dead God" or a "schizo God". The idea that God would explain Himself as "eternally begotten" makes me want to just shred the book and start reading someone who doesn't need therapy. As far as John 1:18 goes, I agree with your notes that Jesus, the One who came to declare the invisible God, was the "begotten God" in the sense that this human person, born of a woman, fully declared God who was in Him, manifesting Himself to the world. ---------- Posted by lanny on 6/20/2001, 10:57 pm , in reply to "Jn 1:18 only begotten god" This is not the only place where the New Testament seems to mix both the humanity and Deity of Christ. I understand this to mean "the only begotten (man) who can also be called (in another sense) God." Or, That one who was begotten is also God. This is the theme of John 1. Starting with the profound 1:1, the writer explains who Christ is in revelatory ways emphasizing that although a man, he was far more than just a man. Thomas put his hands into the human scars in 20:28 and said, "My Lord, and My God." Huh? God has a human body with scars? In Mt 1:23 "...a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel which translated means God with us." Well, He was God with us. This is said about the son. Again a reference to humanity and Deity without any qualification or explanation. It is up to us to understand it correctly. The way to do that is to apply the simple attributes of God that are plainly given in many passages as to what God is and isn't. Thus, if God is all knowing than there some aspect of Christ that is not God since there is at least one thing (the day nor the hour...) that Christ does not know. Or if "God cannot be tempted" than the temptation of Christ must not be something that God, any God, is involved in. This is simple enough and can be expanded until Christ can be seen for what he truly is. Of course, at this point trinitarians fall on the ground and start foaming at the mouth declaring that I don't believe in the Deity of Christ. I do. I also believe in his humanity which they cannot understand or they would never had made the previous assumption. Another passage would be, Rom 9:5 "...from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever." Christ according to the flesh is God??? I take it to mean that this Christ who came in the flesh is none other than God himself. "For in Him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." It is not that hard to understand. Another passage, Heb 1:8 reads, "But of the son he says, Thy throne, O God..." How can he call the son God??? Quite easily. There is no explanation. I don't for a moment take it to mean that there is a God the son. I don't need that to understand or make sense of the passage. Rather, I understand this passage just like the others mentioned including Jn 1:18. "The only begotten God..." "...unto the son...Thy throne, O God..." These passages are to give full recognition to Christ as being not only man, but God Himself. Is 9:6 "a child is born...Mighty God...Everlasting Father..." Do we think that is saying that God was born? Or could we say it like this, "the child that was born is the Mighty God, Himself manifest in human flesh?" That is how I understand all of these passages. Lanny