timeless procreation.

[Superfast]

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.

here are 2 articles I found that I find informative.

Many of the current handbooks on Greek syntax state that monogenes should not be translated as only begotten. [1] Instead, they take the word to mean only or unique. If this were true, the translation of the KJV would not be alone in its "error" for this is the translation of the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, and several other translations of the twentieth century.
The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Greek language (both Koine and Modern). The word monogenes does means one or unique in the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents. It does not mean unique, as in special, such as in the phrase, "his work is very unique." Here the Greek would be monadikos, not monogenes. As we examine the New Testament we find the word monogenes used eight times (not counting its usage here in John 1:18). In every case it is used to describe a relationship between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Since this is how the Holy Spirit uses the word in the New Testament, we must accept this definition when reading John 1:18. [2]

John 1:18 -"only begotten Son"

The term ‘only begotten’ in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word Monogenes (Srong’s – 3439). Those who promote the doctrine that denies the literal sonship of Jesus Christ (1st John 2:22) tell us that ‘monogenes’ only means ‘unique’. Who is correct? Let us investigate and see who bares the weight of evidence..

Monogenes is from the greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’. The Strong’s Concordance defines it as “only-born”; but let’s investigate a little deeper

The first article of Monogenes is 3441 monos mon'-os which is defined as: remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:--alone, only.

The Second article is 1085 genov genos ghen’-os which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In the New Testament, and in the writings of Ante-Nicene Christians, the term Monogenes takes the more stable denotation of its root ‘ginomai’ (1096).{which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is reckoned as ‘only begotten’.

monogenes
note above that the reason people want to change onlybegotten to unique is because they want to deny the literal sonship of Jesus. Do you also deny the literal sonship of Christ? there is an obvious problem with believing both, it is a contradiction to say Jesus was literally the son of God and Jesus is the eternal son of god. that is the obvious motivating factor for changing only begottten to unique. that weights heavily in my opinon that monogenes really should be translated only begotten and not 'unique'. And actually monogenes would probably be more accurately translated as "only generated" since the root word ginomai is used with mono, and ginomai means generated. that is even more damaging to the idea that Jesus is eternal. And it fits in with other scriptures, Jesus is the last adam the new man, the beginning of a new generation of people. matthew 1.1 says the generation of Jesus Christ.

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation (genesewV <1078> {OF [THE] GENERATION} ) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:

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.

you need to say what the word begotten means in the doctrine 'eternally begotten''. What do you mean when you say Jesus was eternally begotten? What I'm getting from you is the definition of a greek word, monogenes. Do you mean that when people say 'eternally begotten, they mean eternally monogenes? that's what all your comments suggest to me.

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.

saying something or some one is eternal contradicts saying someone or something has a beginning. To be begotten is to have a beginning. thus saying Jesus is begotten contradicts the idea of eternal anything, eternal sonship , except if one means eternal from the time of his birth onward. that is how any verse you interpret to mean eternal sonship contradicts scripture that says Jesus was begotten.

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?

because you keep defining the Greek word monogenes that suggests that you are saying that when people say eternally begotten they really mean eternally monogenes. you need to define begotten ,not monogenes, you need to say what you mean when you say ''eternally begotten", what you are doing is saying what ''eternally monogenes'' would mean.

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?

no I am saying or mean to say, that begotten is the correct english translation of monogenes. see 2 articles above i posted.

And further that the Greek meaning is different from the English? Again refer to the concordance you quoted earlier.

the greek meaning of monogenes is different than the english meaning of monogenes? or the greek meaning of begotten is different than the english meaning of begotten? which do you mean?

I'm not using a dictionary. I'm using a concordance of the Bible,

you are using the def. section of the concordance.

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.

is it bewildering to you that I believe they are not always right but are usually right and I quote them when I think they are right or mostly right? do you think they are always right? if so what about when they disagree?

 

[eachallberg]

We're getting to the point where we realize its not us dodging questions but you dodging answers.

there are no contradictions in Matthew.
So you're saying there are contradictions in Marrhew or what?

Look it up. It is more conflicting with the teaching and consistency of the other Gospels

What if trinity is an invention of man and not in the bible?

Its both.

are you saying we know nothing about the bible? or what?

Wait for it...

the spiritual truth you refer to is not in the bible it is man's invention. man invented the doctrine that Jesus is god, and the doctrine of eternally begotten,the bible nowhere says those things so any analogy of those 2 aforementioned doctrines, is an analogy of man's doctrine and not an analogy of anything god said.

There, that is what i'm saying (spiritual truth). We know nothing about what cant be fathomed.
So it cant be in writing, your right.
&
What about doctrine?
Be grateful we have the opportunity to see the Way.

Only G_d can conquer death, because G_d is life.

on this point you guys seem incapable of grasping it. man invents a doctrine such as trinity, and you call it spiritual truth that can't be completely understood. You would only have a viable case if God had said those things, but he didn't.

Hypocrite!

G_d is always talking you just need to shut up.

I have learned a great deal about how the trinity doctrine is believed and what it is by debating about it.

If you say that you have learned something, you actually haven't.

Some day God may well use the knowledge I have attained here for his benefit. I don't consider that I am destroying myself.

Have hope.

See now, luke 9.20 does not say Christ is God.

(NKJV) Luke 9:20 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

Who do you say? That is the question. Questions are intriguing,and spoilers are boring.

it is your interrpetation that luke 9.20 means that christ is god, but it doesn't say that, and probably you don't know that it is your interpretation based on my dealings with other trinitarians and those who believe t hat Jesus is god.
that isn't in the bible.

I dont really like the Bible, because it has the old testament.

you can't say Jesus is god cause he wanted to hide it from us, that's no proof that Jesus is god.
worship just means to bow down to someone. we are prohibited from worshiping or bowing down to other gods. there is no prohibition to worshiping or bowing down to humans as long as you do not consider the human to be a god. people bow down or worship kings all the time, there is nothing wrong with that.


[SIZE=+0]Deuteronomy 8:19 [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]"Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow [SIZE=+1]other gods[/SIZE], and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+0]Deuteronomy 11:16 [/SIZE][SIZE=+0]"Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve [SIZE=+1]other gods[/SIZE] and worship them,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]
do you see the words ''other gods" in that verse? No verse says we can only worship god or only bow down to God. On this point trinitarians and those who believe Jesus is god, seem incapable of comprehension.

saying Jesus is God cause he disquised himself is no proof that JEsus is god. you have no scripture saying that.

Pray to the Father of Jesus Christ to find the Way.

Moses saw the backside of something. Well, sorry the Father doesn't have a backside for starters...

Also he told Moses his name is jealous.
Christ says that (G_D) the Father's name is Holy.

Pray you understand.
Pray you don't harden your heart.

Remember this too,
G_d is Love.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:16-18)
&

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Peace.

 

[Superfast]

We're getting to the point where we realize its not us dodging questions but you dodging answers.


Look it up. It is more conflicting with the teaching and consistency of the other Gospels

Others may claim it is inconsistent with the rest of the bible but i see no such inconsistency. I only see uniformity.

What if trinity is an invention of man and not in the bible?

Its both.

the word trinity is not in the bible, nor are many of the terms used to describe it. the bible doesn't teach trinity either, the bible teaches nothing, man teaches what man thinks the bible means. and whatever most men think the bible means they call it "the bible teaches''.
.

Wait for it...

There, that is what i'm saying (spiritual truth). We know nothing about what cant be fathomed.
So it cant be in writing, your right.
&
What about doctrine?
Be grateful we have the opportunity to see the Way.

Only G_d can conquer death, because G_d is life.

on this point you guys seem incapable of grasping it. man invents a doctrine such as trinity, and you call it spiritual truth that can't be completely understood. You would only have a viable case if God had said those things, but he didn't.

Hypocrite!

G_d is always talking you just need to shut up.

I see no connection between this comment and what I said.

If you say that you have learned something, you actually haven't.

learned something about Trinity? if someone says they have learned something about trinity they haven't, they have only learned something about trinity if they say they haven't learned anything about trinity. To that I would say you are calling the incomprehensibleness of trinity something that can't be learned. I call the incomprhehsibleness of trinity a fact that is due to all the contradictions in it. and it is true you cannot comprehend how jesus is god and the son of god, how Jesus is god and god the father is god and there is only one god. you say it's cause it can't be learned, I say it's cause it's a contradiction and contradictions are not truth and cannot be ciomprhended, and god doesn't contradict himself it is trinitarians who do.

Have hope.


Who do you say? That is the question. Questions are intriguing,and spoilers are boring.


I dont really like the Bible, because it has the old testament.




Pray to the Father of Jesus Christ to find the Way.

Moses saw the backside of something. Well, sorry the Father doesn't have a backside for starters...

it's called personification.

Also he told Moses his name is jealous.
Christ says that (G_D) the Father's name is Holy.

Pray you understand.
Pray you don't harden your heart.

Remember this too,
G_d is Love.
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. (1 John 4:16-18)
&

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Peace.

 

[elopez]

here are 2 articles I found that I find informative.

John 1:18 -"only begotten Son"



monogenes
note above that the reason people want to change onlybegotten to unique is because they want to deny the literal sonship of Jesus. Do you also deny the literal sonship of Christ? there is an obvious problem with believing both, it is a contradiction to say Jesus was literally the son of God and Jesus is the eternal son of god. that is the obvious motivating factor for changing only begottten to unique. that weights heavily in my opinon that monogenes really should be translated only begotten and not 'unique'. And actually monogenes would probably be more accurately translated as "only generated" since the root word ginomai is used with mono, and ginomai means generated. that is even more damaging to the idea that Jesus is eternal. And it fits in with other scriptures, Jesus is the last adam the new man, the beginning of a new generation of people. matthew 1.1 says the generation of Jesus Christ.

First, I have never changed the definition of the word in question. I said in the original Greek has two meanings, one of which is unique. I said in reference to the meaning of unique it is meant that Jesus has a different relationship with God as opposed to believers who are sons of God through faith. So let me ask you this: Do you recognize that distinction between Jesus' relation with God and our relation with God? If so, that is what I mean by unique here. Second, I have not denied the birth of Jesus or any literal human sonship.

you need to say what the word begotten means in the doctrine 'eternally begotten''. What do you mean when you say Jesus was eternally begotten? What I'm getting from you is the definition of a greek word, monogenes. Do you mean that when people say 'eternally begotten, they mean eternally monogenes? that's what all your comments suggest to me.

Again, I have stated what I think it means in regards to the eternal sonship doctrine. I'll repeat myself yet again. One sense of the word I take to mean is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." Jesus the Son was eternally existent with the Father, while Jesus incarnate was conceived though that would not take away from his eternal nature. No, that is not what I mean. I mean when we want to define words from the NT we look back at the original language it was written in to get a better definition instead of some English definition that was not intended in the original Greek language.

saying something or some one is eternal contradicts saying someone or something has a beginning. To be begotten is to have a beginning. thus saying Jesus is begotten contradicts the idea of eternal anything, eternal sonship , except if one means eternal from the time of his birth onward. that is how any verse you interpret to mean eternal sonship contradicts scripture that says Jesus was begotten.

It is not contradicting taken into consideration that Jesus took on the form of man, and prior to that he was with God in the beginning. That implies Jesus was immaterial just as the Father and thus existed eternally, and at the point of incarnation he had a beginning as a man.

because you keep defining the Greek word monogenes that suggests that you are saying that when people say eternally begotten they really mean eternally monogenes. you need to define begotten ,not monogenes, you need to say what you mean when you say ''eternally begotten", what you are doing is saying what ''eternally monogenes'' would mean.

No, that is what you simply think I am suggesting. The Greek word "monogenes" is translated in the English word "begotten," so I am defining "begotten" according to the original implication that was intended. Notice how you are the one defining "begotten" in it's English meaning, not the Greek meaning which will do your argument no favor.

no I am saying or mean to say, that begotten is the correct english translation of monogenes. see 2 articles above i posted.

Okay then. So if "monogenes" is the original word, why are you not referring to the context of that Greek word and meaning?

the greek meaning of monogenes is different than the english meaning of monogenes? or the greek meaning of begotten is different than the english meaning of begotten? which do you mean?

To my knowledge there is no English meaning of "monogenes." Again it is a Greek word. I am saying that the Greek "monogenes" definition is vastly different from the English definition of "begotten."

you are using the def. section of the concordance.

Yes, but I am not using an English dictionary. I am using the concordance dictionary, yes. That is quite evident I thought?

is it bewildering to you that I believe they are not always right but are usually right and I quote them when I think they are right or mostly right? do you think they are always right? if so what about when they disagree?

Here is my contention with this point. You want to use the concordance on one word and say it is correct, yet when it comes to the word I quoted from the same concordance you say it's wrong. That is special pleading at it's best, and unless you have some justifiable reason for that there is no reason why you should not take into consideration the meaning of "monogenes."

 

[Dillinger]

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".

It is something to accept, not to analyze.

 

[Superfast]

First, I have never changed the definition of the word in question. I said in the original Greek has two meanings, one of which is unique.

and the second source I quoted says that monogenes doesn't mean unique. It says unique is a def. added to get around saying Jesus is the literal son of God. So that source, and I can find others, says the definition of the word was changed.

I said in reference to the meaning of unique it is meant that Jesus has a different relationship with God as opposed to believers who are sons of God through faith. So let me ask you this: Do you recognize that distinction between Jesus' relation with God and our relation with God?

Jesus sits at the right hand of god and is the head of the church, and is the literal begotten son of god, and is the new man or last adam , the new creation of god, and he is sinless. Off hand those are the only distinctions I can think of. the bible says that he (the last adam) was made after the likeness of men (the first adam). so he has a nose, 2 arms, 2 legs, a torso, a head, a soul and a human spirit just like all of us do.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

If so, that is what I mean by unique here. Second, I have not denied the birth of Jesus or any literal human sonship.

my point was that others came up with unique in an attempt to support their denial of the literal sonship of Jesus. read the highlighted portion of my second quote.

so now begotten means sonship?

Again, I have stated what I think it means in regards to the eternal sonship doctrine.

and I'm not talking about the eternal sonship doctrine, I'm talking about the eternally begotten doctrine.

I'll repeat myself yet again. One sense of the word I take to mean is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." Jesus the Son was eternally existent with the Father, while Jesus incarnate was conceived though that would not take away from his eternal nature. No, that is not what I mean. I mean when we want to define words from the NT we look back at the original language it was written in to get a better definition instead of some English definition that was not intended in the original Greek language.

what I'm getting from you, although yyou haven't stated it, is that when people say 'eternally begotten, they mean begotten in the sense that monogenes is used in the bible. can we agree on that? My point is then that it would be more accurate to call it the eternally monogenes doctrine. since the english word begotten doesn't mean exactly what monogenes means and it certainly doesn't mean unique. to you get my drift?

I think the problem is that you look at everything I say through your doctrinal slant so that you can't see where I'm comeing from. I have that problem at times with others.

It is not contradicting taken into consideration that Jesus took on the form of man, and prior to that he was with God in the beginning. That implies Jesus was immaterial just as the Father and thus existed eternally, and at the point of incarnation he had a beginning as a man.

saying jesus took on the form of a man and was incarnated contradicts scripture that says he was begotten. to be begotten doesn't mean to be incarnated. Incarnation means change into flesh.

No, that is what you simply think I am suggesting. The Greek word "monogenes" is translated in the English word "begotten," so I am defining "begotten" according to the original implication that was intended. Notice how you are the one defining "begotten" in it's English meaning, not the Greek meaning which will do your argument no favor.

most people , especially non christians, and including christians , are going to assume you mean the english word begotten when you say "eternally begotten". So it is misleading to use begotten when you reallly mean monogenes. why don't you call it what you believe it is? which is 'eternally begotten and unique".

Okay then. So if "monogenes" is the original word, why are you not referring to the context of that Greek word and meaning?

because you use the word begotten , if you mean begotten and unique then say begotten and unique, if you mean nothing then say it means nothing. say what you mean not what you don't mean and you don't mean begotten when you say 'eternally begotten. as far as I can determmine you mean "eternally begotten and unique," if you don't meanthat what do you mean, you personally when you say Jesus is eternally begotten? and you will come back with a def. of monogenes. we just can't connect on this matter.

To my knowledge there is no English meaning of "monogenes." Again it is a Greek word. I am saying that the Greek "monogenes" definition is vastly different from the English definition of "begotten."

so you say jesus is eternally begotten, but what you really mean is vastly different than eternally begotten. They call that deception.

Yes, but I am not using an English dictionary. I am using the concordance dictionary, yes. That is quite evident I thought?

nope a concordance merely shows you were a verse is in the bible, a dictionary defines the words . Strongs concordance for example also contains a dictionary at the back. the dictionary portion isn't a concordance.

Here is my contention with this point. You want to use the concordance on one word and say it is correct, yet when it comes to the word I quoted from the same concordance you say it's wrong. That is special pleading at it's best, and unless you have some justifiable reason for that there is no reason why you should not take into consideration the meaning of "monogenes."

I have justifiable reasons, I gave them for monogenes. read the 2 sources I quoted, they explain it quite well.
. If i have to look for some source that I agree with completely I will never find any source. I don't agree with any one bible translation all the time either, in fact I quote from lots of different bibles even some that I think are more inaccurate than others BECAUSE they appear right when others are wrong on a particular verse. a liberal bible for example may translate a particular verse correctly when most other bibles do not because they have no theological axe to grind on that particular theological point involved with translating that verse. even though the liberal translation will be wrong more than the better ones.

 

[elopez]

and the second source I quoted says that monogenes doesn't mean unique. It says unique is a def. added to get around saying Jesus is the literal son of God. So that source, and I can find others, says the definition of the word was changed.
Jesus sits at the right hand of god and is the head of the church, and is the literal begotten son of god, and is the new man or last adam , the new creation of god, and he is sinless. Off hand those are the only distinctions I can think of. the bible says that he (the last adam) was made after the likeness of men (the first adam). so he has a nose, 2 arms, 2 legs, a torso, a head, a soul and a human spirit just like all of us do.

Yeah, I could C&P something that contradicts all of what you quoted, too. It's not that hard, and I find no argument from you here in the source you quoted. So again, those distinctions of Christ and us makes him unique in respect to God as opposed to us, wouldn't you say? I mean after all, were are not the son of God or sinless.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

my point was that others came up with unique in an attempt to support their denial of the literal sonship of Jesus. read the highlighted portion of my second quote.
and I'm not talking about the eternal sonship doctrine, I'm talking about the eternally begotten doctrine.

And my point is that I can find just as many sources that says the definition was not changed. And again, even being that I defined monogenes as unique I still do not deny any literal sonship of Christ. Also, the eternal sonship doctrine is the eternally begotten doctrine.

what I'm getting from you, although yyou haven't stated it, is that when people say 'eternally begotten, they mean begotten in the sense that monogenes is used in the bible. can we agree on that? My point is then that it would be more accurate to call it the eternally monogenes doctrine. since the english word begotten doesn't mean exactly what monogenes means and it certainly doesn't mean unique. to you get my drift?

I think the problem is that you look at everything I say through your doctrinal slant so that you can't see where I'm comeing from. I have that problem at times with others.

Yes, we can agree on that. I mean you did the same thing with the word "beget." You referred to the orignal Greek word, right? And no it wouldn't be accurate because how can you mix two languages like that? Now have you "certainly" shown that "monogenes" doesn't mean unique. I see where you're coming from, I just don't find it logical.

saying jesus took on the form of a man and was incarnated contradicts scripture that says he was begotten. to be begotten doesn't mean to be incarnated. Incarnation means change into flesh.

No, the incarnation is supported by scripture. I didn't say or even imply that begotten means incarnate.

most people , especially non christians, and including christians , are going to assume you mean the english word begotten when you say "eternally begotten". So it is misleading to use begotten when you reallly mean monogenes. why don't you call it what you believe it is? which is 'eternally begotten and unique".
because you use the word begotten , if you mean begotten and unique then say begotten and unique, if you mean nothing then say it means nothing. say what you mean not what you don't mean and you don't mean begotten when you say 'eternally begotten. as far as I can determmine you mean "eternally begotten and unique," if you don't meanthat what do you mean, you personally when you say Jesus is eternally begotten? and you will come back with a def. of monogenes. we just can't connect on this matter.

We cannot connect on this matter because you can't just mix languages like that, and I don't know why you think it is applicable to do so.

so you say jesus is eternally begotten, but what you really mean is vastly different than eternally begotten. They call that deception.

Again and for the last time, when I say "begotten" I do not use the English definition. I have no issues with the English word itself, just the English definition.

nope a concordance merely shows you were a verse is in the bible, a dictionary defines the words . Strongs concordance for example also contains a dictionary at the back. the dictionary portion isn't a concordance.

I could find a verse in the Bible without a concordance. A concordance is an alphabetical list of words used in the Bible in the orignal context. Obviously you don't know what a concordance is, because the back of the book is still part of the entire concordance....

I have justifiable reasons, I gave them for monogenes. read the 2 sources I quoted, they explain it quite well. If i have to look for some source that I agree with completely I will never find any source. I don't agree with any one bible translation all the time either, in fact I quote from lots of different bibles even some that I think are more inaccurate than others BECAUSE they appear right when others are wrong on a particular verse. a liberal bible for example may translate a particular verse correctly when most other bibles do not because they have no theological axe to grind on that particular theological point involved with translating that verse. even though the liberal translation will be wrong more than the better ones.

Yes but there is still one issue with you using the concordance you quoted from. Why don't you c&p the detailed definition of "gennhqen"? Because it says the exact opposite of what you're saying here. At the very least just read it and then tell me why you are quoting from it.

 

[Superfast]

It is something to accept, not to analyze.

you said it not god, and I don't just accept something anyone says, except God.

 

[Superfast]

Yeah, I could C&P something that contradicts all of what you quoted, too. It's not that hard, and I find no argument from you here in the source you quoted. So again, those distinctions of Christ and us makes him unique in respect to God as opposed to us, wouldn't you say? I mean after all, were are not the son of God or sinless.

I said there are differing opinons as to whether monogenes means unique or not. the reasons are somewhat complicated and involve such things as how hebrew words were translated as monogenes in the septuagint and other things such as the meaning of the root words in monogenes.

the distinctions between us and christ aren't related to the definition of monogenes.
I stated what I believe are the differences between christ and other humans, he is unique in those senses, but that doesn't mean the definition of monogenes is unique because there are distinctions between christ and us.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


And my point is that I can find just as many sources that says the definition was not changed. And again, even being that I defined monogenes as unique I still do not deny any literal sonship of Christ. Also, the eternal sonship doctrine is the eternally begotten doctrine.

so now begotten means sonship?

I'm just trying to get you to say what does it mean to say that Jesus is eternally begotten, thus far you haven't stated what that means, you've just defined the word monogenes as begotten and unique, but you never say what it means to say Jesus is eternally begotten.

Yes, we can agree on that. I mean you did the same thing with the word "beget." You referred to the orignal Greek word, right?

no that is not the same thing. the meaning of begat and the greek word for begat are the same. what I was talking about is that you can't understand that I am asking you what trinitarians mean when they say Jesus is eternally begotten because your theological doctrine intervenes and prevents you from comprehending my question. your trinitarian theological doctrine intervenes and casues you to define monogenes, when I'm asking what do you mean when you say Jesus is eternally begotten.
It's like a switch is flipped If i say eternally begotten , instantly your mind switches to the definition of monogenes.

And no it wouldn't be accurate because how can you mix two languages like that?

Exactly but that is what you do over and over and over.

Now have you "certainly" shown that "monogenes" doesn't mean unique. I see where you're coming from, I just don't find it logical.

I have shown that there are arguments for and against it meaning unique, I have shown that there are knowledgeable people on the subject that are on both sides of the issue. you haven't shown that it means unique anymore or less than I have shown that it doesn't mean unique.

No, the incarnation is supported by scripture. I didn't say or even imply that begotten means incarnate.

I'm saying that it is a contradiction to say JEsus was begotten and incarnated because of what the 2 words mean.

We cannot connect on this matter because you can't just mix languages like that, and I don't know why you think it is applicable to do so.

I'm pointing out that that is what you are doing. and you are right. you can't say Jesus is begotten and then say he isn't because some word in another language means unique. You just seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying. IF you say Jesus is begotten what do you mean? Forget the greek language, what do you mean when you say Jesus is begotten?
1. Do you mean that Jesus is eternally unique? previously you said no.
2. do you mean that Jesus is eternally begotten and unique?
3. Do you mean nothiing when you say Jesus is eternally begotten?
4. Do you mean that Jesus is eternally sonship?
Thus far I have concluded you mean the 3rd choice. is there a 5th?

Again and for the last time, when I say "begotten" I do not use the English definition. I have no issues with the English word itself, just the English definition.

you use a english word but you don't mean it to mean what it means. and you don't use it to mean what monogenes means, you just start talking about the def. of monogenes no matter what I say.

I could find a verse in the Bible without a concordance. A concordance is an alphabetical list of words used in the Bible in the orignal context. Obviously you don't know what a concordance is, because the back of the book is still part of the entire concordance....

con·cord·ance

&#8194; &#8194;/k&#594;n&#712;k&#596;r

dns, k&#601;n-/ Show Spelled[kon-kawr-dns, kuh

n-] Show IPA
noun 1. agreement; concord; harmony: the concordance of the membership.

2. an alphabetical index of the principal words of a book, as of the Bible, with a reference to the passage in which each occurs.

3. an alphabetical index of subjects or topics.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concordance
sometimes a concordance contains a dictionary sometimes they don't. do you see anything in the definition of the english word concordance that says 'dictionary."? please don't answer by defining monogenes.

Yes but there is still one issue with you using the concordance you quoted from. Why don't you c&p the detailed definition of "gennhqen"? Because it says the exact opposite of what you're saying here. At the very least just read it and then tell me why you are quoting from it.

i didn't quote from a concordance. and the 2 sources I quoted are in agreement with my previous comment. your response has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Superfast]

Yeah, I could C&P something that contradicts all of what you quoted, too. It's not that hard, and I find no argument from you here in the source you quoted. So again, those distinctions of Christ and us makes him unique in respect to God as opposed to us, wouldn't you say? I mean after all, were are not the son of God or sinless.

Philippians 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


And my point is that I can find just as many sources that says the definition was not changed. And again, even being that I defined monogenes as unique I still do not deny any literal sonship of Christ. Also, the eternal sonship doctrine is the eternally begotten doctrine.


Yes, we can agree on that. I mean you did the same thing with the word "beget." You referred to the orignal Greek word, right? And no it wouldn't be accurate because how can you mix two languages like that? Now have you "certainly" shown that "monogenes" doesn't mean unique. I see where you're coming from, I just don't find it logical.


No, the incarnation is supported by scripture. I didn't say or even imply that begotten means incarnate.


We cannot connect on this matter because you can't just mix languages like that, and I don't know why you think it is applicable to do so.


Again and for the last time, when I say "begotten" I do not use the English definition. I have no issues with the English word itself, just the English definition.


I could find a verse in the Bible without a concordance. A concordance is an alphabetical list of words used in the Bible in the orignal context. Obviously you don't know what a concordance is, because the back of the book is still part of the entire concordance....


Yes but there is still one issue with you using the concordance you quoted from. Why don't you c&p the detailed definition of "gennhqen"? Because it says the exact opposite of what you're saying here. At the very least just read it and then tell me why you are quoting from it.

AS near as I can determine, when you say Jesus is eternally begotten, you do not use the word begotten in any shape form or fashion to mean begotten.

 

[WagginDog]

I appreciate what you said about the triadic relationship of love, Dillinger. I'm thinking about that one.

 

[Dillinger]

I appreciate what you said about the triadic relationship of love, Dillinger. I'm thinking about that one.

Thanks.

God is communitarian, social, and relational. Also, keep in mind that the New Testament holds that "love" is God's defining attribute.

"God is love." 1 John 4:8

 

[eachallberg]

There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness. (Thomas 1:24)
&
G_d is light. (1 John 1:5)

Peace.

 

[elopez]

I said there are differing opinons as to whether monogenes means unique or not. the reasons are somewhat complicated and involve such things as how hebrew words were translated as monogenes in the septuagint and other things such as the meaning of the root words in monogenes.

the distinctions between us and christ aren't related to the definition of monogenes. I stated what I believe are the differences between christ and other humans, he is unique in those senses, but that doesn't mean the definition of monogenes is unique because there are distinctions between christ and us.

I know what you said. What I'm saying is just because you c&p some article from a website I don't find that it does much to favor your argument.

If monogenes means unique the distinction of Christ and us is very relevant.

so now begotten means sonship?

I'm just trying to get you to say what does it mean to say that Jesus is eternally begotten, thus far you haven't stated what that means, you've just defined the word monogenes as begotten and unique, but you never say what it means to say Jesus is eternally begotten.

I didn't say that. But I would say begotten is associated with sonship.

I'm not sure I can make it any more clear. I think eternally begotten means a unique relationship with God the Father. I don't understand what is so arduous about comprehending what I believe despite your contest with my belief.

no that is not the same thing. the meaning of begat and the greek word for begat are the same. what I was talking about is that you can't understand that I am asking you what trinitarians mean when they say Jesus is eternally begotten because your theological doctrine intervenes and prevents you from comprehending my question. your trinitarian theological doctrine intervenes and casues you to define monogenes, when I'm asking what do you mean when you say Jesus is eternally begotten. It's like a switch is flipped If i say eternally begotten , instantly your mind switches to the definition of monogenes.

I've answered your question various times now. I've stated it for the last time in the above. I believe it is your aversion of the doctrine that is preventing you from apprehending my position. Now when you define a word from the NT I would surely go back to the Greek definition. Not doing so is foolish.

Exactly but that is what you do over and over and over.

Actually, I've never done that. You simply stated that's what you think I am suggesting. I have not actually said anything like that. Talk about deception.

I have shown that there are arguments for and against it meaning unique, I have shown that there are knowledgeable people on the subject that are on both sides of the issue. you haven't shown that it means unique anymore or less than I have shown that it doesn't mean unique.

Yeah, you c&p something, That is not impressive nor convincing.

I'm saying that it is a contradiction to say JEsus was begotten and incarnated because of what the 2 words mean.

And I'm saying your wrong because as Christ was incarnated he thus become begot as in the sense you mean. As you said incarnate means to become flesh so at the point in which Christ became flesh and conceived he was man. Yet prior to that, since he became man he would have existed eternally with the Father as spirit and incorporeal.

I'm pointing out that that is what you are doing. and you are right. you can't say Jesus is begotten and then say he isn't because some word in another language means unique. You just seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying. IF you say Jesus is begotten what do you mean? Forget the greek language, what do you mean when you say Jesus is begotten?
1. Do you mean that Jesus is eternally unique? previously you said no.
2. do you mean that Jesus is eternally begotten and unique?
3. Do you mean nothiing when you say Jesus is eternally begotten?
4. Do you mean that Jesus is eternally sonship?
Thus far I have concluded you mean the 3rd choice. is there a 5th?

Nothing you've said is difficult to understand. As I've said I disagree with you highly. I've explained what I mean. And if we forget the Greek language you throw out the English word begotten. I've already explained what I mean by begotten.

you use a english word but you don't mean it to mean what it means. and you don't use it to mean what monogenes means, you just start talking about the def. of monogenes no matter what I say.

I've defined monogenes appropriately. I don't think it means what you think it does in English, or I at least disagree with you on the definition. You even said yourself dictionaries are not reliable or something to that effect, so why trust the definition you provide?

Concordance | Define Concordance at Dictionary.com
sometimes a concordance contains a dictionary sometimes they don't. do you see anything in the definition of the english word concordance that says 'dictionary."? please don't answer by defining monogenes.

Your sarcastics are dumfounded. A concordance of the Bible will have a dictionary. Oh, so what do you think an "alphabetical index of principle words" is?

i didn't quote from a concordance. and the 2 sources I quoted are in agreement with my previous comment. your response has nothing to do with what I said.

You didn't quote from a concordance? Are you sure? How sure are you? Because I swear in post #27 where you said,

"here is the greek word used.

gennhqen <1080> (5685) {IS BEGOTTEN," that you quote from a concordance. Do you know how a concordance works? I looked up 1080 and got the word "gennhgen," so as I thought I asked you earlier but maybe not where again did you receive this definition? Are you really sure you didn't quote from a concordance, because I don't believe you?

 

[Superfast]

I'm not sure I can make it any more clear. I think eternally begotten means a unique relationship with God the Father.

eternally begotten means unique realationship with god the Father.
so eternally means relationship with god the father and begotten means unique.

thanks i got my answer.

 

[Superfast]

I appreciate what you said about the triadic relationship of love, Dillinger. I'm thinking about that one.

here's an accurate one. 3 Susans are one Susan.

or 3 persons of susan are one susan.

or

if you add the persons of susan to gether you get 3 if you call each person of susan susan then the 3 individuals all add up to one susan.

now to find that susan somewhere andd your task is done. you might want to look first in the movie "one flew over the kookoo's nest".


I know lots of guys think it would be great to have 3 susan girlfriends, but they aren't married, most married guys know one susan is all they could handle.

 

[Superfast]

I know what you said. What I'm saying is just because you c&p some article from a website I don't find that it does much to favor your argument.

You don't see that it does much to favor my argument because you ignore the reasons they gave for why monogenes doesn't mean unique..

here's one reason they gave amongst many. there are 2 root words in monogenes, one is mono the other is the root word for generate. So to argue that monogenes doesn't mean begotten, is to deny the meaning of the root word in monogenes.

actually i beginning to think they are all wrong. i'm thinking maybe it really means only generated. but I said that and explained why and you ignored it.

 

[Superfast]

Originally Posted by Superfast

I'm pointing out that that is what you are doing. and you are right. you can't say Jesus is begotten and then say he isn't because some word in another language means unique. You just seem incapable of understanding what I'm saying. IF you say Jesus is begotten what do you mean? Forget the greek language, what do you mean when you say Jesus is begotten?
1. Do you mean that Jesus is eternally unique? previously you said no.
2. do you mean that Jesus is eternally begotten and unique?
3. Do you mean nothiing when you say Jesus is eternally begotten?
4. Do you mean that Jesus is eternally sonship?
Thus far I have concluded you mean the 3rd choice. is there a 5th?
​

Nothing you've said is difficult to understand. As I've said I disagree with you highly. I've explained what I mean. And if we forget the Greek language you throw out the English word begotten. I've already explained what I mean by begotten.

you ignored my question you refused to say if it means any one of the 5 choices I presented.

 

[Superfast]

Originally Posted by Superfast

I have shown that there are arguments for and against it meaning unique, I have shown that there are knowledgeable people on the subject that are on both sides of the issue. you haven't shown that it means unique anymore or less than I have shown that it doesn't mean unique.
​

Yeah, you c&p something, That is not impressive nor convincing.

I cut and paste 2 articles, explained in my own words what they were saying and why that means monogenes doesn't mean unique, you just ignored what they said and what I said by only saying "that's not impressive or convincing." why are their arguments not convincing? you just rerfuse to deal with it. you refuse to deal with the fact that the root word in monogenes means generate, and not unique, just to mention one reason they gave.

The term &#8216;only begotten&#8217; in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word Monogenes (Srong&#8217;s &#8211; 3439). Those who promote the doctrine that denies the literal sonship of Jesus Christ (1st John 2:22) tell us that &#8216;monogenes&#8217; only means &#8216;unique&#8217;. Who is correct? Let us investigate and see who bares the weight of evidence..

Monogenes is from the greek words &#8216;monos&#8217; and &#8216;genos&#8217;. The Strong&#8217;s Concordance defines it as &#8220;only-born&#8221;; but let&#8217;s investigate a little deeper

The first article of Monogenes is 3441 monos mon'-os which is defined as: remaining, i.e. sole or single; by implication, mere:--alone, only.

The Second article is 1085 genov genos ghen&#8217;-os which means an offspring or kind. It is translated &#8216;Born&#8217; in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated &#8216;offspring&#8217; in Acts 17:28.

In the New Testament, and in the writings of Ante-Nicene Christians, the term Monogenes takes the more stable denotation of its root &#8216;ginomai&#8217; (1096).{which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is reckoned as &#8216;only begotten&#8217;.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh1_18.html

he gives 2 definitions for the 2nd root word in monogenes, the 2 meanings he gives are offspring, kind, and cause to be generated, or born. thus the reason almost all bibles translate monogenes as only begotten. unique doesn't fit with the root meaning of the word in monogenes, begotten does. Because if someothing is an offspring or kind, or generated or born, begotten is a much better translation than unique is. your response? I'm not persuaded. In other words you are really saying I refuse to deal with it.

2nd source]

Many of the current handbooks on Greek syntax state that monogenes should not be translated as only begotten. [1] Instead, they take the word to mean only or unique. If this were true, the translation of the KJV would not be alone in its "error" for this is the translation of the New American Standard Version, the New King James Version, and several other translations of the twentieth century.
The problem here is a misunderstanding of the Greek language (both Koine and Modern). The word monogenes does means one or unique in the sense that an only child is the only one of his parents. It does not mean unique, as in special, such as in the phrase, "his work is very unique." Here the Greek would be monadikos, not monogenes. As we examine the New Testament we find the word monogenes used eight times (not counting its usage here in John 1:18). In every case it is used to describe a relationship between a parent and child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14; 3:16, 18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9). Since this is how the Holy Spirit uses the word in the New Testament, we must accept this definition when reading John 1:18. [2]

http://www.babylonforsaken.com/monogenes.html




what he is saying is that if it means unique it can only mean unique in the sense of only child or only one of his parents, it cannot mean unique in the sense or special as you take it to mean , because it is a different greek word that means unique, namely monadikos. But anyone saying unique child isn't going to mean only child so that rules it out as a definition of monogenes. but If one meantunique child in the sense of only child it would be similar in meaning to only begotten, or only procreated,. your rebutal is to only say "im not impressed." no cournter argument, just ignore it. cause that's all you can really do ignore the evidence call the source no good, and quote your source.
your only arguement for why monogenes should be translated as unique is cause strongs says so. and all my sources are bad and all your sources are good. typical.

You do the same thing a lot of trinitarians do in here, whatever source I quote you say the source is no good, and that is what you implied in your comments. whatever source you quote is A-1 dandy. INstead of dealing with the issues raised by my source you jsut brush it aside with the source is no good, that way you don't have to deal with anything.

 

[Superfast]

Your sarcastics are dumfounded. A concordance of the Bible will have a dictionary. Oh, so what do you think an "alphabetical index of principle words" is?

open up Strong's concordance to the opening title page and you'll find it says

THE NEW STRONG'S EXHAUSTIVE CONCORDANCE OF THE BIBLE

with

MAIN CONCORDANCE
APPENDIX TO THE MAIN CONCORDANCE
TOPICAL INDEX TO THE BIBLE
DICTIONARY OF THE HEBREW BIBLE
DICTIONARY OF THE GREEK TESDTAMENT


So argue with the opening page.