- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:09) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2012,10:52) Quote (Ed J @ May 14 2012,03:40)
Hi Jammin,Person denotes “Human”, who are these three humans?
God bless
Ed J
i think you must study first the different meanings of person
Amen to that.
Hi Mike,I need words to be defined by the user of them, that's all.
He has not defined his use of the word, so how
can I know what he means then?Do you believe GOD is more than one ___? fill in the blank.
When people say things that are scriptural,
it is my Job to ask them to define the terms.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,11:24) Personality is a different word. Personality: The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character.
Is God an individual who has a personality of His own? If so, then He is a “person”. Same with Jesus and the other angels of God. IMO.I don't, however, believe what jammin is claiming about God having a multiple personality disorder and being three distinct persons.
Quote (jammin @ May 13 2012,11:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:12) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2012,10:26) God the only son means the only begotten God.
No it doesn't. The word “god” refers to any of various beings that are thought to be “mighty”, or “to be revered/feared”.So “the only begotten mighty one” does not mean the same as “mighty one the only son”.
God was never begotten, jammin. Jesus was.
you need to study greek mike.
How does your comment refute my post, jammin?Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:21) Quote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,10:44) Hi Mike, There's no begotten god. (see my post to Jammin)
God bless
Ed J
Ed, there is ample evidence that the original Greek word was “theos”. There is also evidence that it was “huios” in 1:18.To me, it doesn't really matter since Jesus IS called a god in other scriptures anyway, and we know he was begotten. But if you or jammin are interested in John 1:18, here is SOME of the info from NETNotes:
The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred.
What evidence? …all I see is opinion?Quote (Ed J @ May 14 2012,04:33) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:21) Quote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,10:44) Hi Mike, There's no begotten god. (see my post to Jammin)
God bless
Ed J
Ed, there is ample evidence that the original Greek word was “theos”. There is also evidence that it was “huios” in 1:18.To me, it doesn't really matter since Jesus IS called a god in other scriptures anyway, and we know he was begotten. But if you or jammin are interested in John 1:18, here is SOME of the info from NETNotes:
The textual problem μονογενὴς θεός (monogenh” qeo”, “the only God”) versus ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός (Jo monogenh” Juio”, “the only son”) is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether they read θεός or υἱός. The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. Ì75 א1 33 pc have ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, while the anarthrous μονογενὴς θεός is found in Ì66 א* B C* L pc. The articular θεός is almost certainly a scribal emendation to the anarthrous θεός, for θεός without the article is a much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports μονογενὴς θεός. Internally, although υἱός fits the immediate context more readily, θεός is much more difficult. As well, θεός also explains the origin of the other reading (υἱός), because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found υἱός in the text he was copying would alter it to θεός. Scribes would naturally change the wording to υἱός however, since μονογενὴς υἱός is a uniquely Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But θεός as the older and more difficult reading is preferred.
What evidence? …all I see is opinion?
“The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός. ” <– Here is evidenceQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:32) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2012,11:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:12) Quote (jammin @ May 13 2012,10:26) God the only son means the only begotten God.
No it doesn't. The word “god” refers to any of various beings that are thought to be “mighty”, or “to be revered/feared”.So “the only begotten mighty one” does not mean the same as “mighty one the only son”.
God was never begotten, jammin. Jesus was.
you need to study greek mike.
How does your comment refute my post, jammin?
the father is not begotten mike but the sonbut they have the same nature, GOD.
how many time have i told you about this.
i believe what the bible says..begotten God or God the only son are both correct. or the unique one, who is himself God.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:31) Quote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,11:24) Personality is a different word. Personality: The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character.
Is God an individual who has a personality of His own? If so, then He is a “person”. Same with Jesus and the other angels of God. IMO.I don't, however, believe what jammin is claiming about God having a multiple personality disorder and being three distinct persons.
Hi Mike,Let's be clear about terms: GOD is an “entity” not a “person”;
person denotes Human; unless you believe GOD is human?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:35) Ed, There are OLDER mss that have “theos” than the ones that have “huios”. Isn't that “evidence”?
i suggest he make his own bible LOLQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:35) Ed, There are OLDER mss that have “theos” than the ones that have “huios”. Isn't that “evidence”?
Hi Mike,Not the Majority!
Did you even read what you posted?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,11:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:35) Ed, There are OLDER mss that have “theos” than the ones that have “huios”. Isn't that “evidence”?
Hi Mike,Not the Majority!
Did you even read what you posted?God bless
Ed J
The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.Did you read the part I bolded?
i believe wht the bible says
John 20:28
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Quote (jammin @ May 13 2012,11:36) the father is not begotten mike but the son but they have the same nature, GOD.
jammin,If you wrongly consider from eternity to be a part of the nature of God, then wouldn't you also have to use that same faulty logic and consider begotten” to be part of God's nature?
How can God be both begotten AND unbegotten?
The doctrine that Jesus is the very God he is the Son of has got to be the most nonsensical concoction that intelligent men have ever believed.
I consider you to be intelligent, jammin. That is why I'm baffled as to why you would believe such obvious nonsense.
Quote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,11:37) Hi Mike, Let's be clear about terms: GOD is an “entity” not a “person”;
person denotes Human; unless you believe GOD is human?
Ed,“Person” denotes “human” to YOU. Apparently to me, jammin, and many others, “person” denotes “one with his own personality”.
the word begotten means unique or only child
God the father has son mike.that is the meaning of begotten.. it means only son
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,05:06) Quote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,11:39) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,04:35) Ed, There are OLDER mss that have “theos” than the ones that have “huios”. Isn't that “evidence”?
Hi Mike,Not the Majority!
Did you even read what you posted?God bless
Ed J
The majority of mss, especially the later ones (A C3 Θ Ψ Ë1,13 Ï lat), read ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός.Did you read the part I bolded?
The Majority of the earlier ones also, Mike!Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 14 2012,05:12) Quote (Ed J @ May 13 2012,11:37) Hi Mike, Let's be clear about terms: GOD is an “entity” not a “person”;
person denotes Human; unless you believe GOD is human?
Ed,“Person” denotes “human” to YOU. Apparently to me, jammin, and many others, “person” denotes “one with his own personality”.
Hi Mike,Dogs have personality, are they persons as well?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (jammin @ May 13 2012,12:15) God the father has son mike.
That is a correct statement, jammin. But the following statement is also correct and scripturally true: God has a Son.Now if our ONE God has a Son, then you have to be sniffing mosquito coil to think that means the Son God has is the very God who has him. Plus, if “God” consists of the Father AND the Son, then when it is said that “God has a Son”, it would imply that God the Son also has a Son.
jammin, your doctrine of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit clearly describes THREE Gods. But then, out of the blue, and without any sensible or satisfactory reason as to why, the authors of this doctrine just up and claim, “But not THREE Gods, only ONE”.
It is some of the most asinine thinking that mankind has ever produced.In fact, here are a few snippets of how this nonsensical doctrine is “explained”:
The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.”
Monsignor Eugene Clark says: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.”
Cardinal John O’Connor states: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”
And Pope John Paul II speaks of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.”
A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.”
Dude, the prominent people who teach this nonsense can't even explain what it is they're teaching. Why would any sensible person jump on to this bandwagon?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
