-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Only Begotten God?
- Thread starter Faith Fact Feeling
- Start date
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Even if your arguments had substance, your attitude would still destroy your credibility. You probably demonstrate less Christian character than anyone I have witnessed on this board including the folks down in the "other religions" forum. You shouldn't be proud of yourself but I suspect you are. </font>[/QUOTE]Now Scotty, you, apologize? I guess you will now say that the above quote is not a personal attack? My attitude and character are not personal, are they? Right? This would probably fall under your disclaimer of "methods of argument"?Originally posted by Scotty aka Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
Ooh. The eminent Pastor Larry wants to show me what a great scholar he is. I'm (not)impressed. I thought you said it only required common sense Larry??? Try preaching 1 Timothy 3:16 from your great Bible that, wait, hold on for this..."is so crystal clear that the Word made flesh was none other than God himself". What a joke.
How are you missing this??? I have not skirted the question. I directly answered it: John 1:18 in the NIV says that Christ is the one and only God. That means there is no other God. There are not two; there are not three; there are not 1 and a half. There is one and only one God and the Word who became flesh is that only God. What else needs to be explained?? The MVs state this without qualification; without the possibility of making the God someone else. It states that Christ is the only God there is and he became flesh.
This verse does deal with the incarnation and it tells us who was incarnated. It tells that the only God was incarnated. That incarnated "one and only God" is Christ. How can you not understand this? In your effort to malign a translation, you have missed the plainly obvious.
What references do you want addressed?
JYD makes a whole blort of false assumptions:
My Bible tells me that he is God, not a SEPERATE GOD beggat in heaven(Arianisim).
No modern Bible version used by Bible-believing Christians says Jesus is a "seperate" [sic] god. This is something JYD just made up on the spot.
My Bible tells me(AV) that,in John 10:30 "I and my Father are ONE" Not 2 or 3 or whatever..
No modern Bible version used by Bible-believing Christians says that the God head is "2 or 3 or whatever." This is also something JYD just made up on the spot.
It looks as though since problems with the modern versions don't exist, it is necessary for the KJV-onlyists to invent them.
You gotta laugh.
My Bible tells me that he is God, not a SEPERATE GOD beggat in heaven(Arianisim).
No modern Bible version used by Bible-believing Christians says Jesus is a "seperate" [sic] god. This is something JYD just made up on the spot.
My Bible tells me(AV) that,in John 10:30 "I and my Father are ONE" Not 2 or 3 or whatever..
No modern Bible version used by Bible-believing Christians says that the God head is "2 or 3 or whatever." This is also something JYD just made up on the spot.
It looks as though since problems with the modern versions don't exist, it is necessary for the KJV-onlyists to invent them.
You gotta laugh.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Thanks for the ranting and raving. That certainly cleared up every point you you "thought" I missed. Here is the question once again. Please let me know if you need me to expand it for you to better grasp the nature of the question. You might try to paraphrase the question yourself (this helps sometimes). Oh, and I understand that you think "unique God" in John 1:18 is a good thing. I know why you think it is a good thing. And I still don't think it is a what you make it out to be. And if you have read the entire thread, you know why I think this. Now, on to my pursuit of unique versus begotten as you have difined it in the context of scripture in your 2nd post (on page 4) in this string.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Thank you Ransom for illustrating your ignorance of the discussion in this stream. This string is not "KJV-onlyism is based on real faith". Stay on topic please.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
One more time for Brian,
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. KJV
(God the Father has only been seen by God the Son. Makes sense. Two manifestations of the same God. Notice it says "he hath declared him". Do you know "when" and "who to" God the Father was declared by context? Or the importance of that to proper exegesis? Probably not.)
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" NIV
(God the Father has only been seen by "God the One and Only", Barnum and Bailey exegesis.)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASU
(God the Father has only been seen by the begotten God? Two Gods. One created God.)
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. NWT
(God the Father has only been seen by the begotten god? Two Gods. One created.)
And I know "little g big G" (remember theos) and "guilt by association" (remeber infinite argument loop). Oh, and please, give me some more ranting and raving on how theos in John 1:18 is so great at affirming Christ's deity. Pour out you feelings. Or we could discuss scriptural reasons for or against this reading as I am attempting to glean from Larry.
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. KJV
(God the Father has only been seen by God the Son. Makes sense. Two manifestations of the same God. Notice it says "he hath declared him". Do you know "when" and "who to" God the Father was declared by context? Or the importance of that to proper exegesis? Probably not.)
"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" NIV
(God the Father has only been seen by "God the One and Only", Barnum and Bailey exegesis.)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASU
(God the Father has only been seen by the begotten God? Two Gods. One created God.)
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him. NWT
(God the Father has only been seen by the begotten god? Two Gods. One created.)
And I know "little g big G" (remember theos) and "guilt by association" (remeber infinite argument loop). Oh, and please, give me some more ranting and raving on how theos in John 1:18 is so great at affirming Christ's deity. Pour out you feelings. Or we could discuss scriptural reasons for or against this reading as I am attempting to glean from Larry.
Since the context of this is the "word" (ie. Jesus), and God the father has been seen by him (the Son) who is the ONLY God, it's all good.
No, it does not say two Gods, one of which was created. The context is the word (the Son, Jesus) who is himself God and was begotten. Again you align with the JWs in what this phrase means, despite the *vast* majority of Christianity NOT interpreting it to mean two Gods.
Even here, you are dealing with *interpretation*. A "one God" interpretation can still be (and should be) understood here, but as we know those who produce the NWT do not believe that and are trying to use a lower-case g to make that distinction, which of course is erroneous. Again, you are confusing a wrong reading with a wrong interpretation of a reading.
OK. The NIV and NASB *explicitly* say Christ is "God" in this verse. The KJV doesn't. I am willing to bet my house that if the KJV said "God" and the NIV/NASB said "Son", the standard KJV-only argument would be that the NIV/NASB are clouding a clear reference to the deity of Christ.
Thanks for the ranting and raving.</font>[/QUOTE]
There was no ranting and raving in any of my posts. You asked questions and I answered them.
I did ask you to clarify this already. Perhaps you missed that post. The discussion is about monogenes. Heb 1:4-5; 5:5; and 1 John 5:18 do not talk about monogenes. That is why I ask what you asking about. Is there some particular point about these verses you would like me to address? IS there something that is confusing you in them? I am not trying to be obstinate. I am seriously curious as to what you are asking about.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. The word monogenes means unique or one and only. The Word who became flesh is the unique, one of a kind God. He is not a differen manifestation of God (That was an ancient heresy condemned by the church). He is God. There is only one God and JEsus Christ is that one God. That is what JOhn 1:18 says. Are you disagreeing with that or do you have a different problem?
What are you pursuing here? The second post on page 4 is not mine; it is Brian's. My second post on page 4 comments on the fact tht we are not justifying the CT (it does not need our help). It deals with the fact that you are the one furthering this conversation becuase you apparently disagree with something in JOhn 1:18. If you would like to clarify, I will be glad to take a stab at at. PErhaps someone else who understands what FFF is asking can clarify it for me.
MY position is this:
1. MOnogenes means unique or only.
2. John 1:18 properly reads theos (not huios).
3. John 1:18 should be translated most clearly as "one and only God." This is a clear statement of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
If this does not answer your questions, please feel free to ask again. I will try to understand and answer.
So if begotten means "created," does "begotten Son" mean that the Son was created?
Your attitude and character are demonstrated by you. To say that they are un-Christlike is truthful. I haven't made anything up nor put words in your mouth. I have not exaggerated what you have demonstrated in my opinion. If I have then show me and I will even apologize to you.Originally posted by Faith, Fact & Feeling:
Now Scotty, you, apologize? I guess you will now say that the above quote is not a personal attack? My attitude and character are not personal, are they? Right? This would probably fall under your disclaimer of "methods of argument"?
In advance of that, I would like to go ahead and apologize for the unnecessary comparison to others here. The standard for every professing believer's behaviour is the Bible, not people on the BB. I am genuinely sorry for this subjective and unfair comment. I will go ahead and edit that part.
The one who denies the (Divine) Son neither has (God) the Father. If the second Person of the Divine Trinity became Son at His incarnation then the first Person became Father at the same point IN TIME. This seems to be the belief of some, if I recall correctly one who maintains the KJV is the infallible and inerrant word of God and has replaced the Greek NT as absolutely Final Authority. Nevertheless such belief is antichristian heresy. It is a denial of the eternal Divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ. It has no support from the revealed word of God, the Holy Bible. Not even the Christ-denying Jews denied Jehovah God had a Son who was God. They just did not believe Jesus the Nazarene was He, incarnate.
Harald
Harald
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Scott,
Consider these statements from someone more than just "Christ-like":
Matthew 7:1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Now someone who would be considered very Christ-like:
Romans 2:1-3
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Now I have seen a lot of things on this board, but you certainly take the cake with this one. If there is one thing that is for sure about this board, it is that the tone of it is one of disrespect. The very first statement of your first post on this thread was “Funny that FFF should try to argue this one. It is a plain statement of Christ's deity.” Funny? Why did you say “Funny”? This was an obvious insult. The first smart remark directed at insulting my intelligence was made by Brian when he said “I still don't understand your problem with the reading, and I'm beginning to thing you don't either.”. Now I’m not condemning you or Brian for your aggressive debate tactics. I knew this would be a den of vipers, so to speak, for someone who would challenge modern scholarship. It was all too obvious before I entered this board that this mode of communication was par for the course. I came prepared to be treated as an enemy, or even worse, a heretic. I was not shocked when this happened, nor did I condemn those using this form of debate as not being Christ-like in their character and attitude. You have dug yourself into a very deep hole on this one Scott.
Consider these statements from someone more than just "Christ-like":
Matthew 7:1-5
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Now someone who would be considered very Christ-like:
Romans 2:1-3
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Now I have seen a lot of things on this board, but you certainly take the cake with this one. If there is one thing that is for sure about this board, it is that the tone of it is one of disrespect. The very first statement of your first post on this thread was “Funny that FFF should try to argue this one. It is a plain statement of Christ's deity.” Funny? Why did you say “Funny”? This was an obvious insult. The first smart remark directed at insulting my intelligence was made by Brian when he said “I still don't understand your problem with the reading, and I'm beginning to thing you don't either.”. Now I’m not condemning you or Brian for your aggressive debate tactics. I knew this would be a den of vipers, so to speak, for someone who would challenge modern scholarship. It was all too obvious before I entered this board that this mode of communication was par for the course. I came prepared to be treated as an enemy, or even worse, a heretic. I was not shocked when this happened, nor did I condemn those using this form of debate as not being Christ-like in their character and attitude. You have dug yourself into a very deep hole on this one Scott.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Pastor Larry,
In one of your last posts you commented “IS there something that is confusing you in them? I am not trying to be obstinate. I am seriously curious as to what you are asking about.” and “If this does not answer your questions, please feel free to ask again. I will try to understand and answer.”. Thank you for your respectful tone. This certainly changes the energy and tone of the discussion thus far. Since I have 3 sermons to deliver over the next few days, I will wait and formulate my response to your post on monogenes and begotten later. This will allow me time to state my question more clearly. Thanks.
In one of your last posts you commented “IS there something that is confusing you in them? I am not trying to be obstinate. I am seriously curious as to what you are asking about.” and “If this does not answer your questions, please feel free to ask again. I will try to understand and answer.”. Thank you for your respectful tone. This certainly changes the energy and tone of the discussion thus far. Since I have 3 sermons to deliver over the next few days, I will wait and formulate my response to your post on monogenes and begotten later. This will allow me time to state my question more clearly. Thanks.
I am sorry you took this as an insult. I meant "Funny" in the sense of interesting, unexpected. It was unintended. If you do not accept this explaination then say so and I will edit
Nor am I apologizing for being strong in objective debate but there is a line and I have come too close to it.
Please remember that the same scriptures your cited apply to you as well.
Also consider this one:
[/qb]
I will debate hard against you because I believe KJVOnlyism (not KJV preferred) is a cancerous heresy that is hurting the cause of Christ. I believe that the current controversy if not resolved correctly will result in a future generation that will not know the Word of God because the KJV will not be understandable to them and other versions will continue to be forbidden. There are already words in the KJV that are either used for an obsolete definition or have fallen out of common usage altogether. Further, it is a divisive false doctrine, not derived from scripture but from the vain sinful imaginations of men.
But it is not acceptable for me to attack or demean my opponents. For that I apologize and ask for forgiveness.
The proverbial ball is now in your court.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Now there's the spirit of Christ. This is a ball I'm glad to find in my court. Certainly, I am overjoyed to forgive you. I have no doubt that my arguments here are with fellow believers. This is indicative of that.
I must say, I not sure much forgiveness is required, as I said I entered this debate with the expectation to be derided a little. I just tried to have some fun with it. To be honest I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with level of irreverence and disrespect present in these discussions (including my behavior). This is something I will be praying about. Generally I have found a level of debate with believers to be beneficial to clarifying and strengthening my faith, so the jury is still out on this one in my mind.
I will not return comment on what you said about the KJVO issue. It would just spoil the tone and content of this message. Again, my intent was not to force an apology out of you, just for you to ease-up on my character and attitude. I graciously accept your apology and offer one of my own if my behavior has been offensive to you. Settling this will certainly unhinder me in delivering my sermon today. Thanks.
I must say, I not sure much forgiveness is required, as I said I entered this debate with the expectation to be derided a little. I just tried to have some fun with it. To be honest I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with level of irreverence and disrespect present in these discussions (including my behavior). This is something I will be praying about. Generally I have found a level of debate with believers to be beneficial to clarifying and strengthening my faith, so the jury is still out on this one in my mind.
I will not return comment on what you said about the KJVO issue. It would just spoil the tone and content of this message. Again, my intent was not to force an apology out of you, just for you to ease-up on my character and attitude. I graciously accept your apology and offer one of my own if my behavior has been offensive to you. Settling this will certainly unhinder me in delivering my sermon today. Thanks.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
I don't want to show you "what a great scholar I am." YOU are the one who claimed to know more about Greek (koine and modern) than I do and I asked you if you want to compare backgrounds. Apparently you deferred, perhaps because now you are not so sure about that ... Who knows???
It does. In reference to JEsus Christ, does the name "God" or the name "Son" more accurately communicate his deity?? IT is obvious that "God" is a clear title for deity while "son" is not a clear title of deity. The MVs, in this verse, are explicit on the deity of Christ. There is no room left for discussion. The KJV is not explicit. It's that simple.
I have preached 1 Tim 3:16 from the NASB. YOu should have been here. You would have seen very clearly that the NASB does not compromise the deity of Christ. IF you read the context, it is clear that Paul is talking about the church of the living God who was manifest in teh flesh. (That is the main idea of that part of his paragraph.) This verse is only a problem for those who don't read Scripture in its context.Try preaching 1 Timothy 3:16 from your great Bible that, wait, hold on for this..."is so crystal clear that the Word made flesh was none other than God himself". What a joke.
JYD is the one who started the argument about big G and little g?? His statement was clearly false (which can be shown by merely looking at an MV. The MVs do not use a little G in John 1:18. </font>[/QUOTE]If you believe Son does not communicate deity, you are at odds with God Almighty Himself. The apostle John called Jesus the “Son” 68 times in his gospel and epistles. Altogether Jesus is referred to as the Son 232 times in the NT. Jesus referred to himself as the Son literally dozens of times. To say that calling Jesus the Son is not communicating “a clear title of deity” is beyond comprehension in light of its prolific usage in God’s Word. Son is what he called Himself. Furthermore, I find your forceful language in arguing this point for John 1:18 is quite hypocritical considering you mentioned that the change in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not an issue for you. 1 Timothy 3:16 is the strongest verse in the entire Bible concerning the deity of our Lord Jesus (in the KJV anyway). And anyone with a cursory level of reading comprehension can see that “He” does not refer to a church. I can’t believe you actually said that. You prove my point that by replacing God with He you destroy the meaning of this, the clearest declaration of Christ’s deity in the NT. If you have no problem with that, please do not get all up in arms about the John 1:18. As Brian said, “I would bet my house” (although I do not gamble) that if this was changed from He to God in the MVs you would be complaining that the KJV “is not explicit”.
Faith Fact Feeling
New Member
Really?? Wanna compare backgrounds?? Why don't you give your curricula vitae with regard to Greek.
This is untrue in that Isaac was Abraham's monogenes huios when he also had a son named Ishmael. Thus, it means one of a kind, or unique. The problem is not my understanding of Greek at all.
I agree that it refers to a relationship between parent and child. However, in none of those cases does it refer to the coming into existence (begotten) but rather the unique place (only). If you look at how the KJV translates monogenes in those cases, my point will be proven by your preferred version. The KJV translate monogenes as "only" (the dreaded sin of the NIV) in Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38. It translates it as only begotten in the others. Why the inconsistency?? The reality is that the KJV translators admit what I am saying by their choice of "only" in the contexts above. Your version contradicts you and supports me. </font>[/QUOTE]Your first proof that monogenes means “unique place” and not “only begotten” is in Hebrews 11:17. It seems your problem may be with understanding my point. Notice I said “one or unique in the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents (mother and father)”. You posit that since Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, monogenes means unique place and not only begotten. The fault in your reasoning here is that you exclude the involvement of Sarah. Monogenes carries the element of maternal as well as paternal genealogy as evidenced in Luke 7:12. One flesh, so to speak. So, strictly speaking, Isaac was the “only begotten” son of Abraham (NASB and others agree). Just like there are other sons of God (Genesis 6:2, Job 1:6), but Christ is the only begotten Son.
You mention that your position is that the word monogenes means one or unique only in the sense of a parent-child relationship. Since you believe monogenes was never used to mean only or unique in its pure sense, that it was only used in conjunction with a parent-child relationship, your own interpretation clearly indicates that kuios is the proper reading for John 1:18, not theos. Each of the other 8 times it is used, it is only used to discuss a parent-child relationship. It makes absolutely no sense in context with the word theos unless you completely butcher the meaning of monogenes (NIV, RSV). This is clear evidence that supports my position and damages the credibility of yours.
You then state that the 3 verses in Luke translate it as “only”. Therefore this translation of it in John 1:18 and presumably the other locations is justified. This makes no sense at all. Humans cannot create sons as God has (see Genesis 6:2, Job 1:6). Begotten is obviously implied in these verses and not necessary to state explicitly. It was necessary to state in conjunction with Jesus and Isaac. While the NIV and RSV take this more liberal interpretation of monogenes, the NASB and many other modern translations agree with the traditional definition of the word. Clearly, it is not my version that contradicts me. Even modern versions agree with me here.
Furthermore, redefining monogenes to mean “only” or “one and only” in the NIV (not unique place, which is your extra-biblical interpretation), is only translating half (or less) of the meaning of this word. If God had meant to convey the meaning “one and only” in this passage He would have used monon or monos, just as He did 114 times in the NT.
You said that in the 9 places where monogenes is used “in none of those cases does it refer to the coming into existence”. That is correct they do not refer to it, it is implicit in the word’s meaning. Someone who is begotten came into existence. The human person Jesus came into existence. The Bible makes that stunningly clear. This is why I referred you to verses like Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, just in case you have a problem understanding the incarnation. And yes, I know monogenes is not used in those locations. But gennao, a variation of genos, which is from ginomai is used there. And, as I’m sure you know, ginomai is the second part of the compound word mongenes. Conclusively, sound exegesis shows that theos is out of place here.
It is good that I don't believe that then isn't. (You should know that by now). My point was about the word "clear." One is very clear; one can be interpreted another way. This point was that the MVs are more clear on the deity of Christ than the KJV, particularly in this verse.
Son is used many times in reference to people who are not God. God is rarely used in reference to things that are not God.
I don't deny that is what he called himself. That is not the issue. The issue was clarity. "God" is a more clear title than "Son" regardless of how clear son might be in a particular context. Why are you reaching after straws here??
There is no "change" in 1 Tim 3:16. Paul wrote "he" and that is what it should read. There was no reason to change it. My point is never about what reading is the easiest to preach or the most clear on a topic. My point (and yours should be) is what did the author write? We could add "Jesus is Lord" to every verse in the Bible and it would be orthodox but it would be wrong. Exchanging the name "he" for "God" is clear but it is wrong to do such. You nor anyone else is permitted to tamper with God's word.
And anyone with a cursory level of reading comprehension can see that you have grossly twisted my words to make them read something they don't read. Someone wrote to me in an PM about this the other day. Feel free to post here my reply if you wish.
I said that "he" is a reference to God. Reading the passage makes this so simple. Paul is saying that the church is the house of the living God and he (God) was manifest in the flesh. You have to work really hard to get something so convuluted out of my words. It is totally uncalled for.
Again, you have totally missed the point of the whole discussion. You started off complaining that the MVs made God a created and second God. I showed you to be wrong. My concern is not with whether "son" or "God" is the most clear. My concern is with what John actually wrote. The evidence indicates that John wrote "God" and someone along the way changed it to "son." My point was that the MVs are clearer; my point was not that the KJV does not teach his deity here.
You need to become more familiar with the process of argumentation and learn to keep your eye on the ball, so to speak. You have started chasing rabbit trails that have little to do with the conversation. So let me summarize for you here.
1. John 1:18 should read "God" not "son."
2. John 1:18 should read "unique" or "one and only," not only begotten.
3. Both teh KJV and the MVs clearly and unquestionably affirm the deity of Christ in this verse.
4. The issue should center on what John actually wrote, not the version we would like to defend.
Any questions?