- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Amen Nick
He that believes in Jesus cannot die but has passed from death into life.
It just takes a little time for the body to catch up (the resurrection)
It is a process of becoming a son of God, I believe – in which we are conformed to the image of God's precious son who was our example to follow in this life.
I think it just keeps getting better and better with time, from glory to glory as Paul put it.
I believe the new birth settles forever the destination of the soul, but the battle then begins between the inner and outer man for possession of the promise of eternal life verses the old ways of the flesh.
We are given eternal life, it is a gift. But we must fight for possession of that given – the good fight of faith – for every promise we must gain victory of it by overcoming the world. Faith is a gift of God, character is a victory.
The trial of our faith accomplishes this so that we like Paul can say 'I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ'Quote (malcolm ferris @ May 30 2006,08:49) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 30 2006,06:55) Quote (malcolm ferris @ May 30 2006,06:31) Your spirit goes to God who gave it, your body to the earth from whence it came, and the soul to the prison house of Hell.
Acts 7:57-59
57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.“
Hi Is 1:18Nice, that is very good, thanks
Re: my quote I am drawing these conclusions from the following scriptural statements.ECCLESIASTES 12:7
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.PSALMS 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.It could be possible then that the sacrifice of Jesus amends this to the following:
Our soul and spirit goes to a place of Life, Heaven
Our body goes to the dust (for now at least)
Hi Malcolm, hope life is treating you well
My thoughts: I believe Stephen knew scripture, as the first 53 verses of Acts 7 unmistakably bear out. He took the Council on a phenomenal tour de force through the Old Testament. He was also “full of the Holy Spirit” as described in vs 55. To my mind he clearly recognised Jesus Christ as the “God” to whom men's spirits return….hi Malcolm,
But the character is eventually that of Christ. The Spirit of Christ takes up residence and as we deny the flesh he has room to grow in us. Sin of every nature has it's seed in us and whatever was not planted by God must be recognised, defeated and chained. Thanks be to God that all graces as in 2Peter1.2-8 are accessible to upbuild us and we only do not have because we do not ask.
Ask and you will receive..Hi Is 1:18
Good to hear from you, I am well thanks, hope the same is true of you.
Do these words 'Lord Jesus receive my spirit' indicate that he (Jesus) is God or do they simply confirm his words in John 14:6 that no man can come to his Father but via him?Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 30 2006,10:00) hi Malcolm,
But the character is eventually that of Christ. The Spirit of Christ takes up residence and as we deny the flesh he has room to grow in us. Sin of every nature has it's seed in us and whatever was not planted by God must be recognised, defeated and chained. Thanks be to God that all graces as in 2Peter1.2-8 are accessible to upbuild us and we only do not have because we do not ask.
Ask and you will receive..
AmenQuote (Is 1:18 @ May 30 2006,09:52) Hi Malcolm, hope life is treating you well
My thoughts: I believe Stephen knew scripture, as the first 53 verses of Acts 7 unmistakably bear out. He took the Council on a phenomenal tour de force through the Old Testament. He was also “full of the Holy Spirit” as described in vs 55. To my mind he clearly recognised Jesus Christ as the “God” to whom men's spirits return….
Hi Is 1.18,
Acts 7.55
“But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus STANDING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD”Certainly. Jesus is the only begotten God.[Jn 1.18]
Jesus was standing at the right hand of a greater Being.
So who was the God Jesus was with?
Nick, surely you don't believe John actually penned
that Jesus is “the only-begotten god” in John 1:18.
Are you not aware that this is an Alexandrian corruption of scripture.
It originally said “only-begotten son, i.e. monogenes huios“John recognized solely ONE GOD … and he did not teach that GOD begat a god!!
Hi Adam,
My bible says that some manuscripts read
“only begotten Son”That suggests to me that the former is the commonest version.
Do you have proof of this corruption?
Do you reject other verses from John?ps
You have made a very serious charge against the integrity of the whole bible. So far the evidence you have offered in support of the charge is the human logic of the Greeks, which of course is utterly weak and circumstantial and does not compare with scripture.
It is about as useful as saying to the judge in a human court that you couldn't have done the crime of murder because you are a nice guy and some of do not usually walk past the address of the deceased.Hi Adam Pastor,
You have yet to add to your charge that the whole bible is corrupt.We do accept there are the odd translational errors but to suggest it has been systematically twisted to suit a doctrine is very serious. Such a matter cannot be shelved without discussion as we believe in the Word of God utterly.
Even the inference may damage the faith of the young in Christ. If you cannot prove these things you must at least explain what you are saying here for the sake of the Spirit who wrote it.
As I said on June 01 2006,01:13
Quote Sorry Nick … I regret bringing up this issue.
Won't happen again.
So, please ignore or delete my posts on this matter!Hi Adam Pastor,
Just as soon as you post that your charges about the integrity of the scriptures is false and that John was not adulterated by an Alexandrian influence then such things can be considered.Adam Pastor,
I do not have the power to alter the posts of others and I know t8 regards it as something which should not be done without good reason-such as a totally wrong impression given or an offensive post.But when an opinion is clearly expressed it reflects the current beliefs of the one who is posting and as such should stand until clarification or a change of heart occurs and that can be done by posting again.
Withdrawing a post for other reasons is not fair if that post has already created an impression and withdrawing it will affect the relevance of the posts of others and create an obstacle to the flow of information.
I hope this explains our position on this matter.
Hi,
Jn 1,18 is shown below according to the NASB. Futher reseach show there is quite a lot of manuscript variation here and i have placed some others for comparison.Jn 1.18 NASB
” 18(A)No one has seen God at any time; (B)the only begotten God who is ©in the bosom of the Father, (D)He has explained Him.”
NIV
“18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[a]who is at the Father's side, has made him known”
Footnotes:
[a]John 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) SonKJV
” 18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
Young's literal
” 18God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father — he did declare.”Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 13 2006,09:58) Hi Adam Pastor,
Just as soon as you post that your charges about the integrity of the scriptures is false and that John was not adulterated by an Alexandrian influence then such things can be considered.
I see Nick … you won't let it go!!! Fine!!
Well, let's begin with youYou have no problem questioning the integrity of Matt: 28.19 & 1 John 5.7.
However, when I pointed out to you that the translation of John 1:18 “only-begotten god” is an Alexandrian alteration …
You asked me Do you reject other verses from John? (June 01 2006, 00:23)
I was so annoyed at your assertion that I reject verses from John that I simply wished I never raised the subject. After years of debating with you on various issues I should have known better than to think you would have been Berean enough to look into the matter conc. John 1.18.
So because of my annoyance at your reply I amended my post and said (June 01 2006, 01:13)Quote Sorry Nick … I regret bringing up this issue.
Won't happen again.
Please ignore previous post
Since then
1) You have accused me of making a very serious charge against the integrity of the whole bible. (June 01 2006, 01:09)
2) You have accused me of presenting a charge that the whole bible is corrupt. (July 18 2006, 02:30)And all I ever did was point out a translation error concerning John 1.18!! (Obviously, “the only-begotten god” translation is important to you for your own theological reasons.)
Yet you make out that I reject verses from John and state the whole bible is corrupt!!! Where did I ever say that the whole Bible is corrupt?? I simply reject the translation error of John 1:18, even as, I reject the translation error of 1 John 5:7.
Yet you make out that I stated that the whole bible is corrupt! I guess that says a lot about you, Nick!
Anyways, for the edification of others I will humor you.
The next 2 posts will address the translation error of John 1:18 … and hopefully be of edification to those who are Berean visitors to this forum.After that, I will not address this issue with you again.
Take it or leave it.Adieu Nick!
(Acts 17:11) These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Quote (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture @ Bart D. Ehrman p. 78-82 (1993)) p78
Christ, Designated as God: John 1:18
A comparable corruption appears in the prologue of the Fourth Gospel, although here the issues are far more complicated and have generated substantially more debate and indecision. I will not give an exhaustive study of all the issues surrounding the text of John 1: 18; these are competently handled in the commentaries and in several recent studies. I will instead develop my reasons for thinking that the majority of manuscripts are right in ending the prologue with the words: “No one has seen God at any time, but the unique Son (o monogenes uios) who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.” The variant reading of the Alexandrian tradition, which substitutes “God” for “Son, ” represents an orthodox corruption of the text in which the complete deity of Christ is affirmed: “the unique God [o monogenes theos] who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.”
p79
External Evidence
It must be acknowledged at the outset that the Alexandrian reading is more commonly preferred by textual critics, in no small measure because of its external support. Not only is it the reading of the great Alexandrian uncials, it is also attested by the earliest available witnesses, the Bodmer papyri p66 and p75, discovered in the middle of the present century. It would be a mistake, however, to consider this external evidence compelling in itself. For in actual fact, contrary to widely held opinion, the discovery of the early papyri has done very little (in this instance) to change the character of the documentary alignments. This is due to the peculiar character of the verse's attestation: even before the discovery, of the papyri, scholars realized that the bulk of the Alexandrian tradition attested the reading, including witnesses that date back to the beginning of the third century. This means that we already knew that it must have been preserved in early Greek manuscripts of Alexandria—even before we had access to any of them. The chance discovery of two such witnesses has consequently done nothing to change the picture, but has simply demonstrated that our theories about transmission are essentially correct.
Here it must be emphasized that outside of the Alexandrian tradition, the reading monogenes theos has not fared well at all. Virtually every other representative of every other textual grouping—Western, Caesarean, Byzantine—attests o monogenes uios. And the reading even occurs in several of the secondary Alexandrian witnesses. This is not simply a case of one reading supported by the earliest and best manuscripts and another supported by late and inferior ones, but of one reading found almost exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition and another found sporadically there and virtually everywhere else. And although the witnesses supporting o monogenes uios cannot individually match the antiquity of the Alexandrian papyri, there can be little doubt that this reading must also be dated at least to the time of their production. There is virtually no other way to explain its predominance in the Greek, Latin, and Syriac traditions, not to mention its occurrence in fathers such as Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, who were writing before our earliest surviving manuscripts were produced. Thus, both readings are ancient; one is fairly localized, the other is almost ubiquitous. This in itself does not demonstrate that o monogenes uios is original, but it does show the error of automatically accepting the external attestation of the Alexandrian reading as superior.
Intrinsic Probabilities
It is on internal grounds that the real superiority of o monogenes uios shines forth. Not only does it conform with established Johannine usage, a point its opponents readily concede, but the Alexandrian variant, although perfectly amenable to scribes for theological reasons, is virtually impossible to understand within a Johannine context. As we shall see, these points are best treated in conjunction with one another rather than independently, for here again
p80
arguments of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities make a rather formidable coalition.
I begin with the question of intrinsic plausibility. One of the insurmountable difficulties of accepting the Alexandrian reading as original involves ascertaining what it might mean for a first-century document to say that Jesus is “the unique God” ([o] monogenes theos). The problem exists whether or not one chooses to read the definite article—although if external support is considered decisive, the article is probably to be preferred. If so, then the problem of translation is simply made more acute, not created, since in some sense the meaning of monogenes itself embodies the notion of exclusivity conveyed by the use of the article. By definition there can be only one monogenes: the word means “unique, ” “one of a kind.” The problem, of course, is that Jesus can be the unique God only if there is no other God; but for the Fourth Gospel, the Father is God as well. Indeed, even in this passage the monogenes is said to reside in the bosom of the Father. How can the monogenes theos, the unique God, stand in such a relationship to (another) God?
The problem is avoided, of course, with the reading that is more widely attested. Not only does this reading avoid the contradiction implied by the other, however, it also coincides perfectly well with the way monogenes is used throughout the Johannine literature. In three other Johannine passages monogenes serves as a modifier, and on each occasion it is used with uios (John 3: 16, 18; 1 John 4: 9). Proponents of the Alexandrian reading, of course, have often turned this argument on its head by claiming that scribes already conversant with Johannine usage disposed of the more difficult phrase o monogenes theos by conforming it to the standard expression. This is certainly a possibility; but in fact, the phrase that proves difficult for John was not a problem for Christians in the second century and beyond, who, with their increasingly paradoxical understandings of Christology, could conceive of ways for Christ to be the unique God himself. It would be a mistake, however, to read these sophisticated forms of Christology back into the pages of the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus is on a par with God (see 10: 30, 33), and so can be addressed as God (20: 28, …), but is never identified as “the one and only God” himself. One is left, then, with the problem of how to understand o monogenes theos in the Johannine world if it were accepted as original.
Scholars who prefer the reading generally escape the difficulty by proposing alternative ways of construing its meaning or syntax. One common expedient involves claiming that monogenes itself connotes the idea of “sonship,” so that the word uios is to be understood even when it is not expressed. In this case, the conflate reading found elsewhere in the tradition (o monogenes uios, theos), although corrupt in wording, is correct in meaning: the Alexandrian text (o monogenes theos) should then be understood to mean “the unique Son who is God.”
The difficulty with this view is that there is nothing about the word
p 81
monogenes itself that suggests it. Outside of the New Testament the term simply means “one of a kind” or “unique,” and does so with reference to any range of animate or inanimate objects. Therefore, recourse must be made to its usage within the New Testament. Here proponents of the view argue that in situ the word implies “sonship, ” for it alw
ays occurs (in the New Testament) either in explicit conjunction with uios or in a context where a uios is named and then described as monogenes (Luke 9: 38, John 1: 14, Heb 11: 17). Nonetheless, as suggestive as the argument may appear, it contains the seeds of its own refutation: if the word monogenes is understood to mean “a unique son, ” one wonders why it is typically put in attribution to uios, an attribution that then creates an unusual kind of redundancy (“the unique-son son”). Given the fact that neither the etymology of the word nor its general usage suggests any such meaning, this solution seems to involve a case of special pleading.The more common expedient for those who opt for [o] monogenes theos, but who recognize that its rendering as “the unique God” is virtually impossible in a Johannine context, is to understand the adjective substantially, and to construe the entire second half of John 1: 18 as a series of appositions, so that rather than reading “the unique God who is in the bosom of the Father,” the text should be rendered “the unique one, who is also God, who is in the bosom of the Father.” There is something attractive about the proposal. It explains what the text might have meant to a Johannine reader and thereby allows for the text of the generally superior textual witnesses. Nonetheless, the solution is entirely implausible.
For one thing, it posits that the “natural” meaning of the Johannine text was not understood by a number of scribes who found it so peculiar that they sought to modify it to established Johannine usage. How is it that modern critics in the German- and English-speaking worlds can make ready sense of a passage that seems to have struck Greek-speaking scribes as so perplexing? Moreover, a moment's reflection shows that the proposed construal is not at all the most natural. It is true that monogenes can elsewhere be used as a substantive (= the unique one, as in v. 14); all adjectives can. But the proponents of this view have failed to consider that it is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Indeed one must here press the syntactical point: when is an adjective ever used substantially when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection? No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity. To the best of my knowledge, no one has cited anything analogous outside of this passage.
The result is that taking the term monogenes theos as two substantives standing in apposition makes for a nearly impossible syntax, whereas construing their relationship as adjective-noun creates an impossible sense. Given the fact that the established usage of the Johannine literature is known beyond a shadow of a doubt, there seems little reason any longer to dispute the
p82
reading found in virtually every witness outside the Alexandrian tradition. The prologue ends with the statement that “the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known.”
Transcriptional Probabilities
Why then was the text changed? … Here the character of our witnesses cannot be overlooked. In the early period, when the reading was beginning to establish itself in the Alexandrian tradition, it is found not only in Greek manuscripts, but also among a variety of Alexandrian writers, both orthodox and Gnostic. The presence of the reading in authors of a wide range of theological persuasions has actually served to throw investigators off the scent of its genesis; for it has been assumed that if both orthodox and Gnostic writers attest the text, it must not have been generated out of theological concerns. But the key point to register is that all those who support the text attest a “high” Christology: Alexandrians from Clement and Origen to Ptolemy and Heracleon could all affirm that the monogenes was God. The solution to the problem of the origin of the variant lies not in the orthodox-Gnostic controversy, but in that of both the orthodox and Gnostic Christians against the adoptionists. The variant was created to support a high Christology in the face of widespread claims, found among adoptionists recognized and opposed in Alexandria, that Christ was not God but merely a man, adopted by God. For the scribe who created this variant, Christ is not merely portrayed as the “unique Son. ” He himself is God, the “unique God, ” who is to be differentiated from God the Father, in whose bosom he resides, but who nonetheless is his co-equal. This Alexandrian reading derives from an anti-adoptionistic context, and therefore represents an orthodox corruption.
The next series of quotes is taken from a trinitarian website which supports the deity of Christ:
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/false_teachings_of_arius.htmOf course, I neither believe in the trinity nor the deity of Christ! (nor do I affirm the doctrine of Arius!)
However, this article is relevant to this topic concerning John 1:18. Here are the excerpts:
- The Doctrinal Problem in John 1:18 NASB
John 1:18
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(KJV)John 1:18
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
(NASB)The error here is with the idea of multiple “gods.” … John 1:18 makes no sense in the NASB unless it refers to multiple, separate “gods.” In fact, the verse contradicts itself. In the NASB, it is clear from the language that two individual beings are described here, the invisible “God” and the visible “God.” Both are called “God.” “No man has seen God” refers to the unseen God. But, the words, “the only begotten God” refer to the one who has been seen by men. Literally understood, the NASB is speaking of two distinct “Gods,” one visible and one invisible. Furthermore, the use of “only begotten” (mono-genes) with “God” (theos) implies birth or reproduction of the second “God” by the first “God.” The NASB's rendering here is absolutely ridiculous and completely heterodoxical.
This corrupt reading promotes (and sprang from) a form of gnosticism that invaded the early Church late in the first century where gods begat other gods, and you had families of gods. The “Gnostics” (from “gnosis” the Greek word for knowledge) derived the names for these “gods” from the Scriptures, interpreting common words as mythological gods, and developing myths from the use of these Greek words in the Scriptures. Some of these “gods” were called “Zoe” (life), “Logos” (word), “Anthropos” (man), “Ecclessia” (church), “Monogenes” (only begotten), &c..{2}
Such gnostic ideas were behind the fourth century heresy, introduced by Arius, that was the first major doctrinal crisis in the early Church. It was in response to this crisis that the Nicene Council was called, and the Nicene Creed was developed to standardize the Church's teaching on the Trinity. The Arians were a pseudo-Christian heretical group that sprang up in Alexandria Egypt early in the fourth century, shortly before the Alexandrian manuscripts Aleph and B were made. According to Arius, Jesus Christ was not eternal, nor was He THE God. He was a god created or begotten by God prior to creation. So, while the Father is “the God” Jesus was considered “a god” or a sub-deity, a created or generated god. This is exactly what modern Jehovah's witnesses teach, who are the modern-day “Arians.” The Jehovah's Witnesses, in their New World Translation, make use of this corruption in the text of John in conjunction with a mistranslation of John 1:1 (where the article “a” is inserted before “God”).
John 1:1,18
1 In (the) beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. …
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotton god who is in the bosom (position) with the Father, is the one that has explained him.
(NWT – Watchtower Bible & Tract Society)As you can see, this corruption of John 1:18 supports the “a god” mistranslation in verse one. And yes it is used today for that very purpose by modern-day Arians. A note in the Ante Nicene Fathers, reads: “the expression 'only begotten God' had become common with the Arians.”{3} …
- Internal Evidence
In the New Testament, the “Son” is always seen in relation to the “Father.” Not once is Jesus presented as another “God” in relationship to the Father. The Father and Son are never referred to as “God's” (plural) which John 1:18 NASB requires. …
John 1:1-2
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God. …
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. …
18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained {Him.}
(NASB)This passage proceeds like a symphony until you get to verse 18, where the lead trumpeter hits the wrong note! “Only begotten God???” Where did that come from? There are clearly two distinct “Gods” in the English text here.
Not only does this corrupt reading clash with the rest of the passage, but it also clashes with John's typical jargon. Nowhere else in John's writings (or the rest of Scripture) can we find the expression “only-begotten God.” However, “only begotten Son” is without question a typical Johannine expression.
John 1:14 “only begotten of the Father”
John 1:18 “only begotten Son” (KJV, TR, Majority Text, ECF)
John 3:16 “only begotten Son”
John 3:18 “only begotten Son”
1 John 4:9 “only begotten Son”John no doubt had the second Psalm in mind when using the expression, “only-begotten Son.”
Psalm 2:7
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
(KJV)“Only begotton God” just doesn't work with Biblical Christianity. It is not in harmony with the rest of Scripture. It is a corruption in the text of the NASB and other Alexandrian Bibles. … this corruption supports the “deity of christ” in the way the Arians defined it, that of a sub-deity, a “god” created or begotten by the unseen God, and inferior to the unseen God, a “god” who is the messenger of the unseen God.
- The Textual Evidence
Modern versions are based essentially on modified versions of the Westcott Hort 1881 Greek edition of the New Testament. These go by the names “Nestle's” or “UBS” (United Bible Society). But they are essentially identical to the 1881 text. Westcott and Hort relied heavily on two fourth or fifth century Alexandrian manuscripts, Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) and B (Codex Vaticanus). Basically, these two manuscripts (and two papyrus fragments discovered later, p66 & p75) contain the “only begotten God” reading against all the rest of the New Testament Greek manuscripts, numbering in the thousands. Even the fifth century codex Alexandrinus (A) has “only begotten Son.” The Latin Vulgate, which was produced in the 4th century, also contains the “only begotten Son” (unigenetus Filius) reading. So also the Old Latin (Itala).
…
Following are all of the citations or allusions to John 1:18 in “The Ante Nicene Fathers.”{5} I have placed them in order by age. These quotes date from the first century, with Ignatius, bishop of Antioch{5} … until the Arian controversy and the Nicene council that was convened in A.D. 325 to address this heresy promoting a “begotten god.” (All authors wrote in Greek unless otherwise noted.) Quotations that are doubtful or likely to be spurious are marked with a double asterisk. (**)
- Ignatius (1st Cent. … Bishop of Antioch, Syria)
** “And there is also one Son, God the Word. For “the only-begotten Son,” saith [the Scripture], “who is in the bosom of the Father.”{6} - Irenaeus (2nd Cent. – Disciple of Polycarp, …, Bishop of Lyons, Gaul {France})
“For “no man,” he says, “hath seen God at any time,” unless “the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].” For He, the Son who is in His bosom, declares to all the Father who is invisible.”{7} - Clement (2nd Cent. – Lived in Alexandria, head of Alexandrian school)
“For how shall he not be loved for whos
e sake the only-begotten Son is sent from the Father's bosom, the Word of faith, the faith which is superabundant; the Lord Himself distinctly confessing and saying, “For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me;””{10}“For the Word is “the power and the wisdom of God.” Again, the expounder of the laws is the same one by whom the law was given; the first expounder of the divine commands, who unveiled the bosom of the Father, the only- begotten Son.”{11}
““No man hath seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” — calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God.”{12}
- Tertullian (2nd Cent. Wrote in Latin, lived in Carthage {N. Africa})
“With us however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father's bosom.”{13}“It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him.”{14}
- Origen (3rd Cent. – Head of Alexandrian school after Clement)
“Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, “None knoweth the Father but the Son;” and in these, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.””{15}“No one hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.” This whole speech is from the mouth of the Baptist bearing witness to the Christ.”{16}
- Hippolytus (3rd Cent. – Lived near Rome)
“For John also says, “No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.”{17} - Archelaus (3rd Cent. – Written in “Syriac,” lived in Mesopotamia {Iraq/Iran}. Citations of Scripture are likely from the Syrian “Peshitta” version or old Syrian Version.)
“Furthermore, there is but one only inconvertible substance, the divine substance, eternal and invisible, as is known to all, and is also born out by the scripture: “No man hath seen God at any time, save the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.””{18} - Alexander (4th cent. – Bishop of Alexandria, led the fight against the Arian heresy and excommunicated Arius and his followers from the Alexandrian church)
“But that the Son of God was not made “from things which are not,” and that there was no “time when He was not,” the evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: “The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” For since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father.”{19} - The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (4th century – anonymous) contains the “only begotton God” reading once.{20} A footnote says that “Son” is found in the Latin version. And, “the expression 'only begotten God' had become common with the Arians.”{21}
- Here we have the testimony of the first three centuries of the Church, from the hearers of John all the way to the Nicene council in A.D. 325, which confirm the “only begotten Son” reading in John 1:18. It is the most ancient reading in the Ante Nicene Fathers. This testimony comes from Greek, Latin, and Syriac, the three main languages in which the Scriptures were produced in the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Furthermore, the evidence is very widespread geographically, from Gaul (France) in the west, to Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran) in the East. From Rome in the north, to Alexandria (Egypt) and Carthage (N. Africa) in the south. And to top it all off, several of the early quotes are from the very location (Alexandria) where the later manuscripts were produced that contain the “only begotten God” reading.
The only two “only begotten God” readings in citations of John 1:18 which are not limited to Alexandria are one from Irenaeus and one from the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles. The one in Irenaeus is clearly a latter addition, an obvious interpolation in the text. Irenaeus used the “only begotten Son” reading in two other quotes of John 1:18, one of them just a few paragraphs before this quote! So, it is apparent that the text of John's Gospel that Irenaeus had before him contained the “only begotten Son” reading in the second century. The “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles” was written in the fourth century, about the time of the uproar over the Arian heresy, and is known to be spurious. We can safely conclude that there are no genuine examples of the “only begotten God” reading of John 1:18 from non-Alexandrian Early Church Fathers prior to the fourth century.
Of the three Alexandrian Fathers who cited this verse, Clement and Origen quoted both “only begotten Son” and “only begotten God” in John 1:18. And Alexander only quoted “only begotten Son.” This seems to indicate that in Alexandria both readings were extant at the time. Also, notice that in Clement's quotes, the “only begotten Son” reading is in his earlier work, Book I of the Stromata, while the “only begotten God” is found in Book V. Likewise, Origen's commentary on John was written late in his life, and contains the “only begotten God” reading as opposed to the “only begotten Son” reading in his earlier work. It seems that even among these Alexandrian Fathers, who were familiar with both readings, the “Son” reading is still earlier in the record. Alexander, the orthodox bishop of the Alexandrian church who opposed Arius, seems to have been familiar only with the “only begotten Son” reading.
The evidence, from the Early Church Fathers' citations of this verse, points solidly to the “only begotten Son” reading as being the earliest and widely accepted orthodox reading. Obviously, the “only begotten God” reading is ancient, Clement of Alexandria being the first to quote it. But, the only real patristic evidence for this reading goes back only to the third century, and is limited to Alexandria, Egypt (just like the manuscript evidence which is also third and fourth century, and limited to Alexandria). No one else in Christendom, from the time of the Apostles until about the time of the Arian controversy and the Nicene Council in A.D. 325, seems to have been aware of this reading of John 1:18.
- NOTES:
1. White, James R., The King James Only Controversy, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, 1995. p. 40
2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Ch. XII
3. Roberts, Alexander & Donaldson, James, Editors, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody Mass., 1994. Vol. VII, p. 477
4. White, James R., The King James Only Controversy, pp. 199, 200
5. Every effort was made to find each and every citation or allusion to John 1:18 using both the index in the printed edition of the Ante Nicene Fathers, as well as searching the electonic edition using key words. Only citations that contained “only begotten Son” or “only begotten God” are included. A few other citations exist, but only reference the first sentence, “no man hath seen God at any time.” Tatian's Diatessaron, which contains the unique reading, “the only Son God” is discussed later in this article.
6. Ignatius, Epistle to the Philippians, II. This Epistle is not considered authentic by some scholars.
7. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, XI
8. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, XX
9. ibid
10. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book I, ch. III
11. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book I, ch. XXVI
12. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, ch XII
13. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, VIII
14. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, XV
15. Origen, Against Celcus, Book II, LXXI
16. Origen, Commentary on John, Book II, XXIX
17. Hippolytus, Against Noetus, V
18. Archelaus, Disputation with Manes, XXXII
19. Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle on Arian Heresy & Deposition of Arius, Epistle I, IV
20. Constitutions of
the Holy Apostles, Book VII, XLIII
21. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, p. 477
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/false_teachings_of_arius.htm
Hi,
Thank you Adam Pastor for laying your cards on the table so we can judge the quality of that evidence and know whether or not scripture has been adulterated.Unsubstantiated allegations are far more damaging to faith tha examiniation of the evidence in the light, and we all know the risk of damaging the faith of the little ones of God.
As I explained I am in no position whereby I can remove posts and why should we ignore what is posted at your or any other members advice?
The Thread is about the Father.
He was a father from the beginning and had a beloved son as shown in Prov 30.
To deny the sonship of Jesus is to deny the fatherhood of God.
To deny that the Word is a being is also to deny God is a being as they are written in the same context of Jn 1.
Jesus came here to show us his Father and told the Jews that the Father was the one that they called their God.[Jn 8.54]John reveals to us the lovely family relationships between God and His spiritual children and we, as reborn adopted spiritual beings in Jesus, join that family from which every family on earth takes it's name[Eph4]
- The Doctrinal Problem in John 1:18 NASB
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
