The only begotten GOD

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I never realized this. John 1:18 says only begotten GOD in most manuscripts, rather than only begotten son.

No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, reveals Him. John 1:18​

 

[bikerchaz]

Good stuff this;

And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

 

[oldhermit]

I never realized this. John 1:18 says only begotten GOD in most manuscripts, rather than only begotten son.

No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, reveals Him. John 1:18​

Yes, some manuscripts read μονογενὴς Θεὸς while other manuscripts read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς. The manuscript evidence is about split but it would seem that the best evidence is in favor of ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς - the only begotten Son.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, some manuscripts read μονογενὴς Θεὸς while other manuscripts read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς. The manuscript evidence is about split but it would seem that the best evidence is in favor of ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς - the only begotten Son.

I've read the opposite. One piece of evidence is a quote from Irenaeus in his Against Heresies:

it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, "No man has seen God at any time." But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father's brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said: "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him];"​

I believe only begotten son is found in Codex Alexandrinus and only begotten GOD is found in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

 

[oldhermit]

I've read the opposite. One piece of evidence is a quote from Irenaeus in his Against Heresies:

it is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, "No man has seen God at any time." But His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show the Father's brightness, and explained His purposes (as also the Lord said: "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared [Him];"​

I believe only begotten son is found in Codex Alexandrinus and only begotten GOD is found in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

Well, I have never had much regard for opinions from Irenaeus, but it is true that the Alexandrian based texts read God while the Byzantine based texts read Son.

 

[PaulMack]

Jesus IS God and Jesus IS the Son of God.

So i do not see any problem with these verses.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Well, I have never had much regard for opinions from Irenaeus, but it is true that the Alexandrian based texts read God while the Byzantine based texts read Son.

Isn't that backwards? Codex Alexandinus is Alexandrian.

 

[oldhermit]

Isn't that backwards? Codex Alexandinus is Alexandrian.

Is that not what I said?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Is that not what I said?

I've read that Codex Alexandinus has son, not GOD. You said the opposite.

 

[oldhermit]

I've read that Codex Alexandinus has son, not GOD. You said the opposite.

Well, let me check. I could be remembering this incorrectly.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Jesus IS God and Jesus IS the Son of God.

So i do not see any problem with these verses.

For me personally it's a lot more powerful statement of Jesus' divinity when it reads only begotten GOD.

 

[miknik5]

In any case, we can't overlook "begotten", can we?.
Begotten meaning brought forth and in this case, into the world for the salvation of men.
Therefore, we may not be able to 'see" GOD because GOD is SPIRIT and is invisible, but CHRIST came to manifest THE FATHER...and HE alone had all authority to do so because HE is the visible image of the invisible GOD and the exact representation of HIS being and the full radiance of HIS glory...

And so, we may not be able to "see" GOD...but GOD has given us the light of the Knowledge of HIS SON and we can and do see the GLORY OF GOD in the "face of JESUS CHRIST".

No man can come to THE FATHER except through HIM.
Therefore, all must come by WAY of THE SON first and foremost.
Regardless if what they have grown in their knowledge to understand.
MILK comes before meat...
And no one can feed meat first to a baby.
They can't stomach it.

One of our works was to feed the Lambs...and if we, who are so spiritual and fully fed don't feed them MILK, they can't "Grow" correctly...

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

In any case, we can't overlook "begotten", can we?.

Begotten just means clothed with flesh.

 

[miknik5]

Begotten just means clothed with flesh.

Okay.

But I am not sure if I am misunderstanding your reasons in posting your findings...and what the difference is for those who are fully fed and those who aren't?

I wonder because this type of witnessing forum is made up of not only those who have meat, but those who are on milk and those who haven't even begun first and foremost in the milk of the word of TRUTH.

 

[miknik5]

By the way, I edited my post to include more of my train of thought...I am sorry, I have been told not to edit, but sometimes my fingers fly quicker than I want them to.
And I need to slow down...

Please if you could reread why I wrote what I wrote and see if I am understanding incorrectly the reason why you are saying that somehow there is a difference between the Only begotten SON and the WORD made flesh...which the only begotten GOD would of course further imply and validate as THE SON.

 

[oldhermit]

I've read that Codex Alexandinus has son, not GOD. You said the opposite.

You are right. The Alexandrinus does read Son and is a Byzantine text, not Alexandrian. I had remembered this incorrectly. In fact as I was researching this, I found other things I had forgotten and some things I never knew. I did find a list of Manuscripts for both renderings. I borrowed the list from the Biblical Hermeneutics website, but I supplied the type of text which each one of these represent, so if this information is incorrect then the eror is mine, and not that of Biblical Hermeneutics. As you can see the Byzantine type text support υἱὸς while the Alexandrian type texts support Θεὸς[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="class: answercell"] The following manuscripts support υἱὸς
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Codex A - Alexandrinus (5th C.) Byzantine type text
Codex C[SUP]3[/SUP] - "corrector" of Eprhraemi Rescriptus
Codex Θ - Tiflis (9th C.) This is a mixture of different texts but in this MSS, John is "more or less" in the Byzantine text.
Codex Ψ - Athos (8/9 C.) Like the Codex Θ, this text is also a mixed text and generally considered as Byzantine but contains much Alexandrian text. Here, John is in the Byzantine text.
063 = 9th C. Greek uncial is a Byzantine text
f[SUP]1, 13[/SUP] - "families" of 18 Greek minuscle mss which seems to be of the Byzantine type
������ = majority Byzantine text which is Byzantine

The following manuscripts support Θεὸς.
Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger). This text is Alexandrian.
Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225). This text is Alexandrian.
Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360). Also Alexandrian
Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350). Also Alexandrian
Codex C* - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.). This is primarily Alexandrian
Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380) Seems to be of Syrian origin.
Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800) is of the Alexandrian type.

 

[ember]

By the way, I edited my post to include more of my train of thought...I am sorry, I have been told not to edit, but sometimes my fingers fly quicker than I want them to.
And I need to slow down...

Please if you could reread why I wrote what I wrote and see if I am understanding incorrectly the reason why you are saying that somehow there is a difference between the Only begotten SON and the WORD made flesh...which the only begotten GOD would of course further imply and validate as THE SON.

who told you not to edit? I don't understand what you are saying? most folks here edit all the time and when you have been here long enough, you can even delete within a certain amount of time

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

By the way, I edited my post to include more of my train of thought...I am sorry, I have been told not to edit, but sometimes my fingers fly quicker than I want them to.
And I need to slow down...

Please if you could reread why I wrote what I wrote and see if I am understanding incorrectly the reason why you are saying that somehow there is a difference between the Only begotten SON and the WORD made flesh...which the only begotten GOD would of course further imply and validate as THE SON.

I'm not saying that there is a difference between the Only begotten SON and the WORD made flesh. They are the same.

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son,this day have I begotten thee.

Says that psalm had to be fulfilled, and in the place the Son adressed by the Father as God

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, (adressed here)

But (spoken of here)

Psalm 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

Psalm 47:6 Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

God thy God, or Christ's God (in otherwords) as the head of Christ is God, and there especially fulfilling the psalm, as God raised Jesus up again where he by the Father (who subjected all things under him) adresses the Son as God

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

And when He ascends we see,

Heb 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.

Even as the psalm of David shows, The LORD saith to MY Lord (in the same aslo) where he is adressed differently there but as equally is he adressed in Psalm 45:6 by the Father as God (and it is God thy God) as the head of Christ is God who is shown saying it. David speaking of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, fulfilling the second Psalm (in the same) and then the NT shows in the one who hath immortality those same things in the hereafter in the one lifted up, and in the priesthood in Psalm 110:4 after the order of Melchizedek but sworn in by the Father in it. Not taking this honour to himself but in the same sense as Aaron glorified not himself not to be made either but rather, it was "said unto Him" in both things

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

As God sent the Son (the Word made flesh) God raised Jesus up again to be made an high priest, brought forth into this world and begotten from the dead. God put all things under the Son but they also say, it is manifest that He is excepted that put all things under him.

 

[thepsalmist]

Interesting to me ... actually ...

Because in prayer I often refer to Jesus as not only the "beloved Son:" but quite often as "God from God" ... and no man has taught me that.