Only begotten son?

[_dartagnan]

It is no secret that in the LDS view, Jesus is not the only son of God. We are all sons of God. So how did Joseph Smith and the early LDS leaders deal with the New Testament passages that refer to Jesus as God's only begotten son?

On my mission I was told the answer was simple: Jesus is God's only begotten son in the flesh. (aren't we in the flesh too?)
http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/basi ... otten.html

Of course, that crucial qualifier is nowhere to be found in any Bible passage., but the point I wanted to make is this. Modern scholarship seems to suggest that the biblical passage "only begotten Son" is a mistranslation since monogenes is better translated "unique." The main reason for this is that Hebrews 11:17 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son"(monogenes), even though Abraham had other sons.

If this constitutes a mistranslation in the four New Testament passages that use it, then what does that tell us about the dozens of Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl Of Great Price instances where this phrase can be found? The Book of Moses alone uses it ten times, which would constitute an anachronism since the Hebrew Bible never refers to an "only begotten son" of God.

http://scriptures.LDS.org/tg/j/55

But I guess more importantly, the Church could have avoided this silly ad hoc "in the flesh" apologetic, by simply pointing out that the original New Testament author never really said Jesus was the only son of God. Well, that's what one would expect from a Church guided by revelation anyway.

[_Runtu]

It is no secret that in the LDS view, Jesus is not the only son of God. We are all sons of God. So how did Joseph Smith and the early LDS leaders deal with the New Testament passages that refer to Jesus as God's only begotten son?

On my mission I was told the answer was simple: Jesus is God's only begotten son in the flesh.
http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/basi ... otten.html

Of course, that crucial qualifier is nowhere to be found in any Bible passage., but the point I wanted to make is this. Modern scholarship seems to suggest that the biblical passage "only begotten Son" is a mistranslation since monogenes is better translated "unique." The main reason for this is that Hebrews 11:17 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son"(monogenes), even though Abraham had other sons.

If this constitutes a mistranslation in the four New Testament passages that use it, then what does that tell us about the dozens of Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl Of Great Price instances where this phrase can be found? The Book of Moses alone uses it ten times, which would constitute an anachronism since the Hebrew Bible never refers to an "only begotten son" of God.

http://scriptures.LDS.org/tg/j/55

Clearly, LDS scripture is textually dependent on the KJV. And what you're pointing out here is that LDS scripture not only takes its teminology from the KJV but uses that terminology as a springboard to develop LDS theological concepts. What this says to me is that the content of LDS scripture derives from the KJV in ways that a translation of an ancient text simply cannot.

I hope that makes sense. I could say a lot about this, but it's early yet, and I'm tired.

[_Blixa]

Here's what blew me away...the whole Jesus = Jehovah business.

I quit going to church around age 16, but I swear I never picked up on this. I don't remember ever hearing this mentioned or reading any reference to it in church meetings or seminary.

So I just recently found out about it from talking on message boards and even though I'm a nonbeliever, it still kinda shocks me.

Is this belief unique to Mormons, or do other sects also believe Jesus was the god of the Old Testament?

[_dartagnan]

I started analyzing LDS scriptures for anachronisms like this when DCP presented his Nephi Asherah argument on FAIR last year. It blew me away the verses he was using to justify his argument because they included phrases and concepts nowhere to be found except in the New Testament. He was leaping over clear parallels and focusing all his attention on an ambiguous one. This is because those clear parallels shows that teh author of Nephi relied heavily on the New Testament.

I mean if there were any parallels to be found in Nephi, it was with the New Testament, not some convoluted Old Testament/Asherah connection which depended heavily on imagination one's interpretation of white trees and virgins.

[_Runtu]

I started analyzing LDS scriptures for anachronisms like this when DCP presented his Nephi Asherah argument on FAIR last year. It blew me away the verses he was using to justify his argument because they included phrases and concepts nowhere to be found except in the New Testament. He was leaping over clear parallels and focusing all his attention on an ambiguous one. This is because those clear parallels shows that teh author of Nephi relied heavily on the New Testament.

I mean if there were any parallels to be found in Nephi, it was with the New Testament, not some convoluted Old Testament/Asherah connection which depended heavily on imagination one's interpretation of white trees and virgins.

Yep. I had that "D'oh!" moment years ago when I read about Enos being raised "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." It stopped me dead in my tracks because what on earth was a preChristian Nephite doing quoting Paul? Further study confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is the production of someone who used the New Testament as a theological and textual starting point. It's not even that there are so many parallels; rather, the Book of Mormon takes off from New Testament concepts and expounds on them.

[_rcrocket]

It is no secret that in the LDS view, Jesus is not the only son of God. We are all sons of God. So how did Joseph Smith and the early LDS leaders deal with the New Testament passages that refer to Jesus as God's only begotten son?

On my mission I was told the answer was simple: Jesus is God's only begotten son in the flesh. (aren't we in the flesh too?)
http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/basi ... otten.html

Of course, that crucial qualifier is nowhere to be found in any Bible passage., but the point I wanted to make is this. Modern scholarship seems to suggest that the biblical passage "only begotten Son" is a mistranslation since monogenes is better translated "unique." The main reason for this is that Hebrews 11:17 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son"(monogenes), even though Abraham had other sons.

If this constitutes a mistranslation in the four New Testament passages that use it, then what does that tell us about the dozens of Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl Of Great Price instances where this phrase can be found? The Book of Moses alone uses it ten times, which would constitute an anachronism since the Hebrew Bible never refers to an "only begotten son" of God.

http://scriptures.LDS.org/tg/j/55

But I guess more importantly, the Church could have avoided this silly ad hoc "in the flesh" apologetic, by simply pointing out that the original New Testament author never really said Jesus was the only son of God. Well, that's what one would expect from a Church guided by revelation anyway.

Ironically, your argument is the same the Muslims make against the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ; that is, the term "begotten" is Greek's gennao and not monogenes.

Latter-day Saints stand alone in the world in proclaiming that Jesus was conceived in the flesh; this is heresy to the rest of Christendom. To that extent, the "uniqueness" of Christ -- the only one conceived in the Flesh from the Father, establishes his uniqueness. The LDS version of the atonement will not otherwise work without this concept.

The use of the word "begotten" in Psa. 2:7, "I will declare the decree: The LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day I have begotten thee," has reference to birth, not uniqueness.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

I started analyzing LDS scriptures for anachronisms like this when DCP presented his Nephi Asherah argument on FAIR last year. It blew me away the verses he was using to justify his argument because they included phrases and concepts nowhere to be found except in the New Testament. He was leaping over clear parallels and focusing all his attention on an ambiguous one. This is because those clear parallels shows that teh author of Nephi relied heavily on the New Testament.

I mean if there were any parallels to be found in Nephi, it was with the New Testament, not some convoluted Old Testament/Asherah connection which depended heavily on imagination one's interpretation of white trees and virgins.

Yep. I had that "D'oh!" moment years ago when I read about Enos being raised "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." It stopped me dead in my tracks because what on earth was a preChristian Nephite doing quoting Paul? Further study confirmed to me that the Book of Mormon is the production of someone who used the New Testament as a theological and textual starting point. It's not even that there are so many parallels; rather, the Book of Mormon takes off from New Testament concepts and expounds on them.

Yes. This is the biggest anachronism in the Book of Mormon because it is the entire POINT of the Book of Mormon. Critics and apologists like to debate about little anachronisms like horses and steel and barley and Lamanite DNA, but the biggest anachronism in the Book of Mormon is the abundance of New Testament christianity centuries before such concepts existed. There is less evidence for pre-Columbian Christianity in the Americas than there is for pre-Columbian horses, and their is no evidence of pre-Columbian horses that match the Book of Mormon timeline.

[_moksha]

Here's what blew me away...the whole Jesus = Jehovah business.
Is this belief unique to Mormons, or do other sects also believe Jesus was the god of the Old Testament?

Kind of makes sense if you are a believer in the Trinity. As a Mormon, it positions the petulant and jealous Hoary Thunderer of the Old Testament as the God of Love of the New Testament. That is quite a transition. Perhaps fishing and carpentry gave Him perspective.

[_moksha]

I could say a lot about this, but it's early yet, and I'm tired.

Please tell us more when you are ready.



Does anyone relate the problem with the KJV failure to translate Isaiah and Elijah properly and how it is reiterated in the Book of Mormon? Also, what is the apologetic explanation for this?

[_Blixa]

it positions the petulant and jealous Hoary Thunderer of the Old Testament as the God of Love of the New Testament. That is quite a transition.

This is indeed my quandry (though not an urgent one).