Date: Wed Mar 19 1997 - 13:00:46 EST
>For Trinitarians... Even if MONOGENES means "begotten",
>it *could* simply refer to Christ's Human nature... i.e. because
>Christ as the God the Son _was_ *begotten* in regard to
>"his human nature/flesh" !
>For non-Trinitarians... Even if MONOGENES means unique/one of a
>kind, it *could* simply mean that he is the *unique* "Son of God."
>i.e. no one else lived a sinless life and died to provide salvation
>for the world (although he was still just a man).
>Grammatically the verse is ambiguous... it does not *neccessarily*
>affirm or endorse either a trinitarian or non-trinitarian stance.
I do not think the thread can be ended as simply as this, although one
may believe what he/she wishes. 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
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.
Also, Kittel's remarks in TDNT under MONOGONHS are worthy of
evaluation in the decision-making process. 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).
P.S. I, for one, appreciate the depth to which this discussion has
gone while it tries to stay focused on the sharing of scholary
information in a civil fashion.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:10 EDT