What is the proof Jesus is eternally begotten son?
- Thread starter TheLearner
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The image above is from the La Cava Bible, or Codex Cavensis, featuring 1 John 5:7 with commentary addressing Arius as if he were still alive. This evidence is not commonly known and is seldom disclosed by modern scholars who favor the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. These scholars typically subscribe to a 'shape-shifter' mentality regarding the Bible. It's why strong KJV believing Christians are sometimes called Textual Absolutists.
....
....
Firstly, this thread is not about Westcott and Hort; it's about one two-word phrase in a post-biblical creed.
Secondly, you haven't presented any evidence that Büchsel demonstrated "gross incompetence in basic Greek" nor that he failed to read passage in context, nor that he is guilty of doctrinal error.
Secondly, you haven't presented any evidence that Büchsel demonstrated "gross incompetence in basic Greek" nor that he failed to read passage in context, nor that he is guilty of doctrinal error.
It is about Westcott and Hort because they started the movement that led to heretical changes on the topic of this discussion. John 1:18 in various Modern Bibles (like the NASB, BLB, AMP, LSV) says that Jesus is the begotten God, which is Arianism, or that Jesus is like a demi-god and had a beginning (When in reality the Son or the Word is eternal as a part of the Holy Trinity). Codex Vaticanus (B) reads "μονογενὴς θεός" (monogenēs theos), which translates to "begotten God" or "unique God." It is one of the primary sources for this rendering. This reading from this manuscript was not widely known in English-speaking countries until Westcott and Hort popularized these two manuscripts.
The KJV reading says that Jesus is the Father's only begotten Son. I believe the word "begotten" is about the Incarnation or the Word receiving a physical flesh and blood body via Mary (who was a virgin at the time of her pregnancy with Jesus). So Modern Bibles are making Jesus have a beginning when the the Bible simply is talking about the Incarnation.
Modern Bibles also attack Jesus as being eternally called the Son, as well. In Acts 13:33, the KJV says, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." However, in Acts 13:33, Modern Bibles like the NIV, NLT, BSB, and CSB suggest that God became Jesus' Father at a specific time, implying Jesus only became God's Son at the incarnation. The NIV says, "today I have become your father.’" However, this contradicts John 3:17, which affirms that the Father sent His Son into the world, showing that Christ was called the Son even before His birth. Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2:12, Hebrews 1:8, Psalms 45:6-7 also confirm that the Living Word (Jesus) is also called the Son before the Incarnation.
Proverbs 30:4
"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
Psalms 2:12
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalms 45:6-7
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
In the Acts 13:33, it is not a textual difference, but it is a difference in translation philosophy, which many times like in this instance leads to disturbing changes (if a person is open to seeing such things). Westcott and Hort started the Modern scholarly movement we have today. Their translation philopsophies have continue to this very day in Modern Bibles.
Some in Modern scholarship will admit their connection to Westcott and Hort, and others will not be willing to admit to this because Westcott and Hort are embarrasing examples of Christianity and proper scholarship.
....
The KJV reading says that Jesus is the Father's only begotten Son. I believe the word "begotten" is about the Incarnation or the Word receiving a physical flesh and blood body via Mary (who was a virgin at the time of her pregnancy with Jesus). So Modern Bibles are making Jesus have a beginning when the the Bible simply is talking about the Incarnation.
Modern Bibles also attack Jesus as being eternally called the Son, as well. In Acts 13:33, the KJV says, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." However, in Acts 13:33, Modern Bibles like the NIV, NLT, BSB, and CSB suggest that God became Jesus' Father at a specific time, implying Jesus only became God's Son at the incarnation. The NIV says, "today I have become your father.’" However, this contradicts John 3:17, which affirms that the Father sent His Son into the world, showing that Christ was called the Son even before His birth. Proverbs 30:4, Psalms 2:12, Hebrews 1:8, Psalms 45:6-7 also confirm that the Living Word (Jesus) is also called the Son before the Incarnation.
Proverbs 30:4
"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"
Psalms 2:12
"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."
Hebrews 1:8
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Psalms 45:6-7
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
In the Acts 13:33, it is not a textual difference, but it is a difference in translation philosophy, which many times like in this instance leads to disturbing changes (if a person is open to seeing such things). Westcott and Hort started the Modern scholarly movement we have today. Their translation philopsophies have continue to this very day in Modern Bibles.
Some in Modern scholarship will admit their connection to Westcott and Hort, and others will not be willing to admit to this because Westcott and Hort are embarrasing examples of Christianity and proper scholarship.
....
Refuting Friedrich Büchsel's Interpretation of Monogenes in John 1:14 and John 3:16:
Friedrich Büchsel's interpretation of monogenes as "unique" in John 1:14 and John 3:16 deviates from the traditional understanding of "only begotten." Here are three points to refute his position:
1. Gross Incompetence in Basic Greek:
Büchsel's rendering of monogenes as "unique" demonstrates a misunderstanding of its Greek roots. The word monogenesis derived from:
When applied to persons, genos most naturally refers to origin or birth. This is evident in how monogenes is used in the New Testament (e.g., Hebrews 11:17) and in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), where it consistently refers to an only child or someone in a unique familial relationship. Büchsel's reduction of monogenes to "unique" ignores this foundational linguistic evidence.
Moreover, no Greek literature before 1611 uses monogenes to exclusively mean "unique" when applied to a person apart from a familial or relational context:
Büchsel’s interpretation disregards centuries of linguistic precedent, misrepresenting the term’s historical usage.
2. Failure to Read the Passage in Context:
Büchsel’s interpretation of monogenes as "unique" ignores the immediate context of both John 1:14 and John 3:16, where the term is directly tied to Jesus’ familial relationship to the Father and the Incarnation:
Further evidence of monogenes being tied to familial relations, rather than mere uniqueness, is seen in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called the "only begotten" (monogenes) of Abraham:
Therefore, in both John 1:14 and John 3:16, monogenes conveys more than mere "uniqueness"; it denotes Jesus’ unique sonship and His relational, familial connection to the Father, manifested through the Incarnation. The use of monogenes in Hebrews 11:17 further demonstrates that the term carries a relational significance, tied to familial and covenantal contexts, rather than being an abstract reference to uniqueness.
Additionally, in the broader scriptural and linguistic usage, monogenes consistently refers to familial relationships when applied to persons (e.g., Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38). By failing to account for this context, Büchsel’s interpretation misrepresents the depth of the term and its theological implications.
3. Doctrinal Error: Waters Down the Incarnation:
Büchsel’s interpretation of monogenes as "unique" undermines the vital doctrine of the Incarnation, which is explicitly tied to Jesus being the "only begotten" Son of God. According to Scripture, the Incarnation—the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14)—was a one-time historical event when Jesus, as the eternal Word, was physically begotten as the Son of God. This miraculous event is central to the Christian faith.
While Jesus is referred to as the "Son" before the Incarnation (e.g., Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2:7), this does not imply that He was eternally begotten. God declares "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10), meaning Jesus was always foreordained as the Son in God’s redemptive plan. The begetting of the Son occurred in time and space, specifically at the moment of the Incarnation when the eternal Word took on human flesh (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). To reinterpret monogenes as "unique" strips away this rich, historical, and theological truth.
Furthermore, Modern Bibles often make subtle changes that undermine the Incarnation. For example:
By abstracting monogenes to mean merely "unique," Büchsel aligns with this trend, failing to capture the specificity of the term and the event it signifies. The "only begotten Son" is not merely unique in status; He is the singular, physical fulfillment of God’s promise, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, and sent into the world to save mankind (John 3:16-17; Luke 1:35).
Conclusion:
Friedrich Büchsel’s interpretation of monogenes as "unique" is flawed on multiple levels:
A faithful understanding of monogenes must preserve its traditional sense of "only begotten," capturing both Jesus' unique relationship with the Father and the profound truth of the Incarnation as a one-time act in history. Modern Bibles that undermine this doctrine further highlight the importance of adhering to the biblical understanding of monogenes as "only begotten."
.....
Friedrich Büchsel's interpretation of monogenes as "unique" in John 1:14 and John 3:16 deviates from the traditional understanding of "only begotten." Here are three points to refute his position:
1. Gross Incompetence in Basic Greek:
Büchsel's rendering of monogenes as "unique" demonstrates a misunderstanding of its Greek roots. The word monogenesis derived from:
- Monos (meaning "only" or "one"), and
- Genos (meaning "kind," "race," or "begetting").
When applied to persons, genos most naturally refers to origin or birth. This is evident in how monogenes is used in the New Testament (e.g., Hebrews 11:17) and in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), where it consistently refers to an only child or someone in a unique familial relationship. Büchsel's reduction of monogenes to "unique" ignores this foundational linguistic evidence.
Moreover, no Greek literature before 1611 uses monogenes to exclusively mean "unique" when applied to a person apart from a familial or relational context:
- In classical Greek, monogenes can mean "unique" in non-personal contexts (e.g., animals or abstract concepts), but when referring to persons, it always denotes an only child or singular familial relationship.
- In the Septuagint, monogenes consistently conveys "only child" or "only begotten" in personal contexts (e.g., Judges 11:34; Psalm 22:20).
- Early Christian writings, such as those by Josephus and Philo, affirm the familial meaning of monogenes as "only begotten" or "only child."
Büchsel’s interpretation disregards centuries of linguistic precedent, misrepresenting the term’s historical usage.
2. Failure to Read the Passage in Context:
Büchsel’s interpretation of monogenes as "unique" ignores the immediate context of both John 1:14 and John 3:16, where the term is directly tied to Jesus’ familial relationship to the Father and the Incarnation:
- John 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the monogenes of the Father), full of grace and truth."
The focus of this verse is the Incarnation—God becoming flesh. The glory of the monogenes is described as being "of the Father," explicitly grounding the term in the context of a family relationship. This relational aspect of monogenes is intrinsic to its meaning in this passage and cannot be reduced to "unique" in an abstract sense. - John 3:16–17: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his monogenes Son... For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."
In context, John 3:16 ties monogenes to God sending His Son into the world (v. 17). This again highlights the familial relationship between the Father and the Son, specifically in the act of the Father giving His "only begotten" Son for the world’s salvation. The reference to the Son’s sending into the world reinforces the connection between monogenes and the Incarnation, showing it is inseparably tied to familial relations.
Further evidence of monogenes being tied to familial relations, rather than mere uniqueness, is seen in Hebrews 11:17, where Isaac is called the "only begotten" (monogenes) of Abraham:
- "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son."
Here, monogenes refers to Isaac as the "only begotten" of Abraham, specifically in the context of the promise of God. Although Abraham had another son, Ishmael, Isaac is called monogenes because he was the only son born according to God’s promise (Genesis 17:19, 21). The term emphasizes Isaac’s unique and singular familial role within the covenant, but it is firmly grounded in the context of family relations and not exclusively in abstract uniqueness.
Therefore, in both John 1:14 and John 3:16, monogenes conveys more than mere "uniqueness"; it denotes Jesus’ unique sonship and His relational, familial connection to the Father, manifested through the Incarnation. The use of monogenes in Hebrews 11:17 further demonstrates that the term carries a relational significance, tied to familial and covenantal contexts, rather than being an abstract reference to uniqueness.
Additionally, in the broader scriptural and linguistic usage, monogenes consistently refers to familial relationships when applied to persons (e.g., Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38). By failing to account for this context, Büchsel’s interpretation misrepresents the depth of the term and its theological implications.
3. Doctrinal Error: Waters Down the Incarnation:
Büchsel’s interpretation of monogenes as "unique" undermines the vital doctrine of the Incarnation, which is explicitly tied to Jesus being the "only begotten" Son of God. According to Scripture, the Incarnation—the Word becoming flesh (John 1:14)—was a one-time historical event when Jesus, as the eternal Word, was physically begotten as the Son of God. This miraculous event is central to the Christian faith.
While Jesus is referred to as the "Son" before the Incarnation (e.g., Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2:7), this does not imply that He was eternally begotten. God declares "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10), meaning Jesus was always foreordained as the Son in God’s redemptive plan. The begetting of the Son occurred in time and space, specifically at the moment of the Incarnation when the eternal Word took on human flesh (John 1:14; Luke 1:35). To reinterpret monogenes as "unique" strips away this rich, historical, and theological truth.
Furthermore, Modern Bibles often make subtle changes that undermine the Incarnation. For example:
- In Luke 2:33, some Modern Translations refer to Joseph as Jesus’ "father" instead of preserving the distinction found in the KJV, which calls him "Joseph." This diminishes the miraculous nature of Jesus’ divine begetting by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-20).
- In John 1:18, many Modern Versions omit the phrase "the only begotten Son," replacing it with "the one and only" or similar terms. This weakens the connection between Jesus' unique status as the Son of God and the Incarnation.
By abstracting monogenes to mean merely "unique," Büchsel aligns with this trend, failing to capture the specificity of the term and the event it signifies. The "only begotten Son" is not merely unique in status; He is the singular, physical fulfillment of God’s promise, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, and sent into the world to save mankind (John 3:16-17; Luke 1:35).
Conclusion:
Friedrich Büchsel’s interpretation of monogenes as "unique" is flawed on multiple levels:
- It demonstrates gross incompetence in Greek by ignoring the relational and generative meaning of monogenes when referring to persons. No Greek literature before 1611 supports his interpretation in a personal context.
- It fails to consider the theological and relational context of John 1:14 and John 3:16, which emphasize Jesus’ unique sonship. The example of Isaac as the "only begotten" son of Abraham further affirms monogenes as tied to familial relations and not abstract uniqueness.
- It introduces doctrinal error by reducing the Incarnation to an abstract uniqueness and failing to acknowledge it as a one-time historical event when Jesus was physically begotten as the Son of God.
A faithful understanding of monogenes must preserve its traditional sense of "only begotten," capturing both Jesus' unique relationship with the Father and the profound truth of the Incarnation as a one-time act in history. Modern Bibles that undermine this doctrine further highlight the importance of adhering to the biblical understanding of monogenes as "only begotten."
.....
Indirectly, it is about them, as modern scholars and Modern Bibles from the Westcott and Hort Movement have complicated this discussion. I have already provided examples to support my case, such as John 1:18 and Acts 13:33. The issues we now frequently encounter on this topic would not be as prevalent if not for these two men and the scholars who followed in their footsteps. You may not realize or fully understand this, but it is the truth nonetheless.
....
....
I think it's unhelpful to label arguments as merely circular reasoning without properly addressing their content; it's akin to saying, "talk to the hand," which shuts down productive dialogue. My goal is to foster a genuine discussion focused on the evidence I've provided. Ignoring this evidence bypasses the central issues we need to explore, and I'm seeking a meaningful conversation about these critical topics.
....
....
I introduced further evidence for the Comma in 1 John 5:7 specifically in response to the claim of genetic fallacy. As you know, this fallacy dismisses arguments by focusing solely on their origins, not their current meaning or context. It improperly judges the validity of a claim based on its source rather than assessing the substance of the argument itself.
This additional evidence highlights a critical issue: modern scholarship often neglects evidence that supports the King James Version (KJV) or the Textus Receptus (TR). Scholars tend to categorize and disregard Latin witnesses, which reflects a predisposition similar to the genetic fallacy, dismissing valuable sources without proper consideration.
Moreover, my objection to Büchsel’s interpretation of 'monogenes' centers on his neglect of the term’s historical and contextual use in Greek literature. A credible interpretation must be supported by a thorough contextual analysis, relevant cross-references, or examples from historical texts. Without such evidence, Büchsel’s approach seems less like scholarship and more like conjecture. While I am not attributing Büchsel’s misinterpretation solely to Westcott and Hort and their movement, it's clear that such influences do play a significant role in shaping these perspectives.
....
This additional evidence highlights a critical issue: modern scholarship often neglects evidence that supports the King James Version (KJV) or the Textus Receptus (TR). Scholars tend to categorize and disregard Latin witnesses, which reflects a predisposition similar to the genetic fallacy, dismissing valuable sources without proper consideration.
Moreover, my objection to Büchsel’s interpretation of 'monogenes' centers on his neglect of the term’s historical and contextual use in Greek literature. A credible interpretation must be supported by a thorough contextual analysis, relevant cross-references, or examples from historical texts. Without such evidence, Büchsel’s approach seems less like scholarship and more like conjecture. While I am not attributing Büchsel’s misinterpretation solely to Westcott and Hort and their movement, it's clear that such influences do play a significant role in shaping these perspectives.
....
What you presented against Büchsel’s interpretation primarily uses "your" interpretation (that which you hold) as its evidence. That is the essence of circular reasoning. Unless you can show that Westcott and Hort discussed this particular issue, and that Büchsel cited their work, your premise is empty.