John 8:58 and Trinitarians.

Does NOT answer my question!

There are NO, ZERO, NONE credible arguments against "monogenese theos."

NET notes 45tc The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh" qeo", “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh" Juio", “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for translation, it makes the most sense to see the word θεός as in apposition to μονογενής, and the participle ὁ ὤν (Jo wn) as in apposition to θεός, giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival adjective: “when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?” This, however, is an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, μονογενής in John 1:14 is substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed, μονογενής is already moving toward a crystallized substantival adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek, the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted: μονογενής alone, without υἱός, can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, θεός is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (qeo" hn Jo logo") means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity.” Finally, ὁ ὤν occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together leads to the translation given in the text.

tn Or “The unique one.” For the meaning of μονογενής (monogenh") see the note on “one and only” in 1:14.

46tn Grk “in the bosom of” (an idiom for closeness or nearness; cf. L&N 34.18; BDAG 556 s.v. κόλπος 1).

Why should I be so revealing when you don't bother to address the parts of my posts that are more troubling to your position?

sure it does. John 1 is about Jesus being the christ, the son of god, that is the correct interpretation of john 1. your interpretation of john 1. is that Jesus is god, that is an incorrect and false interpretation.

Please show me where John stated or implied that he did not, could not prove more than his statement in 28:31? Show me where John stated or implied that any other disciple did not, could not prove more than his statement in 28:31

NKJV, ASV, Young, all based on the KJV. No 19th or 20th century Bible translator used KJV Elizabethan language, e.g. "hath." Are there any modern language translations which use the translation "only begotten son" in John 1:18?

1. Manuscript (MS) attestation for monogenes theos is mostly in only one of the five MS
families—Alexandrian—but ho monogenes huios is widespread in all MS families.
2. During the ante-Nicene era, Alexandria, Egypt, was the center in the Roman Empire
of belief that Jesus was fully God. Consequently, non-professional scribes living in
Alexandria may have purposely changed huios to theos due to their Christology.
3. The visible Jesus being God is incompatible with no human ever seeing God.
4. Monogenes theos does not appear anywhere else in the entire NT.
5. Monogenes theos “in the bosom of the Father” is strange and nowhere else in the NT.
6. Monogenes theos is too developed as a theological concept to occur this early.
7. Monogenes theos is incompatible with the purpose of this gospel (John 20.31).
Reasons for ho mongenes huios being correct in John 1.18 are as follows:
1. Monogenes huios conforms to Johannine usage (John 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9).
2. Theos is likely a scribal error due to the similarity in abbreviations of it and huios.
3. A scribe could mistakenly have substituted theos for huios due to the immediately
preceding proximity of theou.
4. Being “in the bosom of the Father” is a Semitic idiom reflecting the child-father
relationship, suggesting huios. The Son in the Father links to the repeated Father-Son
motif and their mutual indwelling (John 10.38; 14.10-11, 20).
5. A corollary Johannine theme is that the Son declares, explains, or makes the Father
known by speaking and acting on his behalf (John 3.11-13; 5.19; 14.9-11; 15.15).




In conclusion, the arguments are about evenly divided for either variant. But the
following point is decisive: if John 1.1c, 5.18, 10.30-38, and 20.28 are interpreted as not
calling Jesus theos (“God”), then John 1.18 cannot be linked to any corresponding text in
this gospel. And linkage is the prologue’s purpose. Since ho monogenes huios clearly
links to John 3.16 and v. 18, the authentic Greek text of John 1.18 most likely is not
monogenes theos but ho monogenes huios, so that it does not call Jesus “God.”

It's not 'the word' it's all of God's words. the word is figurative for god's words.
flesh is figurative for Jesus, Jesus is more than just his flesh, flesh is a metonymy for Jesus .
John 1.14 states specifically how the word became flesh, by the Father begatting Jesus, not by some person of god incarnating as flesh, as a fetus, or however trinitarians choose to view it. In fact t o say that god incarnated himself into flesh contradicts several scriputres that say god begat Jesus. begatting is something totaally different than incarnatinig.
Jesus is the word, but he is also called a door, a good shepard a lamp, bread from heaven, and numerous other things, all of which are figurative. think about it, Jesus spoke only what his father, the one and only true god, gave him to speak, therefore he was always speaking the word, the word of god, so in that f igurative sense he is also the word of god, not only because he is the fulfillment of the word but also because he was always (hyperbole) going around speaking what god his father gave him to speak. Scripture specifically states these undeniable facts.

You said Jesus is god incarnate, that is the same thing as saying Jesus is god. besides every trinitarian i've ever run into says Jesus is god.

you said Jesus is god incarnate, i paraphrased it as you saying Jesus is god, and you make a big deal about it as if i totally misrerpesented what you said. that is ridiculous.

Interesting interpretation. Let me chew on it for a while.

I've run into many that have a problem with that phrasing, because it can lead to so many misunderstandings. Geez, it's just a predicative phrase, it could mean a dozen different things. Given the centuries and endless literature of Christian reflection on the subject, maybe it would pay to get a bit more specific in what we say, hmm?And now you're the one making the big deal out of something.

If I think "Jesus is God incarnate" is different from "Jesus is God," the correct way to proceed, if you wish to be polite, is not to assume they're the same, but rather:
1. Point out why they are not the same, or even better,
2. Ask me what difference I see in them.
These are basic etiquette and debate skills. Ask around.

saying anything in john means Jesus is god is incompatible with john20.31. Jesus being god is incompatible with Jesus being the son of god. (you can't be your own daddy)

Why do you refuse to engage my points, 2ducklow? Are you afraid of my answers? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the points I brought up, and you seem to be keeping up just fine with other users. Why am I different? What makes me worthy of ignoring?