Can God have an Only begotten daugher?


#1

The Bible states that God has one Only Begotten Son ---> Jesus

But does that mean that God could/might have an only begotten daughter?

I'm guessing no...


#2

Theoretically speaking, he could do it,
but practically speaking, he would not.

It would cause confusion among the people. It would be working against his plan for man's salvation.

Imagine having a Jesus Christ and a Jane Christ at the same time. Both would be the person of the Son of God, but what are people supposed to do with this situation? At the very least it would cause greater schisms in the Christian church.

Or, suppose we only had a Jane Christ? Would there be as many faithful Christians?
Like it or not, many people will only follow a male. You know it's true.

Also, the image of a female on the cross would be too much for many people to take, especially males who can't stand to see a woman cry let along suffer. They would run away from that.


#3

[quote="Doves411, post:1, topic:330863"]
The Bible states that God has one Only Begotten Son ---> Jesus

But does that mean that God could/might have an only begotten daughter?

I'm guessing no...

[/quote]

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.

Plus there are only 3 persons in the Trinity, it could not have been otherwise...the Trinity exists by necessity given the nature of God although we are unable to comprehend this given it is a revealed truth not a truth of philosophy


#4

I guess my question is more why does Scripture state that Jesus is God's only Begotten Son, not only begotten child? Does Scripture mean the same thing? Does it mean the Jesus is God's only Begotton Child who is male?


#5

Does it leave open the possibility that God might still beget a daughter?


#6

[quote="Doves411, post:5, topic:330863"]
Does it leave open the possibility that God might still beget a daughter?

[/quote]

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.

Check out the Baltimore Catechism online, that might be helpful for some clarification. I'll just offer a few points.

First, God exists as one being in a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each are equal because each is fully the One true God eternal and infinite. Each is pure spirit because each is equally the one true God who is spiritual and non physical.
This means that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not male or female.

Second, God the Son is not some separate entity who began to exist. God the Son exists from all eternity with God the Father. God the Son is equally God as God the Father. God the Son we say was "begotten not made" meaning he was more generated from the Father than willfully created. The Father had a choice in creating us, He naturally generated the Son by necessity not by choice. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the mutual love of Father and Son. Again, check out the Baltimore catechism, any addition (maybe 4 is the best) through a google search.

Third, God the Son (who is eternally begotten of the Father...genderless) became man through the incarnation. This means He took on a created human nature. God the Son is still eternally begotten of the Father however he took on a human nature through Mary as other humans do. God the Son exists as one person however He has two separate natures: The human nature (received from Mary) and the Divine Nature (which he posesses from eternity as does the Father and Holy Ghost)

Fourth, the human nature of God the Son is a male human nature because God chose to make it that way. He had a choice given that the human nature of Jesus was created in time. God could have taken on a woman's nature however chose to not become a woman, he became a male human being. God the Son's Divine nature (eternally begotten of the Father) is genderless though.

God couldn't have begotten a daughter, as the begetting part is eternal and spiritual. God could have created a female human nature to become incarnate in however He did not


#7

God may do ANYTHING He wishes.

God has only ONE begotten Son.

That is all.

Good day to you, Sir/M'am.


#8

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).

If your original question had been whether Jesus could have been sent as a woman rather than a man, I suppose it could have been possible. However, then there would not be a “son” and someone would be asking the reverse question today. As we would be in the same position, I don’t think it would be profitable to meditate deeply on the supposition.


#9

God has revealed all aspects of Himself in the masculine gender, even becoming incarnate in male form. Therefore, God would not reveal himself in the feminine gender.

Also, as others have said, God is not a God of confusion, and He would not beget another 'child'. Not to mention that God exists outside of space and TIME, so if God had a begotten daughter, it wouldn't 'happen' at some point, because God is eternal, and if there were a daughter, He would have revealed 'her'. But as I said, God reveals Himself as male (though in reality He has no gender), so if there were another begotten child, it would also be male, but since Jesus has been revealed as the ONLY begotten Son, that would mean there are no other begotten 'children' of God the Father.


#10

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? :confused:

am I close?


#11

[quote="Doves411, post:10, topic:330863"]
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? :confused:

am I close?

[/quote]

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.

In the end. God has only One begotten 'child', and that is the Son. This is what has been revealed as Truth, so God has no begotten 'Daughter'.


#12

[quote="bzkoss236, post:11, topic:330863"]
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.

In the end. God has only One begotten 'child', and that is the Son. This is what has been revealed as Truth, so God has no begotten 'Daughter'.

[/quote]

Oh okay. Do you have any sources or Bible passages I could read for further study?


#13

[quote="TomD123, post:6, topic:330863"]
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.

Check out the Baltimore Catechism online, that might be helpful for some clarification. I'll just offer a few points.

First, God exists as one being in a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each are equal Ibecause each is fully the One true God eternal and infinite. Each is pure spirit because each is equally the one true God who is spiritual and non physical.
This means that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not male or female.

Second, God the Son is not some separate entity who began to exist. God the Son exists from all eternity with God the Father. God the Son is equally God as God the Father. God the Son we say was "begotten not made" meaning he was more generated from the Father than willfully created. The Father had a choice in creating us, He naturally generated the Son by necessity not by choice. The Holy Ghost proceeds from the mutual love of Father and Son. Again, check out the Baltimore catechism, any addition (maybe 4 is the best) through a google search.

Third, God the Son (who is eternally begotten of the Father...genderless) became man through the incarnation. This means He took on a created human nature. God the Son is still eternally begotten of the Father however he took on a human nature through Mary as other humans do. God the Son exists as one person however He has two separate natures: The human nature (received from Mary) and the Divine Nature (which he posesses from eternity as does the Father and Holy Ghost)

Fourth, the human nature of God the Son is a male human nature because God chose to make it that way. He had a choice given that the human nature of Jesus was created in time. God could have taken on a woman's nature however chose to not become a woman, he became a male human being. God the Son's Divine nature (eternally begotten of the Father) is genderless though.

God couldn't have begotten a daughter, as the begetting part is eternal and spiritual. God could have created a female human nature to become incarnate in however He did not

[/quote]

Great explanation :thumbsup:


#14

[quote="SonCatcher, post:8, topic:330863"]
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).

If your original question had been whether Jesus could have been sent as a woman rather than a man, I suppose it could have been possible. However, then there would not be a "son" and someone would be asking the reverse question today. As we would be in the same position, I don't think it would be profitable to meditate deeply on the supposition.

[/quote]

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?:confused:

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?:confused:


#15

[quote="Doves411, post:10, topic:330863"]
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? :confused:

am I close?

[/quote]

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.


#16

If the second coming involves a human form, could that form be female?


#17

[quote="marymary1975, post:15, topic:330863"]
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.

[/quote]

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...:confused:


#18

[quote="mek42, post:16, topic:330863"]
If the second coming involves a human form, could that form be female?

[/quote]

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...


#19

[quote="Doves411, post:14, topic:330863"]
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?:confused:

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?:confused:

[/quote]

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").

The love of God for us is also likened to the unconditional love of a mother for her child in the Scriptures. Even Jesus references this love directly when he says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you were unwilling!" (Matthew 23:37).


#20

[quote="Doves411, post:17, topic:330863"]
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...:confused:

[/quote]

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.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.