- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,20:56) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,19:52) Mike,
The 'God' of 1:1b is the unbegotten God
Right. And that God was WITH the Word, right? So the Word was obviously not that God, right?mike
That's right Mike.So was the Word “A god”, as in another mighty one who was with THE God in the beginning? Another god, as in the only begotten god who was with the only unbegotten God?
mike
Mike,
The word was an only begotten God who was with the unbegotten God in the beginning. He was not just one of the many mighty ones.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,13:14) Mike,
The word was an only begotten God who was with the unbegotten God in the beginning. He was not just one of the many mighty ones.
??? The WORD WAS GOD!!!Thats what it says.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,20:14) Mike,
The word was an only begotten God who was with the unbegotten God in the beginning. He was not just one of the many mighty ones.
Actually, he was. He is ONE of the many elohim and theos mentioned in scripture. But he is designated as the only one who was directly begotten by THE God.Am I wrong?
mike
Hi Pace,
17 verses later, John clarifies that the God that is with the Father is the only begotten God.John 1:18 NASB
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.ooops…edited to remove the 'un' from begotten and add 'only.'
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,21:26) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,20:14) Mike,
The word was an only begotten God who was with the unbegotten God in the beginning. He was not just one of the many mighty ones.
Actually, he was. He is ONE of the many elohim and theos mentioned in scripture. But he is designated as the only one who was directly begotten by THE God.Am I wrong?
mike
Actually Mike, He was the only theos begotten period. All other ones called theos were designated theos or created theos, not begotten theos. The Son did not beget any theos and the Father only begot one.Well, okay.
Deborah was begotten BY SOMEONE and she was an elohim. But yes, Jesus is the only god begotten by THE God because Jesus is the only thing period begotten by God.Either way, it still makes him A god who was with THE God in the beginning. Am I wrong?
mike
Mike,
Deborah was begotten as a baby, a helpless baby, not a mighty one. She became a mighty one. The Son did not become a theos as if He were not a theos beforehand…Deborah became a theos. There is a big difference. The Son was begotten as theos from the get go.He is not just a god…He is the only begotten God. Any theos besides Him and His Father would be a small g god.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,21:12) The Son did not become a theos as if He were not a theos beforehand See you own words? “A” theos? That's all I'm saying, Kathi. The Word was with THE theos, and the Word was A theos. And if you wish to cap the “G” for Jesus to set him above Satan and all the other gods mentioned in the Bible, then I think you should cap the whole word “GOD” in reference to God Most High, to set Him above Jesus.
mike
Mike,
Do you see that if the word was an/the only begotten God, it doesn't matter 'a' or 'the' because of the word 'only?' I understand what you are saying about GOD and God and I have indicated the difference in that way in the past. I think 'unbegotten God' and 'only begotten God' makes it more clear to the reader who I am talking about.Do YOU see that the words “only”, “begotten” and “unbegotten” are not in 1:1?
So what's the best way to say that Jesus is A god, the only begotten one, but not THE God, the only unbegotten One, in that verse which doesn't have the words that later explain it?
And your “only begotten God” versus “only unbegotten God” still seems to equalize Jesus with God Most High, IMO. Stick with God/GOD!
mike
Yes, Mike, I see that the words 'only begotten' and 'unbegotten' are not in John 1:1. The words 'only begotten' are written 17 verses later in the same chapter bu the same author when referring to two different persons called 'theos.' Do you believe that the Father is 'unbegotten?' I think that is obvious otherwise, He would come from something/someone else and not be the source of all.
When writing Jesus is a/the God, the only begotten one…I think it sounds best to say Jesus is God, the only begotten one.
Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 22 2011,22:02) Yes, Mike, I see that the words 'only begotten' and 'unbegotten' are not in John 1:1.
Okay. And all we're dealing with in this thread is that one scripture. Not “17 verses later”.So, using only that ONE scripture, how do we distinguish Jesus as a god who is not THE God? We surely can't do that by saying he was with God and was God, can we?
Wouldn't that wording lead people to think Jesus was THE God? Wouldn't it also confuse intelligent people by implying God was WITH Himself?
mike
Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,09:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Duece!!!!!!!!!
My ol'lady say , Itz don madder any “a” o “the” She say yo al U ned iz Gawd!Quote (pace e amore @ Mar. 23 2011,06:53) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,12:27) This is a lot of hoop la for not really making a difference. The word was an only begotten God…the word was the only begotten God…the word was God, the only begotten one. All three ways are my paraphrase written in light of v. 18 to give an understanding why the articles aren't what's important here, imo. John 1:18 is a complimentary verse to show one God with the other God…one begotten and the other unbegotten. Both John 1:1 and John 1:18 present two different persons as theos and this understanding easily reconciles this. Ok!
Aye??
Pace e Amore,De donde ERES?
Yo Yo Yo, Homie G's
Super D-linquent that Gangsta!!!!! is here!
WAZZZZZ upppppppp!
Put your hands in the air, and wave it like you dont Care! woot woot!Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 23 2011,15:32) Mike,
The verse includes 1:1b with 1:1c to make that distinction.
If we changed the word 'God' to man it would read:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with the man, and the word was man. You don't need an 'a' or a 'the' in the 'c' part of the verse.
Excellent Kathy!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 22 2011,19:22) Now that we all know it IS a grammatical possibility, whether some of us like it or not, are we ready to move on?
MikeI have never agreed that it is Grammatically possible but only that “they say” it is possible.
So move on if you like, but get your facts straight.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
