-5

To provide more context addressing the seemingly unfit and vague closing reason, this is a follow up question from one of my comment threads of my previous question.

Suppose 1000 people are simultaneously bestowed God's coming down provisions of grace via his radiation, then these 1000 radiated lights must be his 1000 sons as Jesus Christs since the scripture famously asserted the Way as the Saving Faith can be attained only through Jesus Christ. But the scripture also asserted that Jesus Christ is God's only son, so how to resolve this paradox of my hypothetically contemplated 1000 incarnated sons of God simultaneously?

Bear in mind that saving faith is all about the person Jesus Christ, not about any of his particular character or words or some other processes.

Addendum:

There's an up-voted answer below pointing out the importance of the Biblical hermeneutic interpretation about Jesus Christ as the only 'begotten' son of God in light of the hermeneutic circle of the whole context as opposed to many other sons of God. But since Jesus Christ is also a person, it seems this interpretation doesn't really add much clarification on above question. Any feedback to my genuine question is appreciated.

imbalance
  • 11
  • 3

1 Answers1

2

There are several presuppositions attached to this question. Instead of addressing them all, this answer will home in on just one, namely, that "the scripture also asserted that Jesus Christ is God's only son". If there is a fundamental disconnect between that and your query, "how to resolve this paradox of my arbitrarily contemplated 1000 incarnated sons of God simultaneously?" then it will be essential to address that before proceeding with the hypothetical nature of the question.

The New Testament is very careful to designate Jesus Christ as "the only-begotten Son of God". This is seen in translations that make proper use of the Greek word "monogenes" as in, for example, John 1:18. Mono means 'one; only'. Genes means... what? In translations that simply say Jesus is the only Son of God, they have failed to translate the 'genes' bit of that word in the biblical text. Various translations say things like, "the unique one" (Wm. Barclay Study Bible); "God the one and only, who is at the Father's side" (NIV 1987 ed.); "the one and only Son who is himself God" (NIV 2008 ed.); "The only Son, who is the same as God" (GNB 1976 ed.); "the unique One, who is himself God" (NLT 2008 ed.).

None of those translations deal with the 'genes' bit of the word used in the Bible. They say 'one' and add 'unique', but that is only to repeat what 'mono' means. Now this has significance with your question because the idea has been presented that if Jesus is God's only son, then how can the many others who are also called sons of God be such?

The dilemma is resolved by grasping and believing the significance of the Bible saying Jesus is God's only-begotten Son. That is what sets him apart from the many other sons of God. Why, even angelic ones are said to be the sons of God in Job 1:6 and elsewhere.

I have laboured this point as it is fundamental to resolving this question. No, scripture does not assert that Jesus Christ is God's only son. Back to the drawing-board?

Anne
  • 29,661
  • 1
  • 34
  • 116
  • Strange, both my questions are explained to be hinged on some extremely subtle KJ translation issue of the Greek Bible of some single word only understood by someone very knowledgeable about the Bible as you, and yet this question is quickly closed and got 5 downvotes without comments for a new visitor! This may be actually a hidden blessing since I truly believe God's awesome Grace which most people don't understand except the mostly impacted sentient being(s), though for me apparently not through the person Jesus Christ as reflected in my OP but by an alternative way or interpretation. – imbalance Jan 14 '24 at 23:11
  • Job 1:6 clearly stated even Satan is one of God's sons which seems authentic and reasonable per the creationists' doctrine that everything except God is his creation, but apparently all these other sons are not his 'begotten' son as explained by you above, so maybe 'human' is a much simpler and clearer qualifier? But the critical issue is that Jesus is also a person like the intersection of two mathematical sets so he must be physical in this created time and space, so am not so sure if I need to go back to the drawing board? – imbalance Jan 14 '24 at 23:46
  • @imbalance. I neither down-voted your Q nor voted to have it closed. Moderators did the latter, adding the reason "General philosophical or sociological questions are off-topic unless clearly asking for a doctrinal answer." I note your comments but won't use comments to take them further as that is not the purpose of comments. – Anne Jan 15 '24 at 08:38
  • Obviously I believe you didn't downvote otherwise you won't even bother to take time to answer here (downvoting a question without reason is quick and easy based on emotion without any other worldly impact such as own internet points), there're plenty of other 'liked' questions to disseminate the 'doctrinal' knowledge of Christianity here. The irony is that Saving Faith of Jesus Christ is supposed to be all about the (bodhi) Tree of Life against the other Tree of Knowledge, isn't this another paradox worth to be asked? These are my genuine questions not any pad. Anyway I respect your comments. – imbalance Jan 15 '24 at 22:43
  • Your statement "None of those translations deal with the 'genes' bit of the word used in the Bible." is incorrect. Translating μονογενής as "unique" is being faithful to how the word was used in second temple Judaism including in the Septuagint. One example is that "monogenes" is used of Isaac: it cannot mean "only begotten" because Abraham had begotten an earlier son. Isaac was not Abraham's only-begotten son, but he was Abraham's unique son because he was the "son of the promise" -- a title that applies to Christ as well. – Traildude Jan 16 '24 at 22:55
  • 1
    @Traildude Monogenes cannot mean 'unique' because, as you so helpfully point out, Abraham already had a son before Isaac. Therefore there is much, much more to monogenes (as used by the Holy Spirit of God in scripture) than is commonly understood. The references in Luke are the key. It is a matter of generation. And it is a special and particular relationship . 'Solitary' 'only' 'unique' just do not convey the depth of meaning of monogenes. – Nigel J Jan 17 '24 at 04:44
  • @Traildude since you've critiqued this existing answer which had been already complained by my above Addendum to not directly solve my original question, do you have something to comment on my original question to shed more light? – imbalance Jan 17 '24 at 19:56
  • @NigelJ it's amazing to me that you'd like to spend time to comment upon another comment regarding this answer to climb higher the tree of knowledge, yet you don't want to directly comment on my original question to shed some light on my genuine concern? Any word such as monogene of a natural language is just intersubjective knowledge of certain people, whose meaning can always be conveyed by a circle of other words referencing some intuitions as expressed by epistemic Coherentism. What criterion to assert this word has infinite depth of meaning? What about other word(s) in other religions? – imbalance Jan 17 '24 at 20:07
  • 1
    @imbalance I referred to 'as used by he Holy Spirit of God in scripture'. That is my criterion : nothing else. – Nigel J Jan 17 '24 at 21:31
  • @NigelJ Nice and consistent criterion using the example of Isaac and that's helpful and certainly a progress in my personal understanding of Jesus Christ. But again can you climb higher the tree of knowledge to use this 'begotten' son from monogene insight to help resolve my original question above? – imbalance Jan 18 '24 at 07:31
  • 1
    @imbalance Well, your question is now closed so I cannot offer an answer. But if you look at my own previous (4 years ago) question, it may be of help to you Regarding Nicene Creed. – Nigel J Jan 18 '24 at 12:40
  • @NigelJ thx for the ref link! It still mainly talks about monogene and begotten hermeneutics, and I can totally understand Jesus Christ is a special true son begotten from God while all other God's sons are creations of God via unbegotten ways such as Satan. But it still not addressing my original above simple hypothetical question. Though this question is closed, you can still answer my other question which actually begot this question. Appreciate your comments. – imbalance Jan 18 '24 at 22:32
  • @NigelJ You said: "Monogenes cannot mean 'unique' because, as you so helpfully point out, Abraham already had a son before Isaac." That's why it can't mean "only begotten". It does mean "unique" because Isaac was unique: he was the son of promise, the one born to parents described as too old to have children and thus a miracle child. – Traildude Feb 07 '24 at 18:26
  • 1
    @Traildude Abraham had a son other than Isaac. God had 'sons of God' other than his only begotten Son. This was the only begotten, for no other 'sons' were begotten. They were created. The 'uniqueness' is a matter of begetting (genes). Only one was begotten, uniquely. But in Christ, the redeemed are the sons of God, begotten of the Father in the Holy Spirit. Thus Christ is the first-begotten. These are spiritual concepts. – Nigel J Feb 07 '24 at 20:05
  • @NigelJ "Spiritual concepts" have no place in linguistics. The fact that the Septuagint uses μονογενής for Isaac demonstrates that it cannot mean "only begotten" or even "first begotten" since Isaac was neither. Nor can it mean, as it is used in secular literature, "only child". Thus while the first part is clearly from μόνο, the second part does not derive from γεννάω whether taken as "only" or "first". It must, then, be from γένος, which as a suffix becomes -γενής, meaning "kind", and thus the meaning is "one kind" or better "one of a kind", and thus "unique". – Traildude Feb 09 '24 at 21:38
  • 1
    @Traildude Pagan linguistics has no place in spiritual concepts. I suggest you read 'Retrieving Eternal Generation' (written by Professors and Assistant Professors) and I suggest you read Charles Lee Irons on the subject, particularly his heading Examining the Linguistic Data Gospel Coalition. The etymology you propose is considered incorrect by these (professorial) authors. – Nigel J Feb 10 '24 at 10:02