John 1:18

You have already been shown that this is false. Just to refresh your memory, here is John 1:18 from a number of Modern Versions taken from http://www.biblegateway.com

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (ASV 1901)

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.(CEV)

No one has ever seen God. But God the only Son is very close to the Father,[a] and he has shown us what God is like.(NCV)

No one has ever seen God. [a] The One and Only (A) Son [b] —
the One who is at the Father's (B) side [c] —
He has revealed Him. (HCSB)


No one has ever seen God. But his only Son is very near to his Father's heart. He has told us plainly about God.(World English NT)


No one has ever seen God, but the one and only [Son], who is himself God and [a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.(TNIV)


No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[a] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.(NKJV)

 

Askjo has a choice here- he can face the TRUTH or continue to repeat lies. I do consider him a brother in the Lord and pray for him but I have to rebuke his continuous repeating of untruths.

 

No, God is not "begotten", but neither is Christ a literally "begotten" Son. "Begotten" means 'to father' (as in 'sire') or 'to bring into existance' (as in 'produce'). Did God produce the Son? No. Did God sire the Son? No.

The word "begotten" should never be separated from the word "only" when applied to the Seond Person of the Godhead. Jesus Christ is not "begotten" (as defined above), but He is the "only begotten" which is a description of His status, that is, it is a declaration of His position (and has nothing to do with His origin). The term "only begotten" is a translation of a compound word (monogenes, Strong's #3439) where mono- is a necessary portion of the translation that means "only".

 

Don't you realize yet, which one is correct?

Do you still think "Only Begotten God" is correct?

1. Begotten is the word for the birth and it applies to the Father and Son relationship.

2. Only Begotten Son is already proven in John 3:16, 3:18,
Heb 1:5
Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee. (Isn't it applied to Son?)

3. When is the word Bosom used? It is Kolpon in Greek but the Hebrew behind it is Heq, and this word was mostly used for Son and Father or Son and Mother. See here.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H2436&t=KJV

4. Acts 13:33 also shows also the Father and Son relationship.
Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee.

5. Only Begotten Son applies to Incarnation and Resurrection, do you see ?

6. Have you ever seen any verse, which shows 2 God's in one verse?

7. Who do you think is in the Bosom of Father?
Is He Son? or God?


Could you not realize yet what is right in that sentence?

 

Eliyahu, please refrain from quoting other posts when you have no intention of addressing that quote's content in your pseudo-reply. Yes, you are the master of the non sequitur response; this is not a compliment.

 

So Jesus wasn't eternally the Son? He only became the son at the resurrection and incarnation?

Not even John 1:18 does this. The historic doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God, eternal and indivisible, in three persons. John 1:18 is a great testimony to this in that it is one of the few places that explicitly call Jesus "God."

He is God the Son. You are trying to make a dichotomy where none exists.

 

Wrong! You avoid other MVs rejecting "Son." Look at them saying, "God" on John 1:18

NIV

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

NASB

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

ESV

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

The Message

No one has ever seen God, not so much as a glimpse. This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, who exists at the very heart of the Father, has made him plain as day.

John 1:18 NWT (JW)

No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotton god who is in the bosom (position) with the Father, is the one that has explained him.

They agree with JW because Arians in 2nd -3rd Century favored, "God" instead of Son. Not only Arians, but Gnostics in 2nd - 3rd Century did likewise.

 

You will note that the NWT uses a LOWER CASE "g" for god, in contrast to the UPPER CASE "G" used b the MV's that you so selectively quoted. That lower-case "g" makes all the difference in the world. JW's believe that Jesus was a 'god' not THE God.

Are we on 10 pages yet?

 

Calvinism is wrong because of false teaching. You can't see many lies there because you are a Calvinist. Arminianism does likewise. The lie changed the world.

 

Did you not carefully read my post #14. Who cares? "G" or "g" -- I found the quotation from a source saying:

See "G" there????

 

Then demonstrate this (in the appropriate place). There have been many efforts by you and others. So far they have all fallen short.

That doesn't make sense. Why would being a Calvinist keep me from seeing lies?

And don't get off topic here.

 

John 1:18 KJV "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.

 

What's that? Write in English!

 

So, you basically agree with the Only Begotten Son, right?

 

Ah'm cornfused by this, somehow!

Actual Gnosticism appeared on the thread, and somehow Askjo missed it.

As Spock might have said to Captain Kirk and Dr. McCoy -

Ed

 

Begotten relationship existed when He was really begotten!, which occurred at the time of Incarnation and Resurrection. Begotten was complete at the time of Resurrection.

Apparently MV of 1:18 says 2 God's there. God the Father in the first half, then God the Son in the second half in the bosom of Father.
So, it teaches 2 God's in one sentence, which is found nowhere in the Bible else than in the verse allegedly claimed by MV/


Do you still think "Only Begotten God" is correct?

1. Begotten is the word for the birth and it applies to the Father and Son relationship.

2. Only Begotten Son is already proven in John 3:16, 3:18, 1 John 4:9
Heb 1:5
Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee. (Isn't it applied to Son?)

3. When is the word Bosom used? It is Kolpon in Greek but the Hebrew behind it is Heq, and this word was mostly used for Son and Father or Son and Mother. See here.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=H2436&t=KJV

4. Acts 13:33 also shows also the Father and Son relationship.
Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten Thee.

5. Only Begotten Son applies to Incarnation and Resurrection, do you see ?

6. Have you ever seen any verse, which shows 2 God's in one verse?

7. Who do you think is in the Bosom of Father?
Is He Son? or God?

8. We must note the absolute majority of the mss, which are discovered in the various locations, support " Only Begotten Son, while only a few ( maybe 6 max.) support "Only Begotten God"

9. The mss supporting " Only Begotten God" are Roman Catholic Text, Alexandrian Texts which are often used by JW's, Aleph, p75, which showed many errors often. On the other hand, the Only Begotten Son is supported by most of the mss retained by the average or true believers from various locations.

10. Do you think verse 14 " Only Begotten of Father" applies to Only Begotten God? verse 18 is the extension of verse 14. Read it closely.


Can anyone who can defend the "Only Begotten God" write the summary of the defense for it in the same manner as above? Then the readers can discern and judge them !

 

"FTR, the post was written in English."

Signed, Language Cop

 

Are you serious? Are you the same Eliyahu that seems to fancy himself as a pseudo-expert in languages?

The term non sequitur (Latin) has been adopted into common English in a similar way as such words and phrases of foreign origin like: kangaroo (Australian Aborginal), a la carte (French), banjo (African), gung-ho (Mandarin), kimono (Japanese), wiener (German), kibosh (Irish), cafeteria (Spanish), etc.

If you don't understand etc., look it up in an English dictionary.
__________________________________

Also, your reply was an ineffective attempt at misdirection. I wouldn't want you to admit that you don't actually address the issues brought to your attention. Making your responses about anything other than the essence of quoted posts are just diversions.

 

No, I am not wrong. You said that MV's deny Son. I simply showed that you have a very selective memory. You ignore what most MV's actually say and act as if they all say the same thing.

Nevertheless, all valid versions declare that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. So your charge of them all being gnostic is still a bunch of bull.

 

Nonsense. There is only one God. John 1:18 is one of the clearest testimonies to the deity of Christ in the whole Bible because it explicitly calls him "God."

Yes, I don't think there is really much doubt about it.

Most of your ten points are irrelevant to the actual issue so yes, anyone can write something like that. The reading "only begotten God" has been well defended in major commentaries and anyone who desires can read it and see.