Recent content by The Real John Milton

It's most likely Gabriel, who appeared to Daniel twice before (8:16; 9:21).

I noticed that the description of the Angel in the LXX is slightly at variance with that given in the Masoretic text: "And it came to be that on the twenty fourth day of the first month I was at the bank of the great river which is called Tigris. And when I lifted up my eyes, behold, I saw...

All that proves is that μονογενὴς θεὸς was / could have been an early corruption, it does not prove that it is the original reading. I don't think it is a serious assertion that μονογενὴς υἱός is "more Trinitarian" than μονογενὴς θεὸς.

How do you explain that a forgery (apparently μονογενὴς υἱός) is found in the overwhelming majority of Greek texts, -- about 1630 manuscripts ?

So "all you know" is that there was a concerted effort everywhere to change μονογενὴς θεὸς to μονογενὴς υἱός but you can't explain why , how or by whom. Doesn't it make more sense to think that μονογενὴς υἱός is original because it is found everywhere, and even in the earliest "church fathers"...

Question: If μονογενὴς θεὸς is original, what accounts for μονογενὴς υἱός's ubiquitousness everywhere where manuscripts are found, even in Alexandria?

So you think there was a concerted effort spanning generations and diverse geographical regions to try to everywhere erase the μονογενὴς θεὸς reading because an article started appearing before this read ? Incidentally , (o) μονογενὴς θεὸς would not be inconsistent with Trinitarianism or even...

εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ὅταν ὑψώσητε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, τότε γνώσεσθε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, καὶ ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ Πατὴρ, ταῦτα λαλῶ. There is no personal pronoun "he" in the original Greek, but a predicate pronoun (a demonstrative pronoun) is assumed. So the text actually...

That is one of my points. These "church fathers" were proto-Trinitarians. So they would have preferred μονογενὴς θεὸς over μονογενὴς υἱός. But why do we find μονογενὴς υἱός in their writings ?

Not sure how the historically numerically (and politically) inferior Unitarians would have had the means to "forge" John 1:18 in their direction (to ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός) in the writings of Ignatius. The corruption of Scripture invariably came from the other direction, by the orthodox, or as...

The most "ancient" reading of John 1:18 at our disposal is from Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, Syria, ca. 110, which has "monogenes son" because that is the ONLY translation he had . If there existed “only begotten god” translation during that time, I’m sure he would not have given a second...

This reading is sporadic except at Alexandria, which incidentally was home base to the "Marian cult." And even here some have "son." Furthermore "the church fathers" who were even more "ancient" usually have "son" rather than "god." Here is something worth reading:

Also to argue that μονογενὴς Θεὸς is a "hapax legomenon" is a non-starter, since biblical hapax legomenons invariably have to do with simple (usually one word) terms and concepts for everyday words which are never theologically loaded. See here for examples.

Biblical eisegesis. The expression μονογενὴς Θεὸς is non-biblical. It occurs no where in the bible.

The recipient of prayer there is the Father, not Jesus. But beyond that, even if there was a place in the bible where Jesus was the recipient of prayer (which there isn't), it would still not follow that the word "I" refers to more than one person because this is a grammatical issue...