God the Son has no gender as God…He only has a gender through his human nature. The human nature of Jesus was created by God…and therefore could have been male or female. The Divine person of God the Son (who now is united to the human nature in the person of Jesus Christ) has no gender and therefore the question wouldn’t apply.
I think there are two issues at play here…first is the issue of God the Son as a person and then God the Son incarnate.
If you mean in addition to the Son, absolutely not. “Only” means that there is a single Eternally Begotten one. That one is the Son. It is not possible that the Father could beget another since the persons and processions of the Godhead are already revealed (the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds). They are co-eternal and another “person” will never be introduced (“Begotten, not made” from the Nicene creed).
No, God has NO gender. He is neither male nor female. However, He has revealed Himself in the male gender. This is symbolism is carried on in the incarnation of Christ as a male child.So basically you guys are saying theoretically God could have sent Jesus as a woman but chose to send him as a male. Therefore there is no female nature in God but only male (cuz Jesus is male and always was male from the beginning cuz he has a male soul). So God will not send a ‘begotten daughter’ since there is no female nature in God?
So in Scripture, it is stated as only Begotten Son rather than ‘child’ because it’s pointless to state that God might beget a daughter because God has no female nature?
am I close?
Oh okay. Do you have any sources or Bible passages I could read for further study?
Great explanation
Yeah I meant in addition to and I thought that the answer would be no. However, I am just confused by the wording of the statement “Only Begotten Son.” If “Only Begotten” means “only offspring” why is there a need to add the word “Son” to it?
No, seems you are confused. Read again what Tom 123 wrote. God is neither male or female, God is spirit. You are trying to find a sex for God any way, that is not correct. We humans are male or female, God is not. Jesus had two natures and in his human nature he choose to become male but his divine nature doesn’t have a sex. Jesus doesn’t have a “male” soul because he is not human, he is God. The body he incarnated was male and he had a divine nature. God only had one child who always existed with him. He can’t have a daughter because God doesn’t have two children. God only has one and the reason why the word Son is used is because when Jesus incarnated as a human he did in a male body. Using the word daughter would be incorrect because Jesus dind’t a female body. Saying begotten daughter would be like saying Obama is the female president of the United States. It is incorrect because Obama is not a female. Same with Jesus, you say begotten Son because Jesus had a male body.So basically you guys are saying theoretically God could have sent Jesus as a woman but chose to send him as a male. Therefore there is no female nature in God but only male (cuz Jesus is male and always was male from the beginning cuz he has a male soul). So God will not send a ‘begotten daughter’ since there is no female nature in God?
So in Scripture, it is stated as only Begotten Son rather than ‘child’ because it’s pointless to state that God might beget a daughter because God has no female nature?
am I close?
Isn’t Jesus both fully God and man though?
No I don’t think so, because the Second Coming refers to Jesus coming down from Heaven at the Judgement time. He isn’t going to enter through the womb again. At least that’s what I think…
Those are the Divine Relations expressed in the way that most closely resembles human understanding. Using the terms “Father” and “Son” present a more personal image than that of “parent” and “child”. The biological fact of Jesus’ masculinity needs to be recognized, especially in today’s world that is so confused in terms of sexual identity. Identifying the First Person of the Trinity as the same gender assists in the thinking of “like begets like” (this concept is so important that it is repeated three times in the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed: “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God”).Yeah I meant in addition to and I thought that the answer would be no. However, I am just confused by the wording of the statement “Only Begotten Son.” If “Only Begotten” means “only offspring” why is there a need to add the word “Son” to it?
It implies that God has only one Son…but for me it seems to be left kind of hanging…like does that mean He might/could beget a daughter?
Idk, I just don’t understand the addition of the word “Son” if the word “Monogenes” (meaning only begotten/only offspring in Greek) is already stated?
I don’t see why you think is odd. Do you have children? When you talk about your children do you refer to them as “offspring”. How many parents do you hear talking about their son/ daughter saying: oh I went to my offspring’s recital today, I have to drive my offspring to the soccer game, or my offspring got sick yesterday? Never. I don’t see it as odd because is not the way people normally talk. In all case the use of monogenes would be odd.Isn’t Jesus both fully God and man though?
I understand what you said about Jesus not being referred to as female. I just don’t understand why the word “Monogenes” in Greek (meaning onlybegotten/only offspring/only kind) would be used as an adjective for the word Son?
Monogenes can be both a noun and an adjective…why didn’t Scripture just describe Jesus as “Monogenes” instead of “Monogenes” Son?
Seems odd to me…