Runningman
Active Member
Do you reject the KJV because it's not Trinitarian enough for your liking?
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Runningman
Active Member
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
That is what textual criticism addresses. Just because you deny historical texts does not give you an edge in debates.
God still remains Triune whether in the KJV or regular modern translations. Are you denying God's ability to speak through any translation?
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
Active Member
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.
Last edited:
Peterlag
Active Member
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.
Well, I am not the sharpest tack in the box but I can understand that simple comparison.
"All time" includes "this time."
101G
Active Member
see 101G post above https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/all-claims-of-the-sons-deity.2185/post-197623
Know the different between saviour, who are mere men that deliver from physical bondage vs the Savior, who deliver us from spiritual bondage which no man can do. KNOW the Difference... ok.
101G.
Peterlag
Active Member
See it does not matter if I hand write something that I already have written just for you because you still can't read. In the following statement that I did not hand write just for you it says not every part of what is written is addressed to us.
It's true the Word of God was written for everyone for all time, and it's for our learning because it contains what everyone should know. That does not mean every part of it is addressed to everyone in this time, because the subject matter was written either to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the Church of God (1 Corinthians 10:32).
If we believe what God said in one administration and carry it into another administration that was on a different principle, we will be taking what is true for one time, and using it to contradict what is also true for another time. When we mix them all together, by jumbling the whole Bible together: Law, Gospel, Grace, Judgment, Glory, Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God, we will be very confused in our understanding of the truth of God’s Word.
Peterlag
Active Member
Runningman
Active Member
A translation should match the context. Was Jesus born? Then he is God's begotten son as John 1:18 says. You'll eventually do what most trinitarians do, if you have not done so already, which is say that the human Jesus is not not the Son of God, which is essentially what you're already saying with your incarnation theory. You make Jesus out to be a kind of meat suit that God wears.
Runningman
Active Member
No, God is not more than one person which is the mistake you keep making. God is not a they or them. God is not an ingredient that can be put into someone and now they are God. Your beliefs contain the germ of polytheism even though I am sure you have convinced yourself it doesn't.
Here's a question. Do you believe God ever manifested as a human in the Old Testament or otherwise?
You are getting rude about Jesus. You deny the testimony of scripture that shows he is Son of God, he is God, he is a man, and he is God. There is nothing to deny or reject about God's ability to do this or his actual doing of this, even if the metaphysical element is not understood. We can conceive of ways where this is not contradictory-- like hearing that the spirit is dead and is made alive by God's Spirit in us. So you attempt to defy scripture fails again.
So you have to say Jesus is a separate god, which is rejected by every Christian I know. It just seems that the unitarians and mormons tend to push it that way, even if unitarians only do it to confuse the discussion. You deny God's ability to do what he likes with creation. You do not even recognize how it is the ambiguity of Jesus as both man and God that reveals the Triune nature of God.
There are cases that are ambiguous in the OT such as the three men walking with Abraham. There is the Word of God being with Abraham and leading him outside in Gen 15. So there are situations that defy the unitarians' system of denial.
Runningman
Active Member
So is Jesus the Son of God or not? If he isn't begotten then he isn't the Son of God. To be clear, the the translation that you are providing on John 1:18 denies that Jesu is the begotten Son of God and makes him out to be some kind of avatar for God. So which is it? Is the human Jesus the Son of God or not in your view?
Runningman
Active Member
The Bible repeatedly calls God a "He, Him, His" and never a "they, them" so you will forgive everyone for not believing your stories about our God being more than one person. There is no such mention of a trinity in the Bible. Instead of just repeating the same things again, and again, and again for years you can make progress by describing God the way the Bible does. Why do you not want to be in line with Scripture about who God is?
He is all that scripture says. Jesus is God (the broad meaning). He is the Son of God (the Father). He is incarnate among men as human. Your inability to comprehend that does not change who he is.
