> >For Trinitarians... Even if MONOGENES means "begotten"<snip>
> >For non-Trinitarians... Even if MONOGENES means unique/one of a
> >kind, <snip>
>
> >Grammatically the verse is ambiguous... it does not *neccessarily*
> >affirm or endorse either a trinitarian or non-trinitarian stance.
>
> The Son is described as MONOGONHS
> *before* God sent him into the world to be born as flesh.
> 1 John 4:9 hOTI hUION AUTOU TON MONOGENH APESTALKEN
> hO QEOS EIS TON KOSMON
> NASB 1 John 4:9 By this the love of God
> was manifested in us, that God has sent
> His only begotten Son into the world so
> that we might live through Him.
G'day Wes,
You say "described him as" etc... but I'd suggest that this
is a theological *interpretation*. Where does the Greek in
1John4:9 state MONOGENES *before* being sent ?
I suggest (please note that this is just my *suggestion*)
that the verse simply states...
1. God has sent (at of the time of John's writing - Jesus had
already come, had already died and had already been resurrected).
2. His only begotten Son into the world (this Son who could have
been begotten at his human birth, or he could have been begotten
10 million years before, or he could have been begotten from eternity
past. Unfortunately this verse just doesn't state *when* the
begetting took place).
I'd also say that this is precisely why Greek Scholars and
Theologians have debated this issue of "_when_ was Jesus begotten"
for centuries.
> Also, Kittel's remarks in TDNT under MONOGONHS are worthy of
> evaluation in the decision-making process.
An interesting article... F. Buschel, who wrote the article in TDNT,
contended that although it _is_ debatable whether or not John used
MONOGENES outside of 1John5:18 to mean begetting (and that
would include your verse 1John4:9)... that 1John 5:18 *definately*
did teach "begetting". But please note that Buschel *never* quotes
any NT writer as having ever _stated_ *when* Jesus was begotten.
In fact, Buschel himself states that re: 1John5:18 MONOGENES
is a _mystery_ that *implies* eternal begetting (i.e. he says
"implies" because it is never _stated_ in the text).
> He noted that 'the
> relationship between God and his Son is not *compared* to that of a
> Father and MONOGENHS, it *is* the relationship.' (emphasis mine).
Thank you for this... it illustrates my point perfectly. He also
states that (outside of 1John 5:19) it is *debated* whether or
not MONOGENES means "begetting" (which was my point).
Interestingly enough, BAGD says that *every* occurance of
MONOGENES in Johnine literature _can_ simply mean
*only*, *unique* (emphasis mine).
I've appreciated your input on this, but I'd still have to conclude
that MONGENES does not _necessarily_ have to be translated as
"begotten"... and it does not _necessarily_ have to be translated as
"only/unique".
I do agree with you though... everyone is certainly free to
believe what they will. : - )
Thanks for your post.
Semper Fi,
Walt McFall
ana@net1.nw.com.au
=============================================
CHESTY PULLER, USMC
(When surrounded by Eight
Divisions of enemy forces...)
"All right men...
they're on our left, they're on our right,
they're in front of us, they're behind us...
THEY CAN'T GET AWAY THIS TIME!!!"
=============================================