His only-begotten Son

[Checkpoint]

This a well known description of Jesus Christ, found only in John and 1 John.

What do you think this phrase is conveying to us?

Is it literal or metaphorical, or both?

What teachings have used it as support for traditional or other views?

[Elijah John]

This a well known description of Jesus Christ, found only in John and 1 John.

What do you think this phrase is conveying to us?

Is it literal or metaphorical, or both?

What teachings have used it as support for traditional or other views?

"God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father"

Consubstantial, according to the Creed, of the same substance.

That's what it says, that's how the Church father's interpreted those passages from John,..

They built their theology of Jesus, their Christology upon the teaching of the Evangelist John.

That is Orthodoxy.

[2timothy316]

Paul was speaking of Jesus when he wrote, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist. " - Col 1:15-17

These scriptures spell it out quite clearly. Jesus was Jehovah's firstborn of creation. Then by instructing His Son on how to create Jesus then created all other things, both spiritual (or invisible to us) and physical. So the term 'only begotten son' simply means Jesus is the only creation that Jehovah God Himself made using His own creative powers. Everything else was made by Jesus at Jehovah's command.

Chapter 8 in Proverbs goes into detail about how Jesus felt working with his Father as a 'master worker' in verse 30. In verse 31 it notes how Jesus was especially fond of us, humans. It's really quite a heart touching chapter.

[JP Cusick]

His only-begotten Son

What do you think this phrase is conveying to us?

My view is that it means that all other sons (and daughters) were not begotten.

The wording does not mean the only son - but the only "begotten" of sons.

Whatever does begotten mean? from the root word beget.

My view is that it does not mean beget or begotten by physical child birth, because it means that Jesus did as the Father wanted and thereby Jesus became the spiritual son of God.

Other people are sons and daughters of God but we were not begotten as was Jesus who is said to be the first born (born again), as in this:

1 John 5:
1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. KJV

[Checkpoint]

This a well known description of Jesus Christ, found only in John and 1 John.

What do you think this phrase is conveying to us?

Is it literal or metaphorical, or both?

What teachings have used it as support for traditional or other views?

"God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father"

Consubstantial, according to the Creed, of the same substance.

That's what it says, that's how the Church father's interpreted those passages from John,..

They built their theology of Jesus, their Christology upon the teaching of the Evangelist John.

That is Orthodoxy.

Yes, that is the traditional teaching. It is a good example of what Jesus talked about when he said, "they teach as doctrine the precepts of men", Mark 7:7.

A phrase that seems to often be misused or misapplied to support views already held, as we can already observe on this thread.

But as for you, EJ, what do you think John was intending to convey by his use of it?

[Checkpoint]

Paul was speaking of Jesus when he wrote, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist. " - Col 1:15-17

Hold on there, not so fast.

You have added to scripture four times, the word "other", so changing the meaning Paul intended in that passage. That word is not in the Greek.

These scriptures spell it out quite clearly. Jesus was Jehovah's firstborn of creation. Then by instructing His Son on how to create Jesus then created all other things, both spiritual (or invisible to us) and physical. So the term 'only begotten son' simply means Jesus is the only creation that Jehovah God Himself made using His own creative powers. Everything else was made by Jesus at Jehovah's command.

Yes, that's about what your doctored translation seems to be saying.

Chapter 8 in Proverbs goes into detail about how Jesus felt working with his Father as a 'master worker' in verse 30. In verse 31 it notes how Jesus was especially fond of us, humans. It's really quite a heart touching chapter.

Yes, Proverbs 8 has its own attraction.

That being so, I started a new thread on it a day or two ago. You are welcome to share your view there.

viewtopic.php?t=33250

[Elijah John]

This a well known description of Jesus Christ, found only in John and 1 John.

What do you think this phrase is conveying to us?

Is it literal or metaphorical, or both?

What teachings have used it as support for traditional or other views?

"God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father"

Consubstantial, according to the Creed, of the same substance.

That's what it says, that's how the Church father's interpreted those passages from John,..

They built their theology of Jesus, their Christology upon the teaching of the Evangelist John.

That is Orthodoxy.

Yes, that is the traditional teaching. It is a good example of what Jesus talked about when he said, "they teach as doctrine the precepts of men", Mark 7:7.

A phrase that seems to often be misused or misapplied to support views already held, as we can already observe on this thread.

But as for you, EJ, what do you think Jon was intending to convey by his use of it?

So you dispute Church Orthodoxy? What do you think John was trying to convey if not what it says in the Creed?

My reading of John is that by "only begotten" he at the very least believed in the "pre-incarnate" Jesus as the "Word" who existed at the beginning of Creation and perhaps before. A view that Paul seems to have shared, but no evidence that Matthew, Mark or Luke did so.

Not sure if the Church Fathers took a step beyond in saying "eternally begotten" or if that is what John actually intended. What do you think?

[2timothy316]

Paul was speaking of Jesus when he wrote, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist. " - Col 1:15-17

Hold on there, not so fast.

You have added to scripture four times, the word "other", so changing the meaning Paul intended in that passage. That word is not in the Greek.

Jesus is the 'firstborn of all creation' is he not? If he is not then who is Paul speaking about? If Jesus is an image, who's he an image of?

http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-15.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/4416.htm

Were all 'other' things created after him or were they not?

There are words added to the Bible in many places. For example Psalm 3:8 the word 'belongs' is not in the Hebrew text. But without it reads 'salvation to Jehovah'. If someone didn't put the word 'belongs' after salvation, one could read it as though God needed salvation. So guess what, almost all translations add a word. http://biblehub.com/psalms/3-8.htm *gasp*

[tigger2]

Paul was speaking of Jesus when he wrote, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist. " - Col 1:15-17

Hold on there, not so fast.

You have added to scripture four times, the word "other", so changing the meaning Paul intended in that passage. That word is not in the Greek.

These scriptures spell it out quite clearly. Jesus was Jehovah's firstborn of creation. Then by instructing His Son on how to create Jesus then created all other things, both spiritual (or invisible to us) and physical. So the term 'only begotten son' simply means Jesus is the only creation that Jehovah God Himself made using His own creative powers. Everything else was made by Jesus at Jehovah's command.

Yes, that's about what your doctored translation seems to be saying.

Chapter 8 in Proverbs goes into detail about how Jesus felt working with his Father as a 'master worker' in verse 30. In verse 31 it notes how Jesus was especially fond of us, humans. It's really quite a heart touching chapter.

Yes, Proverbs 8 has its own attraction.

That being so, I started a new thread on it a day or two ago. You are welcome to share your view there.

viewtopic.php?t=33250

"[Other]"

The Bible writers very often excluded the subject of a clause - or the person speaking/writing the clause - when using the term “all� (and “every�).

This is a common usage even today. For example, the police sergeant making an arrest of a criminal group might say: “Everyone in this room is under arrest!� - (person speaking excluded.) Obviously the sergeant does not include himself (nor his men with him) even though he says “everyone�! Or “the criminal tied up everyone in the room before stealing the gems.� - (subject of clause excluded.) Obviously the criminal didn’t also tie himself up.

We find at Ephesians 4:6 that there is - "one God and Father of all, who is above all…." (NRSV). Obviously God here is not the father of Himself or “over� Himself. Again, the subject ("God") is excluded from the word "all." It is clearly understood to mean that God is the Father [Creator] of all other things.

And, Rev. 4:11, "For you [the Father seated on the throne - Rev. 5:6-9] created everything" - CBW. (But, literally, ta panta -"all" or "all things" - would have to include the Father creating Himself, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!).

In Matthew 10:22, Jesus tells his followers: "and you will be hated by all because of my name." - NRSV. Certainly, Jesus didn't mean that his true followers would be hated by Jesus himself or God. And most certainly he didn't mean they would be hated by themselves! "Others" is understood.

At Heb. 2:8 we read: “‘You have put all things in subjection under his feet.’
For in subjecting all things [ta panta] to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him.� - NASB.

However, it would certainly be honest and proper for a translator familiar with the teachings of the rest of the Bible to add the qualifying words to this scripture that were understood and intended by the original writer. E.g., "Thou hast put all [other] things in subjection...;" or even, "Thou hast put all things [except the Father and yourself] in subjection..." - See 1 Cor. 15:27 below.

1 Cor. 15:27 (NIV) …. Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything [ta panta] under Christ.

Clearly, not only God is excepted from the “all things,� but so is Christ who would not be “under his [own] feet.�

So compare Heb. 2:8 (“‘You have put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things [ta panta] to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him�) with John 1:3 (“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.�)

So in spite of the seeming certainty of Heb. 2:8, we find that it is simply a hyperbolic expression which isn’t even made clear until we find another statement in an entirely different Bible book (1 Cor. 15:27).

It is by no means improbable that John 1:3 (and Col. 1:16) is using “all things� [panta] in the same way as numerous other such uses were in scripture.

NEB; REB; NJB; NAB (‘91); GNB; and LB (for example) have honestly added “other� at Ezek. 31:5 to show that a certain tree towered above “all other trees� whereas KJV, NASB, RSV (for example) have it towering “above all trees.� Since it does not tower above itself, the Bible writer obviously excluded it from the phrase “all trees� (even though it is also a tree itself and a part of “all trees�) just as Col. 1:16 excludes Jesus from all other things.

The Moffatt translation; An American Translation; The Common Bible; The Amplified Bible; and translations by C. B. Williams; and Beck all properly add “other� after “all� at 1 Cor. 15:24.

Again, at 1 Cor. 6:18 the respected trinitarian Bibles NIV; NASB; NEB; REB; AT; GNB; TEV; JB; NJB (among others) have added “other� to the text. And the NWT agrees. And at Matt. 6:33 JB; AT; GNB; TEV; and Beck (Lutheran scholar) have added “other� (NEB has added “the rest�), and, again, the NWT agrees.

At Luke 13:2 many trinitarian translations add ‘other.’ Also see Ro. 8:32 (REB; NRSV; LB; NAB; CBW) "other or "else" have been honestly added. Phil. 2:9 ("all other names�) JB; NJB; NAB (1970); AT; GNB/TEV; LB; CBW; Beck (NT); ETRV; and NLV.

Col. 1:17 “And he is before all things.� - KJV. This is the literal wording. but see the 'additions' found in NAB ('70); LB; CEV; NLT.

Certainly it is not wrong from a grammatical viewpoint (nor is it a “dishonest rendering�) to add “other� as the NWT has done at Col. 1:16, 17 (and the LB and the NAB have done with “else� at Col. 1:17) and so many trinitarian translators have done in other similar uses of "all."

Whether it is doctrinally correct as Rev. 3:14, Prov. 8:22-30, 1 John 4:9 (“only-begotten�), and Col. 1:15 (“firstborn of all creation�) suggest is a matter for all honest-hearted persons to discover but not a reason for accusing others of dishonestly rendering God’s Word!

[Checkpoint]

Paul was speaking of Jesus when he wrote, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist. " - Col 1:15-17

Hold on there, not so fast.

You have added to scripture four times, the word "other", so changing the meaning Paul intended in that passage. That word is not in the Greek.

Jesus is the 'firstborn of all creation' is he not? If he is not then who is Paul speaking about? If Jesus is an image, who's he an image of?

http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-15.htm
http://biblehub.com/greek/4416.htm

Were all 'other' things created after him or were they not?

There are words added to the Bible in many places. For example Psalm 3:8 the word 'belongs' is not in the Hebrew text. But without it reads 'salvation to Jehovah'. If someone didn't put the word 'belongs' after salvation, one could read it as though God needed salvation. So guess what, almost all translations add a word. http://biblehub.com/psalms/3-8.htm *gasp*

The word was added, not because grammar or logic demanded it, but to agree with a doctrine already held by the translators.