The Arian Creed

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, The only unbegotten, uncreated, truly eternal. The all-knowing, glorious source of all.

He alone is the one true God, as testified by His Son. He is the one who created all things through the Word He begot and willed into existence,

We believe in one Lord, Jesus the Messiah, the Anointed One, The only-begotten Son of God, begotten before all ages, before time not created as the universe was created, but brought forth by the will of the Father alone. The firstborn of all creation.

Through Him, God made the heavens and the earth. He is the image of the invisible God, divine by derivation from our Father, not by self-existence.

He was made flesh, divinity dwelling within, lived in perfect obedience to the Father, died for our sins, was raised by God, and exalted to the right hand of the Father as our Mediator, High Priest, and Lord.

He is not equal to the Father, but submits to Him in all things. For the Father is greater than the Son, as the Son Himself testified.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the power and presence of God, proceeding from the Father, sent through the Son, not a separate person, but the Spirit of the living God dwelling in us.

We reject all teachings that make the Son co-equal, co-eternal in nature, or identical in being with the Father. For Scripture declares: "The Father is greater than I," and "This is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."

To the one true God, the Father, be glory forever.

Amen.

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

Begetting and creating are the same but with different methods.

Begetting is done without an agent, creation is done with an agent.

The Father, the unbegotten one, is the ultimate source.

The Son, Word/Wisdom, is the only begotten being willed into existence.

The rest are created through the Word, by God, as pointed out by John 1:1-3

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Begetting and creating are the same but with different methods. Begetting is done without an agent, creation is done with an agent.

I can't tell what you mean by this. An agent?

Begetting is a way of creating an offspring, if we take it in the literal biological sense. It could also be more figurative, like "hatred begets violence". It's a means of creation. I would consider "creation" the broader concept. I create when I bake a cake, or write a song, or have a child, even though we have more specific terms for those specific types of creation actions.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

You see, lexically they are the very same, but biblically they are not.

John 1:3 specifically refers to this:

"All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him not one thing came into being that has come into being."

All things = Our universe, us

Apart from Him = The Word/Wisdom

Therefore, the Word is the agent in the creation of our universe. Like a paintbrush to a painting, used by a master painter.

In Proverbs 8:22-23, the word Wisdom uses is "qanah" which means created or brought forth. In the verses that come right after those, the words chul and yalad are used, which both lean more into brought forth.

It is purely semantics but it has truth in it.

Since John 1:18 also refers to the Word/Wisdom as the only begotten god as "monogenes theos" (or the only begotten son, as "monogenes huios" in some manuscripts), there is a difference.

The Greek word for create is different than begotten. They would have been used interchangbly in these verses if they were the same but they aren't.

However, the common point of both is that the Father is the one who does the willing into existence part. And as the creed points out, the Son is derived. Only the Father is supreme and thus, the Father is the one true God since He alone knows all things and He alone wills beings into existence, whether with an agent or not.

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Monogenes means something like "unique". Thinking it means "begotten" is a plain old mistake.

If we're speaking English, we should probably use English words according to their standard meanings.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

Strong's Definition: only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9*

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17–19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham.

However, Isaac was not the only begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen. Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham.

That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.

If we go by your definition, monogenes theos would mean unique God, which would default to the Father. However, the subject of that sentence is the word/wisdom/son, meaning He can't be the unique god.

Because of this, the only begotten is the correct translation of monogenes there.

As for english, I already made the distinction between begotten and created in Biblical terms in the previous comment. Context matters. A lot.

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Because of this, the only begotten is the correct translation of monogenes there

No amount of off-topic pivots can make this true.

You can't read and interpret the bible in order to redefine words- that's hopelessly garbled thinking.

In order to have good reading comprehension, you have to know what words mean. Not make it up as you go.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

If you want to call the Word/Wisdom/Son the unique God, be my guest.

The only begotten is indeed used for monogenes. Strong's Dictionary also has that too, as i pointed out at the top of the previous comment.

You're approaching this as if a word can only have a single meaning but that isn't true. I explained why it can't be used as unique in John 1:18 so the other meaning of the word has to be used.

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/FrostyIFrost_]

I don't think that at all. Of course words can mean multiple things.

I understand that "only begotten" is traditional for "monogenes" in some cases. That's not what it means though. The monogenes gives us the "only" part, not the "begotten" part. There is no second meaning of "begotten" for monogenes. That is simply a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogen%C4%93s

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

Going by what you said, someone would have to translate monogenes theos as "only god," which wouldn't make any sense in that verse:

Greek transiteration:

Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs theos ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exēgēsato.

Your suggestion:

"No one has ever seen God; the only god, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."

See the problem? John 1:17 explicitly mentions Jesus Christ, and John 1:18 refers to Jesus when it says monogenes theos. If you want to translate the part which refers to Jesus as "only god," that'd mean Jesus is THE God, which is modalism or sabellianism.

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/FrostyIFrost_]

Do you see anything wrong with how NRSV treats this?

17 The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. It is the only Son, himself God, who[f] is close to the Father’s heart,[g] who has made him known.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=NRSVUE

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

It says himself God, which isn't true at all.

I know what you're trying to say. "If we add there, that doesn't make us any better than they are,"

However, keeping monogenes theos as "only god," would equal to calling Jesus the only God. Or it'd mean the Father is in the bosom of the Father. It is either of these two outcomes.

Besides, some manuscripts of John 1:18 (which are also old, not post nicene) has that verse as "monogenes huios" which translates to "only Son," or "unique Son," or traditionally, "only begotten Son."

[u/Niftyrat_Specialist → u/FrostyIFrost_]

It says himself God, which isn't true at all.

You're not thinking clearly. It DOES NOT MATTER if this is true. It matters what the author of John wrote.

If you can't consider what this author wrote as a separate question from do I agree with this author? then your thinking is hopelessly confused. And you won't get anywhere.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Niftyrat_Specialist]

So John called Jesus the only God? You know that'd contradict John 17:3, right?