Jump to content
IGNORED

Jesus is God OR God's Son?


gustava

Recommended Posts

I've always seen it like this: Jesus became God's son by being born on earth. Before that, it was just God. They basically sent a part of Themselves to earth, and that part went into a body and was named Jesus. When Jesus' soul went back up to Heaven, He just became part of God again. It makes sense that Jesus was an autonomous being whilst on earth, because that part of God was in a human body. That's why you see Jesus pray at certain points in the Bible. He wasn't praying to Himself, but to the rest of God that wasn't in the body. It makes sense to me....

Terrific explanation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[

Take a look at John 1:18 which literally translates into English as

This is the NASB, a literal translation. Doesn't sound very Trinitarian. It sounds Arian. Sounds like there is a second created God.

Well, we can't have that, can we? Take a look at how the NIV has to completely ignore the literal translation and make the word GOD into Son (which CANNOT be done in the Greek by any means).

Yikes! That's embarrassing.

When you have to lie to keep a doctrine consistent throughout the Bible, you've already lost the war.

I don't think they're making the word "God" into "Son": I think they're getting "Son" out of "begotten".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really need to side with doggie on this one. It is an extreme verbage, but it does hold together.

What if a family asked a teenaged daughter to be a surrogate mother for her infertile aunt? What if the family told her that they wanted her to be artificially inseminated and carry this child for her aunt in order to be loved by her family? and what if this teenager consented to the artificial insemination in order to maintain the love of her family? Is the consent valid, considering the teenager is faced with losing the love of her famiy if she refuses and that she is still just a child herself? Is a teenager capable of consenting to bearing a child when the alternative is losing the only source of support she has ever known? Is it legal to induce the consent of a minor for this purpose?

The further that we get from the bronze age, the more likely the stories begin to look like the valid observations of people who had limited information to understand the world. We can now do many things that seemed suprnatural to the original ancient storytellers. It makes the stories look less magical and more like either misunderstandings or fabrications. Remeber that they had no DNA testing then and many babies were raised by men who were not their biological father. A lot of the virginity stuff and modesty stuff comes from the uncertainty of paternity.

Which leads me to another question. If Jesus was fully human and fully god, what did his DNA look like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What doggie said is completely relevant to the concept of god and Jesus as separate or the same. If you're impregnating virgins to bring about your own birth on earth and arranging for that part of you to be crucified so that people will believe in you, what bit of that is not bizarre?

Which leads me to another question. If Jesus was fully human and fully god, what did his DNA look like?

Sparkly, I'd imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they're making the word "God" into "Son": I think they're getting "Son" out of "begotten".

Sadly, no. Literally, the scripture reads "an only begotten God". The word Son along with a little theological treatise is inserted by the NIV to render this verse compatible with mainstream theology. The Greek word begotten can in no way be translated into Son. Moreover, to insert this sort of theological exposition "who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father..." Heavens!

If you read the preface of the NIV you will see how they justify such additions.

But they are no way a literal or even accurate rendering of the Greek. You can check with with an interlinear Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I found a graphic that attempts to explain the Trinity and shows some common errors: https://s3.amazonaws.com/Challies_Visua ... LowRes.jpg

I've never been convinced that even orthodox trinitarianism is really monotheism, but I suppose I don't fully understand it. That's not a problem for me (i.e., I don't necessarily think Judaism and Islam are better because they're strictly monotheistic), but I'm not sold on trinitarianism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, I was reading back through the thread and noticed that Debrand got there before me.

When it comes to being immature about accidental sexual references, I am always the first one to giggle. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, no. Literally, the scripture reads "an only begotten God". The word Son along with a little theological treatise is inserted by the NIV to render this verse compatible with mainstream theology. The Greek word begotten can in no way be translated into Son. Moreover, to insert this sort of theological exposition "who is himself God and is in the closest relationship with the Father..." Heavens!

I don't see why "an only begotten God" can't be read as "an only son who is god" - unless I'm misunderstanding what begotten means. Your bit that I've bolded suggests that. Is begotten more specific than issue? Certainly the word begat when used in the genealogical lists means had a child: is that a different word in the Greek?

I also completely disagree that "in the closest relationship with the Father" is inserting theological exposition to "in the bosom of the Father."

(I don't have a stake in this. I'm a practising Anglican largely for cultural reasons and have been an agnostic for decades throughout my fluctuating belief, and the idea that my religion isn't exactly what the founder(s) envisaged doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm interested here mainly in the issue of translation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to being immature about accidental sexual references, I am always the first one to giggle. :lol:

I think I freaked a friend out one time when I explained my theory about Zeus in the golden shower of rain.

Latin and Greek is fantastic for innuendo....not that I go looking of course :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is both simultaneously. Its not supposed to make sense. You are just supposed to run with it.

I went through a stage when I was 16ish where I was still hardcore evangelical but decided I didn't believe in Trinity. I would just hum during the "Father,Son,Holy Ghost" line of songs at church. Yeah, I thought I was so cool and rebelious ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why "an only begotten God" can't be read as "an only son who is god" - unless I'm misunderstanding what begotten means. Your bit that I've bolded suggests that. Is begotten more specific than issue? Certainly the word begat when used in the genealogical lists means had a child: is that a different word in the Greek?

I also completely disagree that "in the closest relationship with the Father" is inserting theological exposition to "in the bosom of the Father."

(I don't have a stake in this. I'm a practising Anglican largely for cultural reasons and have been an agnostic for decades throughout my fluctuating belief, and the idea that my religion isn't exactly what the founder(s) envisaged doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm interested here mainly in the issue of translation.)

A translation is supposed to (as literally as possible) capture the meaning of the text. This doesn't mean it can always be literal as English phrases such as "he's a pain in the neck" might be too literally translated and thus lose their flair.

However, for whatever crazy reason the literal reading of John 1:18 calls the logos "an only begotten God". In fact, at this point in time, the logos was not even called the Son as this title was not applied to Jesus until he was baptized. So, even from a theological perspective, what NIV is doing is not even attempting to translate this passage. The translators are attempting to reconcile it with their theological POV.

The KJV did this from the beginning, translating "only begotten God" into Son.

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

Again, this cannot be done in Greek, but they did it anyway, perhaps desperately, because the one thing you cannot have is "A GOD" with "THE GOD". It is far too untrinitarian.

In fact, John 1:1 literally translates "And the Word was A God" not "God" because there is no "ho" before the theos. In Greek, where there is no article, the noun is usually given an indefinite article. There is a reason why the author was decidedly certain to place "ho" before all the other "Gods" in this verse, but carefully left it out for that last theos.

A highly accurate translation that at least makes sense of this purposeful omission is to translate this verse, "and divine was the Word". That is, if you don't want to translate it as "a God".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few observations in a fascinating thread:

Europa was seduced or raped by Zeus when he was in bovine form. The constellation Taurus supposedly commemorates the abduction of Europa by Zeus. Leda was seduced by Zeus as a swan. Their children were Helen of Troy, Clytemnestra, and Castor and Pollux who are now stars in Gemini.

Buddhists don't worship the Buddha nor do Muslims worship Muhammed. The Buddha and Mohammed are honored, but they are not worshipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard both growing up Southern Baptist. The first time they tried to teach us about the Trinity in AWANA I was so confused that I rejected it. Of course, I was still good at math then, and three wholes cannot be one whole. They can be three parts of one whole. Or something.

This is why I'm an atheist- gods are so confusing and difficult to keep track of.

I never liked Mythology in Literature class either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, for whatever crazy reason the literal reading of John 1:18 calls the logos "an only begotten God". In fact, at this point in time, the logos was not even called the Son as this title was not applied to Jesus until he was baptized. So, even from a theological perspective, what NIV is doing is not even attempting to translate this passage. The translators are attempting to reconcile it with their theological POV.

The KJV did this from the beginning, translating "only begotten God" into Son.

Again, this cannot be done in Greek, but they did it anyway, perhaps desperately, because the one thing you cannot have is "A GOD" with "THE GOD". It is far too untrinitarian.

So what does begotten mean, then?

Looking only at the KJV and the NIV suggests that the NIV has added a bit, but actually they've simply replaced the meaning that the KJV left out (and removed the tautology).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what does begotten mean, then?

Looking only at the KJV and the NIV suggests that the NIV has added a bit, but actually they've simply replaced the meaning that the KJV left out (and removed the tautology).

Well, I'll let you decide what begotten means, however, it should be pointed out that in all other areas of the Bible, the word begotten is used in reference of a parental begetting. Unfortunately, the idea of begetting a child means that there was once a time when that child was NOT, which is decidedly nonTrinitarian...so we must now redefine begotten to mean something it has historically never meant in order to keep the doctrine.

You can view a typical Trinitarian expose on the begetting of John 1:18 here: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

However, you should definitely scroll down to what the article says later on why they feel they can change the Greek word for God (theos) into the Greek word heios for Son:

Having established this point, we are now faced with the question of the word following monogenes. Should it be heios (Son) or theos (God)? The oldest known Greek manuscripts, P66 and P75, read only begotten God. However, these manuscripts all come from the Alexandrian line and smack of ancient Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught that Christ was a begotten god, created by God the Father, whom they called the Unbegotten God.

When those who had been tainted with Gnosticism cite John 1:18, they cite it as only begotten God. Such is true of Tatian (second century), Valentinus (second century), Clement of Alexandria (215 AD), and Arius (336 AD). On the other hand, we find many of the orthodox fathers who opposed Gnosticism quoting John 1:18 as only begotten Son (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, and Chrysostom). [3]

Even some that served on the textual committee for the UBS-4 recognized that the proper reading of John 1:18 is only begotten Son. Dr. Allen Wilkgren, who served on the committee, writes, "It is doubtful that the author (i.e., John) would have written monogenes theos, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition.

This is terrific example of where translation goes completely off the deep end in favor of a theology. In textual criticism the accuracy of a text is determined by what the BULK MAJORITY OF THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS READ. If the majority of old manuscripts have a reading it is determined to be as close to the original text as possible.

Unfortunately, the oldest manuscripts reveal and gnostic interpretation. So what do we do? THROW OUT ALL THOSE MANUSCRIPTS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T COMPATIBLE WITH A THEOLOGY.

No secular textual critic would do this.

Moreover, it would seem that the translators are operating under the assumption that the apostle John wrote this gospel, which he did not. It is an anonymous gospel.

There are many secular textual critics that face-palm such actions, but the persons in this article are not scholars, they are theologians, which is why most mainstream translations continue to perpetuate errors in lieu of historical accuracy. Translation methods like this are pretty much the equivalent of 6 Day creationism to science. It's an interpretation to keep a claim, not to support the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the question of what the apostle's creed says in the current Greek form:

In English-In one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God

In Greek- Kai eis ena Kurio, Isou Christo, o ios tou Theou, o monogenis

Ios tou Theou-The Son of God

o monogenenis- the only created/born

Genesis in greek can refer to both the act of creation (God creating the heavens and the earth) and to being physically born. It has a double meaning.

Apologies for the transliteration but I figured if I put it in Greek characters a lot of people would not be able to read it. Even more apologies because I brought up the apostle's creed and what was being talked about was the Gospel of John. I'm sorry. I read this thread too quickly and mixed in it my mind with something else. I'll put myself in the corner.

Edited because I read too fast and then gave in to trigger finger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'll let you decide what begotten means, however, it should be pointed out that in all other areas of the Bible, the word begotten is used in reference of a parental begetting. Unfortunately, the idea of begetting a child means that there was once a time when that child was NOT, which is decidedly nonTrinitarian...so we must now redefine begotten to mean something it has historically never meant in order to keep the doctrine.

You can view a typical Trinitarian expose on the begetting of John 1:18 here: http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

However, you should definitely scroll down to what the article says later on why they feel they can change the Greek word for God (theos) into the Greek word heios for Son:

This is terrific example of where translation goes completely off the deep end in favor of a theology. In textual criticism the accuracy of a text is determined by what the BULK MAJORITY OF THE OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS READ. If the majority of old manuscripts have a reading it is determined to be as close to the original text as possible.

Unfortunately, the oldest manuscripts reveal and gnostic interpretation. So what do we do? THROW OUT ALL THOSE MANUSCRIPTS BECAUSE THEY AREN'T COMPATIBLE WITH A THEOLOGY.

No secular textual critic would do this.

Moreover, it would seem that the translators are operating under the assumption that the apostle John wrote this gospel, which he did not. It is an anonymous gospel.

There are many secular textual critics that face-palm such actions, but the persons in this article are not scholars, they are theologians, which is why most mainstream translations continue to perpetuate errors in lieu of historical accuracy. Translation methods like this are pretty much the equivalent of 6 Day creationism to science. It's an interpretation to keep a claim, not to support the facts.

Interesting that one can be "tainted" by Gnosticism, texts of which were omitted from the canonical Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.