Only Begotten God?

There is a LOT of people who "use it(AV)" but dont believe it for one second..

 

Please point out what I have refused to understand. I understand the KJVO arguments just fine while recognizing that they do not stand the test of "proving all things."

This personal attack is based on what? After you have known me personally for how long? Again, if you think I am unintelligent then please show your proof. If my arguments are somehow not reasonable or based on false information, please share your "acumen" and enlighten me.

BTW, I don't think this JW would agree with you. She was usually very frustrated that her "proof" was shown to be unreliable.

Another personal attack? I am well aware of this and am pretty sure that "son" is MT as well.

This comment raises serious doubts as to whether you have read many of my posts. I personally think that the older mss should receive weighted consideration but not to the extent that they currently are.

Yes, notice the capitalization. Do you actually think that the term "son" causes the JW's more heartburn than the word "God"? I would suspect they chose this reading specifically so they could make the g lower case to support their doctrine that Jesus was a lesser god.

None the less, when translated properly as "God" and not "god", JW's choke on this text because it is in context with John 1:1. Together, these verses clearly declare Christ's deity... the CT more clearly than the MT/TR.

 

There is a LOT of people who "use it(AV)" but dont believe it for one second.. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree completely with this rule... but without applying a double standard with respect to MV's. The fact that a cult or a liberal or (name your aberrant group) uses a Bible version proves nothing with regard to its accuracy, worth, or claim to the title "Word of God."

 

I asked you first. Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

 

Faith, Fact & Feeling said:

Of course I believe he was "begotten" and "God".

Well, then, you should have no problem with a Bible verse that calls him both "begotten" and "God" plainly and clearly, should you?

I believe he was "begotten son". I do not believe he was "begotten God".

In other words, you make the same heretical distinction as the Nestorians did, that the Virgin Mary did not bear God in the flesh, but only Jesus the man.

Interesting company you keep for someone supposedly committed to guarding God's words.

Now, your turn.

Jesus Christ is, indeed, the only begotten God. John 1:18 says so, clearly and unequivocably.

 

Glad to be of help, Nestorius. Any time. Say hi to Arius and Sabellius for me.

 

Ransom, you JWs are at least forthright.

Apparently you have become confused, Nestorius. I am not a Jehovah's Witness.

However, although you are trying to avoid the JWs' Arian misunderstanding of John 1:18, you have gone and committed the opposite heresy of dividing the human and divine nature of Christ.

I will, however, continue to believe the Word of God, which says that the Father begat, and Mary bore, God Incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

 

Oh come on now Ransom. You're really getting ridiculous trying to justify this reading.

I am standing up for the clear and unequivocal truth. Jesus Christ was and is the begotten God.

Speaking of JWs, why are you trying to justify a verse that says only that Jesus is the Son of God?

 

It is not heretical to believe Jesus was "the only begotten God". What could be heretical is what a person means when they say that. Again I remind you that the vast majority of Baptists have no problem with this, because Jesus was God and Jesus was begotten. It is only a fringe minority that has a problem with this, and only because they are talking about a different meaning than the rest of Christianity.

What you are saying is that the reading is wrong because some cultists interpret it differently that mainline Christianity. That's hogwash. The *reading* is not wrong, just *their interpretation* of it. Again I remind you of the Mormons. If a *reading* is wrong because some cultists interpret it differently than mainline Christianity, then you have to throw out most of the KJV. Rev 3:14 in the KJV calls Jesus "the beginning of the creation of God". JWs and Mormons interpret this to mean Jesus was the first thing created. So, is the *reading* wrong, or just their *interpretation*?

You really wanna play "guilty by association"? OK, let's play. Have you noticed how both JWs and you are interpreting "only begotten God" one way, and us and mainline Christianity interprets it differently?

 

Whether you are bored with it or not is irrelevant. I will continue to use it because it is solid, it shows the fundamental fault of your argument, and because you have yet to address it.

Yes, they like it *because of their interpretation of it*. They also like Rom 8:16, Rev 3:14, Col 1:15 and many other verses in the KJV *for the same reason* - they can (wrongly) apply their interpretation on the words. It is not the reading that is wrong, but the interpretation. A correct interpretation exists - only they (and now apparently you) reject the correct interpretation.

 

There is nothing in your 5th post that refutes my points. Care to elaborate?

The problem is that we are dealing with an *interpretational* issue. The JWs (and you) are in agreement with how to interpret the phrase "begotten God". Mainline Christians interpret it differently. You are opposing solid Christianity because you are agreeing with the JWs on how to interpret the passage. The problem is not with me, but with you.

Agreeing with mainline Christianity that Jesus being "begotten" and "God" means the same as "begotten God" is "wild antics"? Exposing your guilty-by-association argument is "wild antics"? OK, whatever.

At least you're getting some exercise, running in all those circles.

 

Faith, Fact and/or Feeling said:

Rave on.

How ironic that I just finished up a post on another forum about Buddy Holly's ties to his family Baptist church - Tabernacle Baptist Church of Lubbock, Texas, whose current pastor is a raving KJV-onlyist named E. L. Bynum - before coming over to the Baptist Board and first seeing a post including the above.

You gotta laugh.

 

This is really a simple matter of common sense: Is the deity of Christ clearer if we call him "God" or "Son"? Of course, the reading theos is the more clear testimony to the deity of Christ thus showing that the MVs are stronger on the deity of Christ than the KJV.

The issue regarding the word begotten is unfortunate because someone doesn't know what it means. The idea of begotten means unique or one of a kind, as every other use of monogenes in the NT will testify.

The "only begotten Son" is a problem for those who argue as FFF has done here. If a "begotten God" means God came into existence, then "begotten Son" means that the Son came into existence. However, Scripture teaches eternal Sonship, thus showing that the argument FFF has put forth shows the KJV to be a heretical translation as he has understood it.

The idea of begotten can be explained in two ways: First, we can use the most accurate and clear translation and say "unique" or "one and only." That removes all confusion. Second we can understood the connection of Christ as the davidic ruler with the coronation hymn of Psalm 2 that shows "begotten" referring to a position of honor bestowed by God on the davidic ruler. Either explanation will suffice though the former is to be preferred.

Monogenes means one of a kind or only or unique in all of its uses. It means the same thing here. "God" is clearly the better testimony to the deity of Christ. This is an argument that actually works against the KJV.