Only Begotten God?

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"?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

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”.

 

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.