Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

John 1:18

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

John 1:18
KJV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
ASV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
YLT(i) 18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father"he did declare.

The only time the one who came to earth could have seen God was while ta his side in heaven, so this scripture is clearly speaking of when he was in that state, not in his human state, therefore he is "only begotten son" of God before he came to earth.

The only way he could be begotten is by creation, and the only way he could be the only begotten son of God is if God created him alone, and created nothing else without the assistance of his son, because after that point God has many sons, not just Adam, but the Angels also.

This fits in perfectly with:

Proverbs 8:22 "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago".

Proverbs 8:30 "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;

John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.

John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Colossians 1:15, 16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

All of this counters the Trinity, beyond reasonable argument, and shows that the one who came to earth to become the Christ was the sole creation made by God alone, literally, his only begotten son.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 7:30:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.
That lets your Satan off the hook yet again!

You admit it came in to existence because of the fault or design of your narcissistic Story book god!

The god you can't even name correctly but insult it by using a common term based upon some people's alleged ' familiarity with it'?

Not based upon accuracy, but people's alleged ' familiarity with it '?

You faggot!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:49:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 7:30:43 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.
That lets your Satan off the hook yet again!

You admit it came in to existence because of the fault or design of your narcissistic Story book god!

The god you can't even name correctly but insult it by using a common term based upon some people's alleged ' familiarity with it'?

Not based upon accuracy, but people's alleged ' familiarity with it '?

You faggot!

Oh he's not my Satan, he's yours, lol, as you so eagerly display every time you post.

Haven't you got it yet? You cannot harm me. Those who God want will recognise at least something of the truths I post, those whom, he doesn't want don't matter.

So all your pitiful howling at the moon does not good whatever, lol.

But of course the one controlling you won;t let you see that will he because he couldn't care less about any human.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 10:29:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 8:49:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 7:30:43 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.
That lets your Satan off the hook yet again!

You admit it came in to existence because of the fault or design of your narcissistic Story book god!

The god you can't even name correctly but insult it by using a common term based upon some people's alleged ' familiarity with it'?

Not based upon accuracy, but people's alleged ' familiarity with it '?

You faggot!

Oh he's not my Satan, he's yours, lol, as you so eagerly display every time you post.

Haven't you got it yet? You cannot harm me. Those who God want will recognise at least something of the truths I post, those whom, he doesn't want don't matter.

Then nobody will recognize any truth in what you post.

I know good and well that the majority of these atheists have not studied the Bible as much as you have, and it is a crying shame that they make more sense and more accurately cite scripture than you do - and they don't even believe it. That just goes to show what the influence of the WatchTower does to a person.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 10:51:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

I've never understood the attempts at making this verse fit with verses that say silly little things like 'I have seen God' and 'They saw God'.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 11:45:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 10:51:22 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

I've never understood the attempts at making this verse fit with verses that say silly little things like 'I have seen God' and 'They saw God'.

You can't, it is impossible, any who say they have seen God are deceiving themselves, or being deceived. No-one in human form as ever seen God, the few that have since Christ's sacrifice had, like him, to be transformed into spirits to go there.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 11:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 10:29:38 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/5/2014 8:49:39 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 7:30:43 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.
That lets your Satan off the hook yet again!

You admit it came in to existence because of the fault or design of your narcissistic Story book god!

The god you can't even name correctly but insult it by using a common term based upon some people's alleged ' familiarity with it'?

Not based upon accuracy, but people's alleged ' familiarity with it '?

You faggot!

Oh he's not my Satan, he's yours, lol, as you so eagerly display every time you post.

Haven't you got it yet? You cannot harm me. Those who God want will recognise at least something of the truths I post, those whom, he doesn't want don't matter.

Then nobody will recognize any truth in what you post.

I know good and well that the majority of these atheists have not studied the Bible as much as you have, and it is a crying shame that they make more sense and more accurately cite scripture than you do - and they don't even believe it. That just goes to show what the influence of the WatchTower does to a person.

Some will, though only a minority, but if even one does then I have done the job that Christ has set me.

The Watchtower has done nothing to me, apart from guide me though the scriptures to ones I would never have found on my own, and for that I am grateful.

Everything they teach is backed up 100% in scripture, as can be seen by using any translation you care to name.

The only things that have done anything for me, or to me, are scripture, and the influence of holy spirit.

That is why I have learned to rely more and more on God and Christ through holy spirit, since they have always kept their promises and will continue to do so for any who ask them in faith, and the acceptance of who they really are.

No human being can be relied on, not even the JWs, so, as they recommend themselves, I always check what they teach against scripture, and in more than one translation to be sure it comes from God not from Satan. After all scripture also says we must be sure of that.

That is why even they say that only scripture can be relied on, and make a big thing of Paul's' words:

1 Corinthians 11:1 Become imitators of me, just as I am of Christ.

The only way any should be imitated, JWs Paul, anyone, is in how they imitate Christ.

So far the JWs are the only ones I have discovered that are even trying to do so.

You are most certainly a long way from it, because Christ always let his father's word dictate what he believed you bend his father's word around your pre-set doctrine.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 12:01:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 11:45:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 10:51:22 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

I've never understood the attempts at making this verse fit with verses that say silly little things like 'I have seen God' and 'They saw God'.

You can't, it is impossible, any who say they have seen God are deceiving themselves, or being deceived. No-one in human form as ever seen God, the few that have since Christ's sacrifice had, like him, to be transformed into spirits to go there.

So Moses and Aaron, NaR42;dab and A"biR42;hu, and 70 of the elders of Israel were deceived when they saw God?

Or are you just scapegoating every contradiction by claiming there was a transformation?
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 12:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 12:01:40 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/5/2014 11:45:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 10:51:22 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

I've never understood the attempts at making this verse fit with verses that say silly little things like 'I have seen God' and 'They saw God'.

You can't, it is impossible, any who say they have seen God are deceiving themselves, or being deceived. No-one in human form as ever seen God, the few that have since Christ's sacrifice had, like him, to be transformed into spirits to go there.

So Moses and Aaron, NaR42;dab and A"biR42;hu, and 70 of the elders of Israel were deceived when they saw God?

Or are you just scapegoating every contradiction by claiming there was a transformation?

In a sense, yes. They saw a representation of the one they were speaking with, who was speaking as God's representative.

However, as Jesus makes clear, it was not actually God, and in fact if you follow scripture properly you will eventually realise that in many cases God was simply given the credit for many of the things he simply ordered others, usually his son, to do for him.

No. There are no true contradictions in scripture, only things that appear to be contradiction because they are not understood correctly.

Scripture has an overall picture which slowly develops and becomes clearer.

The problem is that God. for very good reason, only releases information as and when it is needed, and sometimes that information comes in the understanding of something which was not understood previously.

That is why there were things which Jesus did not know, as well as his Apostles after him.

For instance it was a long time until it was realised that, in fact, God has not had any direct dealings with mankind since Adam sinned and was thrown out of the Garden of Eden. All contact with humanity has been seconded to his son, though his son always gave his father the credit for it, as he continued to do on earth and after.

That is why so many of the pronouncements start with phrases like "The word of Jehovah is" or similar phrases.

IN fact it is only in recent decades, as Revelation has become better understood, that it has been realised that God's "day of rest" which does not mean complete rest, but rest from direct dealings with mankind, will not end until the end of his son;s 1,000 year rules. The last three chapters of Revelation describe how that comes about.

This also explains why the 7th day is never said in scripture to have ended, unlike the first 6 which were always ended with very similar phrases, such as " And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."

Scripture takes a lot of study, and a lot of help through God's holy spirit, to achieve a true understanding , but the truth is that God has protected it from Satanic interference to the extent that it actually can be used to translate itself, so continual study is rewarded eventually.

However that is also why his son has arranged the current preaching work to guide people through scripture to get at the truth of it, and that does accelerate the process somewhat. However they do not replace study, simply assist it, or should their words be taken instead of scripture because scripture is and always must be, the final authority.

One of their songs says it all when it says "Make the truth your own" don't just accept a second hand truth from others but make sure for yourself that it really is true, so that it gets into your heart, not just your head.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 1:58:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

John 1:18
KJV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
ASV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
YLT(i) 18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father"he did declare.

The only time the one who came to earth could have seen God was while ta his side in heaven, so this scripture is clearly speaking of when he was in that state, not in his human state, therefore he is "only begotten son" of God before he came to earth.

The only way he could be begotten is by creation, and the only way he could be the only begotten son of God is if God created him alone, and created nothing else without the assistance of his son, because after that point God has many sons, not just Adam, but the Angels also.

This fits in perfectly with:

Proverbs 8:22 "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago".

Proverbs 8:30 "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;

John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.

John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Colossians 1:15, 16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

All of this counters the Trinity, beyond reasonable argument, and shows that the one who came to earth to become the Christ was the sole creation made by God alone, literally, his only begotten son.

So no man has seen god?

Genesis 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....

Genesis 18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.

Genesis 26:2-24 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of
And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not.

Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Genesis 35:9 And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padanaram, and blessed him.

Genesis 48:3 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan.

Exodus 3:16 The LORD God ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you.

Exodus 4:5 That they may believe that the LORD God ... hath appeared unto thee.

Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob....

Exodus 24:9-11 Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. And they saw the God of Israel ... They saw God, and did eat and drink.

Exodus 33:11-23 And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.

And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.

Numbers 14:14 For they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face.

Deuteronomy 5:4 The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire.

Deuteronomy 34:10 And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.

Judges 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

1 Kings 22:19 I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

Job 42:5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.
Psalm 63.2 To see thy power and they glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary.
Isaiah 6:1-5 In the year that King Ussiah died, I saw, also, the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.
For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Ezekiel 1:27 And saw ... the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward....

Ezekiel 20:35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.

Amos 7:7 The LORD stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a plumbline in his hand.

Amos 9:1 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake.

Habakkuk 3:3-5 God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran .... He had horns coming out of his hand.

Baruch 3:38 Afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men.
Matthew 18:9 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Except for these times.
Next!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 2:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to type one of the notes in The Forgotten Trinity by James White where he discusses the meaning of "monogenes" found in John 1:18. He cites sources that use a Greek font (and one that uses a Hebrew font), and since I can't type a Greek font in here (I've tried), I'm going to transliterate them (except the one Hebrew one since I can't transliterate Hebrew). Also, where White uses block quotes, I'm going to use quotation marks. This comes from note 27 of chapter 4, and it's on page 201-203.

*****
Extended note on the meaning of monogenes:

Traditional translations often have a great impact on theology. This is certainly the case in regard to monogenes. So imbeded in our thought is the phrase "only begotten" as the translation of this word that it is difficult to discuss the term in its original context so as to arrive at the meaning it carried for those who used it, especially when we ask what it meant to the apostle John.

In English, "only begotten" emphasizes the final element of the translation, the concept of begettal and generation. But the English meaning must, in all cases, be consonant with the Greek original, and we must take any emphasis from the Greek, not from the English.

The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning "only," with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, "to give birth, to beget." But note that this family of terms has two nu's, "nn," rather than the single n found in monogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai but gignesthai/ginomai, and the noun form, genos. G.L. Prestige discusses the differences that arise from these two derivations in God in Patristic Thought (London: SPCK, 1952), 52-51, 135-141, 151-156.

"genos means 'kind or type,' and genomai is a verb of being. Hence the translations 'one of a kind,' 'one and only,' 'of sole descent.' Some scholars see the -genes element as having a minor impact upon the meaning of the term, and hence the monogenes as a strengthened form of monos, thereby translating it as 'alone,' 'unique,' 'incomparable.' An example of this useage from the LXX is found in Psalm 25:16, "Turn to me and be gracious to me, For I am lonely (monogenes) and afflicted" (NASB)."

There are numerous scholarly sources that substantiate the proper meaning of monogenes. The lexicon of Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based On Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988), 591, says:

"monogenes, -es: pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class--'unique, only.' tou huion ton monogene edoken 'he gave his only Son' John 3.16; ton huion autou ton monogene apestalken ho theos 'God sent his only son' 1 Jn 4.9; ton monogene prosepherin, ho tas epagnelias anadexamenos 'he who has received the promises presented his only son' or '...was read to offer his only son' He 11.17. Abraham, of course, did have another son, Ishmael, and later sons by Keturah, but Isaac was a unique son in that he was a son born as a result of certain promises made by God. Accordingly, he could be called a monogenes son, since he was the only one of his kind."

Newman and Nida, in A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of John (New York: United Bible Societies, 1980, 24) notes:

"Only Son is the rendering of all modern translations. There is no doubt regarding the meaning of the Greek word here (monogenes); it means 'only' and not 'only begotten.' The meaning 'only begotten,' which appears in the Vulgate, has influence KJV and many other early translations."

The major work of James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's, 1930, 416-417), likewise gives this indication:

"monogenes is literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only begotten,' which would be monogennetos (unigenitus), and is common in the LXX in this sense.... The emphasis is on the thought that, as the 'only' Son of God, He has no equal and is able to reveal the Father."

This is cited with approval by Tenney, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981, 33) with the additional comment, "God's personal revelation of himself in Christ has no parallel elsewhere, nor has it ever been repeated." George Beasley-Murray, likewise, said in Word Biblical Commentary on John (Waco: Word Books, 1987, p. 14),

"monogenes, lit., 'the only one of its kind,' unique in its genos, in the LXX frequently translated [hebrew I can't transliterate] (yahid). . ."

Likewise we read in Leon Morris's work, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, 105),

"We should not read too much into 'only begotten.' To English ears this sounds like a metaphysical relationship, but the Greek terms mean no more than 'only,' 'unique.' [The footnote at this point reads as follows: It should not be overlooked that monogenes is derived from ginomai not gennao . . . Etymologically, it is not connected with begetting.]"

So wide is the witness to this meaning that the standard lexical source, that of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature edited by Bauer, Arndt, Gringrich and Danker, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), includes in its definition of the term:

"monogenes, -es, only . . . of children: Isaac, Abraham's only son . . . Of an only son . . . --Also 'unique' (in kind), of something that is the only example of its category . . . --in Johannine lit. m is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique, may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M, RSV, et al.; DMoody JBL 72, '53, 213-19; FCGrant, ATR 36, '54, 284-87)."

Finally, Murray Harris, in Jesus as God, 87, said:

"This leads us to believe that monogenes denotes 'the only member of a kin or kind.' Applied to Jesus as the Son of God, it will mean that he is without spiritual siblings and without equals. He is 'sole-born' and 'peer-less.' No one else can lay claim to the title Son of God in the sense in which is applies to Christ."
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 2:21:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, basically, MadCornishBiker has cherry picked his translations. Most modern translations translate monogenes as "unique" "one and only," or something along those lines, not "only begotten."

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Monogenes does not indicate that Jesus was created, but rather that he is unique.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 2:22:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "Everything they teach is backed up 100% in scripture, as can be seen by using any translation you care to name."

Anna: But what they teach was checked, and it is not backed up by scripture!

Scripture says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

You cast doubt on the scripture for the very reason that it does not back up - in fact, it refutes - what the WatchTower teaches. You tried to claim that Jesus was just in error, that He just made a false prophesy. Then you substantiated your position by trying to claim that Peter had it right, but Jesus didn't - then referred us to a passage that only speaks of a time prior to the resurrection.

How's that for maliciously handling the scriptures? And the WatchTower led you to it! Yep. That's who you've got to thank for that gem of reasoning. Do you mean to tell us that you came up with the ridiculous notion of "materialized spirit being" all on your own? Do you mean to tell us that you concocted the novel concept of "disintegration" by yourself?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Dogknox
Posts: 5,051
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:21:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

John 1:18
KJV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
ASV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
YLT(i) 18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father"he did declare.

The only time the one who came to earth could have seen God was while ta his side in heaven, so this scripture is clearly speaking of when he was in that state, not in his human state, therefore he is "only begotten son" of God before he came to earth.

The only way he could be begotten is by creation, and the only way he could be the only begotten son of God is if God created him alone, and created nothing else without the assistance of his son, because after that point God has many sons, not just Adam, but the Angels also.

This fits in perfectly with:

Proverbs 8:22 "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago".

Proverbs 8:30 "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;

John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.

John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Colossians 1:15, 16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

All of this counters the Trinity, beyond reasonable argument, and shows that the one who came to earth to become the Christ was the sole creation made by God alone, literally, his only begotten son.

John 1:18 (CJB)
No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father"s side " he has made him known.

John 1:18 (CEV)
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

John 1:18 (GNT)
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

John 1:18 (NET)
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

John 1:18 (NIRV)
No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father"s side. He has shown us what God is like.

John 1:18 (NIV)
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 1:18 (NLT)
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father"s heart. He has revealed God to us.

John 1:18 (NRSVCE)
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father"s heart, who has made him known.

LUKE 1:43
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

DO YOU SEE IT???
mother of my Lord

LUKE 1 (same chapter)
Zechariah"s Song
67 His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied:
68 "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come to his people and redeemed them.


DO YOU SEE IT???? the Lord, the God of Israel
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:45:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:22:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "Everything they teach is backed up 100% in scripture, as can be seen by using any translation you care to name."

Anna: But what they teach was checked, and it is not backed up by scripture!

Scripture says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

You cast doubt on the scripture for the very reason that it does not back up - in fact, it refutes - what the WatchTower teaches. You tried to claim that Jesus was just in error, that He just made a false prophesy. Then you substantiated your position by trying to claim that Peter had it right, but Jesus didn't - then referred us to a passage that only speaks of a time prior to the resurrection.

How's that for maliciously handling the scriptures? And the WatchTower led you to it! Yep. That's who you've got to thank for that gem of reasoning. Do you mean to tell us that you came up with the ridiculous notion of "materialized spirit being" all on your own? Do you mean to tell us that you concocted the novel concept of "disintegration" by yourself?

Yes you do have a real good go at that don't you.

That statement by Jesus is as accurate as the one at Matthew 12: 40 for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

Both are true in principle but not in detail.

Why? Well if Jesus literal body had bee resurrected, those who knew him intimately would not have failed to recognise him.

Therefore he was not resurrected into that body, but as Peter said, a spirit body.

So you are left with only a few alternatives.

1: Was Peter lying? after all he was a witness of the Resurrected Jesus and his state.

2: Is scripture lying when we are told that none was able to recognise him by sight or voice?

3: Was Jesus mistaken because he had not been given the details?

You have already suggested that Jesus was in a changed body but still a physical, but even if that were true, then his statement about the body he was in being resurrected was not true.

Your stand on this issue simply doesn't make the slightest sense and contradicts not only itself at every turn, but a large body of unequivocal scripture. The only way you can maintain that belief is to say, not only that scripture lies when it tells us that none could recognise him and also that he were put to death n the flesh twice so he could become the spirit that Peter said he was.

Does any of that really make sense to you?

Or is it just that you are, as you always do, putting your chosen doctrine before loyalty to the truth of scripture?

The more you go on about this, the more I shall be forced to correct you and the more people will realise just how unscriptural your ideas are.

And you are still left with the only possible meaning of John 1:18 to deal with.

You really can't escape no matter which way you turn, you are trapped in Satan's net and there is only one way out, and it's called humility.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 3:56:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

John 1:18
KJV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
ASV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
YLT(i) 18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father"he did declare.

The only time the one who came to earth could have seen God was while ta his side in heaven, so this scripture is clearly speaking of when he was in that state, not in his human state, therefore he is "only begotten son" of God before he came to earth.

The only way he could be begotten is by creation, and the only way he could be the only begotten son of God is if God created him alone, and created nothing else without the assistance of his son, because after that point God has many sons, not just Adam, but the Angels also.

This fits in perfectly with:

Proverbs 8:22 "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago".

Proverbs 8:30 "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;

John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.

John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Colossians 1:15, 16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

All of this counters the Trinity, beyond reasonable argument, and shows that the one who came to earth to become the Christ was the sole creation made by God alone, literally, his only begotten son.

We saints, including the first saint, Jesus, were the only one's who obtain the invisible knowledge of God to understand the past, present and future. It wasn't only the first saint who obtained this knowledge. There were thousands of us saints after him that learned the same knowledge and testified to it in writing and speaking. Even our bodily movements are testimonies that some believers believe in.

We saints know there is only ONE Creator and His Voice, which is a big part of Him but we, as God's Voice, are NOT the Creator. We're only used by Him to put forth His creation but we didn't dream up any life experiences that only our Creator could do.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:00:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 11:45:22 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 10:51:22 AM, RhysJaxson wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

I've never understood the attempts at making this verse fit with verses that say silly little things like 'I have seen God' and 'They saw God'.

You can't, it is impossible, any who say they have seen God are deceiving themselves, or being deceived. No-one in human form as ever seen God, the few that have since Christ's sacrifice had, like him, to be transformed into spirits to go there.

My flesh was made to speak and write for our invisible Creator because my created existence is called God's Voice, known as the Word of God, or Son of God, or Messiah, or Christ, or gospel, etc.

My flesh will perish during this age like all God's saints and prophets and men did during this age but our created existence as His Word goes on forever. We will all wake up in new flesh in Paradise to start new life experiences from our created existence as wavelengths of energy ( information ) that no man will ever see, including the mind of our Creator where we've existed since He first began dreaming us up as created "beings".
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:14:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 3:21:57 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:47:19 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
John 1:18
NWT No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father"s side is the one who has explained Him

John 1:18
KJV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
ASV(i) 18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18
YLT(i) 18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father"he did declare.

The only time the one who came to earth could have seen God was while ta his side in heaven, so this scripture is clearly speaking of when he was in that state, not in his human state, therefore he is "only begotten son" of God before he came to earth.

The only way he could be begotten is by creation, and the only way he could be the only begotten son of God is if God created him alone, and created nothing else without the assistance of his son, because after that point God has many sons, not just Adam, but the Angels also.

This fits in perfectly with:

Proverbs 8:22 "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago".

Proverbs 8:30 "Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;

John 1:3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence.

John 17:5 So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.

Colossians 1:15, 16
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

All of this counters the Trinity, beyond reasonable argument, and shows that the one who came to earth to become the Christ was the sole creation made by God alone, literally, his only begotten son.

John 1:18 (CJB)
No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father"s side " he has made him known.

John 1:18 (CEV)
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.

John 1:18 (GNT)
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

John 1:18 (NET)
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

John 1:18 (NIRV)
No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father"s side. He has shown us what God is like.

John 1:18 (NIV)
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 1:18 (NLT)
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father"s heart. He has revealed God to us.

John 1:18 (NRSVCE)
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father"s heart, who has made him known.

LUKE 1:43
But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

DO YOU SEE IT???
mother of my Lord

LUKE 1 (same chapter)
Zechariah"s Song
67 His father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied:
68 "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has come to his people and redeemed them.


DO YOU SEE IT???? the Lord, the God of Israel

Yes I see it, but it doesn't fit with the reality of the whole of scripture. Whereas translated correctly, as it is in the translations I quoted, it does

There are so many scriptures that describe God as the "God and father of Jesus Christ". He cannot be both God and have a God.

Still it's your choice, and we all live and die according to our choices, so it is up to you if you accept their true nature or not.

You just have to make up your mind whether you control doctrine according to scripture, or scriptural according to doctrine.

Since you are a supporter of the most Apostate of all churches you stand no chance unless you wake up to the truth about your church and listen to God's word rather than church doctrine.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:18:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "That statement by Jesus is as accurate as the one at Matthew 12: 40 for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."

Anna: Both statements are 100% true. "Three days and three nights" is not literal as we use the words: it was very flexible. Such usages are found elsewhere in the scriptures and found fairly frequently.

It is a fact that the enemies of Jesus knew full well what Jesus had predicted, and such a knowledge by them is even confirmed by scriptures.

It is also a fact that the first-century Jews were in a much better position to point out inconsistencies and errors in the teachings of Jesus. This would extend to His prophesies.

Why did they fail to point this one out?

Why did those persecuting enemies, either pagan or Jewish, point out, "Your boy is a sham. Look at this three-day-and-three-nights business. He missed it."

Nobody said that.

Why? Because the phrase "three days and three nights" was the idiomatic equivalent of three days. That's all there is to it, and you should know that if you ever studied the Bible as you say you have. Even the flood is described as occurring "forty days and forty nights", but then we find out it lasted "forty days". The same is true in Samuel, somewhere. I can't remember the passages.

"This deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day."

Why didn't they bother to guard it on the third night?

Jesus didn't miss it. You did. And you promote infidelity by claiming to be a Bible-believer and have the main character uttering false prophesies. I'd advise you to take a look at McGarvey's Jesus and Jonah, a 100-yr old work that obliterates the confusion. Lightfoot, as I recall, also dealt with the subject very well.

YOU, on the other hand, have about the worst explanation imaginable.

MCB: "Why? Well if Jesus literal body had bee resurrected, those who knew him intimately would not have failed to recognise him."

Anna: How do you know? Obviously they didn't. The dead body of Jesus was changed. We do not know the details. Obviously it was changed to the point that they did not instantly recognize Him.

MCB: "Was Peter lying? after all he was a witness of the Resurrected Jesus and his state."

Anna: Peter was not discussing the resurrected state at all.

MCB: "Is scripture lying when we are told that none was able to recognise him by sight or voice?"

Anna: Nope, they didn't. I have repeatedly told you that the corpse of Jesus was changed ... altered. It was altered into a new form.

MCB: "Was Jesus mistaken because he had not been given the details?"

Anna: Of course not. Unlike you, Jesus apparently did not say things that were not so. If He did not know the detail, He promptly admitted it - a trait which should serve as an example to you.

MCB: "You have already suggested that Jesus was in a changed body but still a physical, but even if that were true, then his statement about the body he was in being resurrected was not true."

Anna: I didn't "suggest" it, nor did I speculate around the world about it. I plainly said that Jesus was in a changed body - but it was still basically the same body in an altered form. Why do you have to guess about this or that? Some things are not revealed.

I know this much: He arose in a body that was not subject to disease, death, or decay. How would I propose to know what it looked like?

Do you not see that you simply guess your way right into infidelity? If you don't see it, let me point it out.

MCB: "you can maintain that belief is to say, not only that scripture lies when it tells us that none could recognise him and also that he were put to death n the flesh twice so he could become the spirit that Peter said he was."

Anna: Those are ridiculous comments. I know that even His followers did not recognize Him. So what? And I've told you a dozen time that Peter is referring to the period between the death and resurrection.

MCB: "The more you go on about this, the more I shall be forced to correct you"

Anna: LMAO! 'Tis you who gets corrected, because your "disintegration theory" makes you an infidel. An atheist who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ would advance better arguments than you do. You sound like a child:

"They didn't recognize Him, so it wasn't the same body. See? I've proved it. Thus, His body disintegrated."

A ten-year-old could do better.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:52:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:22:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "Everything they teach is backed up 100% in scripture, as can be seen by using any translation you care to name."

Anna: But what they teach was checked, and it is not backed up by scripture!

Scripture says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

You cast doubt on the scripture for the very reason that it does not back up - in fact, it refutes - what the WatchTower teaches. You tried to claim that Jesus was just in error, that He just made a false prophesy. Then you substantiated your position by trying to claim that Peter had it right, but Jesus didn't - then referred us to a passage that only speaks of a time prior to the resurrection.

How's that for maliciously handling the scriptures? And the WatchTower led you to it! Yep. That's who you've got to thank for that gem of reasoning. Do you mean to tell us that you came up with the ridiculous notion of "materialized spirit being" all on your own? Do you mean to tell us that you concocted the novel concept of "disintegration" by yourself?

I do not cast doubt on scripture I support it as ot supports me.

In order to understand one scripture the way you wish to, you cast doubt on many.

I simply explain to you have they fit together but you refuse to accept that.

How do you explain Matthew 12: 40 for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights., which is demonstrably inaccurate, as it stands, according to your doctrine and mine?

You have to learn to deal with these little problems to understand scripture properly.

The easiest way, and the only one that does not damage it's credibility is to say that it is correct in principle, but because of things Christ did not know, it was wrong in detail.

How do you deal with the fact that your doctrine says that Jesus was resurrected into his own body, when no-one who knew him intimately was able to recognise him either by sight or by his voice?

The fact is, if you stop and think about it, if Jesus was able to go and preach to the spirits in prison, he was a spirit, so why would he then take on another body of flesh when the simplest thing to do was to materialise, in similar fashion to those disobedient Angels he has just been preaching to?

It makes no sense.

Since Peter stated very clearly that Christ was brought back to life as a spirit, why do you cling to the literal understanding of what Christ said, since it so evidently didn't work out that way.

Why when you find two things like this that appear to contradict do you just stick with the version that agrees with you chosen doctrine rather than asking which one , or ones, you have understood wrongly and use other scriptures to help you decide?

It is surely because unlike Paul and the other Apostles you refuse to actually reason on the scriptures.

I say scripture is 100% true, but the essence, the substance of it, not the actual wording which is to prone to be affected by personal bias of the translators.

Psalm 119:160
160 The very essence of your word is truth, And all your righteous judgments endure forever.

What you consistently fail to do is get to the essence of the whole of scripture,and without that you are literally guessing abut word meanings, which of course you accuse me of doing.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 4:54:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And the reason for not answering your statements on John 1: 18 is that you insist on making the same old mistakes you've made in the past, number one of which is trying to confute and confuse the terms "created" and "begotten". Then you supply us with a definition which, if you actually applied it, refutes your own error.

The Bible speaks quite a bit about Adam, even in the New Testament. Out of all sixty-six books of the Bible - seventy-three if you want to include the Apocrypha - exactly how many times is Adam called a begotten son?

The point is: Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Period. God has other sons, either by creation or adoption. Adam is the only created son of God; all the rest came by procreation. We are sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ - and the way we got that way is by being baptized into Christ, not into an organization.

You might be interested to know, on a side note, that the word "for" in Gal 3 is "gar" which actually is a conjunction that in this case means "to introduce the reason". "For ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Why? How'd they get that way? "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Were they sons of God by faith in Christ before they were baptized? Absolutely not! No "baptized into Christ", no "son of God by faith". I point that out because Mr. Russell missed the point in his debate with White. Of course, in his defense, Mr. Russell could not be bothered by such trivial matters: he was at the time fully engaged in his "proof positive" concerning pyramids, 1874, 1878, and 1914.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 5:00:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
See post #19. There's no need in having to re-italicize it. Borno popped in with his usual grandiose, self-directed bs. I was hoping they had banned him.

I've never seen anyone so worthless - a bum who depends upon Christian charities - who also had such delusions of self-importance. He'll probably ride right on into heaven on the grounds of general unaccountability.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 5:03:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Annacole, you never answered my question. Are you a man because you post like an aggressive man posts, very much always on the attack. That's why I ask you to identify your gender.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 5:19:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 2:21:20 PM, philochristos wrote:
So, basically, MadCornishBiker has cherry picked his translations. Most modern translations translate monogenes as "unique" "one and only," or something along those lines, not "only begotten."

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Monogenes does not indicate that Jesus was created, but rather that he is unique.

But monogenes does mean something along those lines, the genes part giving the idea of birth

So you still end up with sole, or single born or produced whatever way you twist it.

As for cherry picking translations, it is true that I stuck with the most popular ones, as provided by studybible.info, but where do you stop looking/

With so many variants to choose from, the vast majority have, provably been altered by having God's name deliberately removed, how do you choose which ones? Do you cherry-pick ones that agree with what you want scripture top say, or what the majority of scripture points to?

With me it is the latter every time, because scripture, being the word of God from one end to the other can only be an integrated whole. Therefore it if doesn't fit in with the overall story, the essence, the substance of scripture it is out. simple as.

Understanding John 1:18 as indicating God's son, in his pre-human state, being anything other than the "monogenes" of God , the unique son of God, the Only begotten son of God.

Being the only son God created all by himself is the only thing which can make his son the "monogenes" no matter what else you may think, since God had many sons, all of whom were created with the aid of his Monogenes

The Greek word monogenesR42; is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind." (Thayer"s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott"s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of "the only-begotten son" of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus" "only-begotten daughter," and of a man"s "only-begotten" son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Luke 7:11, 12; Luke 8:41,42; Luke 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthah"s daughter, concerning whom it is written: "Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter."(Judges 11:34).

So it still shows exactly what the rest of scripture says it should.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 12:22:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:19:31 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:21:20 PM, philochristos wrote:
So, basically, MadCornishBiker has cherry picked his translations. Most modern translations translate monogenes as "unique" "one and only," or something along those lines, not "only begotten."

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Monogenes does not indicate that Jesus was created, but rather that he is unique.

But monogenes does mean something along those lines, the genes part giving the idea of birth

Did you read the post I made directly before the one you're responding to here where I quoted from James White's book? He addressed this directly, showing that the genes part does not give the idea of birth.

So you still end up with sole, or single born or produced whatever way you twist it.

With so many variants to choose from, the vast majority have, provably been altered by having God's name deliberately removed, how do you choose which ones? Do you cherry-pick ones that agree with what you want scripture top say, or what the majority of scripture points to?

I think if two people have a disagreement on which translation is correct, their only recourse is to make arguments from the original languages. That's why I quoted all that stuff from The Forgotten Trinity. I don't think it's ever appropriate to try to establish your point of view by cherry picking only translations that agree with your point of view when other translations disagree with your point of view.

With me it is the latter every time, because scripture, being the word of God from one end to the other can only be an integrated whole. Therefore it if doesn't fit in with the overall story, the essence, the substance of scripture it is out. simple as.

I agree that you should interpret scripture in a way that it is consistent with itself, but if this is a veiled rationalization for choosing a translation that happens to agree with the theology you already adhere to, then I think that is backwards. Your theology should be dictated by the scriptures, not the other way around.

Understanding John 1:18 as indicating God's son, in his pre-human state, being anything other than the "monogenes" of God , the unique son of God, the Only begotten son of God.

This is not a complete sentence, so I don't know what you're trying to say.

Being the only son God created all by himself is the only thing which can make his son the "monogenes" no matter what else you may think, since God had many sons, all of whom were created with the aid of his Monogenes

This was addressed in the post above where I quoted from The Forgotten Trinity. Did you read that post?

The Greek word monogenesR42; is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind." (Thayer"s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott"s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of "the only-begotten son" of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus" "only-begotten daughter," and of a man"s "only-begotten" son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Luke 7:11, 12; Luke 8:41,42; Luke 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthah"s daughter, concerning whom it is written: "Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter."(Judges 11:34).

It is true that "monogenes" can be used of only children, but it doesn't follow that "monogenes" means "only child" or "only begotten." After all, if somebody is an only child, then they are also unique and one of a kind to their parents. But somebody can be one of a kind and unique without being an only child. If you had read the post above where I quoted from The Forgotten Trinity, it went into this, citing Isaac who was called the 'monogenes' of Abraham, even though he was not Abraham's only child, Ishmael having come before Isaac. Isaac was unique in that he was heir to the promises, but he was not the only begotten son of Abraham.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 10:26:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 12:22:25 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/5/2014 5:19:31 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/5/2014 2:21:20 PM, philochristos wrote:
So, basically, MadCornishBiker has cherry picked his translations. Most modern translations translate monogenes as "unique" "one and only," or something along those lines, not "only begotten."

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Monogenes does not indicate that Jesus was created, but rather that he is unique.

But monogenes does mean something along those lines, the genes part giving the idea of birth

Did you read the post I made directly before the one you're responding to here where I quoted from James White's book? He addressed this directly, showing that the genes part does not give the idea of birth.

So you still end up with sole, or single born or produced whatever way you twist it.

With so many variants to choose from, the vast majority have, provably been altered by having God's name deliberately removed, how do you choose which ones? Do you cherry-pick ones that agree with what you want scripture top say, or what the majority of scripture points to?

I think if two people have a disagreement on which translation is correct, their only recourse is to make arguments from the original languages. That's why I quoted all that stuff from The Forgotten Trinity. I don't think it's ever appropriate to try to establish your point of view by cherry picking only translations that agree with your point of view when other translations disagree with your point of view.

With me it is the latter every time, because scripture, being the word of God from one end to the other can only be an integrated whole. Therefore it if doesn't fit in with the overall story, the essence, the substance of scripture it is out. simple as.

I agree that you should interpret scripture in a way that it is consistent with itself, but if this is a veiled rationalization for choosing a translation that happens to agree with the theology you already adhere to, then I think that is backwards. Your theology should be dictated by the scriptures, not the other way around.

Understanding John 1:18 as indicating God's son, in his pre-human state, being anything other than the "monogenes" of God , the unique son of God, the Only begotten son of God.

This is not a complete sentence, so I don't know what you're trying to say.

Being the only son God created all by himself is the only thing which can make his son the "monogenes" no matter what else you may think, since God had many sons, all of whom were created with the aid of his Monogenes

This was addressed in the post above where I quoted from The Forgotten Trinity. Did you read that post?

The Greek word monogenesR42; is defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the only member of a kin or kind." (Thayer"s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott"s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of "the only-begotten son" of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus" "only-begotten daughter," and of a man"s "only-begotten" son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Luke 7:11, 12; Luke 8:41,42; Luke 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthah"s daughter, concerning whom it is written: "Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter."(Judges 11:34).

It is true that "monogenes" can be used of only children, but it doesn't follow that "monogenes" means "only child" or "only begotten." After all, if somebody is an only child, then they are also unique and one of a kind to their parents. But somebody can be one of a kind and unique without being an only child. If you had read the post above where I quoted from The Forgotten Trinity, it went into this, citing Isaac who was called the 'monogenes' of Abraham, even though he was not Abraham's only child, Ishmael having come before Isaac. Isaac was unique in that he was heir to the promises, but he was not the only begotten son of Abraham.

I never said it meant only child, which would be difficult after all God had many children, however he is completely unique in being the only one hat God created all alone without his son to help him. That is why is his Monogenes, only begotten, sicne e is the onyl one begotten of created all alone.

This understanding also fits in with Proverbs 8 which, though it appears to be directed to "wisdom" describes the role, and feelings, of God's son to a "T" including the fact that he was his father's first creation, and since Wisdom in the literal sense is not a creation but an intrinsic quality of God it can only really refer to God's son.

Read that chapter carefully and I am sure you will get the idea, whether or not you agree with it.

Even if you translate monogenes as "one and only" that still only really works out of God's son is God's only solo creation.

In fact however you translate it you end up with the same idea, for it to make sense ion the context of the whole of God's creation. and especially when you include Christ being called God's "firstborn" elsewhere.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

If you take verses 15 and 16 together, adding first-born oif all creation, to the fact that God's son aided in the creation of all other things, not only can you see that the word "other" really does belong there, but again it is further evidence that God's son was the first thing God created and the only unique one in that he was the only one created without any assistance.

Taken together that forces the understanding of monogenes to be only begotten son.

The problem is that so few people see scripture as an integrated whole, more as a collection of bits that only fit loosely together.

However if it is, as I believe, and as Christ and the Apostles believed, the Word of God, then it had to be a complete integrated whole, because God has never changed nor is there any reason why he should.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 10:29:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:03:47 PM, biomystic wrote:
Annacole, you never answered my question. Are you a man because you post like an aggressive man posts, very much always on the attack. That's why I ask you to identify your gender.

Very good question, lol. I am glad I'm not the only one who as noticed the aggression, but I can assure you it is born of an unreasoning hatred of God's people.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 10:47:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 5:00:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
See post #19. There's no need in having to re-italicize it. Borno popped in with his usual grandiose, self-directed bs. I was hoping they had banned him.

I've never seen anyone so worthless - a bum who depends upon Christian charities - who also had such delusions of self-importance. He'll probably ride right on into heaven on the grounds of general unaccountability.

The saints got killed by unbelievers like yourself. They were all considered homeless bums who ran around preaching something that unbelievers couldn't understand. Only chosen believers can believe some things we speak and know it comes from our true invisible Creator through Christ, His invisible knowledge that can't be seen by men.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 10:51:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 4:18:27 PM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "That statement by Jesus is as accurate as the one at Matthew 12: 40 for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights."

Anna: Both statements are 100% true. "Three days and three nights" is not literal as we use the words: it was very flexible. Such usages are found elsewhere in the scriptures and found fairly frequently.

It is a fact that the enemies of Jesus knew full well what Jesus had predicted, and such a knowledge by them is even confirmed by scriptures.

It is also a fact that the first-century Jews were in a much better position to point out inconsistencies and errors in the teachings of Jesus. This would extend to His prophesies.

Why did they fail to point this one out?

Why did those persecuting enemies, either pagan or Jewish, point out, "Your boy is a sham. Look at this three-day-and-three-nights business. He missed it."

Nobody said that.

Why? Because the phrase "three days and three nights" was the idiomatic equivalent of three days. That's all there is to it, and you should know that if you ever studied the Bible as you say you have. Even the flood is described as occurring "forty days and forty nights", but then we find out it lasted "forty days". The same is true in Samuel, somewhere. I can't remember the passages.

"This deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day."

Why didn't they bother to guard it on the third night?

Jesus didn't miss it. You did. And you promote infidelity by claiming to be a Bible-believer and have the main character uttering false prophesies. I'd advise you to take a look at McGarvey's Jesus and Jonah, a 100-yr old work that obliterates the confusion. Lightfoot, as I recall, also dealt with the subject very well.

YOU, on the other hand, have about the worst explanation imaginable.

MCB: "Why? Well if Jesus literal body had bee resurrected, those who knew him intimately would not have failed to recognise him."

Anna: How do you know? Obviously they didn't. The dead body of Jesus was changed. We do not know the details. Obviously it was changed to the point that they did not instantly recognize Him.

MCB: "Was Peter lying? after all he was a witness of the Resurrected Jesus and his state."

Anna: Peter was not discussing the resurrected state at all.

MCB: "Is scripture lying when we are told that none was able to recognise him by sight or voice?"

Anna: Nope, they didn't. I have repeatedly told you that the corpse of Jesus was changed ... altered. It was altered into a new form.

MCB: "Was Jesus mistaken because he had not been given the details?"

Anna: Of course not. Unlike you, Jesus apparently did not say things that were not so. If He did not know the detail, He promptly admitted it - a trait which should serve as an example to you.

MCB: "You have already suggested that Jesus was in a changed body but still a physical, but even if that were true, then his statement about the body he was in being resurrected was not true."

Anna: I didn't "suggest" it, nor did I speculate around the world about it. I plainly said that Jesus was in a changed body - but it was still basically the same body in an altered form. Why do you have to guess about this or that? Some things are not revealed.

I know this much: He arose in a body that was not subject to disease, death, or decay. How would I propose to know what it looked like?

Do you not see that you simply guess your way right into infidelity? If you don't see it, let me point it out.

MCB: "you can maintain that belief is to say, not only that scripture lies when it tells us that none could recognise him and also that he were put to death n the flesh twice so he could become the spirit that Peter said he was."

Anna: Those are ridiculous comments. I know that even His followers did not recognize Him. So what? And I've told you a dozen time that Peter is referring to the period between the death and resurrection.

MCB: "The more you go on about this, the more I shall be forced to correct you"

Anna: LMAO! 'Tis you who gets corrected, because your "disintegration theory" makes you an infidel. An atheist who denied the bodily resurrection of Christ would advance better arguments than you do. You sound like a child:

"They didn't recognize Him, so it wasn't the same body. See? I've proved it. Thus, His body disintegrated."

A ten-year-old could do better.

Why do you believe in written words by antichrists instead of believing in MY words that I have MY saint write for ME?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 11:01:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/5/2014 4:54:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
And the reason for not answering your statements on John 1: 18 is that you insist on making the same old mistakes you've made in the past, number one of which is trying to confute and confuse the terms "created" and "begotten". Then you supply us with a definition which, if you actually applied it, refutes your own error.

The Bible speaks quite a bit about Adam, even in the New Testament. Out of all sixty-six books of the Bible - seventy-three if you want to include the Apocrypha - exactly how many times is Adam called a begotten son?

The point is: Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Period. God has other sons, either by creation or adoption. Adam is the only created son of God; all the rest came by procreation. We are sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ - and the way we got that way is by being baptized into Christ, not into an organization.

You might be interested to know, on a side note, that the word "for" in Gal 3 is "gar" which actually is a conjunction that in this case means "to introduce the reason". "For ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Why? How'd they get that way? "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Were they sons of God by faith in Christ before they were baptized? Absolutely not! No "baptized into Christ", no "son of God by faith". I point that out because Mr. Russell missed the point in his debate with White. Of course, in his defense, Mr. Russell could not be bothered by such trivial matters: he was at the time fully engaged in his "proof positive" concerning pyramids, 1874, 1878, and 1914.

It isn't a mistake it is reality, the truth.