How to spot the Devil

[BeyondET]

You should peep John 1:18 in Greek, considering you quoted it in reference to Jesus. "Only begotten son" does not actually say son. It says "only begotten God." The phrase "God the Son" may not be in Scripture, but Jesus is identified as both God and son in various places.

Post it

 

[Neogaia777]

The only chosen, by God among the gods, to be God, by God, with God, from among the gods, etc...

Or, the one and only chosen/choice One, from among the ones, by the One, to be the One, with that One, etc...

Or at least the very first one/One anyway, etc...

But more would follow, etc...

God Bless!

Already chosen from "before the foundation of the world", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Fervent]

Post it

John 1:18 Interlinear: God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.

 

[Neogaia777]

The only chosen, by God among the gods, to be God, by God, with God, from among the gods, etc...

Or, the one and only chosen/choice One, from among the ones, by the One, to be the One, with that One, etc...

Or at least the very first one/One anyway, etc...

But more would follow, etc...

God Bless!

Already chosen from "before the foundation of the world", etc...

God Bless!

Chosen by God the Spirit because He was found to be "perfect" and "without spot or blemish", and "100% completely sinless and blameless", etc, and chosen of/by God the Father because He just always was, and was always just the way the/that One (Father God) had always made Him, etc...

God Bless!

 

[BeyondET]

John 1:18 Interlinear: God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.

wheres the only begotten God you mentioned?

 

[Fervent]

wheres the only begotten God you mentioned?

I take it you didn't click the link. The phrase the KJV translated to "only begotten son" is "monogenes theos." The English analogue for "theos" is god. Here's the Greek with the relevant portion bolded:

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

 

[BeyondET]

I take it you didn't click the link. The phrase the KJV translated to "only begotten son" is "monogenes theos." The English analogue for "theos" is god. Here's the Greek with the relevant portion bolded:

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

they got it right the KJV

ἐνσαρκωθεις

 

[Fervent]

they got it right the KJV

And how did you decide this?

 

[BeyondET]

And how did you decide this?

Do you think Greek is perfect? they had their own issues

 

[BeyondET]

μονογενής, μονογενές (μόνος and γένος) (Cicero,unigena; Vulg. (in Lukeunicus, elsewhere) and in ecclesiastical writingsunigenitus), single of its kind, only (A. V. only-begotten); used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents), Hesiod theog. 426, 448; Herodotus 7, 221; Plato, Critias 113 d.; Josephus, Antiquities 1, 13, 1; 2, 7, 4; μονογενές τέκνον πατρί, Aeschylus Ag. 898. So in the Scriptures: Hebrews 11:17; μονογενῆ εἶναι τίνι (to be one's only son or daughter), Judges 11:34; Tobit 3:15; Luke 7:12; Luke 8:42; Luke 9:38; (cf. Westcott on Epistles of John, pp. 162ff). Hence, the expression ὁ μονογενής υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ and υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ μονογονης, John 3:16, 18; John 1:18 (see below); 1 John 4:9; μονογενής παρά πατρός, John 1:14 (some take this generally, owing to the omission of the article (cf. Green, pp. 48f)), used of Christ, denotes the only son of God or one who in the sense in which he himself is the son of God has no brethren. He is so spoken of by John not because ὁ λόγος which was ἐνσαρκωθεις in him was eternally generated by God the Father (the orthodox interpretation), or came forth from the being of God just before the beginning of the world (Subordinationism), but because by the incarnation (ἐνσαρκωσις) of the λόγος in him he is of nature or essentially Son of God, and so in a very different sense from that in which men are made by him τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ (John 1:13). For since in the writings of John the title ὁ ἱυος τοῦ Θεοῦ is given only to the historic Christ so called, neither the Logos alone, nor Jesus alone, but ὁ λόγος ὁ ἐνσαρκωθεις or Jesus through the λόγος united with God, is ὁ μονογενής υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ. The reading μονογενής Θεός (without the article before μονογενής) in John 1:18, — which is supported by no inconsiderable weight of ancient testimony, received into the text by Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, defended with much learning by Dr. Hort ("On μονογενής Θεός in Scripture and Tradition in his Two Dissertations" Camb. and Lond. 1876), and seems not improbable to Harnack (in the Theol. Lit.-Zeit. for 1876, p. 541ff) (and Weiss (in Meyer 6te Aufl. at the passage)), but is foreign to John's mode of thought and speech (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), dissonant and harsh — appears to owe its origin to a dogmatic zeal which broke out soon after the early days of the church; (see articles on the reading by Prof. Abbot in the Bib. Sacr. for Oct. 1861 and in the Unitarian Rev. for June 1875 (in the latter copious references to other discussions of the same passage are given); see also Prof. Drummond in the Theol. Rev. for Oct. 1871). Further, see Grimm, Exgt. Hdbch. on Sap., p. 152f; (Westcott as above).

 

[Fervent]

Do you think Greek is perfect? they had their own issues

And that's supposed to prove...what, exactly? Greek is the language that the Bible was originally written in(though given that the reason the KJV reads "son" is textual variance selecting between the two readings is not a simple up or down). Ultimately, though, what the Greek demonstrates is that "son" in that passage is not merely meant to convey a familial relationship, but "monogenes theos/huios" is a title directly in opposition to your claim that "God the Son" is not in the Bible.

 

[BeyondET]

And that's supposed to prove...what, exactly? Greek is the language that the Bible was originally written in(though given that the reason the KJV reads "son" is textual variance selecting between the two readings is not a simple up or down). Ultimately, though, what the Greek demonstrates is that "son" in that passage is not merely meant to convey a familial relationship, but "monogenes theos/huios" is a title directly in opposition to your claim that "God the Son" is not in the Bible.

that is no different than saying the old testament was written in the Septuagint, its mute IMO.

many languages was written on the notice and lot of the accounts of the NT and you would of found the writings in those languages of the time.

the bible was not totally written in Greek as you mentioned the original language of the bible.

 

[BeyondET]

Greek is not the end all for sure.
....
Modern linguistics (thanks to the input of cognisant Messianic Jewish and gentile scholars) shows that the text themselves don't lend to an "original Greek" translation. A very good book you want to get with dozens of examples is, The Semitic Origin of the New Testament, by James Trimm. This can be ordered via www.nazarene.net. Also recommended is the Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Research Institute at www.nazarene.net/hantri/

A HEBREW OR GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?

 

[Fervent]

Greek is not the end all for sure.
....
Modern linguistics (thanks to the input of cognisant Messianic Jewish and gentile scholars) shows that the text themselves don't lend to an "original Greek" translation. A very good book you want to get with dozens of examples is, The Semitic Origin of the New Testament, by James Trimm. This can be ordered via www.nazarene.net. Also recommended is the Hebrew/Aramaic New Testament Research Institute at www.nazarene.net/hantri/

A HEBREW OR GREEK NEW TESTAMENT?

Did you read what you linked? Because it doesn't say what you seem to be trying to claim it says, as it is speaking of mindset not language(which is debateable). Excepting Matthew, the NT was written in Greek and all of the extant manuscripts are in Greek. If we are going to determine what the Bible means, that meaning must be consistent with the original Greek. Throwing mud simply because you do not like how the original Greek reads says volumes about how you handle Scripture, though.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have no issue with the Word of God on earth.

you mean the Catholic Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

Yes, which is part of the Statement of Faith for Christianforums.com. And it is Catholic but not Roman Catholic; Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Moravians, Eastern Orthodox all subscribe to it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Greek is not the end all for sure.
....
Modern linguistics (thanks to the input of cognisant Messianic Jewish and gentile scholars) shows that the text themselves don't lend to an "original Greek" translation.

You are at best confusing the hypothesis of an Aramaic substrate to the Greek original, which is valid, with Aramaic primacy, which is invalid, because philologists have shown the New Testament we now have was written originally in the Hellenic tongue, and the attempts of some faith communities to ignore that discredit Christianity.

At any rate, please do us all a favor and read the CF.com Statement of Faith.

 

[BeyondET]

Did you read what you linked? Because it doesn't say what you seem to be trying to claim it says, as it is speaking of mindset not language(which is debateable). Excepting Matthew, the NT was written in Greek and all of the extant manuscripts are in Greek. If we are going to determine what the Bible means, that meaning must be consistent with the original Greek. Throwing mud simply because you do not like how the original Greek reads says volumes about how you handle Scripture, though.

you didn't read what i posted, i am not throwing mud because you don't like what i posted haha. If you don't agree that is fine

 

[BeyondET]

Yes, which is part of the Statement of Faith for Christianforums.com. And it is Catholic but not Roman Catholic; Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Moravians, Eastern Orthodox all subscribe to it.

And I am none of those

 

[BeyondET]

You are at best confusing the hypothesis of an Aramaic substrate to the Greek original, which is valid, with Aramaic primacy, which is invalid, because philologists have shown the New Testament we now have was written originally in the Hellenic tongue, and the attempts of some faith communities to ignore that discredit Christianity.

At any rate, please do us all a favor and read the CF.com Statement of Faith.

do you a favor huh, really

 

[BeyondET]

More than likely a lot of the account was written in these languages

John 19
20 Many of the Jews read this sign, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek.