format_quote Originally Posted by
Phil12123
Have you considered John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; and 1 John 4:9, and the expressions, "only begotten" and "only begotten Son." In those verses using the latter expression the word "Son" is not the Greek "pais." It is another Greek word, huios, which never means servant.
Let us look at some Biblical usages of
huios.
Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of the Kings
Matthew 17:25 He said, “Yes.”
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their
sons or from strangers?”
Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of God
Matthew 7:9 Or what man is there among you who, if his
son asks for bread, will give him a stone?
Context shows this is an analogy of God.
Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of Peace
Luke 10:6 And if a
son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you.
Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of light
Luke 16:8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the
sons of light.
There's also sons of kingdom (Matt 8:12) and sons of thunder (Mark 3:17).
Clearly, the term is used metaphorically so frequently in the Bible that literal translation solely in the case of Jesus becomes indefensible.
And when you add to it the Greek word,
monogenes (=only begotten), you definitely don't have a servant but you have the ONLY
Son of a Father.
But
monogenes is used for Isaac in Hebrews 11:17 as follows:
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his
only begotten son
There's something wrong with this statement. Ishmael was born 14 years before Isaac, so at NO point was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son.
But in case you try to pull the common 'illegitmate son' defense, let me pre-empt that with the following refutation:
A frequently encountered reflex defense is the assertion that Ishmael was born out of illicit union between Abraham and Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant. Therefore, some people assert that Ishmael was illegitimate -- a b a s t a r d child -- and so he doesn’t count. This sounds like an argument worthy of consideration, but does it hold holy water? A common sense observation is that Ishmael was Abraham’s begotten son regardless of the nature of the parental relationship. More concrete validation of the rank of Ishmael as Abraham’s legitimate son is simply that God recognized him as such, as found in many passages of the Bible, including Genesis 16:11, 16:15, 17:7, 17:23, 17:25, 21:11. If God recognized Ishmael as Abraham’s son, who of mankind dares to differ?
But man is inclined to argument, so looking at all angles a person should recognize that polygamy was an accepted practice according to the laws of the Old Testament.[1] Examples include Rachel, Leah, and their handmaids (Gen ch. 29 and 30), Lamech (Gen 4:19), Gideon (Judges 8:30), David (II Samuel 5:13), and the archetype of marital plurality, Solomon (1 Kings 11:3). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion notes that polygamy was permitted in the laws of the Old Testament, and was recognized as legally valid by the rabbis.[2] Encyclopedia Judaica further acknowledges the common nature of polygamy amongst the upper classes in Biblical times.[3] Polygamy persisted up until the tenth century, at which time it was officially banned amongst the Ashkenazi Jews by Rabbenu Gershom; the practice, however, persisted amongst the Sephardi Jews.[4] [5] To give an idea of the acceptability of polygamy even in modern Judaic law (not to mention an indication of the religiously overriding influence of politics), the chief rabbis of Israel officially banned the practice only as recently as 1950.[6]
For all of the above reasons, it would seem reasonable for a person to accept that when the Bible describes Hagar as Abraham’s second wife (Genesis 16:3, “...Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.” [emphasis mine]), it means precisely what it says. The idea of polygamy being permissible may offend a lot of modern Western sensitivities. Be that as it may. Whether a person likes it or not, the point is that Abraham was acting within the laws of his time, and Ishmael was therefore a legitimate child.
Nonetheless, there are still those who assert that Hagar was Abraham’s concubine, despite scripture to the contrary. Even that claim has an answer. According to Old Testament law, concubines (as well as multiple wives) were legally permitted, and the offspring of a man’s concubines and wives had equal rights. To quote Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, “...there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected with her children.”[7] Jacob M. Myers, professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, contributor to the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, and acknowledged Old Testament scholar, comments in his Invitation to The Old Testament:
“Archaeological discoveries help us to fill in the details of the Biblical narrative and to explain many of the otherwise obscure references and strange customs that were commonplace in Abraham’s world and time. For instance, the whole series of practices relating to the birth of Ishmael and the subsequent treatment of Hagar, his mother…all are now known to have been normal everyday occurrences regulated by law.
A Nuzi marriage contract provides that a childless wife may take a woman of the country and marry her to her husband to obtain progeny. But she may not drive out the offspring even if she later has children of her own. The child born of the handmaid has the same status as the one born to the wife.”[8]
Returning to the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ perspective on reality, what makes more sense, anyway? Would God design a prophet to set less than an ideal example, by violating the exact same commandments which he bears from The Creator? Would God send a prophet with a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ message? Alice might find much more comfort in the assumption that God created prophets to embody the message of revelation in their actions as well as their words.
So could Hellenized Western opinions be wrong? Does it not make more sense for Abraham to have acted, as would be expected of a prophet, within the laws of his time by engaging Hagar in a lawful relationship?
Given the above evidences, no matter how a person cuts the cake of Ishmael’s conception, the union between his parents was legal according to Old Testament law, God Himself endorsed Ishmael as Abraham’s son, and the chronology in the Old Testament reveals that Ishmael was without a doubt the first begotten son of Abraham. Look up ‘Ismael’ in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (the reference of those who would be most likely to oppose, on ideological grounds, the piecing together of this puzzle), and a person finds the following agreement: “Ismael (Ishmael), son of Abraham, Abraham’s firstborn...”[9]
A person might reasonably question why Trinitarian Christianity would wish to conceal this truth. The answer, though distasteful to those who do not accept any reality contrary to their own opinion, is that Biblical use of the term ‘monogenes’ to describe Isaac as the only begotten son of Abraham is clearly either metaphorical, a mistranslation, or inaccurate. If a person accepts the term to be metaphorical, then literal understanding of ‘monogenes’ as it relates to Jesus in the five passages of ‘John’ is indefensible. The doctrine of Jesus actually being ‘begotten’ of God is readily recognized as unacceptable, especially when the aforementioned Biblical reference to David as a previously ‘begotten son of God’ (Psalms 2:7) is factored into the equation.
Should the error be understood to fall into the realm of mistranslation, then both the mistranslation and the doctrine deserve correction.
On the other hand, should the term ‘monogenes’ be considered a Biblical inaccuracy a greater challenge surfaces -- that of reconciling a Biblical error with the infallibility of God.
Understandably, the most modern and faithful translations of the Bible are quietly discarding the word ‘begotten.’ The Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, The Good News Bible, The New English Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, the New International Version, and many others have unceremoniously expunged the word ‘begotten’ as an interpolation. By so doing, they are narrowing the gap between Christian and Islamic theology, for as stated in the Holy Qur’an, “…it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son” (TMQ 19:92), and, “He (Allah) begets not, nor is He begotten” (TMQ 112:3).
__________
[1]Meagher, Paul Kevin et al. Vol 3, p. 2821.
[2] Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. p. 540.
[3] Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol 11, p. 1026.
[4] Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. p. 540.
[5] Roth, Cecil B. Litt., M.A., D. Phil. and Geoffrey Wigoder, D. Phil. (editors-in-chief). 1975. The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. W. H. Allen. p. 1550.
[6] Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. p. 540.
[7] Hastings, James. Dictionary of The Bible. p. 292.
[8] Myers, Jacob M. 1966. Invitation to the Old Testament. [ New York: Doubleday & Company. p. 26.
[9] New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol 7, p. 690.
That's from Dr. Laurence Brown.
No, I think
it is quite true to consider Jesus the LITERAL Son of God.
The literal meaning of son is biological offspring. Are you saying Jesus's relation to god is biological and not spiritual?
There are numerous verses using the exact same word,
proskuneo, in relation to
worship of Jesus. One of those is
Hebrews 1:6, which says GOD instructed all the angels to WORSHIP Jesus, "...let all the angels of God
worship Him."
“proskuneo, pros-koo-neh'-o; from G4314 and a prob. der. of G2965 (mean. to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (lit. or fig.) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.” (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)
"Matthew 18:26 records the story of a slave who ‘proskuneo’ed’ his master begging for forgiveness of his debts. Old Testament references include 1 Samuel 25:23, in which Abigail “fell on her face before David, and bowed down to the ground.” 2 Kings 4:37 speaks of a Shunammite woman who, after having her child revived through the prayers of Elisha, “…fell at his feet, and bowed to the ground…” Genesis 50:18 and 2 Samuel 19:18 weigh into the equation as well."
Someone groveling, prostrating before some was common. Not proof of divinity.
Now here's a challenge for you. In Luke 4:8, it says about God, "him alone shall you
serve", the word here being translated is
latreuo:
Find me even ONE reference in the Bible where
latreuo is used for Jesus. There are 22 uses of the word in the NT. NOWHERE is it used for Jesus.
Regards