There is a LOT of people who "use it(AV)" but dont believe it for one second..
Only Begotten God?
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Faith Fact Feeling, Feb 5, 2003.
Page 2 of 6
-
-
BTW, I don't think this JW would agree with you. She was usually very frustrated that her "proof" was shown to be unreliable.
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. -
-
Was Jesus Christ "the only begotten God"? -
I asked you first. Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
-
Of course I believe he was "begotten" and "God". Silly argument. You and Brian think alike. Keep skirting the issue. I believe he was "begotten son". I do not believe he was "begotten God". Now, your turn.
[ February 06, 2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: Preach the Word ] -
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. -
Ransom,
Finally, and honest straitforward answer. I'm glad you finally admit your "heretical" belief that Christ was "clearly and and unequivocably" the only begotten God. Christ was fully man from his being begotten in the flesh, and fully God from eternity. He was a begotten son (in the flesh), and an eternal (not created, not begotten, etc.) God. Thank you for your clear admission. -
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. You call me Nestorious, I call you JW.
Your trying to justify the hereasy of this questionable reading based on your deep love for modern scholarship. Give it up. :rolleyes: -
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? -
Only the "son of God"? The apostles used it 48 times in the NT. Good enough for them, good enough for me. Did God love you so much he gave his only begotten God for you?
-
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? -
Mr. "guilt by association", I wonder if you have more than one line of reasoning? I'm really bored with this one. :rolleyes:
JWs like your John 1:18 for a very good reason and you know it. What's your argument this time, guilt by association? -
-
I have yet to address it huh. Reread my 5th post. This is an endless debate tactic. One that can be argued an ifinite variety of ways, all to no avail. Rave on.
So they also like Rom 8:16, Rev 3:14, Col 1:15 and many other verses in the KJV? There's not a manuscript or translation issue with these verses. Where's the problem? :confused: And I find interpretation of them does not require the wild antics I have seen you use for "begotten God". -
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. -
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.
Page 2 of 6