- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 1 hour ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 11 2004,17:27) Since you trust in “Jesus” and in Yahweh, and you believe neither to be a man, then is it safe to say that you trust in two gods?
I trust in God and his son.Yes there are many gods, but for me there is one God the Father and Jesus is my Lord.
LOGOS
Strong's Number: 3056
of speech
a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
what someone has said
a word
the sayings of God
decree, mandate or order
of the moral precepts given by God
Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
discourse
the act of speaking, speech
the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
a kind or style of speaking
a continuous speaking discourse – instruction
doctrine, teaching
anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
its use as respect to the MIND alone
reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
account, i.e. regard, consideration
account, i.e. reckoning, score
account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
reason would
reason, cause, ground
In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.Logos means thought/word/expression and other things.
John teaches us that the Logos was WITH God and the Logos was divine or godlike or of God. John also teaches us that the Logos took on flesh and we know that it was Yahshua who this is referring to.
So was the Logos that took flesh created at the moment of Yashua's conception into this world. Well John teaches us that the Logos was WITH God the beginning (not in God at that point) and even Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I am”. At which time the Jews sought to stone him for saying that he existed before Abraham.
John 8:57-59
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.So if the Logos is God's thought/reason/expression then that is talking about a concept/trait that exists within God. In the beginning was the reason. But it is the WITH that shows us that the Logos at some point was expressed or begotten to exist as a person, not as a thought within God.
This also fits with the truth that Jesus is called the only begotten of the Father and that we are all created by God through the Logos. In another verse it actually says that all things were created through Christ. So there is no mistake here.
Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:So did God create all things through the Logos or through Christ? Is there a contradicion here. Of course not, for Christ is the Logos. This is what John teaches us. The Logos was with God and then took on flesh and dwelt among us.
Are we not all from God originally? Tainted with sin for sure, but all things have a beginning in God. He is the only one without a beginning. Where do we come from? Who thought/reasoned us before we come into being? God did. But then we became a unique person and we have the option to be WITH God too. We may even display patience and love, yet all these things are in God and from him. So it is with us to, that we exist in thought in God and then he expresses the thought and here we are.
Same with truth. Truth is in God, it is part of his nature and character. But Jesus is called the Truth. So at what point was truth expressed in a person? Just as Jesus is the Logos, he is also the Truth and the Life. Yet all these things are in God too, but God has obviously expressed these concepts/traits in his son. Like Father like son as the saying goes.
James 1:18
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.So yes we are born though the Logos and Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. Who ever heard of the branches coming before the vine. The vine supports the branches and without the vine we could not exist to produce fruit.
John 15:5
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.Hi WIT,
You are right about the Hebrews 2 .It does not say Jesus “became” but ” was “made for a little while lower than the angels” There may be a difference but the greek covers “decrease” or “make lower”.As you say the original Psalm 8 covers man as well as the son of man [Jesus] specifically but the following context of verse 9 tells us it is Jesus who is being discussed.
But the other interesting feature is that word used for “angels” in Ps 8 is ELOHIM. It adds another dimension of understanding as this means at least “godlike” “gods” or even “God”. Now we know men have always been lower than “God” and the sons of God so this part of the psalm must refer only to Jesus.
So it tells us the Son of God WAS greater than the angels and other sons of God and he was “made for a little while lower” than them. This must mean then that he pre-existed his human birth on earth.
As Phil 2 says
” Though he was in the form of God he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather he emptied himself and took the form of a slave being born in the likeness of men..” No other human born has had to empty themselves before being born so this is not just a man but a preexistant being, The Son of God.T8,
Quote Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Dec. 11 2004,17:27)
Since you trust in “Jesus” and in Yahweh, and you believe neither to be a man, then is it safe to say that you trust in two gods?I trust in God and his son.
Yes there are many gods, but for me there is one God the Father and Jesus is my Lord.
When you are trusting in His son, are you trusting in a man, an angel, or a god?
T8 and Nick,
The bulk of this discussion comes down to a matter of foundation. The real question is whether we are building our faith on the rock of Truth, or are we building our faith on the ever shifting sands of human philosophy. So, in that spirit, let us get down to the root of the terms we are throwing around.
Firstly, it seems that both of you hold principally to this definition of “The Logos”:
Quote John teaches us that the Logos was WITH God and the Logos was divine or godlike or of God. John also teaches us that the Logos took on flesh and we know that it was Yahshua who this is referring to. I have often heard T8 describe this as the identity of the man “Jesus” (i.e. the soul of the Christ). (I can only assume that you agree with this Nick.) Yet, T8 says the following in his latest post:
Quote Just as Jesus is the Logos, he is also the Truth and the Life . Yet all these things are in God too, but God has obviously expressed these concepts/traits in his son. Like Father like son as the saying goes. So now, from what I gather, “Jesus” is not just “The Logos”, he is the embodiment of everything that God is. So, what exactly is his identity again? Is he “the Word” in identity? Is he “the Truth” in identity? Is he “the Way” in identity? Is he “the Life” in identity? Or, is it possible that these are all simply attributes of the Messiah's purpose in creation? (i.e. To bring us God's Word, to reveal to us the Truth, to open up the Way, and to bring us the Life that can only come from God.)
Secondly, you both keep tossing out the term “begotten”, assuming that the way you are using it is scriptural, (i.e. born directly of God before the world began). Yet, Paul seems to define it differently:
Acts 13:
“32And we declare to you glad tidings–that promise which was made to the fathers. 33God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.'”Also note Pauls words here:
Romans 1:
“3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:”(Note: This would be a perfect time for Paul to say that “Jesus” was born of God before the world began, since he is talking of the Christ's earthly and heavenly credentials. Paul missed his opportunity to state this plainly here, but then again, so did all the writers of the bible.)
So, where is your definition coming from?
If we get our definitions straight, then we can start understanding the true meaning of all those verses you quoted.
Hi WIT,
Dan 7.13
“..And behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man..” We know now that this represented Jesus but it is a descriptive term.
So what is a “son of man”? A human being that we would all recognise. We are used to this terminology in the NT as Jesus often used it about himself to show and emphasise his human ancestry. Likewise the term “Son of God” emphasises his Godly ancestry and it excludes his human origin or it would be “son of God and man” surely.
Now the verse in Romans surely does not mean Jesus became the Son of God when he was resurrected. Death is not birth.
It says “..He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son …who was DECLARED with power to be the SON OF GOD by the resurrection of the dead, according to the Spirit of HOLINESS, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
So Jesus was shown to be the promised messiah and also to be the Son of God.
Again in Acts 13 God showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead. He was the HOLY one and was not allowed to decay,thus fulfilling scripture. Men are not holy. Bodies are not holy. The soul of Jesus, begotten Son of God is HOLY.
You get confused about Jesus and His Father. Jesus was filled with the Father's Spirit.[Coll2.9].Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life” no one comes to the Father except through me” So to experience the ability to do and know all these things we must be born again into the Son.Hi WIT,
Dan 7.13
“..And behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man..” We know now that this represented Jesus but it is a descriptive term.
So what is a “son of man”? A human being that we would all recognise. We are used to this terminology in the NT as Jesus often used it about himself to show and emphasise his human ancestry. Likewise the term “Son of God” emphasises his Godly ancestry and it excludes his human origin or it would be “son of God and man” surely.
Now the verse in Romans surely does not mean Jesus became the Son of God when he was resurrected. Death is not birth.
It says “..He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son …who was DECLARED with power to be the SON OF GOD by the resurrection of the dead, according to the Spirit of HOLINESS, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
So Jesus was shown to be the promised messiah and also to be the Son of God.
Again in Acts 13 God showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead. He was the HOLY one and was not allowed to decay,thus fulfilling scripture. Men are not holy. Bodies are not holy. The soul of Jesus, begotten Son of God is HOLY.You get confused about Jesus and His Father. Jesus was filled with the Father's Spirit.[Coll2.9].Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life” no one comes to the Father except through me” So to experience the ability to do and know all these things we must be born again into the Son.
Nick,
Quote So what is a “son of man”? A human being that we would all recognise. We are used to this terminology in the NT as Jesus often used it about himself to show and emphasise his human ancestry. Likewise the term “Son of God” emphasises his Godly ancestry and it excludes his human origin or it would be “son of God and man” surely. If the term “son of God” is exclusive to the messiah, and can not refer to men, then there are some OT writers who need some rebuking:
I Chronicles 28:
“5 Of all my sons-and the LORD has given me many-he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. 6 He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. 7 I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time.'”Hosea 11:
“1'When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. 2But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me.'”So, is Solomon God's son, or is Israel, or is “Jesus”? Or, is scripture true, and they all are?
Again, where is your definition coming from that to be God's son is to be someone who was born before the world began?
Quote Now the verse in Romans surely does not mean Jesus became the Son of God when he was resurrected. Death is not birth. Revelations 1:
“5and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.”Colossians 1:
“18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.”Death is not birth, as you have said, but ressurrection, according to scripture, is.
Again, where is your concept of being “begotten before the world began” coming from?
Quote The soul of Jesus, begotten Son of God is HOLY. You get confused about Jesus and His Father. Jesus was filled with the Father's Spirit.
So is “Jesus” holy because he was filled with his Father's Spirit, or is he holy because his “soul is holy”? (i.e. Are you saying that “Jesus” is holy apart from the Father?)
Good stuff WIT,
There are lots of sons of God.
In Exodus 4.22 Israel is called God's firstborn son. Is that wrong? No. In a physical sense Adam received his life from God and in human terms he was first born. So his sons are Israel so they are included. The Hosea 11 verse applied to the sons of Adam but also, of course, was prophetic about Jesus and quoted in Mt 2.15.The Pharisees claimed Abraham was their father but I am sure that was not in the physical sense. There are other sons of God mentioned in Job ,Gen and the Psalms too. Likewise we can become sons of God if we are reborn into Jesus.
Solomon had a human father, David, but was chosen by God to be an adopted son. The Israelites are called God's adopted sons in Rom 9.4. Likewise we too are adopted sons as shown in Gal 4.5, Eph 1.5, Rom 8.15 and 23.
But Jesus is THE Son of God. Satan addressed him as that when testing him and the Word THE is associated with the term Son of God almost every time it occurs in the New Testament. Peter made that declaration about him. The apostles preaching about Jesus never called him the Son of Man, always THE Son of God.
Jesus did not use the term often about himself but every time it was used everyone knew what THE Son of God meant. I am sure you agree this term is unique. He is also the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON as shown in Jn1.14, 3.16-18 and 1Jn 4.9.
We are reborn through the death and resurrection of Jesus so Jesus is called the firstborn from the dead as he has first place in everything. But he was the Son of God before his death. The Father proclaimed so when Jesus was baptised and when he was transfigured on the mountain.
Jesus is called the Holy One of God as shown in the previous post.In Rev 3.7 he is also called the Holy One. He was begotten of God, who is Holy, in the beginning. Do you say he was not holy? Was any fault found in Him? He was the true light who became flesh and dwelt amongst us. He shared our fleshly sinful nature too but he lived in that flesh as the holy Son of God.
Nick,
Quote Jesus did not use the term often about himself but every time it was used everyone knew what THE Son of God meant. I am sure you agree this term is unique. He is also the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON as shown in Jn1.14, 3.16-18 and 1Jn 4.9. Of course, the phrase “the Son of God” is unique to the Messiah, just as the Messiah is a unique figure in history. My point in my previous post was simply that the title “son of God” was not exclusive to heavenly creatures. Many men, the whole nation of Israel, in fact, were called just that. So, the term “Son of God” by itself does not prove that “Jesus” was born before creation.
By the way, the term “only begotten” is a construct of the KJV only. If you look up the Greek, the actual word being used has nothing to do with being born at all. It simply means unique. Wherever you see the term “only begotten” in scripture, you can ignore the word “begotten” because it is not in the Greek. (Check it out for yourself.)
Now, I ask you again, where is your concept of being “begotten before the world began” coming from? Where is it in scripture?
Thanks WIT,
Certainly my study of the Greek and Hebrew suggests that what I would understand as “begotten” covers “produced alone” so the “only” is superfluous- meaning “alone”. However there are no competing claims to the Son of God as being begotten.
All others were created with the help of the Son so he is the ONLY begotten Son anyway. If you take away the “ONLY” from the references in Jn3.16,18 and 1Jn 4.9 you are still left with the same meaning. Jesus was THE begotten Son and he happens to be the only one as well.
Now Jesus is THE Son of God. In fact he often referred to himself just as THE SON [eg Jn 5.19,20,21,22,23,26]in relationship to the Father. A Son who has “life in himself” just as the Father does so he is not the Father in flesh or a body/shell of the Father' Spirit[Jn 5.26]. A Son who will “ascend to where he was before”-in heaven with the Father[[Jn 6.62].
He was the firstborn Son who was “brought into the world” not “born into” it in the same way as he was born of Mary.[Heb 1.6] He is the firstborn of all creation[Coll1.15]so as creation greatly preceded his physical birth and so he did also.The Jews were familiar with the fact that ther were other sons of God , including themselves, who were created, from their study the OT. Yet he incensed them by claiming to be THE Son of God who was one with the Father. Why did that offend them unless they knew such a claim was to a pre existent life as well? He certainly claimed such a life saying before Abraham came he was.
They tested him to prove he was the messiah but did they expect the Son of God as the messiah and one so meek and humble?To me it is plain that the title The Son of God says he is the logos who existed in the beginning with the Father prior to all of creation.Nick,
Quote To me it is plain that the title The Son of God says he is the logos who existed in the beginning with the Father prior to all of creation. You are reading a lot into the title “the Son of God”, especially in light of how the concept of being a son of God is treated in the bible. What you are essentially saying is that ALL other sons of God were created, but as soon as you add the article “the” in front of “son of God”, it changes the entire meaning of the phrase into “one born before creation”. That's a huge leap, with no evidence.
Quote Certainly my study of the Greek and Hebrew suggests that what I would understand as “begotten” covers “produced alone” so the “only” is superfluous- meaning “alone”. However there are no competing claims to the Son of God as being begotten. I have no idea how you came to this conclusion based on the a study of the Greek text, so I will show you what I studied to help clarify what I said in my previous post. Perhaps you can do the same.
The word “begotten” in Greek is Strong's #1080, “gennao”, as in the verse:
Quote Acts 13:33:
“that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.'”None of the verses that you referenced contain this word. They contain a completely different word:
Quote John 1:14:
“And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”Quote John 1:18:
“No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”Quote John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”Quote John 3:18:
“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”Quote 1 John 4:9:
“By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.”Strong's 3439 is the Greek word “monogenes, which means “single of its kind, only”. The Greek word for “begotten” is not in those texts. So, the more accurate translation, as seen in most modern translations, is “only Son”, not “begotten Son”. So, as far as I can tell, there is no scriptural evidence that the Son was “begotten” of God before his ressurrection. Trinitarians inserted that language into some of the translations of the bible to support the idea that the Son is “eternally begotten”.
Quote Now Jesus is THE Son of God. In fact he often referred to himself just as THE SON [eg Jn 5.19,20,21,22,23,26]in relationship to the Father. Of course, he is THE Son. He is THE Messiah, God's chosen one. There is no other, and that is why he is unique.
Quote A Son who has “life in himself” just as the Father does so he is not the Father in flesh or a body/shell of the Father' Spirit[Jn 5.26]. A Son who will “ascend to where he was before”-in heaven with the Father[[Jn 6.62]. I have no idea what is meant by “ascend to where he was before” in this passage, but since you clearly understand this passage, you can help me understand the verses just above it.
Quote John 6:
“53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.””Is he speaking literally or figuratively?
Quote He was the firstborn Son who was “brought into the world” not “born into” it in the same way as he was born of Mary.[Heb 1.6] You are reading a lot into the phrase “brought into the world”. Should we do the same with the following verse?
Quote John 1:
“6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.”John was “sent from God” not “chosen by God” as one might expect of a mere mortal. Does this mean that John pre-existed as well? Or, is it possible that John was simply chosen by God, even before his birth, to fulfill a certain purpose?
Quote He is the firstborn of all creation[Coll1.15]so as creation greatly preceded his physical birth and so he did also. Yes, he is the firstborn of all creation, but where and when was he born? Verse 18 says that he was the “firstborn from among the dead”. Of all the people who have died since the beginning of the world, he is the first one ressurrecte
d, (born from among the dead), to eternal life.By the way, the phrase “firstborn of creation” would seem to imply that he was a part of it.
Let's keep it simple, and look at your doctrine one building block at a time. Let's start with the idea that “Jesus” was “begotten not made”, (a phrase borrowed from a creed), that he was born before creation. What is your scriptural basis for that?
Hi WIT,
Let's start with your understanding of 3439″ monogenes” .In my concordance it say from 3441 and 1096. “only begotten” or “only”
So 3441 “monos”-alone- alone[31], by themselves[1] , even[1], just[2] ,mere[1], merely[2], only[18], only one[1] ,only thing[1] ,private [1]
And 1096 ” ginomai”-to come into being, to happen, to become- there are many uses with the most common being:become[83]Happened[33] come[26] came[92] done[21] been [17] take place[17]arose[16]So how can you see this “monogenes” as “single of its kind, only”
The word clearly covers coming into being as well?Cont
The understanding of the verses in Jn 6.53-58 has to relate to Jn 4.34and Jn 6.35.
Yes Jesus was speaking figuratively here but often he explained these parables to his disciples. This time they did not ask for an explanation.
Jn 6.60
” Many therefore of his disciples ,when they heard this said
'This is a difficult statement ;who can listen to it?'So he challenged their faith with a literal fact-that he was to ascend back to heaven again, as they later witnessed in Acts 1.
cont
How can “only Son” have any relevance if we all know there are many sons of God?
You imply “The Son” and “The Messiah” are equivalent. Are they? Were the jews expecting “the Son”?
How do you see him as unique? Was he less than the angels in glory always before he ascended to heaven as that would suggest they are more unique? Or is that uniqueness to you only as a man? Do you say he was the greatest man only?cont,
John was unique and he was sent from God. Though he avoided the question himself [Jn 1.25] Jesus implied he embodied the return of Elijah who lives in heaven. Mind you he also was a prophet and all prophets are sent from God
[Lk 20.10f] as they are blessed with God's Spirit.
Do you agree?cont,
We know' firstborn from the dead 'is not equivalent to 'firstborn of all creation' as all creation is not even born let alone reborn-animals,plants,angels and most humans.Firstborn is a symbolic term too as it implies highest ranking among the children-the first to share in any inheritance.
Now we know that Jesus has the highest place in all things, creation and rebirth. So being called 'firstborn of all creation' speaks of this status but does not state that Jesus was created-do you see what I mean?
Jesus is the first and the last, the alpha and omega.
cont
1Peter 1.18f” Knowing that you were redeemed…with precious blood, as of a lamb, unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For he was foreknown before the foundation of the World, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God”
John said of him ” behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”
Was he the lamb before his death? Was he filled with the Spirit of God before his death? We only are born again after baptism into his death but he was alive in God before then and is only called “firstborn of the dead” so he can have first place in all things.He was begotten of God prior to his death.Nick,
OK. Let's look at one more verse:
Quote Hebrews 11:
“17By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;”Now this is an interesting verse, because Abraham actually had TWO sons. Ishmael was born of Hagar, and Isaac was born of Sarah. Yet, the text refers to Abraham's “only begotten” son. Isaac was Abraham's unqiue son, the one promised by God to Abraham and Sarah. Clearly, the definition “single of its kind” is the only one that makes sense in this verse. It is my supposition that it is the real meaning of the Greek word “monogenes”.
And yes, being chosen by God to redeem all of mankind qualifies Yeshua as a “unique” man in history. As far as I can tell, there is not going to be a second Messiah.
Now, we can argue about the meanings of Greek words, and figurative phrases in John into eternity – (Why is it always John's gospel that produces such confusion? Trinitarians seem to get much of their doctrine from John's gospel as well.) – but as I have tried to state many times, one has to start with a solid foundation before one can build upon it. Let's talk about your foundation.
If “Jesus” is not “just a man”, and is certainly not an angel, does that not mean that he is a god? If so, which god are you serving, “Jesus” or Yahweh? Or, are you serving two gods?
Quote Isaiah 45:
5 I am the LORD , and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me,
…
18 For this is what the LORD says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited- he says: 'I am the LORD , and there is no other.'”Hi WIT
The word mono-genes, even in English suggests “Generated by one” surely so please relook at this.I serve the God of the Abraham, Moses and Jesus. I am baptised into the body of Christ so am a part of that body on earth. I serve the Head of the Body-Jesus. I do not worship Jesus as I am in him. He has divine nature and is worthy of worship by angels and natural men and accepted that worship though he did not seek it but led others to worship his Father. He is, though, The Son of God, subject to his God, the Father.
Surely you are not now questioning the validity of John's gospel as well? I agree he had a special gift of spiritual wisdom that showed he knew the origins of Jesus and he expressed them more clearly and deeply than his peers. But Peter and Paul also showed his origins and the other gospels showed who he was by what he did.
You have taken the Hebrews verse out of context. Look at the preceding and following words.
“..By faith Abraham, when put to the test, offered up Isaac;he who had received the promises was ready to sacrifice his ONLY son, of whom it was said 'through Isaac shall your descendants be called' “
Isaac was the ONLY son that Abraham was to have his promised descendants called.
ONLY is a valid use of this word.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
