johnny guitar
Well-known member
Yep, in order that God(Father, Son, Holy Spirit)may be ALL in ALL.
BTW what happened to The Father???Did He become exhausted upholding ALL things and have to turn the job over to The Son??????
God walks into His Temple.
- Thread starter Towerwatchman
- Start date
BTW what happened to The Father???Did He become exhausted upholding ALL things and have to turn the job over to The Son??????
johnny guitar
Well-known member
If The Son is upholding ALL things by the word of His power. what is The Father upholding????
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
What you wrote above is the definition of holding verses in isolation. "I do assess the meaning of this passage in conjunction with my belief" = you are filtering the verse through your beliefs. Proper interpretation includes the author's beliefs, grammatical style, word usage, and the backdrop of culture. As to distortion read below.
In English one can see a possible connection between 'begot' and 'only begotten', but it is not the same in Greek. And that is what matters.
Only begotten translates from monogenes.
μονογενής [monogenes /mon·og·en·ace/] translates as “only begotten” six times, “only” twice, and “only child” once. 1 single of its kind, only. 1a used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents). 1b used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God.{Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}
"Begot" translates from.
“Gennao” is translated as “begot” in the opening of Matthew where the lineage of Jesus through Joseph is recorded.
γεννάω [gennao] translates as “begat” 49 times, “be born” 39 times, “bear” twice, “gender” twice, “bring forth” once, “be delivered” once, and translated miscellaneously three times. 1 of men who fathered children. 1a to be born. 1b to be begotten. 1b1 of women giving birth to children. {Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible}
You are arguing that monogenes is being used in the opening of Matthew when in fact Matthew used gennao instead.
Nowhere in scripture do we find gennao being used to describe a relationship of procreation between the Father and the Son.
Read again, God does not begot anything, He creates. And it's a fact = one can only begot what one is. Man begots man and creates sculptures. Same applies to God, He cannot begot a man but create one. This is another reason why the begot argument fails.
True, but irrelevant to the topic. 'Only begotten" does not mean 'promised seed', means 'highly favored'.
You operate based on a pre-determined mindset that does not allow any consideration for the deity of Christ. I don’t start with a predetermined mind but allow the text, author, culture etc. to be considered.
Notice how you operate.
You argue and agree with the following.
Mighty God translates from גִּבֹּור gib∙bôr which means, mighty leader, mighty hero, best of the fighting men.
Everlasting Father = in Hebrew, the term ABI 'AD means "father of the age"-- or 'father of everlasting'.
Rather illogical to argue and accept that 'Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" cannot be accepted literally but carries a cultural interpretation and ignore the scriptural and cultural evidence that applies to 'Son of God" and "Only Begotten." Either accept cultural interpretations and apply universally where it applies or reject it, but picking and choosing how and when to apply it based on your pre determined mindset is bad scholarship.
You are within your right to accept what you want, but as to Ro 1:3,4 Paul wrote "...and declared to be the Son of God... by the resurrection from the dead."
Since you believe that 'Son of God' means a human creation of God, or human, lets apply this the verse and see if it makes sense.
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be 'HUMAN" with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
Does that make sense? No.
But since you brought up this passage lets dissect it.
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who [a]was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
Paul writing about both natures, human and divine. Born is referring to physical birth. But that is half of what Paul is communicating.
"was born of the seed of David according to the flesh" Physical
"and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness" Divine
Notice the anthesis. "According to the flesh" vs "according to the spirit". If one applies then the other does also.
More red herrings, The topic is not the creation of man as in Ps 8:5 but who is Elohym in Gen 1:26-27.
Please do.
You went off topic. The original topic was your claim that Moses and Elijah were resurrected. Appearing in glory does not equate to being resurrected.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Perfect example of keeping verses in isolation.
Read again.
Acts 2:17‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God...19 I will show wonders in heaven above, And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke.
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you [f]have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
Notice the common thread? Peter is driving home the message, that God was behind it all. Also vs 22 is confirming what as written by Joel, vs 17.
================
Interesting you picked this verse, because in the passage Peter is preaching that Jesus is God.
Here you have to connect the dots and put it together.
Reading Peter's sermon;
Vs 21 He starts off by quoting Joel especially first half of 2:32 where Lord translates from YHWH "…whoever calls on the name of the Lord "YHWH" shall be saved..."
Joel 2:32 And it shall come to pass, That whoever calls on the name of the LORD [YHWH] Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.
So we are looking for someone in the sermon who is called "Lord" whose name brings salvation.
vs 36 Jesus identified as "Lord and Christ"
vs 37 The crowd ask Peter what shall they do.
Vs 38 Peter explain what it means to call 'on the name of the Lord" Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd asked for more instructions, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”
Vs 39 Peter closes this part of his sermon by stating that Joel 2:32 has come to pass. Note the promise is not to anyone in the future but to the men listening, their children and all afar off, quoting the second half of Joel 2:32 …'For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the Lord has said, “Among the remnant whom the Lord calls.”'
And does that equate to Jesus not being deity?
Did you bother to read the passage? I you can point our where in the passage it speaks of the new creation. Notice the examples used in vs 7 to describe what is included in 'all things.' What has been created in the Genesis account not a new creation.
Ps 8:4 What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him?
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
You have put all things under his feet,
7 All sheep and oxen—
Even the beasts of the field,
8 The birds of the air,
And the fish of the sea
That pass through the paths of the seas.
9 O Lord, our Lord,
How excellent is Your name in all the earth!
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
Kind regards
Trevor
If and when I hear a reasonable explanation of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35 by a Trinitarian then I will reassess my present assessment of these verses that God the Father is the father of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit and Mary is his mother. He was born a human, not a God-man.
Yes I can agree with the above explanations of these titles.
They are not in antithesis. Jesus as a descendant from David does not indicate a fleshly aspect in the sense of ungodly, but was a spiritual connection with one of the most faithful OT characters, and also reflected in his mother Mary. Only a few of the kings descended from David are recorded as being like their father David.
Yes, and I understand Elohim represents the One God, Yahweh, God the Father who delights to share His work and purpose with his angels. In Psalm 8:5 there is a separation of Yahweh and the Angels as the Angels were part of the "Elohim" who created man.
There are two parts. They appeared with Jesus. I believe that they were both there and we have the record that Moses was buried. They appeared in glory (which you denied previously). I understand that what the Apostles saw was the vision of Jesus, Moses and Elijah appearing in the future Kingdom where the three will actually be in glory.
Kind regards
Trevor
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
It is wrong to ignore the immediate text and attempt to interpret the passage based on distant text. You undermine the inerrancy of the Bible when you do not accept what the inspired author wrote and continue to insist that A does not mean A but B.
Let's read.
First Isaiah dates the vision. Notice its past tense, and nothing hints of a future vision.
Isa 6:1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew.
Lord in vs 3 translates from YHWH. Now if you are arguing that this is a future vision of Jesus, then based on logic and reason I can conclude that you are stating that Jesus is YHWH. Now if you retract this then based on vs 3 Isaiah saw YHWH, which John identifies as Jesus.
3 And one cried to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”
4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said:
“Woe is me, for I am [a]undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Differences in authority, hierarchal position does not equate to difference of being.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Speaking of disrespect, did you not write.
In your dreams...
You, the Trinitarians, cannot understand anything, nor arrive at correct conclusions. You are too caught up in your own fantasies...and have failed to honestly ponder what the Scriptures say. You read what you think supports you, and you reject what should clarify what you read before. You are in darkness and cannot see the simplest things.
What you have posted is simple an ad hominem attack.
It simply attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making. This is usually the last position of ignorance knowing that it cannot compete with the intelligence and character of X, it is usually a sign of desperation on the part of the one insulting. [Logically Fallacious]
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
I have not extensively read the ECFs and their teaching. The following is taken from the Lecture Slides of one of my Brethren, and he has extensively read and studied some of their writings:
Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel
Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right
Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist
Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son
Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him
Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being
Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man
1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.
Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.
I also read the following book and took a few portions from his book that were interesting:
History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905) Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.
Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.
After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.
Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.
Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.
Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.
Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.
Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.
Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.
Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.
Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.
Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.
Now you may contest some of the fine detail in the two excerpts, but I feel confident that both indicate a reasonable view of the development of the Trinity.
Kind regards
Trevor
I have not extensively read the ECFs and their teaching. The following is taken from the Lecture Slides of one of my Brethren, and he has extensively read and studied some of their writings:
Clement of Rome (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Ignatius of Antioch (1st Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality ; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Polycarp of Smyrna (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Papias of Hierapolis (1st-2nd Century)
The Father alone is God; Jesus is the Son of God, born a mortal man, raised to immortality; the Holy Spirit is God’s power.
Justin Martyr (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; Jesus is a pre-existent divine being created by God; the Holy Spirit is a type of angel
Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd Century)
The Father alone is ‘true God’; the Son and Holy Spirit are the divine ‘hands of God’, but not fully God in their own right
Tertullian (2nd-3rd Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same essence and co-exist equally as God, yet the Son was somehow ‘begotten’ by the Father and there was a time when he did not exist
Origen (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is ‘very God’; the Son has always existed, being eternally ‘generated’ by Him; the Holy Spirit’s divinity is derived from the Son
Clement of Alexandria (2nd-3rd Centuries)
The Father alone is God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are pre-existent divine beings created by Him
Arius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Jesus is the first of God’s creation; a pre-existent divine being
Athanasius (3rd-4th Centuries)
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God; Jesus was and still is, fully God and fully man
1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381)
Re-condemned Arianism, declared that Jesus is fully human yet simultaneously divine; also affirmed that the Holy Spirit is God.
Council of Chalcedon (AD 451)
Declared that Jesus has two natures (human and divine) but is only one person, without sin; also affirmed that Mary is the Mother of God.
I also read the following book and took a few portions from his book that were interesting:
History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ by A Reville 1904 (from translation 1905) Professor of the History of Religion at the College of France.
Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.
After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.
Page 10: … the religious sentiment … is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.
Speaking of the developments in the second century:
Page 54: … the ‘celestial being’ increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type … These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, … fully inspired by God … admitted his miraculous conception.
Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.
Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.
Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.
Page 108-109: … the minds of men … either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.
Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.
Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
Page 121: … the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.
Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.
Now you may contest some of the fine detail in the two excerpts, but I feel confident that both indicate a reasonable view of the development of the Trinity.
Kind regards
Trevor
johnny guitar
Well-known member
There is NOTHING in Matthew 1:18-20 which indicates Jesus was conceived by The Father. He was a child of The Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is a direct descendent of David. God shared NO work of creation with any angel and man was made in the image of God, NOT angels.
Greetings again Towerwatchman,
I doubt that you, Towerwatchman, as a Trinitarian would endorse this view, so the offer is still open for a clear explanation of these verses as I stated earlier:
Kind regards
Trevor
The "Lord" of Acts 2:36 is not Yahweh but David's Lord of Psalm 110:1.
It reveals his humanity and his dependence on God his father.
The new creation absorbs what will be left of the Edenic creation when Christ returns. Hebrews 2, 1 Corinthians 15 and many other passages indicate that the "all things" of Psalm 8 are the new creation.
I would be interested in our resolving this part first. Could I ask, what Temple and Throne is depicted in Isaiah 6:1 and in what way did the train of his robe fill the Temple? is this literal, or either symbolic or figurative language? Was it only a vision, or was it a reality? Where is that Throne now? To help me understand your view, do you consider Isaiah 2:1-4 a vision of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, when Jesus returns to sit upon the Throne of David in the Temple as King/Priest in Jerusalem? My initial comment on the second part is that Jesus is called Yahweh because he represents Yahweh.
The above is an example of one very poor Trinitarian explanation of Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35. I think johnny guitar claims that God the Father is not called God the Father because his is the father of Jesus, but in actual fact the supposed "God the Holy Spirit" is the father of Jesus. I wonder if he claims that when Jesus says "Father, and O Father" that Jesus is actually speaking to the supposed "God the Holy Spirit".
I doubt that you, Towerwatchman, as a Trinitarian would endorse this view, so the offer is still open for a clear explanation of these verses as I stated earlier:
Kind regards
Trevor
johnny guitar
Well-known member
God The Father is The Father of Jesus Christ The Son of God.
The Holy Spirit conceived the body of Jesus Christ, BUT is NEVER called The Father of Jesus Christ The MAN who has NO Father, ONLY a mother.
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
jjj
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
Please cite the above. I suspect the above is not the argument but the introduction to the argument.
thanks
You Trinitarians don't have the faintest idea what you believe.
Matt. 11:25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."
Matt. 11:25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved."
Towerwatchman
Well-known member
How does the above verse which applies to you help your argument?
OldShepherd
Well-known member
From the Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich Hebrew lexicon. One of, if not, the most highly accredited lexicons currently available.
μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb 11:17 D; also ApcEsdr 6:16)
① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod S 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 A.D.]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)
② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 A.D.]: 790 Fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων … αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 658.
① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod S 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 A.D.]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)
② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 A.D.]: 790 Fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων … αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 658.
Any day now they're going to sue this site for allowing some forumers to post long copy/paste of copyrighted books... which, after all, are just comments for people who want to search for refernces, not for people who want to teach or talk of plain biblical truths. That individual that the only thing he does is posting from books doesn't even know what he believes... he just wants to appear erudite, but he is incapable of expressing his beliefs (if he has any, because any atheist can quote books and start discussions too) but not in terms of dialogue with people. Obviously, this forum member only wants to show off, but not to study biblical truths on a personal level. He believes that biblical truths do not exist in real life, but are just talk... No one comes to a discussion forum to review books.
Yahweh will increase
Well-known member
Actually there are many on this forum who fit that description also but when they run into anyone who truly seeks and asks and waits upon God for his truth to be revealed to them, they don't know how to deal with this and therefore eventually they will hightail it and run like a scared rabbit.