I would says its more that their own language. They reinvented new meanings from words of their own language to suit their own created doctrines. And this word monogenes simply means: came in to existence for a source, or created, or made, came forth from a creator. And adding ideas with new meanings of this word, such as being unique, maybe true although its not the meaning of the word. And especially does not mean not-made unmade.
Abraham has a only begotten son, Isaac.
Adam would be considered technically a begotten human being by God, and made not by/with a women, as the 2nd Adam.
I leave you with another Kiwi as another reference here..
"The Nicene creed was written by men and for men with political motives so it is not worth questioning their reasoning on the ‘not made’ statement."
Jesus was begotten of God in terms of his birth as recorded in the gospels but he also had to earn his title as ‘son of God’ by declaring God’s purpose in his life of righteousness (Romans 1:4).
When Jesus was baptised there was a declaration from heaven “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” It was his action in being baptised (to symbolise his death and resurrection) which prompted the edict from above.
‘Begotten’ is nothing to do with the teachings of men about the supposed triune nature of God and Jesus.
They really are father and son."
I can live with that, the question i differ on is when was Jesus begotten? I have a mind to accept the scriptures as they read...
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18
It's only logical to believe that if the scripture says God sent His Son, therefore God had a Son to send.
Amongst various scholars there is a consensus of opinion that the words found in the above two verses were not spoken by Jesus. This is because these scholars regard Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus as ending at verse 15. Whilst I am not going to debate this issue here, it is true to say that whichever way this is viewed, it does not detract from the fact that the Holy Spirit inspired John to write these words. This means that even if they were only John’s comments, they are as true as if Jesus Himself had spoken them.
John also wrote in one of his pastoral letters
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9
On two occasions with His own voice, God confirmed Christ’s Sonship to Himself. The first was at the baptism of Jesus. The second was at His transfiguration
“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17
“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Matthew 17:5
From the above it can be seen that this Sonship was not because of Christ’s human birth at Bethlehem, not is it a result of the resurrection, but because of His pre-existent relationship with God. To put it another way: According to the Word of God, Christ had a pre-existent Sonship.
