- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi all,
This is not a short post, but anyone who has been stopped in their tracks by a trinitarian claiming the Bible doesn't say Jesus had a beginning should read it.
I have been arguing against the trinity on this site for a few months. The trinitarians have a wealth of information and resources produced by trinitarian scholars. Among this “new, startling information” is the belief that the Greek word “monogenes” did not still mean “only begotten” by the time the NT was written. They admit that the verb form “genao” still meant “begotten”, but the adjective “monogenes” by then meant “unique after one's own kind”.
They also believe that the phrase “prototokos pasa ktisis” does not really mean “firstborn of every creature” even though the Greek words mean exactly that. They argue that “firstborn” really means “preeminence” and “of every creature” really means “just mankind”, therefore when Paul called Jesus the “firstborn of all creation”, he really meant that Jesus is “preeminent over all mankind”.
Finally, in Rev 3:14, Jesus says he is the “arche” of the creation of God. The Greek word “arche” has as its first and most used definition, “beginning”, but it also can mean “ruler”.
So by altering the meaning of “only begotten” and “firstborn of all creation” and insisting on the word “ruler” instead of “beginning” in Rev 3:14, they have effectively taken away any claim we might have to prove that Jesus had a beginning.
I'm about to stake our claim again
Eusebius was a 4th century Christian who was a member of the original Council of Nicaea – the council that agreed to the Nicene Creed that teaches God as a Trinity. WJ posted Eusebius' “trinity support” letter in the opening post of his Matt 28:19 thread.
I thought I ought to mention that Eusebius didn't really support the trinity, he just faked compliance to avoid excommunication. This is from Wikipedia:
Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persons of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God (Eusebius never calls Jesus theos) because in all contrary attempts he suspected either polytheism (three distinct gods) or Sabellianism (three modes of one divine person). The Son (Jesus), as Arius asserted, is a creature of God whose generation, for Eusebius, took place before time.
[Eusebius believed] This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change…
After nearly being excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius submitted and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicea in 325.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea#Doctrine
Now that we have a little background info, here's part of the quote of Eusebius that WJ posted:
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,
I don't post this to argue whether or not Eusebius' views are correct (although I agree exactly with what he says). I post it to discredit the info that the trinitarian scholars have been coming up with.
1. “monogenes” didn't really mean “only begotten”, but “genao” (the verb form of the word) did mean “begotten”.
Mixed in with some phrases that clearly describe Jesus' origin (FROM God, FROM Light, FROM Life) – Eusebius says that Jesus is the “Son Only-begotten”. Now this is the “monogenes” that supposedly didn't mean “only begotten” in NT times. Okay. But in the same sentence, he says Jesus was “begotten from the Father”. This is the verb form “genao” which the trinitarian scholars say still DID mean “begotten” in NT times. I believe that the fact the two are mentioned in the same thought of who Jesus came FROM, shows not only that “genao” still mean “begotten”, but “monogenes” also still meant “only begotten”. I think that the trinitarian's claim that it didn't is a big smoke screen and false.
But wait! There's more!
2. “prototokos pasa ktisis” didn't really mean “firstborn of every creature” but “preeminent over mankind”.
Sandwiched in between the two “begottens”, Eusebius says that Jesus is “firstborn of every creature, before all the ages”. How can this mean “preeminent over mankind” if it was “before all the ages”? If there was only God and Jesus, who was Jesus “preeminent” over? So “prototokos” really does mean “firstborn”. And “pasa ktisis” can't mean “only mankind” if they didn't yet exist. Therefore, it must mean “every creature” or “all of creation”.
Let me restate that I am NOT arguing that Eusebius' views are correct. I argue that based on his views, in the 4th century Greek language, “begotten” really meant “begotten” and “firstborn of all creation” really meant “firstborn of all creation”.
That only leaves us with Rev 3:14. It's true that the word “arche” could mean either “ruler” or “beginning” in that verse. But in light of the Eusebius info, and the fact that the other 21 times John used the word “arche” it was translated as “beginning”, I'm leaning towards “beginning” in Rev 3:14 also.
So what say you WJ, Roo, Paul and anyone else who thinks Jesus didn't have a beginning? Like t8's signature says:
An honest but mistaken man, once confronted with the truth, either ceases to be honest or ceases to be mistaken.To the rest of you, feel free to use all the verses in the Bible that say Jesus was begotten or “cause to exist” again. Dont let the trinitarian's claims that “black really meant white” hold you back.
peace and love,
mikeMike
I find it interesting that you would take the words of a coward like Eusibus over the 100s of credible Hebrew and Greek scholars.
That’s easy. I have much to say here but just for short this one scripture blows any idea that Jesus had a beginning out the window.
All things came into being through Him, and “apart from Him NOTHING came into being (ginomai) that has come into being (ginomai)“. John 1:3
Since the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit is a something, then Jesus cannot be included in the nothing.
John uses the words “oude heis ginomai” which means “not one thing came into existence” without him.
This effectively annihilates any teaching that Jesus had a beginning or came into existence in any way before he came in the flesh!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 29 2010,16:37) They admit that the verb form “genao” still meant “begotten”, but the adjective “monogenes” by then meant “unique after one's own kind”.
The problem you have with this is that no scripture applies “genao” to Jesus pre-incarnation!So do we take the words of a hypocrite over the scriptures and the many experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek?
I do not think so!
WJ
Hi WJ,
The Spirit creates.[Ps 104]
Now the Lord is the Spirit.[2Cor3]
The Lord as Spirit was with the Israelites.[1cor10]
The Spirit of Christ inspired the OT prophets.[1Peter1]
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.[Heb13.8]The Testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy [Rev19]
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2010,08:41) Hi MB,
The Lord is the Spirit.
What now, Nick?What did I say? Sometimes you remind me of Dustin Hoffman in “Rainman”. Five minutes to Wapner.
Either provide a translater or stop speaking in tongues.
peace and love,
mikeHi MB,
Men focus on the vessel but the real importance of Jesus is as the Spirit of Christ in him.
Without the submissive obedience of the vessel God's will would not have been done.
But God by His Spirit as Word has always been the key to the confusion of men.Mikeboll said:
Quote I argue that based on his views, in the 4th century Greek language, “begotten” really meant “begotten” and “firstborn of all creation” really meant “firstborn of all creation”.
Mike,Thank you my man! Note that part of your statement I bolded. You said that begotten really meant begotten in “4th century language”.
TO ALL:
Who cares what the word begotten meant in the 4th century! All that matters is how “monogenes” was used before and up to the time the new testament was written.
You have already been shown that “monogenes” simply meant “only” or “unique” by the time the new testament was written.
Psalm 25:16 says in the Septuagint says this:
16 Turn to me and be gracious to me,
for I am lonely (monogenes) and afflicted.The word “lonely” is the Greek “monogenes” in the Septuagint. It simply means “lonely”. It has no reference to coming into being at all!
TO ALL:
Mike says that the trinitarians scholars are wrong. But the Septuagint was translated by the seventy JEWISH scholars long before Christianity or Trinitarianism came into existence.
Did you catch that? The word “monogenes” had no reference to “coming into being” before and up to the writing of the new testament. Yet Mike wants us to accept a lone 4th century definition.
Mike wants us to ignore the Septuagint's use of “monogenes” when the Septuagint was quoted by Jesus and the Apostles 2 to 1 over the Hebrew Scriptures. That's right! Of the 300 old testament quotes by Jesus and the Apostles 200 of them are directly from the Septuagint. But Mike expects us to accept the word of a monogenes (lone) man.
Mike chooses a 4th century trinitarian (Eusebius) over the seventy Jewish scholars who employed “monogenes” simply to denote “alone”.
Again, Mike is asking you to go with the definition of a single (monogenes) man in the 4th century over the definition of the seventy Jewish scholars who actually lived in biblical times and who employed the word “monogenes” according to the way it was used in THEIR TIME.
Mike, again, thank you very much! I am not kidding man! Be assured that this is a sincere thanks! You showed everyone that you do not care how the word was used in biblical times. You would rather super-impose a lone (monogenes) definition from a time nearly four hundred years later. Again I say thanks for helping me and WJ out.
Luv ya for it!
Jack
Hi WJ,
Thanks for the response!
You said:
Quote I find it interesting that you would take the words of a coward like Eusibus over the 100s of credible Hebrew and Greek scholars. But this is what you said about the same coward in your thread:
It would also contradict the fact that Eusebius was a prominent figure at the Council of Nicene. Not to mention his own confession in his personal Letter to the Church of Cesarea…
But don't forget that I'm not arguing the kind of person Eusebius was or whether his beliefs were right. (Personally I put him in the category of the leaders who believed but would not confess for fear of being put out of the synagogue. He too must have loved praise from men more than praise from God. But who knows? Maybe God used him for a purpose. Who am I to judge?)
No, I'm not saying because Eusebius said Jesus was “genao” you should believe it. I'm saying because he used the word “genao” alongside “monogenes” that they both mean Jesus was begotten. In other words, the trinitarian's claim that “monogenes” didn't mean “only begotten” in NT times is debunked.
You said:
Quote Since the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit is a something, then Jesus cannot be included in the nothing. I agree. I forgot to respond that same answer to Paul's post (my other time consuming response that was lost).
So if we agree that even the Father God is a “thing” in the broadest sense of the word, then according to the scripture you quoted, the Father must have also been one of the “All things” that came into being through the Son. But we know that John means, “Except for God and Jesus…”
You said:
Quote So do we take the words of a hypocrite over the scriptures and the many experts in Biblical Hebrew and Greek? Only if his words show that certain Greek words still had the same meaning in NT times as their definitions imply. And why is it that only the newer “experts” try to change the meaning? Were not the KJV and YLT translated by “experts”? Is not Strong an “expert”? Even the 100+ scholar NIV still adds a footnote saying “or only begotten” below the scriptures in question.
I'll anxiously await your thoughts on the other part. The “firstborn of all creation” part.
peace and love,
mikeHi Roo,
You're speaking to me again? Oh happy day!
You said:
Quote Who cares what the word begotten meant in the 4th century! All that matters is how “monogenes” was used before and up to the time the new testament was written. No, what you told me in our debate was that “by the time the LXX was written, 'monogenes' NO LONGER meant 'only begotten'. (that was a paraphrase – I'll look up what you actually said, but I believe it was something like that) I have showed you that it did at that time and even 300 years later.
Does it matter? This is a man who read the NT scriptures in Greek, the same language they were written in. Did “monogenes” change meaning in 300 years?
More later. I've got a family get together to attend so I can rest tonight knowing I really do have a life, just like you and WJ.
peace and love,
mikeHi All again,
Can someone just explain to me, in simple terms, where a Son comes from, how one called 'Son' comes into being? Formed, Born, created, extruded, plucked from, etc.
God was alone, I understand, 'monogenes', is that right?
Then He 'Formed' another God from Himself. Is this right?
This 'other God', 'Jesus…to be named', He entitled 'Son', thereby becoming 'Father', and this was to be the pattern for man later on. Man creating Man, just as God created God. Is this right?
(Woman: Wom[bed] man: Womb[ed] man; Wombed Man. I can expand if anyone is interested) … I like this one: wo [to] man! If you are married you will know what I mean…
If there is a Father, then it stands to reason that there is a Son.
If there is a Son, stands to reason there must be a Father (Except for KJ who is fully investitured and therefore doesn't now have one!)
The above is agreed, nothing sinistered, no hidden trapdoors, magic tricks, etc.
Which came First, the Father, or the Son? Silly question, the Father, of course!
Nunce! The Son came From the Father! Simples, yeah!Ok, so I get it. First there was the Father, who 'formed' a Son from himself. Good, good, it's starting to come through…
So, this Son, formed from the Father, who is God, is therefore, also, God. Is this correct?
So we have 'God from God'
But, umm…, what I don't understand is, 'What is God?'.
The Trinity, defines God as 'Eternal'…but if the Father is 'God' and therefore 'Eternal', then how can the Son also be 'God'…'Eternal', because the Son came 'after' the Father.
I'm confused?
Oh, I also hear tell that God is ALL MIGHTY. So, the Father, who is God, is 'Almighty', then came the Son…'Almighty' too?
The Offshoot of the Almighty is also Almighty. Is this correct?But how can TWO seperate beings be BOTH Almighty
But yet we read in Scriptures that the Spirit of the Father, which is the Only (Monogenes) Holy Spirit is ALSO 'From/Of' the Father. Ok.
So, then to the Son. Here, although, God from God, we do not see a ' Holy Spirit of the Son'
Does this mean that the Son does not have a Spirit, or that the Spirit if the Son is not Holy?
And, I hear, 'God' created the universe and all within 'Through' his Son.
What, God? I thought it was agreed that the Son IS God?
God, who is the Father And the Son, created the universe through the Son, who was formed from the father and….
But wait – there's more…
The Trinity also goes on to say the God's Holy Spirit is ALSO 'God'
Now, let me try and understand this…
The Spirit, the actuating, motivating, enabling, …Life Force of God IS Itself a separate and independent being which is also 'God'.Well, ok, test this. The Spirit of the Son…must also be a separate and independent life force who is also 'God'.
So now we have, suddenly, not TWO Gods but FOUR…and it gets worse because next the angels are created and they are also called 'Sons of God', therefore, by Trinitarian definition, they, millions of them, are also 'God'…or Gods…
Could there be something wrong somewhere because all this is getting very messy!
The best I can make out is that Anything of a sentient nature is 'God', or, 'a God', or, 'IS, or contains, A Spirit', perhaps?
But there is only ONE initiator 'God' from whom ALL 'Spirits', 'gods' were formed, and that is the ONE and only, monogenes, True God, the One God called Father, perhaps?
JustAskin,May wrote:[/quote]
Hello JA, (Jamaican Arian) You said:
Quote God was alone, I understand, 'monogenes', is that right? No sir. In the Greek, mono means “only”. “Genes” comes from the root word “ginomai” meaning “generated” or “caused to exist”. Monogenes is a term used for the Son, not the Father. It means “only begotten”.
You said:
Quote (Except for KJ who is fully investitured and therefore doesn't now have one!) 
You said:
Quote The Trinity, defines God as 'Eternal'…but if the Father is 'God' and therefore 'Eternal', then how can the Son also be 'God'…'Eternal', because the Son came 'after' the Father. Not to mention the fact the the Son died. He is eternal now, though.
Eternal can mean “from everlasting to everlasting” as in God. It can also mean “to everlasting” as in the Son now. But the Son cannot be co-equal and co-eternal as the trinity doctrine states because, as you point out, the Son was caused to exist AND as I point out, he died.You said:
Quote So, the Father, who is God, is 'Almighty', then came the Son…'Almighty' too?
The Offshoot of the Almighty is also Almighty. Is this correct?Probably not considering Almighty means “the mightiest of the mighty”. There can be only one mightiest.
You said:
Quote So, then to the Son. Here, although, God from God, we do not see a ' Holy Spirit of the Son' Good point. Is the Holy Spirit OF Jesus? Or just OF the Father? Your'e the expert on spirit, I'm just touching the tip of the iceberg on that one – so you tell me.
And forget about the capitial letters as they were all caps in the Greek. Just focus on the fact that Jesus is god FROM god, light FROM light, life FROM life. Is Jehovah ever said to be FROM anything or anyone?Hey, good raps earlier (probably yesterday to you).
peace and love,
mikeMike,
Thanks for the heads up on monogenes.Couple of things.
All that I wrote was strictly in reference to the point in question concerning the beginning.
This keeps the discussion tight, limited to time before the Son's change, the 'emtying of his divinity (undying state) coming to earth and thence after.
Mike,
The new Trinity doctrine does not include 'CoEqual'.
It says, 'CoEternal and CoExistent'Also, it says that the Father is the source of all things and the Son is subordinate to the father but superior to the Holy Spirit.
Not all Trinitarians, it seems, are yet aware of this change or else we wouldn't be disagreeing with them so much!
Of course, they will claim that 'coequal' never meant 'coequal'. WJ has already used it to say 'coequal in nature' which is highly amusing..
What it shows is that they are 'in immediately awareness' of their blunder.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2010,15:46) Hi MB,
A read on Romans8 will show you the ONE Spirit is spoken of in many ways in Scripture
Okay, thanks.But this thread is about the trinitarians trying to invalidate scriptures that clearly say Jesus had a beginning. And they don't do it scripturally, but by changing long standing definitions. What do you think about the topic at hand?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ May 30 2010,15:51) Mike, The new Trinity doctrine does not include 'CoEqual'.
It says, 'CoEternal and CoExistent'Also, it says that the Father is the source of all things and the Son is subordinate to the father but superior to the Holy Spirit.
Not all Trinitarians, it seems, are yet aware of this change or else we wouldn't be disagreeing with them so much!
Of course, they will claim that 'coequal' never meant 'coequal'. WJ has already used it to say 'coequal in nature' which is highly amusing..
What it shows is that they are 'in immediately awareness' of their blunder.
I did not know that they changed it. Where can I read the new one?Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 30 2010,10:31) You have already been shown that “monogenes” simply meant “only” or “unique” by the time the new testament was written. Psalm 25:16 says in the Septuagint says this:
16 Turn to me and be gracious to me,
for I am lonely (monogenes) and afflicted.The word “lonely” is the Greek “monogenes” in the Septuagint. It simply means “lonely”. It has no reference to coming into being at all!
Hi Roo,There are two points you neglect.
1. If “yachlid”, or “lonely” is the meaning of “monogenes”, then does that mean EVERY time we read “monogenes” it means “lonely”? Did God love the world so much that He sent his “lonely” Son into the world?
2. If you assert that “monogenes” meant “unique” by the time the NT was written, and you come to believe this by copies of the LXX from the 4th and 5th centuries, then doesn't Eusebius' letter of the same time period offer proof to the contrary?
peace and love,
mikeNick,
Did Jesus give up his spirit to his Father when he died on the cross?
WJ and KJ are both trying to be deceitful by claiming that there is only 'One Spirit' even when it is clear that I am refering to 1) the Holy Spirit, and 2) The Spirit of Jesus and/or the Spirit of a man.
Now you appear to be towing their line. Why?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
