No one is saying there are two gods. Humans have Human Children.
A serious questions for the Jehovah's Witnesses on these threads.
- Thread starter Ronald Nolette
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Guys, I don't believe the Witnesses have the truth either. I believe with all my heart that Jesus is God.
But the posting about mental illness and schizophrenia is just sad. Why are you doing this? Cant you just attack their beliefs?
It's of no benefit, and is certainly not a one-upsmanship.
There's a limit.
But the posting about mental illness and schizophrenia is just sad. Why are you doing this? Cant you just attack their beliefs?
It's of no benefit, and is certainly not a one-upsmanship.
There's a limit.
Someone asked why JW's are unable to accept truth and answer simple questions.
I am only posting the well known facts. Also, I have answered their views with well known learned Scholars of Church History, Biblical Languages and so on. Please read them, thank Bro.
I am only posting the well known facts. Also, I have answered their views with well known learned Scholars of Church History, Biblical Languages and so on. Please read them, thank Bro.
The texts about John 1:1, and the stuff the early church fathers said is one thing, but the mental illness and schizophrenia is another. We have other folk on here who suffer from these things who are of varying religious beliefs. They may feel looked down upon.
It's sad.
It's sad.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
You do realise that I'm not a trinitarian? However, one doesn't need to believe in a trinity in order to accept the full divinity and Sonship of Christ.So simple, even a trinitarian can understand it.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Why is such a long explanation needed for a simple word meaning? Because what the word means goes against dogma.
The truth is simple.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Procreation is a form of creating. The offspring are created beings - always.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Sure. Being divine means Jesus is OF God - priest, servant, word, lamb, son, apostle, etc.
‘OF’ does not mean ‘is.’ Prepositions are not verbs.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Hmmm. Rationalization is different from knowledge. What did Jesus say? Matthew 11:25 CEV 25 I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people.
I watched a great vid today from the apologist John Lennox. He observed that science (scholars) break down, religion brings together for meaning.
JW's don't like Scriptural answers. Not even your own bible!
Revelation 21
All liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.
I do understand. JW's don't even believe their own bible!
Last edited:
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
This may interest you. Charles Lee Irons, makes this observation “But what about the etymological argument that the –genēs portion of monogenēs comes from genos (“kind”) rather than gennao (“beget”)? This argument collapses once it is recognized that both genos and gennao derive from a common Indo-European root, ǵenh (“beget, arise”).[4] This root produces a fair number of Greek words having to do with biological concepts of begetting, birth, and offspring. In fact, the word genos itself sometimes means “descendant” (Rev. 22:16). True, it can also mean “kind” in a scientific or classification sense where literal biological descent is not in view (e.g., “different kinds of languages” [1 Cor 14:10]). But the scientific or classification usage is a metaphorical extension of the literal biological sense, since the abstract concept of “kind” is modeled on the embodied biological experience of the similarities shared by offspring descended from a common parent.” (Charles Lee Irons, Let’s go back to ‘only-begotten’, Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’, 23rd November 2016)Was Jesus “Begotten” or "Unique"? (John 3:16)
GREEKPROF
“Begotten” is the KJV translation of μονογενής in John 3:16. It describes the unique relationship of Jesus to the Father. However, the KJV “begotten” is based on a misunderstanding of how the word was formed. μόνος conveys the idea of “one and only” (“being the only entity in a class,” BDAG) and γενός refers to a specific “class” or “kind.” From γένος, English derives its word “genus,” i.e., “species.”
For μονογενής to convey the idea of “begotten,” μονογενής would have had to be formed from γεννάω (with two nu’s). But μονογενής has a single nu, which means it is formed from γίνομαι, which is formed from the root γεν, which is visible in its cognate noun γένος.
The mistaken translation may have been influenced by the Latin Nicene Creed which uses unigenitum, “only-begotten.” It appears to be an ecclesiastical term and not one in general use.
γένος does have a range of meaning that might prove confusing to some. It can mean “ancestral stock,” hence descendant, even “a relatively large people group,” hence nation, people (BDAG). But this is not the same as “Son,” and the other meaning of γένος is “entities united by common traits,” hence class, kind (BDAG). Commentaries are unanimously agreed that in John 3:16 the word places its emphasis on uniqueness. Translations likewise translate the phrase as “(one and) only Son.”
You can see the sense of uniqueness when μονογενής is used to describe an only child:
It is used of Isaac as Abraham’s “only son” in the sense of the single one through whom the promises of God would be fulfilled (μονογενῆ, Heb 11:17). The NASB apologetically adds the footnote, “i.e., only son through Sarah,” i.e., the son of the promise. The NET footnote comments, “it was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2).”
- “only son” (μονογενής υἱὸς, Lk 7:12);
- “only daughter” (θυγάτηρ μονογενής, Lk 8:42);
- “my only child” (μονογενής μοί, Lk 9:38, note that there is no specific word for “child”).
The other uses of μονογενής are in John’s writings:
Certainly in John 1:8, μονογενής cannot mean “only begotten” since it describes Jesus as “God.” It would make no sense to describe Jesus as the only begotten God.
- ”the only Son from the Father,“μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός (Jn 1:14);
- “only God” (μονογενής θεός, Jn 1:18);
- “his only Son” (μονογενής θεός, Jn 3:16, no specific word for “Son”);
- “only Son” (μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, Jn 3:18);
- “his only son” (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ; 1 Jn 4:9).
This unique relationship between God and Jesus is seen elsewhere in God being the Father and Jesus the Son, the Beloved (Matt. 3:17), and in Jesus’ differentiation between his disciples and himself. “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (Jn 20:17).
I know that it is hard to see a traditional translation changed, but better to get it right than stick with an inaccurate tradition.
A friend of mine wrote me the following...
Some months ago I came across a website called ‘Ask a Greek’. Its proprietor, Mr. Harry Foundalis Ph. D, offers to answer questions regarding the Greek language. Those who are interested will find it here Ask a Greek! I took this opportunity to ask Mr. Foundalis the meaning of monogenes. After all, I reasoned, he is Greek, and by the look of his website, a person very well versed in linguistics. After a series of emails in which he explained that monogenes definitely conveys the idea of only-begotten/only-born etc, he replied to a question I had asked concerning the relationship of the words ginomai (as mentioned above) and monogenes. Here is what he wrote “Some linguistic information regarding the Greek word “monogenes” (μονογενής) follows: Monogenes” consists of two parts: the prefix “mono-” and the suffix “-genes”
The meaning of the prefix “mono-” is: “single”, “alone”, “only”. This prefix is found in English words such as: “monophonic” (of a single auditory source), “monochromatic” (of a single color), “monologue” (a soliloquy), “monopoly” (having exclusive control of a market) “monosyllabic” (of a single syllable), “monotheistic” (of belief in a single god/God), “monotonous” (of a single, unvarying tone, hence: boring), and many more, all ultimately of Greek origin. The meaning of the suffix “-genes” is: “born”, “begotten”. This can be understood by the following information. The suffix “-genes” (in Greek: “-γενής”) consists of two morphemic parts: the root “-gen-” (“-γεν-”) and the ending “-es” (“-ής”) The role of the ending “-es” is to convert the word into an adjective in the masculine or feminine gender, nominative case, singular, and that is the grammatical role of the word “monogenes”. The root “-gen-” comes from the aorist stem of the verb “ginomai” (that is its Koine Greek version; its Classic Greek version is: “gignomai”), meaning: “I become” and “I am born to”. For instance, the opening line of Xenophon’s “Anabasis” reads: Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος γίγνονται παῖδες δύο,... i.e.: Two children are born to Darius and Parysatis,... An explanation of what the aorist stem is follows. Every Greek verb (not only in the ancient but even in the modern language) comes in two “flavors”: the present or progressive flavor, and the aorist or instantaneous flavor. Each of the two flavors is used in the formation of some tenses, in all their moods. The present flavor is used in the present, imperfect, and perfect tenses, whereas the aorist flavor is used in the past and future tenses. For the verb “ginomai”, the present-flavor stem is “-gin-”, whereas the aorist flavor stem is “-gen-”. For example, for this verb, to form the 1st person singular, past tense (a tense properly called “2nd aorist” in this case, for this verb has no 1st aorist form) we need to add three constituents: 1. the “aorist augment” e- (ἐ: a mandatory prefix that signifies past in Greek, and is suspected to have existed in the Proto-Indo-European language), 2. the stem -gen- (-γεν-), 3. and the 2nd-aorist ending -omen (-όμην), thus getting the form egenomen (ἐγενόμην: “I became”, or “I was born”). The aorist stem -gen- has passed, through Latin, into English words, all of which are associated with generation or birth, such as: generate, generation (as in creation), generator genesis (origin, the coming into being, birth) gene (the biological unit by which rebirth is achieved) genetic (“of genes”) genus (a group of entities born from a common source) general (derived from gener-, i.e., “something that creates”) progenitor (a direct ancestor) ... and many more. Perhaps the most interesting observation to help us understand the meaning of the entire suffix “-genes” (“-γενής”) in “monogenes” is to see other Greek words where this suffix exists. Notice how, when added to the prefix, in each case and without a single exception, “-genes” results in the meaning of “born, begotten”. All of the following are adjectives, just like “monogenes”: homogenes (ὁμογενής): someone who was born together (“homo-”) with others: “of the same race or family”. Today, this word is used to mean those Greeks who were born outside of Greece (e.g., in the USA, Australia, Russia, or wherever else in the world) but belong to the Greek nation due to their Greek ancestry. heterogenes (ἑτερογενής): the opposite of homogenes: born of a different (“hetero-”) race or family. eugenes (εὐγενής): born of noble ancestry, hence: noble, an aristocrat. This is the root of the word “eugenics”, the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. endogenes (ἐνδογενής): someone or something that has been generated from within (“endo-”) some greater whole; endogenous, inherent, intrinsic. A common use is in endogenes aitia = “intrinsic cause”. engenes (ἐγγενής): similar to endogenes, it means “intrinsic”. Again, we can talk of an engenes aitia = intrinsic cause thnisigenes (θνησιγενής): someone or something destined to die (“thnisi-”) no sooner than he/she/it is born. A thnisigenes child is one that is born but has such serious medical problems that the child cannot hope to avoid death.
Keiw
Well-Known Member
Says Kingdom Hall, not God of the Bible! Read your JW bible. Do you even have one?
Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’?
ON 24 NOVEMBER 2016 BY DANIEL B. WALLACEIN BIBLE TRANSLATION, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES, EARLY CHRISTIANITY, EXEGESIS, GREEK LEXICOGRAPHY, NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES, THEOLOGY
So says Charles Lee Irons, “Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten,’” Gospel Coalition website, 23 Nov 2016: Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’
Irons begins by noting that in the KJV there are five Johannine passages that speak of the “only begotten” Son of God (John 1.14, 18; 3.16, 18; 1 John 4.9). He then notes that in the modern era there has been a broad scholarly consensus that μονογενής means ‘one of a kind.’ He then accurately represents the rationale for this consensus: “Scholars have argued that the compound Greek adjective is not derived from monos (‘only’) + gennao (‘beget’) but from monos (‘only’) + genos (‘kind’). Thus, they argue, the term shouldn’t be translated ‘only begotten’ but ‘only one of his kind’ or ‘unique.’”
Irons offers as his first argument that μονογενής means ‘only begotten’ in some passages. This presumably means that there is no noun like ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ in the context to already suggest birth, though he does not say this. It is certainly what I expected in order for his argument to make much sense, however. Otherwise, ‘one and only son/daughter’ makes perfectly good sense, which would defeat his point.
Irons begins by citing one reference from Plato—Critias 113d: μονογενῆ θυγατέρα ἐγεννησάσθην. Here not only is ‘daughter’ mentioned explicitly, but also that she had been ‘born.’ If μονογενής here means ‘only begotten’ then an awkward tautology occurs: “They begot an only-begotten daughter.” (The Attic aorist middle dual is here used.)
Further, I was surprised to read his three biblical examples:
Luke 7.12: μονογενὴς υἱός—here ‘son’ is explicit.
Luke 8.42: θυγάτηρ μονογενής—again, explicit.
Luke 9.38: διδάσκαλε, δέομαί σου ἐπιβλέψαι ἐπὶ τὸν υἱόν μου, ὅτι μονογενής μοί ἐστιν. But here ‘son’ is already mentioned, so the ‘one and only’ [son] is simply good economical Greek style.
Thus, Irons’s approach so far is simply question begging.
He follows this up with 1 Clement 25.2 [Irons says it is 25.1], which speaks of the Phoenix as ‘one of a kind’ using μονογενής. He also mentions an unidentified text (‘an ancient treatise’) that speaks of trees as ‘in one kind.’ But he adds, “these are uniformly metaphorical extensions of the basic meaning…” That, too, is begging the question, because he is assuming that the essential idea of μονογενής has to do with birth.
Second, he says that “careful examination of the word list of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae reveals at least 145 other words based on the –genēs stem.” This is a more significant argument, but I would need to see his evidence before recognizing its validity. He also adds that “fewer than a dozen have meanings involving the notion of genus or kind.” To argue from other words that have the –γενής stem as though they must inform the meaning of μονογενής may seem to be imbibing etymological fallacy, especially since there are some –γενής words that have the force of ‘kind’ or ‘genus.’ However, if ‘begotten’ is the routine meaning diachronically, and especially synchronically during the Koine period, Irons may well have a point.
He does seem to engage in etymologizing, however, when he says that γενός and γεννάω “both genos and gennao derive from a common Indo-European root, ǵenh (‘beget, arise’).” He finishes his arguments by again claiming that –γενής essentially has to do with birth. The BDAG lexicon allows for the meaning ‘only begotten’ for μονογενής but seems to view this meaning as secondary. In addition, they note that in the Johannine literature “The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here.”
All in all, Irons is right to focus on the data provided in TLG for this certainly expands our knowledge base of the term. But that he seems to have focused on cognates that have the morpheme –γενής rather than the specific usage of μονογενής, both diachronically and synchronically, is a weakness in his argument.
Μονογενής = ‘only begotten’?
So says Charles Lee Irons, “Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten,’” Gospel Coalition website, 23 Nov 2016: Irons begins by noting that in the KJV there are five Johannine passages that speak of the “onl…
danielbwallace.com
irons article Let’s Go Back to ‘Only Begotten’
HELPS Word-studies
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
Definition:
only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9*
www.billmounce.com
HELPS Word-studies
3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).
Definition:
only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9*
μονογενής | Free online Greek dictionary | billmounce.com
one and only, unique - only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16,
www.billmounce.com
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Should we be surprised that "modern scholars" would downgrade the literal begotten status of the Son of God to nothing more than a metaphor?
The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.
The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
Compare:
Matt 12:43-44 “When the unclean spirit is gone out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) ; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.”
So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.
There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).
The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.
Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason.
The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Anyone can claim to be a son of God as a result of creation. The above overwhelming number of references to Jesus being not just a son, but the only begotten Son of God, must encompass far far more than a created being such as are angels.
The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.
The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
Compare:
Matt 12:43-44 “When the unclean spirit is gone out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) ; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.”
So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.
There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).
The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.
Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason.
The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Anyone can claim to be a son of God as a result of creation. The above overwhelming number of references to Jesus being not just a son, but the only begotten Son of God, must encompass far far more than a created being such as are angels.
Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun.
- Richard Abanes Today's Mormonism: Understanding Latter-Day Saints 2007 Page 191
- ^ Edward L. Dalcour A definitive look at oneness theology: defending the tri-unity of God 2005
G3439 - monogenēs - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)
G3439 - μονογενής monogenḗs, mon-og-en-ace'; from and ; only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child).
www.blueletterbible.org
Monogenes: “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind”?
μονογενης⤒https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/monogenes-“only-begotten”-or-“one-kind”#outline-
In more recent times some scholars have advanced the view that the Greek word μονογενης (monogenes) does not mean ‘only begotten’; as in the Authorised (King James) Version, but ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’ or something equivalent which omits the concept of ‘begotten’.[1] This article considers whether the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ properly belongs to μονογενης, or whether the word simply means ‘one of a kind’ or ‘unique’. Both the etymology and usage of μονογενης are examined. It is concluded that the concept of ‘begetting’ or ‘derivation by birth’ does properly belong to μονογενης, so that it is correctly translated ‘only begotten’, and that translations which omit the concept of ‘begotten’ are probably driven more by a theological motive than by impartial consideration of the evidence.Monogenes: “Only Begotten” or “One of a Kind”? | Christian Library
Definition:
only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9*
μονογενής | Free online Greek dictionary | billmounce.com
one and only, unique - only-begotten, only-born, Lk. 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb. 11:17; only-begotten in respect of peculiar generation, unique, Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16,
www.billmounce.com
We hear it every time a JW posts here. Kindgom Hall puppets!Has anyone ever heard a Kingdom Hall speak? Psss... things we read from the haters.
Similar threads
