- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2010,14:11) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 26 2010,12:05) Here is Youngs John 1:18: God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father — he did declare.
Hi Prof,
You are taking that condescending tone…why is that? Do you think that the early church fathers were not trusting in Jesus' heavenly Father? It is obvious that they were embracing the gospel of Christ which makes no mention of your Holy Spirit Mother, not even 1 verse.Do you think that Gen 1:2 should say that the female essence of God moved over the surface of the earth?
Here are the definitions of ruwach:
Pronunciation:roo'-akh
Origin:from 07306
Reference:TWOT – 2131a
PrtSpch:noun feminime
In Hebrew:xwr 205, xwrw 37, yxwr 29, xwrh 19, wxwr 15, xwrb 10, twxwr 9, xwrl 7, wxwrb 5, xwrbw 4, Kxwr 4, Kxwrb 4, Mxwr 3, xwrk 3, wxwrw 3, Mkxwr 3, txwrh 2, Mkxwrb 2, xwrlw 2, xwrmw 1, Kxwrm 1, twxrh 1, wxwrl 1, hxwr 1, xwrhw 1, yxwrw 1, yxwrb 1, Kxwrw 1, xwrm 1, twxr 1
In NET:wind 91, spirit 91, Spirit 34, breath 30, winds 11, mind 6, temper 5, spirits 4, side 4, strength 4, life 4, windstorm 3, breathe 3, sides 3, feelings 3, patience 2, humiliated 2, blast 2, life's breath 2, whirlwind 2, discouragement 2, wind-driven 2, discouraged 1, discernment 1, impatient 1, desire 1, everyone 1, encouraged 1, blustery 1, anxiety 1, attitude 1, anger 1, amazed 1, air 1, battle cry 1, inspired 1, conscience 1, breezy 1, breathes 1, breath of air 1, depression 1, morally 1, rage 1, restored 1, pride 1, presence 1, plan 1, stress 1, strong urge 1, windblown 1, windbag 1, thoughts 1, substance 1, place 1, peace 1, windy 1, motives 1, minds 1, mere word 1, me 1, mouth 1, moved 1, panic 1, one 1, obstinate 1, nothing 1, it 1
In AV:Spirit or spirit 232, wind 92, breath 27, side 6, mind 5, blast 4, vain 2, air 1, anger 1, cool 1, courage 1, misc 6
Count:378
Definition:1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
1a) breath
1b) wind
1b1) of heaven
1b2) quarter (of wind), side
1b3) breath of air
1b4) air, gas
1b5) vain, empty thing
1c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)
1c1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
1c2) courage
1c3) temper, anger
1c4) impatience, patience
1c5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
1c6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable
impulse
1c7) prophetic spirit
1d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)
1d1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at
death, disembodied being
1e) spirit (as seat of emotion)
1e1) desire
1e2) sorrow, trouble
1f) spirit
1f1) as seat or organ of mental acts
1f2) rarely of the will
1f3) as seat especially of moral character
1g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit,
coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son
1g1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy
1g2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning
1g3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power
1g4) as endowing men with various gifts
1g5) as energy of life
1g6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory
1g7) never referred to as a depersonalised forceNever once do we see 'the female essence of God' nor do we see 'mother'. The Spirit of God is not God in the fullest sense but as 'of' God, the Spirit acts by the will of the Father and reveals the mind of the Father and allows God to be personal with us.
Regarding John 1:18 the Greek has theos in the original, not huios but some translations have chosen the misprint. This is not unusual, unfortunately. Just a few verses earlier, the word is called theos too. That theos became flesh.
Hi Kathi,Sorry but I am not taking a condenscending tone….I am more enjoying a bit of laughter and humor.
I have 5 degrees (2 BA; 2 MA,1DD) so I don't take extra curricular learning lightly. However, I do believe the Bible has sufficient information to keep us busy for a lifetime.
(often I forget to put smilies in the pursuit of writing the information while it is still fresh. Being a blonde I can forget what I was going to say in the middle of a sentence so I get my fingers to move as fast as they can.)Look at this from your post:
Pronunciation:roo'-akh
Origin:from 07306
Reference: TWOT – 2131a
PrtSpch:noun “FEMININE”Thanks for putting it in there. This was the only part (PrtSpch) that I needed to show that I wasn't “way-out” and creating my own delusion. haha
The entire NT lacks in describing the true God (Elohim, El, YHWH and Holy Spirit) so it is understandable that there is confusion….especially if you try to make a “PROOF” from the Greek as it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so.
I know that you don't believe that Jesus is “The God” so, I won't “dispute” what you write because I know the truth is in you.
And did you notice all the other posters? Not a single one commented on how they felt about the two different ways to approach this thread? People avoid responding directly.
I am a failure.
I'd like to respond to the second part of what you said:
1-Never once do we see 'the female essence of God' (THE DEFINITION ABOVE MENTIONS FEMINININE NOUN) nor do we see 'mother'. 2-The Spirit of God is not God in the fullest sense but as 'of' God, the Spirit acts by the will of the Father and reveals the mind of the Father and allows God to be personal with us.
But since the thread is the “Begotten God”, I will have to pass.
v14 that has “Word” the word is Logos as well as the three times in v1. And the Logos was WITH Theos.in v1 there is Theos two times and any of these could be used in the definition of Theos:
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges
That is why I don't like the generic “Theos” that is used in Greek. It is ambiguous and any translation could be used and could be correct and thereby is beyond “debate”.
One thing that is for sure is that the Logos that was WITH Theos cannot be the same Theos that he is with.
And v2 verifies it. He (the same, Logos) was WITH Theos in the beginning.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired (God-breathed)(Elohim Ruwach) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man (not woman
) of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. The Professor
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2010,14:27) Prof,
Also, you asked why I do not post my own thoughts. You can go back to review my posts since February 2008 and see that I have only posted the church father's thoughts since this summer, about when you came here. I have already posted my thoughts, with scripture a number of times and now I am adding the perspective of other brothers in Christ that lived when the church was very young and influenced more directly by the writers of the NT. I find their perspective interesting and also the words they have chosen, like 'begotten before the ages' and calling the Son the' God of God,' for instance.I have wondered what the conversation was like on the road to Emmaus…ya know, when the resurrected Jesus was walking with two of His followers on the day that He rose from the dead. They did not recognize Him till the end of their time with Him late that afternoon. While they were walking with Him, Jesus spoke of what Moses and the prophets spoke about Him. Their conversation was not recorded in the Bible as to what Jesus said about that. You have to figure that those two men told others though and I believe those others told others also. The early church fathers seemed confident that the Son of God was talking to Abraham in the account of the Lord that was talking to Abraham, appearing as a man, sent fire and brimstone to Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord in heaven. Both were referred to as Yahweh.
Kat,Mike would love to see this part proved for his pre-existence debate:
YOU: Both were referred to as Yahweh.
Since Yahweh is supposedly a name how could both be referred to as Yahweh? I do agree that YHWH did talk with Abraham, tho. Maybe one of the angels was Jesus?
I cry when I read Psalms 22 but here is only a part:
Psa 22:1 …My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?…
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death.
Psa 22:16… They pierced my hands and my feet.
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;
Psa 22:18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
Before Jesus' crucifixion he was beaten by many guards and spat upon. By the time Jesus was placed in the tomb I am sure that his body was already black and blue with this beating. 3 Days is not sufficient time to recouperate so I am sure that he was difficult to recognize. If you read, you will see that they only recognized him when he broke bread and they saw the nail imprints in his hands and then he disappeared, no? And along the way their hearts burned within them…as he quoted Scripture to them.
In God's Love and mine,
David
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 24 2010,12:52) There is ONE verse in the Bible (NASB) that says “begotten God”: Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only “begotten (of) God” who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
I tried to explain that the word “of” is not used in Greek and was not inserted by translators in English in this verse….see (of) where I inserted it for comparison.
Now remove (of) how does the verse read to you?
Does it make Jesus, the begotten, “God” or does it make you think that Jesus is begotten, “God-natured”?
There is not a right or wrong answer.
Inquiring minds want to see how you “feel” about the two ways this verse could be written and interpreted.
The Professor
Davidbfun,
Not all texts have theos there. Some have huios. Huios is correct.
It fits with the rest of scripture. Jesus Christ is the son of God.
About 50 times JC is called the son of God. Not once is he called God the Son in the scripture.
That is reason enough to suspect error in John 1:18
barley
Quote (barley @ Aug. 28 2010,18:50) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 24 2010,12:52) There is ONE verse in the Bible (NASB) that says “begotten God”: Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only “begotten (of) God” who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
I tried to explain that the word “of” is not used in Greek and was not inserted by translators in English in this verse….see (of) where I inserted it for comparison.
Now remove (of) how does the verse read to you?
Does it make Jesus, the begotten, “God” or does it make you think that Jesus is begotten, “God-natured”?
There is not a right or wrong answer.
Inquiring minds want to see how you “feel” about the two ways this verse could be written and interpreted.
The Professor
Davidbfun,
Not all texts have theos there. Some have huios. Huios is correct.
It fits with the rest of scripture. Jesus Christ is the son of God.
About 50 times JC is called the son of God. Not once is he called God the Son in the scripture.
That is reason enough to suspect error in John 1:18
barley
Thanks Barley for your astute observation and comment.I was working with LightenUp to try to get a response of how the people felt about using the terms:
begotten God…. (and notice the capital G)
AND
begotten (of) God.When I see “begotten God” I see the Trinity creeping in….which sets off an alarm mentally.
Even though LightenUp doesn't believe in the Trinity she feels that this “correctly” identifies Jesus.
I asked her to remove the ambiguous term “God” (Theos) and place YHWH or her father's name to see how the statement appeared and she didn't. Why? Because it doesn't have the same “deception-nature”.
Will anyone else go back and try to do the replacement theory and comment on how they sound to you?
The thread is not about Theos or Huios but, rather how the sound of the term “begotten God” hits you.
The Professor
Prof-
What an assumption you made.
Quote I asked her to remove the ambiguous term “God” (Theos) and place YHWH or her father's name to see how the statement appeared and she didn't. Why? Because it doesn't have the same “deception-nature”. I didn't play your game because you were not comparing apples with apples. The word theos is not meant to represent a proper name in John 1:1, imo. Theos is not a proper name so why replace it with a proper name?
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 27 2010,17:45) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 27 2010,14:27) Prof,
Also, you asked why I do not post my own thoughts. You can go back to review my posts since February 2008 and see that I have only posted the church father's thoughts since this summer, about when you came here. I have already posted my thoughts, with scripture a number of times and now I am adding the perspective of other brothers in Christ that lived when the church was very young and influenced more directly by the writers of the NT. I find their perspective interesting and also the words they have chosen, like 'begotten before the ages' and calling the Son the' God of God,' for instance.I have wondered what the conversation was like on the road to Emmaus…ya know, when the resurrected Jesus was walking with two of His followers on the day that He rose from the dead. They did not recognize Him till the end of their time with Him late that afternoon. While they were walking with Him, Jesus spoke of what Moses and the prophets spoke about Him. Their conversation was not recorded in the Bible as to what Jesus said about that. You have to figure that those two men told others though and I believe those others told others also. The early church fathers seemed confident that the Son of God was talking to Abraham in the account of the Lord that was talking to Abraham, appearing as a man, sent fire and brimstone to Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord in heaven. Both were referred to as Yahweh.
Kat,Mike would love to see this part proved for his pre-existence debate:
YOU: Both were referred to as Yahweh.
Since Yahweh is supposedly a name how could both be referred to as Yahweh? I do agree that YHWH did talk with Abraham, tho. Maybe one of the angels was Jesus?
I cry when I read Psalms 22 but here is only a part:
Psa 22:1 …My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?…
Psa 22:14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.
Psa 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death.
Psa 22:16… They pierced my hands and my feet.
Psa 22:17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;
Psa 22:18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.
Before Jesus' crucifixion he was beaten by many guards and spat upon. By the time Jesus was placed in the tomb I am sure that his body was already black and blue with this beating. 3 Days is not sufficient time to recouperate so I am sure that he was difficult to recognize. If you read, you will see that they only recognized him when he broke bread and they saw the nail imprints in his hands and then he disappeared, no? And along the way their hearts burned within them…as he quoted Scripture to them.
In God's Love and mine,
David
Prof-Quote Since Yahweh is supposedly a name how could both be referred to as Yahweh? I do agree that YHWH did talk with Abraham, tho. Maybe one of the angels was Jesus? I think that the Father gave His name to His Son. Many fathers do that.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 28 2010,20:57) Prof- What an assumption you made.
Quote I asked her to remove the ambiguous term “God” (Theos) and place YHWH or her father's name to see how the statement appeared and she didn't. Why? Because it doesn't have the same “deception-nature”. I didn't play your game because you were not comparing apples with apples. The word theos is not meant to represent a proper name in John 1:1, imo. Theos is not a proper name so why replace it with a proper name?
Hi Kathi,What does Theos represent to you?
Is YHWH a proper name?
“God” in this context is ambiguous and doesn't mean a thing.
I am not trying to play a game. I am just trying to use logic in dealing with the term….”begotten God”. Others want to debate the Scripture, I am just talking about the terminology.
I am NOT concerned whether or not it is Theos or Huios as the word.
Kathi,
I thought that YHWH's son name was Yahshua?
Or in Hebrew they would've called him YHWH ben/bar YHWH…before he was Yahshua.
Hi Kathi,
Do you see now why I don't like Greek? Theos is not a name but YHWH is. Greek Theos is ambiguous the Hebrew words are not.
YHWH is not found in the NT,,,,did he die away? lol
Elohim is the Name of the entity that has the two essences within Himself. YHWH is the Name of the male essence. Spirit is the Name of the female essence. El (God) is a “title” for either Elohim or YHWH….and context will tell you which usually.
Kathi,
Regardless of whether Theos is a name or not, isn't Theos (God) in your context supposedly representing the “One Supreme Being”? Otherwise, how would one determine if we are talking about the one and only true God or just any other god?
Justin Martyr speaks of the unbegotten God twice here:
Quote Chapter XIV.—The demons misrepresent Christian doctrine.
For we forewarn you to be on your guard, lest those demons whom we have been accusing should deceive you, and quite divert you from reading and understanding what we say. For they strive to hold you their slaves and servants; and sometimes by appearances in dreams, and sometimes by magical impositions, they subdue all who make no strong opposing effort for their own salvation. And thus do we also, since our persuasion by the Word, stand aloof from them (i.e., the demons), and follow the only unbegotten God through His Son —we who formerly delighted in fornication, but now embrace chastity alone; we who formerly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to the good and unbegotten God; we who valued above all things the acquisition of wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock, and communicate to every one in need; we who hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their different manners would not live17831783 Literally, “would not use the same hearth or fire.” with men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them, and pray for our enemies, and endeavour to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God the ruler of all. But lest we should seem to be reasoning sophistically, we consider it right, before giving you the promised17841784 See the end of chap. xii. explanation, to cite a few precepts given by Christ Himself. And be it yours, as powerful rulers, to inquire whether we have been taught and do teach these things truly. Brief and concise utterances fell from Him, for He was no sophist, but His word was the power of God.Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 27 2010,22:51) Kathi, Regardless of whether Theos is a name or not, isn't Theos (God) in your context supposedly representing the “One Supreme Being”? Otherwise, how would one determine if we are talking about the one and only true God or just any other god?
I don't think that the word 'theos' by itself represents the one supreme being. The Most High theos would represent that. Theos could mean divine being in John 1:1.Justin Martyr again on the unbegotten God:
Quote Chapter XXV.—False Gods abandoned by Christians.
And, secondly, because we—who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona (who in their loves with men did such things as it is shameful even to mention), and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate), or Æsculapius, or some one or other of those who are called gods—have now, through Jesus Christ, learned to despise these, though we be threatened with death for it, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impossible God; of whom we are persuaded that never was he goaded by lust of Antiope, or such other women, or of Ganymede, nor was rescued by that hundred-handed giant whose aid was obtained through Thetis, nor was anxious on this account18171817 i.e., on account of the assistance gained for him by Thetis, and in return for it. that her son Achilles should destroy many of the Greeks because of his concubine Briseis. Those who believe these things we pity, and those who invented them we know to be devils.Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 28 2010,11:04) Quote (barley @ Aug. 28 2010,18:50) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 24 2010,12:52) There is ONE verse in the Bible (NASB) that says “begotten God”: Jhn 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only “begotten (of) God” who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
I tried to explain that the word “of” is not used in Greek and was not inserted by translators in English in this verse….see (of) where I inserted it for comparison.
Now remove (of) how does the verse read to you?
Does it make Jesus, the begotten, “God” or does it make you think that Jesus is begotten, “God-natured”?
There is not a right or wrong answer.
Inquiring minds want to see how you “feel” about the two ways this verse could be written and interpreted.
The Professor
Davidbfun,
Not all texts have theos there. Some have huios. Huios is correct.
It fits with the rest of scripture. Jesus Christ is the son of God.
About 50 times JC is called the son of God. Not once is he called God the Son in the scripture.
That is reason enough to suspect error in John 1:18
barley
Thanks Barley for your astute observation and comment.I was working with LightenUp to try to get a response of how the people felt about using the terms:
begotten God…. (and notice the capital G)
AND
begotten (of) God.When I see “begotten God” I see the Trinity creeping in….which sets off an alarm mentally.
Even though LightenUp doesn't believe in the Trinity she feels that this “correctly” identifies Jesus.
I asked her to remove the ambiguous term “God” (Theos) and place YHWH or her father's name to see how the statement appeared and she didn't. Why? Because it doesn't have the same “deception-nature”.
Will anyone else go back and try to do the replacement theory and comment on how they sound to you?
The thread is not about Theos or Huios but, rather how the sound of the term “begotten God” hits you.
The Professor
David b fun,For the sake of discussion, I will play along.
Begotten God?
God is eternal.
barley
I like to add these 'unbegotten God' terms that I find in the writings of church father's. This excerpt is talking about 1 Cor 8 where Paul is discussing how there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father…and one Lord, Jesus Christ. I think that St. Chrysostom has something worthy to say in his explanation and it would be worth your time to read the webpage. This page has helped me understand many things:
Quote [6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, (Ps. cx. 1.) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, (Ps. lxv. 8.) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, (Rom. ix. 5.) “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.” And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, “but to us there is but One God,” it would have been superfluous, his adding the word “Father,” with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.
And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 29 2010,15:19) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 27 2010,22:51) Kathi, Regardless of whether Theos is a name or not, isn't Theos (God) in your context supposedly representing the “One Supreme Being”? Otherwise, how would one determine if we are talking about the one and only true God or just any other god?
I don't think that the word 'theos' by itself represents the one supreme being. The Most High theos would represent that. Theos could mean divine being in John 1:1.
LU,Is this a revelation? Yes, truly, 'theos' by itself does not mean 'God Almighty', YHVH.
It is a title than can be applied to anyone of deserving cause, just as any other Title can be.JA,
Some become theos by grace and some by nature (the only begotten theos), some become theos but are only idols. Worship the theos which is theos by nature.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 04 2010,10:24) I like to add these 'unbegotten God' terms that I find in the writings of church father's. This excerpt is talking about 1 Cor 8 where Paul is discussing how there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father…and one Lord, Jesus Christ. I think that St. Chrysostom has something worthy to say in his explanation and it would be worth your time to read the webpage. This page has helped me understand many things: Quote [6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, (Ps. cx. 1.) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, (Ps. lxv. 8.) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, (Rom. ix. 5.) “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.” And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, “but to us there is but One God,” it would have been superfluous, his adding the word “Father,” with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.
And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.
Hi KathiI like his explanation for 1 Cor 8:6 and think he is spot on. I highlighted the part that I have brought up to Mike and t8 which is a point that is ignored.
But in speaking of the “unbegotten” again St. Chrysostom does not hold the same view as you for he also says…
St. Chrysostom 347-407
“What then do I say? THAT THIS FIRST “WAS,” APPLIED TO “THE WORD,” IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF HIS ETERNAL BEING, (for “In the beginning,” he saith, “was the Word,”) and that the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was “in the beginning,” should assert, that He was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was “with God.” AND HE HAS PREVENTED ANY ONE FROM SUPPOSING, “that this “Word” is simply such a one as is either UTTERED προφορικὸν. or CONCEIVED, ἐ νδιάθετον. by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us His eternity as to person. ὑ πόστασιν. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.” Source
Enjoy!
WJ
WJ, Kathi,
Terms of reference (1): “[The] God – The Supreme Being”
There is no such thing as a “Begotten God”. A God is not begotten. A God IS.
Terms of reference (2): “[A] God – A Powerful and Mighty Person, A Hero, One invested with overarching Authority, one who is above all in his Class”
Here, such “a God” can become, can be Begotten, created…
Kathi, you want to say that Jesus is [THE-A (Hybrid)] God. By which definition, by which term. Don't confuse your readers (nor your own mind!)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
