Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
A christian told me that the word "begotten" is inserted later and it's not in the real manuscripts. Do Christians agree on this or it is just him..Thank you.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,472 Posts
A christian told me that the word "begotten" is inserted later and it's not in the real manuscripts. Do Christians agree on this or it is just him..Thank you.

.
Assuming you mean "....only begotten Son."?

Of course "begotten" isn't in the manuscripts. It's English....they weren't written in English.
So his point is literally true.

Did he mean the idea wasn't there? Well....you're going to have fun with this one.

The Bible is ALL translations, and there is often no word in one language that EXACTLY means what the other language's word does.

For that matter...we could probably get 12 different opinions on what "begotten" means, in English, right here on this board.

Based on MY interpretation of it, I am pretty sure that there is a concept very close to "begotten" in the manuscripts.

Jesus was the Son of Mary, fathered by the Spirit of God and nothing else, and was thus God's "only begotten" Son.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Just found this excellent explanation. I think that's what he was referring to.


"The Original Greek Word Monogenes
The phrase "only begotten" in the above-mentioned verses, in the original Greek language, is monogenes (pronounced hard g as in go; Strong #3439):

  • Combination of two words: "monos" which means "only" or "alone," and "genos" which means "of the same nature, kind, sort, species" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT)
  • A better translation might be "only one of its kind" or "only unique" or just "only," but not "begotten."
  • Jesus Christ, the Son of God is a unique and one-of-a-kind being."
"But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao instead of genos. Remember genos means "of the same kind," but gennao does indeed mean "to beget," from which comes "begotten. However, if gennao was indeed the true root, an additional "n" would apparently have to be added to read monogenNes."

http://www.biblelessons.com/begotten.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
Muslim attack on Christian theology warning. Nee-Noo Nee-Noo Nee-Noo!

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end."

This was written by the Christian Church in 325 AD to unify all Christian beliefs in one statement. 300 years before Islam. You say all those Christians did not know their religion? Did not translated correctly their Scripture? Did not know or have the Holy Spirit in them? ALL of THEM!?!?!?!? in 325 AD and before?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Muslim attack on Christian theology warning. Nee-Noo Nee-Noo Nee-Noo!

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end."

This was written by the Christian Church in 325 AD to unify all Christian beliefs in one statement. 300 years before Islam. You say all those Christians did not know their religion? Did not translated correctly their Scripture? Did not know or have the Holy Spirit in them? ALL of THEM!?!?!?!?
That is already mentioned in the article I read and given the link above.

"Second, it appears that the term came about because of doctrinal reasons. Somewhere in the 3rd century, Origen promoted the doctrine of eternal generation (that Christ eternally came from the Father; not sure what all was meant by such, but the phrase and doctrine evidently caught on). This idea was furthered in the 4th century by Jerome and others to battle against the growing Arian heresy (Arius taught that Jesus was indeed begotten or created by God). Thus came about the teaching that Christ was not created or begotten by God at the time of His earthly birth, but that He was "begotten from everlasting." This is a nice-sounding phrase, but it still promotes (maybe even unknowingly) the idea that Christ (as deity) has an origin, which is not true!

The next step was the formation of creeds and the inclusion of such phraseology in those creeds. And because it was in certain creeds, it then made its way into certain translations. Lewis Kash writes, "The translators of the King James Version (1611) were Anglican churchmen and theologians who subscribed to the doctrines of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (1563), which state that the Son was 'begotten from everlasting of the Father' (Art. II). 'Begotten from everlasting' is a clear reference to the doctrine of the eternal generation. In 1604, the same year in which the translators for the KJV were selected, all English clergymen were required 'by His Majesty's authority' to pledge, 'I ... do willing and from my heart subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion.' When King James appointed his translators to revise the Bishops' Bible of 1568, he gave them instructions to make as few changes as possible, to keep 'the old ecclesiastical words,' (such as 'church') and, 'when any word hath divers significations,' to keep that 'which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers.'"​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
That is already mentioned in the article I read and given the link above.
No, what was mentioned was this:

.....
"But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao instead of genos......
\

So my question to you is: ALL of the Bishops and Saints of the Church were WRONG in 325 AD? Not some... ALL?

"Second, it appears that the term came about because of doctrinal reasons. Somewhere in the 3rd century, Origen promoted the doctrine of eternal generation (that Christ eternally came from the Father; not sure what all was meant by such, but the phrase and doctrine evidently caught on). This idea was furthered in the 4th century by Jerome and others to battle against the growing Arian heresy (Arius taught that Jesus was indeed begotten or created by God). Thus came about the teaching that Christ was not created or begotten by God at the time of His earthly birth, but that He was "begotten from everlasting." This is a nice-sounding phrase, but it still promotes (maybe even unknowingly) the idea that Christ (as deity) has an origin, which is not true!

The next step was the formation of creeds and the inclusion of such phraseology in those creeds. And because it was in certain creeds, it then made its way into certain translations. Lewis Kash writes, "The translators of the King James Version (1611) were Anglican churchmen and theologians who subscribed to the doctrines of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (1563), which state that the Son was 'begotten from everlasting of the Father' (Art. II). 'Begotten from everlasting' is a clear reference to the doctrine of the eternal generation. In 1604, the same year in which the translators for the KJV were selected, all English clergymen were required 'by His Majesty's authority' to pledge, 'I ... do willing and from my heart subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion.' When King James appointed his translators to revise the Bishops' Bible of 1568, he gave them instructions to make as few changes as possible, to keep 'the old ecclesiastical words,' (such as 'church') and, 'when any word hath divers significations,' to keep that 'which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers.'"​
So because Origen and Arius took 2 big baseball bats and started to beat each other in their heads and some of their disciples did the same it means ALL of the Saints of the Church in 325 AD were wrong?

If that is what it means please tell me.

If not please explain why ALL of them Signed on the 325 AD document and found that translation and word as perfect to be used?

Also, do you think there was absolutely no link between the Church in 325 AD and the Church in 200 AD or 100 AD or before? No interaction whatsoever to teach them correct interpretation of what Jesus was/is?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
No, what was mentioned was this:




So my question to you is: ALL of the Bishops and Saints of the Church were WRONG in 325 AD? Not some... ALL?



So because Origen and Arius took 2 big baseball bats and started to beat each other in their heads and some of their disciples did the same it means ALL of the Saints of the Church in 325 AD were wrong?

If that is what it means please tell me.

If not please explain why ALL of them Signed on the 325 AD document and found that translation and word as perfect to be used?
I don't know I am asking Christians. The Christian I was talking to has theological degree, so I thinks he knows what he was talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
I don't know I am asking Christians. The Christian I was talking to has theological degree, so I thinks he knows what he was talking about.

1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John.
7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe.
8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is John the Apostle of Jesus. Did he misunderstood Jesus origin?

You either misunderstood your Christian friend or his degree should be used for poop even before he finishes the toilet paper due to COVID19 virus.
 

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
A christian told me that the word "begotten" is inserted later and it's not in the real manuscripts. Do Christians agree on this or it is just him..Thank you.

.

I believe that God made sure we know and understand His message. I'm personally tired of the nit-pickers who try to skew the Word of God by claiming that it's a little imperfect here and a little imperfect there. I trust the Bible to be God's message to us.

God DID beget His Son through the virgin Mary.
 

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
I don't know I am asking Christians. The Christian I was talking to has theological degree, so I thinks he knows what he was talking about.

Some of the most dangerous "Christians" are the ones with "theological degrees." Many will disagree with each other so which of them "know what they're talking about" and which ones don't?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alive

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I believe that God made sure we know and understand His message. I'm personally tired of the nit-pickers who try to skew the Word of God by claiming that it's a little imperfect here and a little imperfect there. I trust the Bible to be God's message to us.

God DID beget His Son through the virgin Mary.
Is that wrong ?

"But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao instead of genos. Remember genos means "of the same kind," but gennao does indeed mean "to beget," from which comes "begotten. However, if gennao was indeed the true root, an additional "n" would apparently have to be added to read monogenNes."
 

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
Is that wrong ?

Christ is God so He is of "the same kind" as God the Father. The Father via the Holy Spirit "begat" Jesus the Son through Mary the virgin. The Bible declares it in numerous places so there is no question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alive

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,398 Posts
Now I've got a Muslim telling me that the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) is wrong! And, he cites some Elmer Gantry who claims to have a degree in Christian Theology. It would be funny if it wasn't so blasphemous!

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.

In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Now I've got a Muslim telling me that the Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) is wrong! And, he cites some Elmer Gantry who claims to have a degree in Christian Theology. It would be funny if it wasn't so blasphemous!

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He arose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets.

In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Is this true ?

"But some ancient translators apparently erroneously thought that the root of the second part of monogenes was gennao instead of genos. Remember genos means "of the same kind," but gennao does indeed mean "to beget," from which comes "begotten. However, if gennao was indeed the true root, an additional "n" would apparently have to be added to read monogenNes."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
Is this true ?

I already answered to you.
The translators that you talk about if they did something wrong or not it is beside the case, it is NOT important. The Nicene Creed comes from the Church which is all the Bishops and disciples of the Apostles. They were led by the Holy Spirit in an active way (that means GOD spoke to them). Do you even know what that means? It means GOD was telling in their hearts and minds the CORRECT interpretation. They did not get it out of thin air in 325 AD, they were just expressing what the Apostles told their disciples and the Holy Spirit reinforced in EACH generation in an active way (by talking to them). That is why the Creed is so important because it is GOD inspired as much as the WHOLE BIBLE.
 

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
Not so. The Son is begotten of the Father from all Eternity. His assumption of human nature (the Incarnation) was achieved by way of Mary's cooperation.

God the Son in His flesh body was begotten via Mary the Virgin. No ifs, ands, or buts. However, God the Son is eternal for He is God.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
God the Son in His flesh body was begotten via Mary the Virgin. No ifs, ands, or buts. However, God the Son is eternal for He is God.
Got the Son was born on this Earth through Mary 2000 years a go, but He was begotten by God the Father since before Eternity. Learn your dates and terms.

"Before Abraham Was, I Am"

See? That's is why is not good for somebody to just do it by his own tired head. There are hundreds of Saints that contradict you. Who should we believe? Who should we believe indeed?
 

·
I love this *****
Joined
·
33,879 Posts
Not so. The Son is begotten of the Father from all Eternity. His assumption of human nature (the Incarnation) was achieved by way of Mary's cooperation.

God the Son in His flesh body was begotten via Mary the Virgin. No ifs, ands, or buts. However, God the Son is eternal for He is God.


John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top