The difference but the same!

So am I correct in assuming that you do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

Neal

 

Monogenes=only begotten Son.Not a only beggoten god,period.

 

Somebody here ... and we won't say who ... is not familiar with the truth. Monogenes means unique or one of a kind. John 1:18 is tremendous support for the deity of Christ in virtually every version except the KJV. There, they call Christ the Son, where the MVs unequivocally call him God. The discussion here indicates why "begotten" is an unfortunate translation. Some of you have fallen prey to believeing that "begotten" means Came into being, and with that view you rightly object to arguing that God came into being. However, you fail to take into account what the word actually means (only) and the doctrine of the eternal sonship of Christ (Christ never came into being; he was always the son).

The point is that simple knowledge of the word monogenes makes this issue go away. In reading the first chapter of John, we realize that John is showing that the "Word became flesh" (v 14) is "the one and only God" (v. 18) Case closed. You guys are trying to make an issue of something that is so patently obvious that you have to be trying to miss it. Yet you have succeeded in that.

This is an old, often rehashed, issue that has been exposed as a lame attempt to exalt the KJV over other versions. What is clear to the objective mind is that the MVs are explicity on teh deity of Christ when they call him God (as John did). The KJV is not as clear when it calls him "Son" (instead of calling him what John did).

 

Does monogenes really mean what you said? Does it include the word son, or is there another word translated that?

Also, am I correct in assuming that you do not believe that Jesus was God incarnate?

Neal

 

I will, it'sYOU..

Oh? Strong's "#3439 monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child)." Mono=One, Genes=offspring,child,having to do with geneaology.

Gimmie a break!! Monogenes=only beggoten son.Not Theos(god).

Psalm 2:7,read it.And Isa 5:20 too!!

 

monogenes means "one of a kind" or "unique." The difference lies in the textual difference. The best mss have theos (God) while the mss the KJV are derived from have huios (son).

 

Hey, if you want to start throwing up quotes, I am sure that we could put up many to the contrary.

Neal

 

Mono = Only

GenEs from GennaO = to beget or to be begotten.

monogenEs = only begotten. </font>[/QUOTE]Pine = Fir tree

Apple = fruit

Pineapple = Pine tree fruit ... Oops ... except that doesn't work now does it.

A compound word is not always the sum of its part. When you study the word monogenes is all of its uses, you find that it means one of a kind. JYD, I do know what I am talking about and your comment about me was unfounded and untrue. You should know that. I have demonstrated time and time again that I know what I am talking about and you have never been able to refute any of it.

The issue in this verse is not about that word however. The difference is theos vs. huios. You are dead wrong when you say that monogenes means "only begotten God." It doesn't. It may mean "only begotten" but even that would be a misunderstanding because Christ never came into existence. He is eternal; he was not begotten by anyone. He is however, God. If you wish to deny that Jesus is God, the KJV is the only version that will support you in this verse. My NASB is explicit that Jesus is God; your KJV is not.

The argument of John 1 is not that JEsus is the Son. THe argument is that Jesus is God. That is why John wrote monogenes theos, meaning unique or one and only God.

It would be helpful for you if you would start learning instead of repeating teh same old things you have been taught by those who were misleading you. Let's take some steps forward here.

 

[/b]So if 44 first graders in the lunch room tell you one thing and 12 teachers tell you another, who do you think is most trustworthy??? Obviously teh teachers right???

You see truth is not left up to a majority vote. We are not counting heads to see what to believe. The 12 mss carry more weight. What if those 44 were all copies from a manuscripts in which a scribe who changed theos to huios, because he followed the Gnostic view that said a human could not be God because the spiritual could not combine with the material? That would be a problem (and that is most likely what happened). The scribe considered "theos" too difficult and changed it to Huios. He changed the word of God and the KJV followed it.

Moorman doesn't know what he is talking about. This does not create an intermediary God. If he knew what monogenes meant, he would realize that John was not talking about an intermediary God. He uses the word "monogenes" to point to the fact that this God in human flesh is teh monogenes, the one and only. Moorman's comment is not the least bit interesting. It is misleading and false.

 

So to **** with the evedence,just go by what others have told you,right?

Sir,you cant see the forrest for the trees!

Obviously you dont;two gods eh? way to go!

And you know this to be an absolute fact? Well folks,Isa 5:20 is here,alive and well!

[ June 04, 2003, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Barnabas7 ]

 

So to Hell with the evedence,just go by what others have told you,right?</font>[/QUOTE]Profanity is unacceptable in this forum. However, I have urged you time and time again to consider the evidence, but you refuse. I have given the evidence. You reject it.

Sir,you cant see the forrest for the trees!</font>[/QUOTE]We were not talking about forests or trees. The reality is that John called Jesus "God" in John 1:18 and you are unwilling to accept it. The "intermediary God" was a gnostic invention because they could not handle the idea of supernatural God in human flesh. John 1:18 is a testimony that the Word in Flesh was the "one and only God."

Obviously you dont;two gods eh? way to go!</font>[/QUOTE]I do and I have cited it many times. I have urged you to look at the other places where it is used in the NT. In every place, it means unique or one of a kind. You are the one who doesn't know what it means.

And you know this to be an absolute fact? Well folks,Isa 5:20 is here,alive and well! </font>[/QUOTE]No, I do not know it to be an absolute fact. But you have no reasonable alternative that deals with the evidence that you earlier implored me to use. I have used the evidence. You have not. To invoke Isa 5:20 is but another twisting of Scripture by someone who has no actual support from the text. You resort to yanking Scripture out of context because you have no actual support for your position. That is a shame and it is a very poor use of Scripture.

 

JYD,
I fear that you may have a learning disability. Pastor Larry explains the situation concerning the "one and only" Son of God and you don't see it. Is it a problem of actually understanding what he is saying or is it that you, for some reason or another, refuse to acknowledge plain truth?

In all the past months of hearing you repeat yourself over and over I have yet to see where you answer a question with a factual answer. Is it because you are determined to believe myths or is it because you do not have an answer?

Anyway, thanks Pastor Larry for you excellent explanation of the facts.

 

Now you gotta laugh at that one.

A." No, I do not know it to be an absolute fact."

B."Anyway, thanks Pastor Larry for you excellent explanation of the facts."

Facts!? God help us all!

Hello!? someone needs to read Isa 59:14,and badly!!

 

Now you gotta laugh at that one.

A." No, I do not know it to be an absolute fact."

B."Anyway, thanks Pastor Larry for you excellent explanation of the facts."

Facts!? God help us all!</font>[/QUOTE]MVN, Are you intentionally being dishonest or do really struggle this much with understanding written correspondance?

"A" deals with a proposed explaination of how a scribe might have changed God to Son. "B" deals with Pastor Larry's explaination of what the word monogenes means. There. Now please explain whether you understood this and were intentionally dishonest by twisting the words around or whether you were not able to follow the conversation. In either case, you owe an apology.

Yes. I agree that you do. You have been neither truthful nor fair in your treatment of these quotes.

 

This topic has been brought way too low. Game over.