hinduwoman

Christ was God’s only begotten son.
But does not begotten imply a child born from the father’s seed?
If Paul was simply stealing a pagan story of a son begotten by a god and that is how the early Christians understood it, then it is ok to use the word. But if Mary was impregnated spiritually then why such a term?

What do the original manuscripts say? :wave:

lpetrich

Paul doesn't say much about Jesus Christ's origins, other than that he was "of the seed of David" and "born of woman, born under the law", whatever that means. In fact, Paul's Christ may have been a sort-of god without an earthly career.

Mark starts with John the Baptizer baptizing a full-grown Jesus Christ.

Matthew and Luke trace Jesus Christ's ancestry back to King David, while claiming that Joseph was not his true biological father, and that it was the Holy Spirit who made Mary pregnant with Jesus Christ.

John has a rather metaphysical sort of origin of Jesus Christ as the "Word" (logos).


This "Son of God" bit may have started with Mark; he was likely relying on the Old Testament, where kings would metaphorically or adoptively be sons of God. But the authors of Matthew and Luke took that literally, and were likely also have been influenced by Greco-Roman mythology, with gods making lots of women pregnant with legendary heroes and even some real people.

Tinker Grey

It used to be (and still may be) that the most readily quoted verse was John 3:16, which states:John is the fourth gospel and is reputedly written by Jesus' disciple John.

Earlier in John (chapter 1, verse 12) it states that God gives those that believe "on his name" the power to "become the sons of God."

So, in some sense, "only begotten son" implies the distinction between adopted children and natural children -- in this case, between adopted children and one adopted child.

While most Christians, AFAIK, do not believe that God manifested himself as human and had congress with Mary, we might agree that in order for Jesus to be a real human that God may/must have fashioned the necessary biological components and implanted them. As such one might still use "only begotten son" to refer to the biology of it all.

Nevertheless, orthodoxy (small-o) understands that Jesus was eternally pre-existent. Again, John writes "in the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Contextually, we understand this to Jesus. Paul, in the book of Colossians, writes that "by him all things consist". Elsewhere he writes, "in whom we live, move, and have our being."

IOW, "the only begotten" is very much God and that person of God that became man for us.

From here on, it gets very messy. People have been debating the nature of the Trinity since the concept was formulated (circa 150-200 C.E.). At this point, the Trinity becomes central to the discussion since it entails how the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit can be one God (and how Jesus can be 100% human, too).

In short, my perception of the Trinity concept is this: If I can explain it to you (or myself) I have probably stumbled into an already-condemned heresy. That is, any satisfactory explanation is wrong -- only unexplainable mystery is accepted. (Even though I am a Christian, I find this state of affairs most unsatifactory.)

HTH

Tinker

spin

This is cute as the notion of the trinity is post-biblical politics anyway, ie it has nothing to do with the bible, once one accepts the fact that the few trinitarian references in the christian testament are late additions according to the manuscript evidence. All the things proffered as evidence are either wishful or willful thinking.


spin

Chili

:wave: In Christendom the first begotten son is called Christ. This child is the inner child that is reborn to the or any Catholic but must be Catholic for the simple reason that Mary is from Rome.

In Judaism where Mary was from Nazareth the inner child will be called "child of Israel." This child is destined to become Israel when fully man after the image of their God wherein it was created and conceived by the tradition whereby it was engendered. This kind of means that there will be no bastard children called Israel and thus no Buddha's there, or Catholics, for that matter, who have Nirvana and Heaven as their final destination.

Note that this rebirth is from God via Gabriel and thus not Moses or Billy Graham.

spin

And if Jesus was god's only begotten son, how could Jesus have been of the seed (sperma) of David?

The writer of GJohn, Paul and the writer of 2 Tim seem to think that Jesus is the seed of David, but then they didn't have the two conflicting genealogies of Joseph which tell us that Jesus wasn't of that seed.


spin

sbaii

The need for a third part of the Trinity seemed to me to be more numerology than theology. Wasn't three considered the perfect number because it had a beginning, a middle and an end?

Chili: What is the source of the term "inner child" religiously speaking? It sounds like modern psychology. And the only connection Gabriel supposedly had with the incarnation of God was as the messenger announcing it to Mary.

EssEff

I don't get why Jesus was considered God's "son" while Adam wasn't.

JamesBannon

It has always been my opinion that the doctrine of the trinity is an offshoot of Pythagorean mysticism via Plato's forms (Plato was much influenced by Pythagoras in this regard).

Adam rebelled against God's authority and hence was cast out relinquishing any claim. Jesus could be looked upon as a replacement for Adam since he came to fulfill the law but that's not an orthodox interpretation. Orthodox believers would contend that Jesus is god, eternally present and so forth.

Clivedurdle

It is all a huge theological concept, derived from magical thinking.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...81#post3527281