PDA

View Full Version : The Only Begotten..



Tirisilex
27 January 2010, 10:38 PM
Jesus.. Known as the Only Begotten son of God.. I decided to look at this a little closer so I pulled out my Greek text and Strongs Concordance as well as my second Greek Lexicon. I found 12 Verses mentioning "the only begotten son." I obviously started with the first one.. John 1:14 It uses the word "monogenes" which is translated as "Only son born", Or traditionally "Only Begotten son." Now I just started this study but I did find this.. In Hebrews 11:17 . In this verse the same word is used between Abraham and his monogenes son Isaac, the younger brother of Abraham's first born son Ishmael, and proves that monogenes can not mean "only-begotten."

What I'm trying to find is strong evidence that Jesus is not the Only Son of God.. But one of many like Krishna.. I'll be digging in this some more..

sanjaya
28 January 2010, 01:44 AM
Jesus.. Known as the Only Begotten son of God.. I decided to look at this a little closer so I pulled out my Greek text and Strongs Concordance as well as my second Greek Lexicon. I found 12 Verses mentioning "the only begotten son." I obviously started with the first one.. John 1:14 It uses the word "monogenes" which is translated as "Only son born", Or traditionally "Only Begotten son." Now I just started this study but I did find this.. In Hebrews 11:17 . In this verse the same word is used between Abraham and his monogenes son Isaac, the younger brother of Abraham's first born son Ishmael, and proves that monogenes can not mean "only-begotten."

What I'm trying to find is strong evidence that Jesus is not the Only Son of God.. But one of many like Krishna.. I'll be digging in this some more..

Tirisilex, it seems like an interesting project. But at some level, we need to not look to the Bible to justify our own religion. The Bible says a lot of things that aren't accurate representations of what God teaches us, like the hell doctrine and the directive to perform conversion. We can't look to the Bible as though it has any authority over us. Let Christians figure out their own doctrine. Fundamentalist Christianity is such a broken religion anyway, and trying to find support for Hinduism in Christian scripture will only lead you to Biblical contradictions. I guess that's a good thing if you're fighting missionaries. But if the Christians leave us alone, why not let them practice their religion however they like?

However, if you want to discuss this academically, the Christian might respond that Issac was the son of the promise, while Ishmael was not. Christians believe in this funny idea of convenant, that God's promises will be fulfilled through one lineage, and not another. Before Christ, this lineage is ethnic. After Christ, it's determined by conversion to Christianity (granted, in practice that mostly means Western Europeans). So a Christian could say that in this context, it makes sense for the Bible to call Issac Abraham's only begotten son. Indeed, monogenes more literally refers to the uniqueness of the son rather than his lack of siblings. The Bible says that all Christians are "sons of God," so Jesus' status as only begotten clearly doesn't preclude this.

I doubt you'll find evidence in the Bible that God sent other incarnations to earth. The New Testament has many statements to the effect that Jesus is the only way to God. It's a classic Greek and Near Eastern theme: one religious group will extol its own god as the greatest of all gods. In earlier cultures in the Near East, this was largely political. For example, by portraying Marduk as having a central role in creation by slaughering Tiamat and her followers, Mesopotamia could make a political statement about its own supremacy. Christianity is just the next evolution of this, since it had to adapt to the Roman world in which multiple religions were tolerated. In a way, the ancient Near East wasn't so different from today. These days we have a bunch of Muslim nations portraying Allah as greater than any other god. We have Christians doing the same with their religious faith. The idea is to abstract the superiority of your god, and apply it to your country. That's why America is "one nation under God," and why Americans are taught to fight "for God and country." One thing I love about Hinduism is that we don't resort to such idiocy. India is a land where Christmas is a national holiday, where the nuclear research facility is named after a Zoroastrian, and where religious diversity is celebrated rather than eschewed. This is a great strength, in my opinion.

I don't think that anything in the Bible should hinder us from worshiping God as Indians have for millenia, and leaving the Christians to do whatever they please in their churches.

Tirisilex
28 January 2010, 08:58 PM
I'm finding that this study is getting into the nature of Jesus.. I've been running into some interesting things..
John 1:18 Says "No Man has seen God at anytime; the only god who is with the father is the one that has explained him."

They call Jesus God here.. But if you look at Philipians 2:5-8 "who in the form of God existing not snatching a consideration that he was equal to God."

This is saying he isn't equal to God.. Yet he is called God in John 1:18
Then I found in John 10:34, and Psalm 82:6 that everyone is a God.

Philipians also has an ineteresting citation..

NIV says made himself into nothing.
NWT says He emptied himself
I translated it and got "He emptied himself"

I find this passage VERY interesting.. I found that there is a "sect" of people out there that follow this concept of Christ Kenosis.. Which is Emptying oneself as Christ did.. This is kind of leading me off of my original path.. But I'll keep digging..

Tirisilex
29 January 2010, 02:38 PM
Well.. I was hoping to find Biblical evidence that Jesus wasn't the only Avatar of God. I couldn't find any. Oh well..

Spiritualseeker
29 January 2010, 03:28 PM
Namaste,

actually there are quite a few.

Unfortunately I cant remember the verses. I know that there is one stating that David is the only begotton son of God

Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Ekanta
29 January 2010, 03:29 PM
Tirisilex, do you know about Melchizedek?

Genesis 14:18-20
18And Melchizedek king of Salem (peace) brought out bread and wine (later last supper); now he was a priest of God Most High.
19He blessed him and said, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth;
20And blessed be God Most High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand." He (Abraham) gave him (Melchizedek) a tenth of all (later standard charity).

Hebrews 7:1-4, 17
1For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
2to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace.
3Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
4Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.

17For it is attested of Him (Jesus), you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek."

Ekanta
29 January 2010, 04:15 PM
Between, I just wonder... some like to see the part below (which is just before the story of Melchizedek) as a recording of the Mahabaratha war in the Bible and Melchizedek actually being Krishna described in the bible as a priest-king... I know the Pandavas were 5 kings. How many were there on the other side? How long was the exile? Etc... Abraham himself is hard to date, it has been suggested 2000 BC or 2500 BC.

"Dating the events of Genesis 14 is dependent upon the identification of the four kings. Whilst the identification of the four kings by name remains a matter of debate, it may be possible to date the events using the geo-political context." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chedorlaomer)

Genesis 14
War of the Kings
1And it came about in the days of Amraphel king of (A)Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of (B)Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim,
2that they made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of (C)Admah, and Shemeber king of (D)Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, (E)Zoar). [5 kings]

3All these came as allies to (F)the valley of Siddim (that is, (G)the Salt Sea).

4Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but the thirteenth year they rebelled.

5In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, came and defeated the (H)Rephaim in (I)Ashteroth-karnaim and the Zuzim in Ham and the Emim in (J)Shaveh-kiriathaim,

6and the (K)Horites in their Mount Seir, as far as (L)El-paran, which is by the wilderness.

7Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, (M)Kadesh), and conquered all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, who lived in (N)Hazazon-tamar.

8And the king of Sodom and the king of Gomorrah and the king of Admah and the king of Zeboiim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) came out [5 kings]; and they arrayed for battle against them in (O)the valley of Siddim,

9against Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goiim and Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar--four kings against five. ...

sanjaya
29 January 2010, 11:47 PM
They call Jesus God here.. But if you look at Philipians 2:5-8 "who in the form of God existing not snatching a consideration that he was equal to God."

This is saying he isn't equal to God.. Yet he is called God in John 1:18
Then I found in John 10:34, and Psalm 82:6 that everyone is a God.

Hi Tirisilex. There are a few important points that I feel I can make here.

Regarding the Philippians passage, most translations say something that sounds like "who though in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Basically it's saying that although Jesus was God, he had no problem making himself a man. It's important to beware that most Christians will use this passage to support Jesus' divinity, rather than question it.

As for Psalm 82:6, there's a passage in John (probably 10:34) where the Jews want to kill Jesus for calling himself the Son of God. He replies that the Old Testament itself quotes God as saying, "I said, 'you are gods,'" and that comparatively, Jesus calling himself the Son of God shouldn't be nearly as powerful a statement as this. It's rather peculiar if you ask me. If it were anyone else saying this, I would call this the Bill Clinton maneuver (questioning the definition of "is"). But I don't wish to question a wise teacher like Jesus.

That said, I think he author of the gospel of John is misunderstanding the original Hebrew. My Jewish friends point out to me that in Hebrew, the word for "god," often refers to a judge, a human in a place of high authority, etc. The Old Testament is pretty vigorous in its claim that a human cannot be God (which would differ from both Hinduism and Christianity), so Jews would say that Psalm 82:6 shouldn't be taken as saying that men can be called gods in the English sense of the word.


Philipians also has an ineteresting citation..

NIV says made himself into nothing.
NWT says He emptied himself
I translated it and got "He emptied himself"

I find this passage VERY interesting.. I found that there is a "sect" of people out there that follow this concept of Christ Kenosis.. Which is Emptying oneself as Christ did.. This is kind of leading me off of my original path.. But I'll keep digging..

Yes, that is very interesting. I didn't know this before. Still, I feel sorry for these people. They're trying to extract a lot from a single passage of Christian scripture. And they don't have the vast body of theological and spiritual knowledge that can be found in Hinduism via our Scriptures, our gurus, and our age-old traditions that can make us one with God. Truthfully I'm surprised that there's any spirituality to be found outside Hinduism. But hey, to each his own.


Well.. I was hoping to find Biblical evidence that Jesus wasn't the only Avatar of God. I couldn't find any. Oh well..

Yeah, this would probably be very difficult. As I said earlier, the New Testament is an amalgamation of Near Eastern tribalism and Greco-Roman pluralism. You'd think that's a contradiction. But the result is an exclusivist religion that isn't restricted to one city-state. The New Testament portrays Jesus as the only way to God, with other religions being blind foolishness.

If you're looking for evidence that this idea is wrong, it's best to look at the Old Testament. The Old Testament contradicts the New in many ways. One example is the "I said, 'you are gods'" Psalm that's quoted in John. Another example has actually been raised by Spiritualseeker.


Namaste,

actually there are quite a few.

Unfortunately I cant remember the verses. I know that there is one stating that David is the only begotton son of God

Psalm 2:7 "....Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Christians actually quote Psalm 2:7 as a typology about Jesus. But as you can see, in the immediate context it seems to be referring only to King David. Many Christians will even vigorously defend this as a prophecy, although you can see that it's nothing of the sort. The Old Testament refers to many people as sons of God. Usually it's just a title meaning that a person is very close to God in some way or another. But it denies that God can ever be a man. So Jews would take issue with both the Christian idea of the incarnation of God as Jesus, or with the Hindu theology of God taking many incarnations (i.e. avatars) such as Sri Rama, Sri Krishna, Narasimha, etc.

But Jews tend to be very tolerant towards Hindus, and since there have been Jews in India we've always had good relations. So I tend not to care that their beliefs contradict ours.

Tirisilex
30 January 2010, 12:10 AM
Thank you for your input.. It's been a real help.

ScottMalaysia
30 January 2010, 07:26 AM
Well.. I was hoping to find Biblical evidence that Jesus wasn't the only Avatar of God. I couldn't find any. Oh well..

If you accept the canon of the Bible as being reliable and authentic, then here's a verse that states Jesus is the only son of God:

"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 3:16)

Spiritualseeker
30 January 2010, 07:39 AM
Scott that is not true other people in the bible were considered the only begotton son of God. David is one. I believe solomon was another. Abraham and Israel

Tirisilex
30 January 2010, 11:23 AM
This passage uses the greek word homogenes which means Unique, One of a kind, only.. But yeah.. I realize this.. Monogenes is used as "only" son 6 times in the New Testament John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, and Hebrews 11:17..

But what is interesting to note is that in Hebrews they speak of Isaac being Abrahams only (homogenes) son when in fact he had 2 sons. So It should really mean "unique" How do we know when it's used as only.. and unique?