timeless procreation.

[WagginDog]

Parables, analogys, metaphores, are used to explain spirtual truth that cannot be fully explained like waggindog stated are minds are limited.

So why destroy your self?

Good one, and I looked up the reference Eccles 7:16

If I went to a trinitarian church most probably i would not try and persuade anyone, unless they expressed to me some desire to do o.

That's just politics. Love can do a lot better than that. Love believes all things. You know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word? I John says love is the commandment we were given which we have heard from the beginning. That is an example of faith coming from love.

I think your saying that you sometimes go though 1000 possible meanings before you finally get the correct meaning the 1001 time. If so, I don't see how that means you don't need proof for a doctrine from the bible.

I Peter 1:23 says the word is living and eternally abides with us. I am saying it is a living thing, but proofs are dead things. They aren't good enough for what you and I need. Proof is something you use when you are in court, but you aren't supposed to put your brother in court.

typeology. Rachel weeping in Ramah is a type of what Herod caused to happen in his day in Bethlehem. jer. 31.15 was prophecy in type, fulfilled in Herods day. I don't see any problem. Proof? the proof is God said it in his word that Herod fulfilled the prophecy in Jer 31.

You believe it is proof because you love God, but you cannot demonstrate that this fulfillment makes sense out of the prophecy. Why isn't Bethlehem mentioned in the prophecy? Where is Rachel? In what way does this fulfill anything? What typology? Ok, so we believe it is a fulfillment because Matthew says so. How is that different from believing in the Trinity when other believers say so? Matthew is a believer, but you say his book is God speaking. You cannot prove it, because it is an axiom. That's the way axioms and proofs are.

 

[elopez]

Anybody want to own 'timeless procreation" as an explanation as to what "eternally" begotten means? Anybody have another idea as to what 'eternally begotten" means? Or is this just something you should accept with out trying to figure it out? Come on trinitarians explain 'eternally begotten".

The problem you are having in this argument is that you are trying to use English connotations on a word that is merely translated into English from Greek. We must look at the original Greek to determine the meaning. "Begotten" translates into the Greek word "monogenes," which has come to have two primary meanings, both of which I can tell you now have no meaning in the sense of beginning as there is with our children.

One of the definitions and which is meant to reference Jesus in John 3:16 is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." John was showing the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God as being of the same nature and substance as God, as opposed to believers who are sons of God through faith.

and what about God the Father, isn't he eternally begatting Jesus? And Mary, she has to be eternally conceiving Jesus, but she has to be a virgin, so is she eternally revirginized? How come nobody talks about these doctrines and just talks about 'eternally begotten." it's not fair.

I don't understand how Mary has to be eternally conceiving when in fact she was impregnated with Jesus at some point in time, which is the only manner that could be taken that Jesus as a man had a beginning, through the incarnation.

 

[Superfast]

Good one, and I looked up the reference Eccles 7:16

That's just politics. Love can do a lot better than that. Love believes all things. You know that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word? I John says love is the commandment we were given which we have heard from the beginning. That is an example of faith coming from love.

I Peter 1:23 says the word is living and eternally abides with us. I am saying it is a living thing, but proofs are dead things. They aren't good enough for what you and I need. Proof is something you use when you are in court, but you aren't supposed to put your brother in court.

you are trying to say that we do not need any proof for any doctrine that we have. That simply isn't reality, everyone looks for proof texts for their doctrine. you alone are belieing this no proof stuff.

You believe it is proof because you love God,

No, I believe it is proof because god said it and god doesnot ever lie.

but you cannot demonstrate that this fulfillment makes sense out of the prophecy. Why isn't Bethlehem mentioned in the prophecy? Where is Rachel?

I told you that the prophecy in Jerimiah was in typeology. do you understand what typeology is?

In what way does this fulfill anything?[/uote] jerimiah prophecised that Rachel would weep for her children, that was fulfilled when people in Jerusalem weeped for their children. Rachel represents those people in bethlem, her descendants who weeped for their children.

What typology? Ok, so we believe it is a fulfillment because Matthew says so. How is that different from believing in the Trinity when other believers say so?

I can't believe you are asking that question. Whatever god says is true, that is not the case with any of us humans (except Jesus). I don't have to prove what God says is true, if God says it it is true, if man says it he has to show me why and how it is true. God doesn't. God doesn't have to show me why faith in Jesus Christ saves me, he said it so that is the proof and all the proof I need.

you really don't know the difference in the veracity of what god says an what man says? amazing.

Matthew is a believer, but you say his book is God speaking. You cannot prove it, because it is an axiom. That's the way axioms and proofs are.

all scripture, including the book of matthew is god briethed, according to scripture. What we have here is me who believes every word of the bible is god breathed and infallible, and you who does not. It takes god given faith to believe every word ofthe bible is god breathed, apparently you do not have that god given faith to believe, I do.

 

[Superfast]

The problem you are having in this argument is that you are trying to use English connotations on a word that is merely translated into English from Greek. We must look at the original Greek to determine the meaning. "Begotten" translates into the Greek word "monogenes," which has come to have two primary meanings, both of which I can tell you now have no meaning in the sense of beginning as there is with our children.

Ok so what your saying is ''eternally begotten" means "eternally unique."

One of the definitions and which is meant to reference Jesus in John 3:16 is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." John was showing the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God as being of the same nature and substance as God, as opposed to believers who are sons of God through faith.

matthew 1.20 says God begat Jesus.

I don't understand how Mary has to be eternally conceiving when in fact she was impregnated with Jesus at some point in time, which is the only manner that could be taken that Jesus as a man had a beginning,

No one can understand that and no one can understand God begating Jesus over and over and over and over thoughout eternity, which is what eternally begotten means. that was my point, it is nonsense.

 

[elopez]

Ok so what your saying is ''eternally begotten" means "eternally unique."

No. I am saying your argument fails because you are using English connotations on a Greek word. I am also saying "begotten" in Greek means "unique."

matthew 1.20 says God begat Jesus.

So does John 3:16. And?

No one can understand that and no one can understand God begating Jesus over and over and over and over thoughout eternity, which is what eternally begotten means. that was my point, it is nonsense.

Perhaps you cannot understand it because how you describe it there is not what eternally begotten means. Plus, just because you cannot grasp this does not mean any other person has the same issue.

 

[gort]

That's an interesting take. Neoplatonism had a strong influence on early Christianity.

If neoplatonism did'nt start coming about until the 3rd century, would it not be more accurate to say that neoplatonism is a bastardization of early christianity?

 

[Superfast]

No. I am saying your argument fails because you are using English connotations on a Greek word. I am also saying "begotten" in Greek means "unique."


So does John 3:16. And?

Perhaps you cannot understand it because how you describe it there is not what eternally begotten means. Plus, just because you cannot grasp this does not mean any other person has the same issue.
​

you deny it means what the obviouls meaning is, come up with this unique stuff,, then say no you didn't mean that begotten means unique in "eternally begotten" and thuis have no meaning for eternally begotten. which is the real meaing of eternally begotten, namely no meaning. it's a meaningless phrase meant to cover up the contradiction that triniarians hold in saying Jesus is eternal and begotten because begotten means someone has a beginning, thus the need for the meaningless nonsense phrase "ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN''.


eternally begotten isn't in the bible. Eternally begotten is a doctrine of trinitarian churches. so whatever any greek word means is immaterial. We speak english not Greek. we express our doctrines in English not greek. and eternally begotten is a church doctrine. not scripture.
​

the church doctrine is "eternally begotten" it isn't called "eternally monogenes".

] monogenes means begotten, people only say it doesn't to try and deny that God begat Jesus. matthew 1.20 makes it abundantly clear, and the word isn't monogenes, that Jesus was begotten by god.

(Rotherham) Matthew 1:20 But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying,--Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of [the], Holy, Spirit.

here is the greek word used.

gennhqen <1080> (5685) {IS BEGOTTEN}

mary eternally conceived Jesus makes as much nonsense as saying Jesus is eternally begotten. To say that something or someone is eternal and has a beginning, is a contradiction, and that is what 'eternally begotten" is , it is a contradiction. And contradictions have no explanation that makes sense, they only have nonsensical explanations, like the guy who said it means 'limitless procreation"" or as is normally the case, it has no explanation what so ever. you say begotten doesn't mean begotten it means unique, so then I say oh your saying eternaly begotten means eternally unique, then you say no it doesn't mean that but people know wwhat it means. yea right you guys just dodge and weave around it never explaining it cause it is a meaningless nonsense term and that's ur only option.

 

[elopez]

you deny it means what the obviouls meaning is, come up with this unique stuff,, then say no you didn't mean that begotten means unique in "eternally begotten" and thuis have no meaning for eternally begotten. which is the real meaing of eternally begotten, namely no meaning. it's a meaningless phrase meant to cover up the contradiction that triniarians hold in saying Jesus is eternal and begotten because begotten means someone has a beginning, thus the need for the meaningless nonsense phrase "ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN''.

The thing is I didn't "come up" with the meaning I provided of "begotten." If you were paying any attention at all you would understood that. That is is the Greek meaning of the word in it's original context. In that context "begotten" does not mean to have an origin, it means a unique relationship. That, if anything, is what is going to be denied throughout this thread.

eternally begotten isn't in the bible. Eternally begotten is a doctrine of trinitarian churches. so whatever any greek word means is immaterial. We speak english not Greek. we express our doctrines in English not greek. and eternally begotten is a church doctrine. not scripture.

Well the word "begotten" is in the Bible, and it was translated from the Greek word "monogenes." If you are saying that the original Greek is immaterial as in null then you cannot derive at the English meaning of to have a beginning. Yes we speak English but what you persistently fail to recognize and acknowledge is that the Bible was not written in English. The NT was Greek, not English, yes? Now, the idea of eternal Sonship, I would argue, is Biblical as the doctrine has it's place in numerous passages, one of which is Hebrews 1:2. Another in John 16:28. Yet another more profound one is John 17:5.

the church doctrine is "eternally begotten" it isn't called "eternally monogenes". monogenes means begotten, people only say it doesn't to try and deny that God begat Jesus. matthew 1.20 makes it abundantly clear, and the word isn't monogenes, that Jesus was begotten by god.

I never said the doctrine was stated as eternally monogenes. Monogenes does mean begotten as I have already stated but it does not mean the same thing in Greek as it does in English. That is my point.

(Rotherham) Matthew 1:20 But, when, these things, he had pondered, lo! a messenger of the Lord, by dream, appeared to him, saying,--Joseph, son of David! do not fear to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for, that which, in her, hath been begotten, is of [the], Holy, Spirit.

here is the greek word used.

gennhqen <1080> (5685) {IS BEGOTTEN}

mary eternally conceived Jesus makes as much nonsense as saying Jesus is eternally begotten.

Now the Greek word "gennhqen" means to "procreate," and as a verb means to "beget" and in the passive means to "be born." This is in contrast with the Greek word "monogenes" which is the word for "begotten" in such verses as John 3:16.

 

[Jpark]

And Mary, she has to be eternally conceiving Jesus, but she has to be a virgin, so is she eternally revirginized? How come nobody talks about these doctrines and just talks about 'eternally begotten." it's not fair.

I addressed this a few times a while ago.

The Holy Spirit temporarily overshadowed Mary to grant her sinless state and a clean mind. This was not a permanent experience.

Reasons:

1. Jesus is the only one who had the Holy Spirit in fullness (John 3:34-35).

2. The Holy Spirit was not given permanently to people in that time.
He was still operating like He did in the OT.
The only exceptions were John the baptist and Jesus.

3. Mary was just another humble person (clues in Luke 1:28 "favored one! The Lord is with you", Luke 1:30 "you have found favor with God", and Luke 1:38 Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord..."), although special and distinct nevertheless.

God dwells with the humble (Isaiah 57:15) and cares about them (Psalm 10:17, Psalm 76:9, Luke 1:48, James 4:6, John 9:31).

Luke 1:48 tells us why we should respect Mary. Not because she was the mother of Jesus, but because she was humble.

Jesus considered His disciples more highly than His mother (Matt. 12:48-50). He wasn't referring to His mother when He said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

Luke 12:49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, &#8220;Behold My mother and My brothers!"

His mother was outside (Luke 12:46).

 

[Superfast]

The thing is I didn't "come up" with the meaning I provided of "begotten." If you were paying any attention at all you would understood that. That is is the Greek meaning of the word in it's original context.

begotten is an english word it does not mean unique. there is no greek meaning for the English word begotten.

In that context "begotten" does not mean to have an origin, it means a unique relationship. That, if anything, is what is going to be denied throughout this thread.

So now your saying that begotten doesn't mean begotten it means unique, that means the "eternally begotten "' doctrine is really the "'eternally unique doctrine. but you deny that. you say begotten doesn't mean begotten it means unique but ''eternally begotten'' doesnt mean 'eternally unique" . sometimes you say begotten means begotten and unique, but eternally begotten, according to you, doesn't mean eternally begotten and it doesn't mean eternally unique. typical trinitarian run around get um all confused so no one knows anything.

Well the word "begotten" is in the Bible, and it was translated from the Greek word "monogenes." If you are saying that the original Greek is immaterial as in null then you cannot derive at the English meaning of to have a beginning. Yes we speak English but what you persistently fail to recognize and acknowledge is that the Bible was not written in English. The NT was Greek, not English, yes?

what you fail to realize is that we use english words not greek words to speak english, and when we say something in english we mean what the english words we use mean. If we come up with a doctrine and call it "eternally begotten" then it means what the English word begotten means. if we mean something else we express it in english not greek. if we don't mean begotten but mean unique then we should say unique, you add to the confusion by claiming begotten means unique but eternally begotten doesn't mean eternaly unique.

Now, the idea of eternal Sonship, I would argue, is Biblical as the doctrine has it's place in numerous passages, one of which is Hebrews 1:2. Another in John 16:28. Yet another more profound one is John 17:5.

eternal sonship is not in the bible it is your interpretation and interpretation that contradicts scritprue that says Jesus was begotten and conceived.

I never said the doctrine was stated as eternally monogenes. Monogenes does mean begotten as I have already stated but it does not mean the same thing in Greek as it does in English. That is my point.

monogenes means nothing in English, it isn't an english word. It's a greek word. the doctrine isn't called 'eternally monogenes"". YOu just can't grasp the concept.

Now the Greek word "gennhqen" means to "procreate," and as a verb means to "beget" and in the passive means to "be born." This is in contrast with the Greek word "monogenes" which is the word for "begotten" in such verses as John 3:16.

I rather doubt your definitions except the begat one. especially considering your comments on begotten. how is beget in contrast to begotten? mono means only genes means begotten. genes is the noun form of gennhis. the only reason you trinitarians cdome up with this unique def. is to confuse people and try and detract from the fact that Jesus was begotten of god.

 

[Superfast]

I addressed this a few times a while ago.

The Holy Spirit temporarily overshadowed Mary to grant her sinless state and a clean mind. This was not a permanent experience.

well yea everybody knows that. my point was that the 'eternally begotten" doctrine makes as much nonsense as a "eternally conceived" doctrine would make. On the other hand, your response suggests that you don't find the concept of ''eternaly conceived'' to be so goofy as to not require proof it can't be true. I think most people would find the idea of ''eternally conceived" so goofy that no proof would be needed and they would know instantly that it was a rhetorical question. it says a lot when someone doesn't find the idea of 'eternally conceived" to be a goofy idea. to me it doesn't get any goofier than that 'eternally conceived".

Reasons:

1. Jesus is the only one who had the Holy Spirit in fullness (John 3:34-35).

2. The Holy Spirit was not given permanently to people in that time.
He was still operating like He did in the OT.
The only exceptions were John the baptist and Jesus.

3. Mary was just another humble person (clues in Luke 1:28 "favored one! The Lord is with you", Luke 1:30 "you have found favor with God", and Luke 1:38 Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord..."), although special and distinct nevertheless.

God dwells with the humble (Isaiah 57:15) and cares about them (Psalm 10:17, Psalm 76:9, Luke 1:48, James 4:6, John 9:31).

Luke 1:48 tells us why we should respect Mary. Not because she was the mother of Jesus, but because she was humble.

Jesus considered His disciples more highly than His mother (Matt. 12:48-50). He wasn't referring to His mother when He said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

Luke 12:49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, &#8220;Behold My mother and My brothers!"

His mother was outside (Luke 12:46).

nobody doubts that Mary only conceived once. maybe you haven't grasped what we are debating. Or more probably you are in your evasion modus operendi. or like I said above 'eternally conceived'' makes so much sense to you it has to be disproven.

 

[WagginDog]

you are trying to say that we do not need any proof for any doctrine that we have. That simply isn't reality, everyone looks for proof texts for their doctrine. you alone are belieing this no proof stuff.

I would much rather be able to prove everything structurally; but instead of proving everything to us he says "My sheep hear my voice," meaning the voice is the proof; but that is not the kind of proof you're talking about. You don't believe me, but I have searched high and low for the kind of proofs you are talking about.

No, I believe it is proof because god said it and god doesnot ever lie.

Whatever is true, God is saying it. Whatever is untrue, God isn't saying it. If we God's sheep were always fenced in by proofs we wouldn't need to recognize his voice.

I told you that the prophecy in Jerimiah was in typeology. do you understand what typeology is?

Thanks I think I have read about it somewhere. Its a fulfillment, however there's a big difference between a proof and a fulfillment. Its certainly not a proof in a mathematical sense. Its more like something similar happens like when Joseph is thrown into a pit and it is similar to how Jonah is in the fish or how Jesus is 3 days in the heart of the earth. You have to connect dots with your own lines, because it doesn't specifically say "Jonah was in a fish three days and therefore Jesus will be dead three days."

Rachel represents those people in bethlem, her descendants who weeped for their children.

That is a good answer, but its still not a proof. Bethlehem has had many sorrows since its beginning, but Jesus only came during this one. It is a fulfillment but not a proof. It is only a typology. I could falsely write a story about a man named Arnold who was born and rescued from Bethlehem. That would also be a typology.

What typology? Ok, so we believe it is a fulfillment because Matthew says so. How is that different from believing in the Trinity when other believers say so?

I can't believe you are asking that question. Whatever god says is true, that is not the case with any of us humans (except Jesus). I don't have to prove what God says is true, if God says it it is true, if man says it he has to show me why and how it is true. God doesn't. God doesn't have to show me why faith in Jesus Christ saves me, he said it so that is the proof and all the proof I need.

You explained what you meant by typology. Why don't you have to prove that Matthew is scripture? Can you prove it? If you cannot prove it is scripture, then it isn't proven. You are basing your proof upon something you can't prove.

all scripture, including the book of matthew is god briethed, according to scripture.

That is not what the scripture says. It does not specifically mention Matthew at all in 2 Timothy 3:16. You are imposing without proof that Matthew is scripture. Where is the proof that you keep talking about? I hope it isn't the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi or some letter from a roman provincial. Then I might be forced by logic to believe in Jesus, and that would contradict the gospel. The educated are not permitted to have any advantage over the uneducated; because God is putting to shame the wisdom of man and exalting his own.

 

[Superfast]

I would much rather be able to prove everything structurally; but instead of proving everything to us he says "My sheep hear my voice," meaning the voice is the proof; but that is not the kind of proof you're talking about. You don't believe me, but I have searched high and low for the kind of proofs you are talking about.



Whatever is true, God is saying it. Whatever is untrue, God isn't saying it. If we God's sheep were always fenced in by proofs we wouldn't need to recognize his voice.



Thanks I think I have read about it somewhere. Its a fulfillment, however there's a big difference between a proof and a fulfillment. Its certainly not a proof in a mathematical sense. Its more like something similar happens like when Joseph is thrown into a pit and it is similar to how Jonah is in the fish or how Jesus is 3 days in the heart of the earth. You have to connect dots with your own lines, because it doesn't specifically say "Jonah was in a fish three days and therefore Jesus will be dead three days."


That is a good answer, but its still not a proof. Bethlehem has had many sorrows since its beginning, but Jesus only came during this one. It is a fulfillment but not a proof. It is only a typology. I could falsely write a story about a man named Arnold who was born and rescued from Bethlehem. That would also be a typology.



You explained what you meant by typology. Why don't you have to prove that Matthew is scripture? Can you prove it? If you cannot prove it is scripture, then it isn't proven. You are basing your proof upon something you can't prove.

God revealed to me that every book in the bible is the word of God through the faith he gave me to believe. apparently God hasn't given you that faith yet. Perhaps you have never heard his voice, your comments seem to suggest that.

That is not what the scripture says.

(Rotherham) 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture, [is] God-breathed, and profitable--unto teaching, unto conviction, unto correction, unto the discipline that is in righteousness,--

It does not specifically mention Matthew at all in 2 Timothy 3:16.

I cannot prove that the book of Mathew or any book of the bible is the word of god, that can only be believed and accepted by faith. If you don't have the bible as your solid rock then everything is sifting sand and you have demonstrated that your beliefs are such. to you the bible may be true and it may not be true. to me it is true, evry last jot and title. and therefore is useable as proof for doctrine.


(Rotherham) 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture, [is] God-breathed, and profitable--unto teaching, unto conviction, unto correction, unto the discipline that is in righteousness,--


You are imposing without proof that Matthew is scripture. Where is the proof that you keep talking about? I hope it isn't the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi or some letter from a roman provincial. Then I might be forced by logic to believe in Jesus, and that would contradict the gospel. The educated are not permitted to have any advantage over the uneducated; because God is putting to shame the wisdom of man and exalting his own.[/quote]

 

[WagginDog]

God revealed to me that every book in the bible is the word of God through the faith he gave me to believe.

You remind of of a quote: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven. I say to you that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."

Its been a beneficial conversation for me. You are a smart person. Thanks and I look forward to reading other things you write.

 

[elopez]

begotten is an english word it does not mean unique. there is no greek meaning for the English word begotten.
So now your saying that begotten doesn't mean begotten it means unique, that means the "eternally begotten "' doctrine is really the "'eternally unique doctrine. but you deny that. you say begotten doesn't mean begotten it means unique but ''eternally begotten'' doesnt mean 'eternally unique" . sometimes you say begotten means begotten and unique, but eternally begotten, according to you, doesn't mean eternally begotten and it doesn't mean eternally unique. typical trinitarian run around get um all confused so no one knows anything.

"begotten" is an English word but it is also a Greek word, and that word is "monogenes." In Greek it does mean unique. You can sit there and deny that all you want but as you provide no basis for you claims I'd rather much stick to what a Concordance of the Bible says, which is consequently where you got the Greek word for "gennhqen" which also makes clear that that word is in contrast to the Greek "monogenes." I will say this one last time as I am only repeating myself now due to your lack of comprehension. In Greek "begotten" which is translated as "monogenes," does mean unique. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Do your homework before babbling off about something you obviously have no clue on what you're saying.

what you fail to realize is that we use english words not greek words to speak english, and when we say something in english we mean what the english words we use mean. If we come up with a doctrine and call it "eternally begotten" then it means what the English word begotten means. if we mean something else we express it in english not greek. if we don't mean begotten but mean unique then we should say unique, you add to the confusion by claiming begotten means unique but eternally begotten doesn't mean eternaly unique.

No, I don't fail to realize that we use English words to speak English. You are now at the point where you can make no rational statement and must resort to some nonsense that does not even apply to me. Again though, the NT was written in Greek, not English, so when we want to define words from the NT we look at the original language it was written in. What part of that is so hard to understand?

eternal sonship is not in the bible it is your interpretation and interpretation that contradicts scritprue that says Jesus was begotten and conceived.
monogenes means nothing in English, it isn't an english word. It's a greek word. the doctrine isn't called 'eternally monogenes"". YOu just can't grasp the concept.

It does nothing to contradict that, as I've already explained. The thing is, you have to show how those verses I quoted contradicts Jesus being born. You can't just say they do and I'm wrong, I mean you can but if you provide no support for your claim why should anyone take you seriously? Also, if you were paying attention that is, I've never claimed that "monogenes" is an English word, so where you got that from is past me bro. I've always said it was the original Greek word that we translate in English as "begotten." That is what you cannot grasp.

I rather doubt your definitions except the begat one. especially considering your comments on begotten. how is beget in contrast to begotten? mono means only genes means begotten. genes is the noun form of gennhis. the only reason you trinitarians cdome up with this unique def. is to confuse people and try and detract from the fact that Jesus was begotten of god.

As I said than, if you want to use a Concordance in favor for you argument, then look up the Greek word "monogenes" and see what you get. I'll warn you now it only backs up what I've been saying. The Greek "monogenes" is in contrast to the Greek "gennhqen." While you're at it, why don't you tell us what the concordance has to say about that word in detail?

 

[Jpark]

well yea everybody knows that. my point was that the 'eternally begotten" doctrine makes as much nonsense as a "eternally conceived" doctrine would make. On the other hand, your response suggests that you don't find the concept of ''eternaly conceived'' to be so goofy as to not require proof it can't be true. I think most people would find the idea of ''eternally conceived" so goofy that no proof would be needed and they would know instantly that it was a rhetorical question. it says a lot when someone doesn't find the idea of 'eternally conceived" to be a goofy idea. to me it doesn't get any goofier than that 'eternally conceived".

nobody doubts that Mary only conceived once. maybe you haven't grasped what we are debating. Or more probably you are in your evasion modus operendi. or like I said above 'eternally conceived'' makes so much sense to you it has to be disproven.

Nah, I just wanted to address the subject of Mary. If I went to Mariology, I would just get pushed back.

But I'm interested. Is the second result in this search what you mean?

Anyways I stick by my position: Jesus is God because He had the Holy Spirit in fullness. Son of God, Trinity, etc. debates are just overwhelming and wearying.

 

[Superfast]

"begotten" is an English word but it is also a Greek word, and that word is "monogenes." In Greek it does mean unique. You can sit there and deny that all you want but as you provide no basis for you claims I'd rather much stick to what a Concordance of the Bible says, which is consequently where you got the Greek word for "gennhqen" which also makes clear that that word is in contrast to the Greek "monogenes." I will say this one last time as I am only repeating myself now due to your lack of comprehension. In Greek "begotten" which is translated as "monogenes," does mean unique. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. Do your homework before babbling off about something you obviously have no clue on what you're saying.

Greek NT manuscripts have been tampered with and altered by scribes in times past, modern translators sometimes outright lie in translating Greek manuscriptes, sometimes fudge, sometimes twist the meaning. Most everyone knows these things, what is less commonly known is that the def. of words and Greek grammar has also been tampered with in order to support doctrines. I have read different opinons in times past about the proper translation of monogenes, some say what you say others say it only means begotten. I'm of the opinon that it only means begotten for various reasons.

No, I don't fail to realize that we use English words to speak English. You are now at the point where you can make no rational statement and must resort to some nonsense that does not even apply to me. Again though, the NT was written in Greek, not English, so when we want to define words from the NT we look at the original language it was written in. What part of that is so hard to understand?

the point is begotten is not from the NT, it is from the name of a doctrine, namely "eternally begotten". you need to define what begotten means as used in the name of the doctrine "eternally begotten''..

It does nothing to contradict that, as I've already explained. The thing is, you have to show how those verses I quoted contradicts Jesus being born.

No verse contradicts Jesus being born, I never said they did.

You can't just say they do and I'm wrong, I mean you can but if you provide no support for your claim why should anyone take you seriously?

I never claimed any verse contradicted Jesus being born.

Also, if you were paying attention that is, I've never claimed that "monogenes" is an English word,

I didn't claim that you did. I said that the doctrine isn't "eternally monogenes''. if the doctrine was called ''eternally monogenes'', then you would be right in defining the word used which is monogenes. But monogenes isn't used, begotten is so you have to define what you mean by begotten AS USED IN THE NAME OF THE DOCTRINE, ''eternally begotten''.

so where you got that from is past me bro. I've always said it was the original Greek word that we translate in English as "begotten." That is what you cannot grasp.

I grasp that monogenes means begotten, and have said so.

As I said than, if you want to use a Concordance in favor for you argument, then look up the Greek word "monogenes" and see what you get. I'll warn you now it only backs up what I've been saying. The Greek "monogenes" is in contrast to the Greek "gennhqen." While you're at it, why don't you tell us what the concordance has to say about that word in detail?

as I stated above, dictionaries are not always right, particularly when some key doctrine hinges on the definition of a word. Christian dictionaries, and christian greek grammar books are influenced by theology. you can't take them as absolutes. that's why it is necessary to read what others who have some knowledge of the subject have to say about the def. of a word, or a point of grammar, get differing opinons and then make up your mind.

 

[Superfast]

Nah, I just wanted to address the subject of Mary. If I went to Mariology, I would just get pushed back.

But I'm interested. Is the second result in this search what you mean?

I didn't write that post. so ask the guy who wrote it.

Anyways I stick by my position: Jesus is God because He had the Holy Spirit in fullness. Son of God, Trinity, etc. debates are just overwhelming and wearying.

ok

 

[Superfast]

You remind of of a quote: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you but my Father which is in heaven. I say to you that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."

Its been a beneficial conversation for me. You are a smart person. Thanks and I look forward to reading other things you write.

aw shucks, I'm blushing.

 

[elopez]

Greek NT manuscripts have been tampered with and altered by scribes in times past, modern translators sometimes outright lie in translating Greek manuscriptes, sometimes fudge, sometimes twist the meaning. Most everyone knows these things, what is less commonly known is that the def. of words and Greek grammar has also been tampered with in order to support doctrines. I have read different opinons in times past about the proper translation of monogenes, some say what you say others say it only means begotten. I'm of the opinon that it only means begotten for various reasons.

Yes but what evidence do you have in favor of the specific word "mongenes" being tampered with? We could say the same thing for the word "gennhqen," could we not? I do not deny that "monogenes" is translated into the English word "begotten." What I am saying is that the Greek "monogenes" does not mean the same thing it does in Greek as it does in English, which is to have a beginning. As I said there are two primary definitions of the Greek meaning one of which is unique. The other is only child I believe.

the point is begotten is not from the NT, it is from the name of a doctrine, namely "eternally begotten". you need to define what begotten means as used in the name of the doctrine "eternally begotten''..

What do you mean the word "begotten" is not from the NT? It is surely found in the NT, is that what you're denying? It's rather unclear. And I have defined "begotten" even as it pertains to the doctrine of eternal sonship.

No verse contradicts Jesus being born, I never said they did. I never claimed any verse contradicted Jesus being born.

You misunderstood me here. I was not saying that there are verses that contradict the birth of Jesus, what I am saying is that without showing how the verses I quoted (which again are meant to be taken as the eternal sonship) contradict Jesus being born, your claim that they are contradicting has no support and thus is not credible.

I didn't claim that you did. I said that the doctrine isn't "eternally monogenes''. I grasp that monogenes means begotten, and have said so.

Then why did you bring up eternally monogenes? If we both know and I haven't claimed that's what the doctrine is called, why bring that up? So if you say that you understand the Greek "monogenes" means "begotten," do you further understand that that is so because of the English translation? And further that the Greek meaning is different from the English? Again refer to the concordance you quoted earlier.

as I stated above, dictionaries are not always right, particularly when some key doctrine hinges on the definition of a word. Christian dictionaries, and christian greek grammar books are influenced by theology. you can't take them as absolutes. that's why it is necessary to read what others who have some knowledge of the subject have to say about the def. of a word, or a point of grammar, get differing opinons and then make up your mind.

I'm not using a dictionary. I'm using a concordance of the Bible, and so were you when you quoted the Greek word "gennhqen," were you not? Why then, if you claim that "Christian dictionaries" and "Christian Greek grammar books" are not "absolute" would you quote from one? That is bewildering to me sir.