All Claims of The Son's Deity

[Runningman]

ah. just like the JWs who select only their translation. It does not make a difference which Greek you prefer. Both are found in the various copies of scripture. Jesus is the only one to be in heavenly relationship with the Father to share this by experience.

Do you reject the KJV because it's not Trinitarian enough for your liking?

 

[Runningman]

You remarks sound so off-the-wall. It is John 1:18 and 3:16 that show Jesus is God and is God's son. This does not make sense to a unitarian in their failure to recognize the distinction between the Father and the Son. These verses do not clash when we recognize that God refers both as a description of the Father but also of God in Triune form. Then you condemn yourself by denying the Son.
Maybe you can clarify how you do not fall into utter nonsense.

John 1:18 contains the Greek word μονογενὴς monogenēs which means begotten. Read the rest of the Bible. Mary was made pregnant via a miracle performed by God and she gave birth to Jesus. That's what the rest of the Bible says. Jesus is God's offspring which means he isn't the same person as God. He's a human, not God incarnate. He was created. Very easy concept to understand but you people take it to the moon

 

[mikesw]

It still is a problam when we have two different Bibles. One for your side and one for my side.

That is what textual criticism addresses. Just because you deny historical texts does not give you an edge in debates.

 

[mikesw]

Do you reject the KJV because it's not Trinitarian enough for your liking?

God still remains Triune whether in the KJV or regular modern translations. Are you denying God's ability to speak through any translation?

 

[mikesw]

John 1:18 contains the Greek word μονογενὴς monogenēs which means begotten. Read the rest of the Bible. Mary was made pregnant via a miracle performed by God and she gave birth to Jesus. That's what the rest of the Bible says. Jesus is God's offspring which means he isn't the same person as God. He's a human, not God incarnate. He was created. Very easy concept to understand but you people take it to the moon

you skip too many ideas. Mary became with child by the overshadowing of God's Spirit. Jesus's Father and essentially dna is of God. Jesus's divinity is evident there. Jesus even with the wording in the KJV is the begotten Son. That rejects every time that you say that there are lots of sons of God -- even if we go with that. Jesus is uniquely born of God as an incarnation.
Then you momentarily are right when you say Jesus is not the same "person" as God since there are three persons. That is the point of the Trinity. Jesus remains as God but is not the same person as the Father. You are closer to recognize the Triune God.

Remember that John 1 was answering the question about identifying the true logos that Philo only introduced as an extension of ideas in the OT.

 

[Peterlag]

That is what textual criticism addresses. Just because you deny historical texts does not give you an edge in debates.

So why is your translations better than mine?

 

[mikesw]

So why is your translations better than mine?

The newer translations generally follow the earlier Greek texts. Both Greek texts reflect truths held by the Christians early on. It is not like they forgot that Jesus is God just because the verse had changed later. That is why my point is important in any examination of the verse. But you do not like that since you just wish to deny the broader testimony of the divinity of Christ. But even this verse has Jesus as the only one born of God and on the lap or in the bosom of God. So either way, your view is proven wrong.

 

[Peterlag]

The newer translations generally follow the earlier Greek texts. Both Greek texts reflect truths held by the Christians early on. It is not like they forgot that Jesus is God just because the verse had changed later. That is why my point is important in any examination of the verse. But you do not like that since you just wish to deny the broader testimony of the divinity of Christ. But even this verse has Jesus as the only one born of God and on the lap or in the bosom of God. So either way, your view is proven wrong.

It can go both ways. There are times the newer translations get it better than the older ones and sometimes they do not. In fact, most of the time the older ones are better because the churches write the newer ones based on their religion or whatever their church already believes and a huge example of that is the Trinity.

 

[mikesw]

It can go both ways. There are times the newer translations get it better than the older ones and sometimes they do not. In fact, most of the time the older ones are better because the churches write the newer ones based on their religion or whatever their church already believes and a huge example of that is the Trinity.

the Trinity is found in all the Christian translations. Like we see with John 1:18 is that the divinity of Christ is apparent as the Son of God, the only begotten Son, specifically as God and in the bosom of the Father. Only one incarnate from heaven can have been in the bosom of God. So we learn that unitarians lose in any direction they turn. And of course this verse is within the whole passage pointing to the Word becoming incarnate. It also is answering Philo's development of the logos but now John identifies Jesus as that logos. This is the type of path God does to reveal what he did in sending his Son to walk among humanity.