What Difference Does It Make?

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[37818]

 

[JonC]

I like the NASB rendering....God AND Son.

John 1:18 (NASB95): No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

 

[Conan]

manuscripts are only ONE part of the overall evidence!

Did you know that the reading accepted for the reading in Colossians 2:2 ending, τοῦ Θεοῦ Χριστοῦ, is only found in TWO Greek Mss.!

The Church Fathers are MUCH OLDER than your 99% so called "evidence", and they read GOD!

For accuracy.

 

[SavedByGrace]

View attachment 9496
For accuracy.

meaning what?

 

[Conan]

meaning what?

For accuracy. The complete, or more complete evidence. Like how Irenaeus is cited 3 different times in Latin for 3 different variant readings @ John 1:18. Although he wrote in Greek, here in this part of John his writings are only preserved in Latin , not Greek.

1 out of 3 times Irenaeus is cited for John 1:18 "the only begotten Son".
1 out of 3 times "only begotten Son God".
1 out of 3 times "only begotten God" .
Of course you can replace "only begotten" with your favorite translation.

I could list which readings in the apparatus are supported by what witnesses if you wish?

 

[SavedByGrace]

For accuracy. The complete, or more complete evidence. Like how Irenaeus is cited 3 different times in Latin for 3 different variant readings @ John 1:18. Although he wrote in Greek, here in this part of John his writings are only preserved in Latin , not Greek.

1 out of 3 times Irenaeus is cited for John 1:18 "the only begotten Son".
1 out of 3 times "only begotten Son God".
1 out of 3 times "only begotten God" .
Of course you can replace "only begotten" with your favorite translation.

I could list which readings in the apparatus are supported by what witnesses if you wish?

Thanks. I have all of the variant readings for this verse. I have given is what I believe to be the best textual evidence for the reading GOD as originally written by John

 

[JonC]

What one has to prove in order to prove that the manuscripts are teaching different doctrines is that:

Jesus was not born of Mary (He was not begotten).

Or

Jesus ceased being God when He was born (He is not the Only Begotten God).


Only if one of those can be proven would the variants be teaching different doctrines.

 

[SavedByGrace]

What one has to prove in order to prove that the manuscripts are teaching different doctrines is that:

Jesus was not born of Mary (He was not begotten).

Or

Jesus ceased being God when He was born (He is not the Only Begotten God).


Only if one of those can be proven would the variants be teaching different doctrines.

Don't know what you are on about

 

[JonC]

Don't know what you are on about

I'm talking about whether there are differences in doctrine between variations. Thus far there are none.

It is like arguing over "I bought a car" vs "I bought an automobile".

The argument then is that "car" comes from the Latin "carrum" and "automobile" is a compound word derived from the Greek αὐτός (self) and Latin mobilis (movable).

It is silly because nobody in the debate can cite a difference in what is actually being said.

No Christian denies that Jesus is the only begotten God. No Christian denies that Jesus is God's only and unique Son. Otherwise they would not be Christian (they'd probably be Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons).

 

[SavedByGrace]

No Christian denies that Jesus is the only begotten God.

Only if the BEGETTING is His human nature out of the Virgin Mary. Not His Divine Nature in the Godhead

 

[JonC]

Only if the BEGETTING is His human nature out of the Virgin Mary. Not His Divine Nature in the Godhead

In terms of the passage it is. That is why one could leave out "begotten" and add "son" (it carries the same meaning).

Those who consider "begotten" to be eternally begotten (whether right or wrong) do so not to indicate a beginning but a generation or going forth (aka....the Word).

John's use of logos supports the idea of an eternally begotten Son. Even before Jesus was born to Mary, He was the Word.

This would mean that even before He was born to Mary, God existed as the Father.

 

[SavedByGrace]

In terms of the passage it is. That is why one could leave out "begotten" and add "son" (it carries the same meaning).

Those who consider "begotten" to be eternally begotten (whether right or wrong) do so not to indicate a beginning but a generation or going forth (aka....the Word).

John's use of logos supports the idea of an eternally begotten Son. Even before Jesus was born to Mary, He was the Word.

This would mean that even before He was born to Mary, God existed as the Father.

The Word was never "generated"

He IS The Eternal YHWH

 

[JonC]

The Word was never "generated"

He IS The Eternal YHWH

Different definition.

The theogical concept is called "Eternal Generation" and was codified in the Nicene Creed (325 AD). It is the same principle as Eternal Procession but applies to the Son rather than the Spirit.


I suspect that most who object to the term "begotten God" do so because they do not understand what that actually means. They look at "generation" as you are looking at generation, not realizing the theology behind the use of the word.


That does not make the concepts right....or wrong. But your argument is misplaced.

The question here is whether "the Word (logos) is appropriate. If so, then you probably hold that Jesus is the only begotten God and Eternal Generation but do not like the title of these theological terms.

 

[37818]

Different definition.

There is only the one Biblical LORD God. The Trinity of three distinct Persons are the one and the same LORD God.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Different definition.

The theogical concept is called "Eternal Generation" and was codified in the Nicene Creed (325 AD). It is the same principle as Eternal Procession but applies to the Son rather than the Spirit.


I suspect that most who object to the term "begotten God" do so because they do not understand what that actually means. They look at "generation" as you are looking at generation, not realizing the theology behind the use of the word.


That does not make the concepts right....or wrong. But your argument is misplaced.

The question here is whether "the Word (logos) is appropriate. If so, then you probably hold that Jesus is the only begotten God and Eternal Generation but do not like the title of these theological terms.

The teachings of Eternal Generation is 100% The HIGHEST BLASPHEMY and HERESY!!! and from the devil himself

 

[JonC]

There is only the one Biblical LORD God. The Trinity of three distinct Persons are the one and the same LORD God.

I never said otherwise.

I am saying that Eternal Generation and generation in the sence one had a beginning are different definitions.

Eternal Generation is the doctrine that the Son (here I mean a distinct Person of the Trinity) is the Word (His position in the Trinity did not change).

 

[37818]

I am saying that Eternal Generation and generation in the sence one had a beginning are different definitions.

The concept of eternal generation is claiming a cause [generation] without a beginning, which is conceptually contrary to being Yahweh who is being without cause.

 

[JonC]

The teachings of Eternal Generation is 100% The HIGHEST BLASPHEMY and HERESY!!! and from the devil himself

I did not say it was correct, only that it is the orthodox Chriatian view of the Son within the Trinity and was codified Nicene Creed and is a part of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

That said, you are wrong. In fact, you are the heretic here (you reject the Doctrine of the Trinity).

Had you said it is "unbiblical" you could have made an argument. Saying orthodox Christianity is "heresy" is stupid (orthodoxy defines heresy).

Here is the doctrine in full:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through him all things were made.

It is also upheld in the Chalcedon Creed.

And is expressed in the following creeds:

Westminster Confession
1689 Baptist Confession
New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833)
First London Confession of 1636
London Baptist Confession of 1644
Even the Synod of Dort

So obviously you are wrong about the doctrine being a heresy. It is orthodox Christianity


That does not necessarily mean it is Biblical.


In its basic form all Eternal Generation means is that Jesus is the Word - eternally. His position within the Trinity did not change.


Since you reject the doctrine as "heresy", please explain why John said that Jesus was the Word EVEN BEFORE HIS BIRTH.

Explain how Jesus' position within the Trinity changed so that He became the Word.