Regarding John 3:16, which do you prefer?

Jesus is begotten by the father in His essence, hence fully God, always been the Son, while we were all adopted in!

 

Another Mormon splinter sect?

 

begotten refers to Jesus being very God of very God, as he was and is the eternal God the Son, so those seeing it making him created as misguided on this!

 

No, but I looked it up. My hermeneutic is the inspired intended message is singular. So while many possible understandings can be considered, only one was intended. OTOH, misunderstandings of a word or message could fill a mind with darkness.

 

Not what John 3:16 says. And some of the above nonsense is unbiblical, like our adoption is not in the future.

 

We have been adopted by God the father now, but it does not yet been fulfilled, as that awaits our glorification event!
John wrote to us in His prologue that the Word was eternally begotten, was with the Father, and became the man Jesus....

 

Utter nonsense, see Romans 8:23.

Calvinists redefine words to pour their false doctrine into scripture. Monegenes means unique not begotten. Adoption refers to the redemption of our bodies at Christ's second coming, not being born anew.

 

We already have been adopted in the beloved right now, or else we would not have eternal life!

 

Kjv

 

His flesh was created.

 

Yes, but this verse isn't talking about his flesh. If it was Adam would qualify as well.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

A Biblical message will usually only have one meaning (except for some prophetic passages). The term polysemy is not about messages but individual words, which very often have more than one meaning, and should be translated according to context, not usually by concordance.

 

only Begotten would indeed speak to His uniqueness, as He is eternally God!

 

Notice the same false claim, and no reference to scripture. Just read Romans 8:23 folks. Our adoption is future.

 

I am sure you think you are contributing, Sir, but since you have not said monegenes means unique or one of a kind, your contribution does not seem edifying. And I am surprised you think words should not be translated using concordant historical meanings based on context.

 

The whole point of my mentioning polysemy is that yes, monogenes means all of those: unique, one of a kind, and only begotten. The meaning is determined by context. In John 3, the context is clearly about birth, so monogenes means "only begotten" there.

I'm surprised that you think I think that.

 

One could say based on the more immediate context, verse 13...the uniqueness of Jesus is on display...how he is the only one to do something...and accordingly unique is better. Plus the context of the first 3 chapters is showing how Jesus is unique not only among man, but also unique among the God head(ch1). Chapter one is important for us to understand John's use of the word, since it is the only other place John uses μονογενής....and John is stressing the uniqueness of Jesus among every other being in existence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Ephesians 1:5-7 past tense adoption!

 

John also though was stressing that Jesus was unique due to being only begotten, so stressing his deity by that term!

 

You can translate the word as "unique" in either place and not be wrong. The problem for the translator is that monogenes is ambiguous in these contexts. There is no one English word that covers both meanings. Therefore, the translator has to make an exegetical choice.

Again, my exegetical choice of "only begotten" in John 3 is based on the immediate context, which was about birth.