Now, in response to your most recent arguments, here's my reply:

Deep Sight:

Stop fiddling about with such crass desperation.

The undisputable FACT remains that the term ‘only begotten’ in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word Monogenes (Srong’s – 3439).

As always I have to break everything down for you. Monogenes is a cumulative derivative from the Greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’.

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

Monos (mon'-os) is defined as: sole or single - alone, only.

The Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In greek the derivatice root of the term Monogenes is ‘ginomai’ - which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is thus accurately rendered as ‘only begotten’.

There is no doubt and no escaping the implications of the root word “gi nomai” – which has a clear indicative meaning as “to be caused, generated or born.”

So it is abundantly clear what that word means: and neither you nor the Bishop of Rome can escape this.

I asked you certain pertinent questions, and you have not attempted answering them. Here they are again:

[list]

viaro: Now the simple thing is to take up my challenge and show me in Scripture just two things:

(a)  what is the meaning of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"
       with reference to Christ;

(b)  and, which other being is ever referred to as {"the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"} in SCRIPTURE.

If you can deal with those questions, then you would indeed be answering my questions.

[/list]

How have you answered those simple questions, DeepSight? Is it by your prevarications? Why do you like so much to display such duplicity?

Deep Sight:
There is no doubt and no escaping the implications of the root word “gi nomai” – which has a clear indicative meaning as “to be caused, generated or born.”

So it is abundantly clear what that word means: and neither you nor the Bishop of Rome can escape this.

Yet, let me point out again the very point that you are cowardly ignoring:

[list](1)

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez: the meaning of a term is not determined by its etymology but by the way the author employs it. That is to say, the context in which the term is used should determine how it is being used by the writer. In the study of words it is incorrect to force the etymological meaning of a term into every usage of it.

[/list]

[list](2)

Doug Kutilek: “Only-begotten,” then, as the English translation of monogenes is apparently based on the word’s supposed etymology.  It is a mistake to base the understanding of a word’s meaning on its etymology (rather than its usage), especially so if you have the wrong etymology, as is the case of the translation “only-begotten”!  This is not what monogenes means, either in etymology or usage.

[/list]

What you have repeatedly done is argue on etymology - and that has been proven to be factually wrong! To maintain your argument on merely etymologies presents you as an illiterate liar, if anything else. Which was why I left you this simple challenge:

[list]

viaro's question:
If you DeepSight know of any Greek scholar worth his onions who draws any conclusions on a Greek term merely on its etymology without reference to context, please show me! This is one challenge I leave you, and please don't run away from it ,  because to evade it will only confirm the illiterate you are who is better suited to your day job of lavatory retriever. Try evading this particular question.

[/list]

Why did you conveniently dodge those questions, DeepSight?

There are indeed quite a number of other pertinent questions I asked, which you yet evaded. No worries - you are known for such. All this is showing that you're not ready or even able to discuss any issue unless you have twisted and misquoted citations and lied on top of it all. If you had any substance to present, you would not evade the issues I presented and start cackling all over the place with your dramatic hysteria.

Deep Sight:

It is intriguing for me that you were the one to bring up this word as a defense: and it has collapsed all about you. When you see the extent to which you have to go, writing 10 PAGE EPISTLES to explain away very simple words in your scripture: then you have to pause and ask yourself why you bother to try to deny the obvious and undeniable.

Hypocrite, you truly are! Who was first to quote the article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez?!? Are you not the same fellow who quoted him and dubiously drew the wrong conclusions on what he had presented?

Just incase your psychiatrist friend has done another "free service" practice on you to cause you further damage, let me help remind you of what you have patently ignored in that same article by Rodríguez in the Christological usage of monogenēs -

[list]

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez:

III. Christological Usages

When the title is applied to Jesus several theological ideas are expressed that help to clarify the meaning of the term. First, He is the monogenēs in the sense that He is divine. This is expressed in John 1:18⁵ where we find the strange phrase, “God the One and Only [monogenēs theos]” applied to Jesus. The idea of generation does not fit the context at all. In this case monogenēs stands in apposition to “God” and serves to shed light on the usage of this term. Although Jesus is human, He is also divine, and consequently He is and has always been “unique;” there has never been anyone like Him in the universe. This phrase summarizes what John has been saying from the beginning of His gospel, namely that the divine Logos became flesh (John 1:1, 14). That explains why Jesus was free to say, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).

[/list]


Now, DeepSight, the above appears on the same page of the article you excerpted from Ángel Manuel Rodríguez. I would like you to tell your readers why you deliberately prevaricated on that part of the Christological usage of monogenēs. Please DO NOT dodge this one as well - to do so would mean that you're hiding something and are happier to be regarded as the illiterate liar you have always been!

Please tell the house WHY you had ignored and evaded that part of the article by the same author - Ángel Manuel Rodríguez - which you had cited! You owe it to them.

On my part, I am willing to discuss further on the Johannine usage of monogenēs for Christ, since no other evangelist used it in reference to Christ in any sense of a human relationship! NOT ONE and NOT ONCE! Although I have discussed this previously (and you characteristically evaded it again), I am willing to discuss it in detail. The materials are there from established sources who are respected scholars in the Greek and Hebrew languages - I observe you really have no clue about the Greek and are only twisting the conclusion of authors whom you quote! For pete's sakes, when would you let up on your factual duplicity, DeepSight?!?

Deep Sight:

With reference to your questions above – they make absolutely no sense and are non-starters.

Perfect escapist hatch. I knew you would come back to excuse them, that is why I deliberately repeated them. Please be man enough to answer them and stop displaying the goon you are! I have not ignored ANY point you made, but actually provided answers and then left you very, very simple questions! Ha! Ha! Dude, answer those questions - or go ahead and lie again!

Deep Sight:

Because the presents the most dubious logical fallacy I have ever seen in my life.

What dubious logical fallacy, when you had completely IGNORED what Ángel Manuel Rodríguez had presented on the Christological usage of monogenēs?!? Where did you keep your thinking faculty when you ignored that same author's scholarly point on aspect? My question had always been -

     (a)  what is the meaning of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"
           with reference to Christ??

. . . and the author Ángel Manuel Rodríguez already gave you the answer under the subtitle of his article, "III Christological Usages". Of course, I knew you would categorically dodge that part of the author's article because you don't want your readers to know you were making all efforts to CHEAT and LIE! Please tell them why you evaded that part of the article - because you're only singing a solo that shows you have something to hide, Deepsight.

Deep Sight:

You ask where else this word is used. I gave you FOUR instances – ALL evincing usage in the sense of a begotten child of a parent. The simple fact that it is NOT used anywhere outside this context makes it awfully and cryingly clear that that was the very same connotation with which it was used when applied to Jesus.

You must be one mendacious idiot. Where in any of the examples of -
[list][li]Luke 7:12[/li]
[li]Luke 8:42[/li]
[li]Luke 9:38[/li]
[li]Hebrews 11:17[/li][/list]
- did you find the precise term "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"?!?

John 1:14 uses the precise term {"the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"} in reference specifically to Christ and to NO ONE ELSE! The reasons are plain for all to see -

(a)  No other evangelist (than John) uses that phrasal term for any human relationship

(b)  No other evangelist uses that phrasal term as in John 1:14 for any other being -
      (whether angel or human)

(c)   ONLY in the Johannine writing would you find the phrasal term
      {"the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"}
       for only ONE PERSON - Jesus Christ.

(d)   And unless you want to confirm the dolt you are, you would only have to
       acknowledge what Greek scholars have noted - that the phrasal term
      {"the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"}
       with particular reference to Christ is NOT in context of human relationships!

(e)   If you insist it is in terms of human relationships for Christ, then for bleeping
       pete's sakes, do tell us: who was the wife of God through whom Christ
       was begotten in the same sense as you had argued for human relation in
       these other verses: (Luke 7: 12; 8:42; 9:38; and Hebrews 11:17)!

(f)    If you cannot address (e) above, it means you're a cowardly sham who would
       rather prefer LYING to the public that monogenēs in John 1:14 used for Christ
       would be in the same sense as those other verses for human relationships!

(g)   Now I would ask you pointedly again: WHO was Christ BEFORE the Incarnation?

I don't expect you would ever address these issues - because the only things you know how to do is cheat, prevaricate, draw the wrong conclusions from authors you have quoted, lie some more in your deperate attempts to goon your readers, and then dramatise your hysteria on your illiterate achievements!

Now if you would even dare, please be man enough to look at the CHRISTOLOGICAL USAGE of monogenēs which appears in the same article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez which YOU had excerpted from. Why did you prevaricate on that very issue, DeepSight?? Please tell the house why you would be so duplicitous in such a cowardly manner!!

Deep Sight:

There is absolutely no reason to suppose the contrary and only cultists and red-eyed peddlers of irredeemable falsehood would attempt such.

Absolutely spot on!! Are you not the cultist with redder eyes than 'devil-knows-what' who has been peddling your irredemable falsehood up and down the street by prevaricating on the same author you had quoted? Well done sir!!

@DeepSight, let me see again how many more lies you would be spewing forth to argue away on etymology of the Greek phrasal term "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father".

No scholarship on the Greek language arrives at any conclusion based merely on the etymology of any Greek word. And even after I made that point clear both from your own cited author (Ángel Manuel Rodríguez) and also Doug Kutilek, you have repeatedly ignored that fact and kept arguing like an illiterate. Which is why I would want you to clear your head on this matter by being man enough to show me any scholar on the Greek language who arrives at any conclusion based merely on etymology of any Greek word. Please show me.

Again, I should remind you of this pertinent question:

[list]

viaro's question:

If you DeepSight know of any Greek scholar worth his onions who draws any conclusions on a Greek term merely on its etymology without reference to context, please show me! This is one challenge I leave you, and please don't run away from it ,  because to evade it will only confirm the illiterate you are who is better suited to your day job of lavatory retriever. Try evading this particular question.

[/list]

Once again, I have discussed your objections without evading any point. I did not make excuses, such as you did - very characteristic of you to do so. If you are man enough to discuss my points objectively and evade nothing, please do so - or just simply let your readers know how very dubious you tend to be.

^^^ Simple. The authour is a Trinitarian - and just like you he was desperately trying to evade the clear etymology of the word.

The fallacy of "Chistological usage" is nothing but an attempt to insist that the word means something else entirely ONLY WHEN APPLIED TO JESUS.

How ridiculous.

Besides you should see how much beside the point your question is: He is said to be the mongenes - only begotten - of the Father.

The point is simply that he was begotten at all - which indicates a beginning. God has no beginning. Case closed. QED.

Son, my posts on Nairaland end at 2225. This is the 2224th.

Let's make the last one worth my while.

Cheers.

^^

Deep Sight:

^^^ Simple. The authour is a Trinitarian - and just like you he was desperately trying to evade the clear etymology of the word.

No worries - you were the very person who quoted that author, not me. I only used your own citations to draw its logical conclusions which you had been dubious about. That was an obvious conceit on your part, so your excuses do not stand at all.

In fair deal, I would now ask you to show me any non-Trinitarian scholar of the Greek language who draws any conclusions on a Greek term merely on its etymology without reference to context. My request was open and not narrow - I said "any Greek scholar worth his onions" :::

[list]

viaro's question]
If you DeepSight know of any Greek scholar worth his onions who draws any conclusions on a Greek term merely on its etymology without reference to context, please show me! This is one challenge I leave you, and please don't run away from it ,  because to evade it will only confirm the illiterate you are who is better suited to your day job of lavatory retriever. Try evading this particular question.[/quote][/list]

It does not matter whether it is a 'Trinitarian' or 'non-Trinitarian' or monist or unitarian - just show me ANY scholar of repute on the Greek language who argues merely on etymologies without context on ANY Greek term. Please show me.

[quote author=Deep Sight:
The fallacy of "Chistological usage" is nothing but an attempt to insist that the word means something else entirely ONLY WHEN APPLIED TO JESUS.

Then please answer the question in (g) in my post #388 above - "Now I would ask you pointedly again: WHO was Christ BEFORE the Incarnation?"

I have discussed in detail why you have it pathetically confused. If "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father" in reference to Christ is merely based on human relationships, then you would have to show us who was the wife of God to have sired Christ in precisely the same way as you are forcing your own ideas into this.

The only reason why it is not based on human relationships in reference to Christ is because it was not used in that CONTEXT in the first place. It is not a case of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father" in terms of human relationships - otherwise that would mean that the Father Himself ought to have had some kind of 'human relationship' in the same way as you implied in those verses -

[list][li]Luke 7:12[/li]
[li]Luke 8:42[/li]
[li]Luke 9:38[/li]
[li]Hebrews 11:17[/li][/list]

Where in any of those verses do you find the same phrasal term as "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father" in order to give it a meaning of human relationship when used of Christ in John 1:14? Please answer this question without further prevarications - unless you are satisfied with your tendency to be dubious.

Deep Sight:
Besides you should see how much beside the point your question is: He is said to be the mongenes - only begotten - of the Father.

The point is simply that he was begotten at all - which indicates a beginning. God has no beginning. Case closed. QED.

The fact is that monogenēs in divine relationship between Christ and the Father does not suggest a beginning. This is the whole point, dude. Why? Because CONTEXT (rather than 'etymology') determines usage. As long as you keep ignoring context, you will keep forcing your own fallacies to the fore on baseless assertions that no Greek scholar has ever favoured in any argument. To run merely on etymology and ignore context is a very laughable idiocy at best.

Deep Sight:

Son, my posts on Nairaland end at 2225. This is the 2224th.

Why so? Too shamed to continue with your badge of duplicity? I would be greatly disheartened if that is what you've reduced yourself to - a [b]c[/b]ontrivingly [b]c[/b]onceited [b]c[/b]oward (C³) whose career is copiously littered with your tendency to be ceremoniously dubious.

When you're done with the username 'DeepSight', come back to Nairaland with something more lethargic - like deepshit.

^^^ I think he just decided on that 2225 thing on the spur of the moment, anyway

You people should stop beating up, embarrassing and disgracing OOI and its only begotten representative, DeepStout.

Pulls out a copy of the, suitable for Deepsight, Kama Sutra and reads (pretends to read) from it:

here lies the remains of one of our most dedicated fellows, revered for stout and bedmatics, glorified for being in bed (doing what?) till late afternoon regularly, a bedfellow of anything remotely feminine (rumours point to sexy-goats as well), a worthy ambassador of stilted and perverse arguments, an enemy of Jesus. He will be remembered most sorely by Viaro his NL husband, Maven who he defended in the hope that he was a woman and thus worthy to be attempted and a host of other Nlers.

Dust to stout, ashes to thighs, till OOI come to reality. Amin-aa!

Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors has given us divine glory to HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.
Acts.3.26
And so God chose HIS SERVANT and sent him first to you to bless you by Making everyone of you turn from his wicked ways.
Acts.4.27
and the people of Israel against Jesus YOUR HOLY SERVANT WHO YOU MADE MESSIAH.

THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.

Tell them woo.

Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors has given us divine glory to HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.
Acts.3.26
And so God chose HIS SERVANT and sent him first to you to bless you by Making everyone of you turn from his wicked ways.
Acts.4.27
and the people of Israel against Jesus YOUR HOLY SERVANT WHO YOU MADE MESSIAH.

THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.

with this i think all doubts have be closed as to why jesus is not God seeing as no one could refute this.stay blessed.

karo93:

THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.

Stop lying. It belittles you as a person.

1.   Jesus is God. That is what John 1:1 declares. Simple. Clear. Lucid.

2.   No verse in the Bible says that Jesus was ever created. NONE.

3.   Only those who deliberately want to deny the Deity of Christ would lie all over the place to twist the Bible. Example? The Jehovah Witnesses and their errand organizations - their scholarship has been soundly trashed, and their lying has been exposed. Repeatedly.

4.    It is remarkable that even in your very best effort to deny the deity of Christ, you still have to admit that Jesus is to be WORSHIPPED. Does that not tell you something more dignified than your cowardly lying to deny His Deity?

5.   Those 'Christians' who keep denying the Deity of Christ and yet affirm that He is to be worshipped would have to decide on one thing: WHERE did God ask you to give divine worship to ANY 'created being' in the same way as He is to be worshipped?

6.    You may yap all you want up and down the street about 'Master' and 'Servant' - but you still admit in bold terms that the 'Servant' (Jesus) is to be worshipped, did you not?!?

7.    Just in case you may want to know, Jesus Christ is also 'Master' - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am" (John 13:13). As a confessed Trinitarian, I have no problem whatsoever confessing that Jesus Christ is God, Master and Lord. That is the reason why I worship Him in the same way I worship the Father (John 5:23). Anything other than that is neat idolatry.

8.    Any so-called 'worship' which you karo93 ascribe to any "created being" is civilised idolatry. I must again and again bring this point to bear upon you. If you therefore acknowledge that "Jesus is to be worshipped" (this post) and yet you make Him out to be a "created being", your worship is simply civilised idolatry. Period.

So go on and lie all you want - your JW disguises are blown, and your arguments are wasted. Jesus is DEITY - He is God (John 1:1), and there is nothing you can do about it. Enjoy.

@karo93,

karo93:

Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors has given us divine glory to HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.

karo93:

Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors has given us divine glory to HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.

You've repeated that quote twice over now and I wonder if it was an honest "mistake" you made or a deliberate attempt to twist the Scriptures - AGAIN! You claim to be using the Good News Bible (GNB), and even at that the verse (Acts 3:13) has been twisted twice now in your quote. This is what it says:

'¹³The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors,
has given divine glory to his Servant Jesus. ... '

compare with your twist -

'¹³The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors,
has given us divine glory to his Servant Jesus. ...'

Please karo93, can you tell us where God gave you any "divine glory"? Do you know what 'divine glory' is? Or is it that you already have a manual where you have typed out all the verses you wish to twist so you just cut and paste them in hope that no one else would bother to check? No worries - JWs do precisely that same thing. But it would serve you a better deal to stop twisting what is written in order to promote your denials.

Since you prefer the GNB for quoted verses, may I remind you about what the same GNB says in John 1:1? Here again - "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God." That same GNB which is your favourite clearly says in that verse that Jesus is God.

So all your attempts at twisting whatever you quote from the GNB is laughable at best. Confuse yourself further and lie on top of it all to deny the Deity of Christ - yet, your preferred version GNB says boldly that Jesus is God in John 1:1. Now you can sob and pat your friends on the back for your loss.

Viaro
it pains me to see that the only reply you could give was that against a typographical error for what do i stand to gain from "us" in the verse?.i expected more.

i now quote from KJV.

Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors, glorified HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.

about the john1.1 i still go with true seeker. and i think you should too.lol

This also shows that Jesus is not the God of Abraham,isaac and jacob.

Viaro

jesus may be your "God" but as acts.3.13 says- he is not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is my God

karo93:

Viaro
it pains me to see that the only reply you could give was that against a typographical error for what do i stand to gain from "us" in the verse?.i expected more.

karo93, it doesn't pain me that you're known for twisting the Word of God - that is precisely your character from page one of this thread which you opened. And yes, I gave more than that typographic error in your denials, so what are you yapping about? If the only thing you wanted to see in my reply was the typo, does that surprise anybody?

i now quote from KJV.
Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors, glorified HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.

Even so, does KJV make the same typo that you have repeated twice on that verse? Or does the same KJV deny that Jesus is God in John 1:1?

about the john1.1 i still go with true seeker. and i think you should too.lol

Oh c'mon ... hehe - even TrueSeeker knows that his JW arguments do not have a leg to stand on in this thread on John 1:1. I was trying to be polite to him that was why I simply left his cut-and-paste for a while until I picked it up on the question of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father". Of course, that one also JW will deny - and any cut-and-paste from them will be roundly trashed in this thread. Try me.

This also shows that Jesus is not the God of Abraham,isaac and jacob.

And what again does John 1:1 say in both the GNB (Good News Bible) and the KJV (King james Version)? The Word was God - Jesus is God. Deny that again.

karo93:

Viaro

jesus may be your "God" but as acts.3.13 says- he is not the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob is my God

You may deny that Jesus is God even as GNB and KJV make clear in John 1:1 - but even with all your denials, you also confess that Jesus is to be worshipped, no?

how can any body say that he has biblical quotes proving that Jesus is not God, such person is just telling us that he has no understanding of the scriptures, please i want to see more of those quotes then i might be willing to expand the scriptures for you and prove to you that Jesus is God, that's if they are ready to learn

inedi:

how can any body say that he has biblical quotes proving that Jesus is not God, such person is just telling us that he has no understanding of the scriptures, please i want to see more of those quotes then i might be willing to expand the scriptures for you and prove to you that Jesus is God, that's if they are ready to learn

We hav different xtians these days with backgrounds that are unexplainable.Such as d OP

@inedi

i would let you start with Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors, glorified HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.and
Using Mk 10:18
                 Why do you call me good? Jesus asked him. “No one is good except God alone.

you are late but i am willing to see what u got

Acts.3.13 shows that Jesus is not the God of Abraham,isaac and jacob. and Mk 10:18 shows that he is not good.but God is.
Acts.4.27
and the people of Israel against Jesus YOUR HOLY SERVANT WHO YOU MADE MESSIAH.

THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.
enjoy

karo93:

Acts.3.13 shows that Jesus is not the God of Abraham,isaac and jacob.

John 8:58 shows that Jesus is that same God that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew in their experiences.

and Mk 10:18 shows that he is not good.but God is.

Mark 10:18 does NOT say that Jesus is 'not good'. In that verse, Jesus did not call Himself 'bad' - and in other verses in the NT, He clearly showed Himself to be "good" when He said "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11 & 14).

Mere men may say 'I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing' (Rom. 7:18); but in no verse did Jesus ever say that He Himself is 'not good'.

THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.

But even you karo93 has acknowledged that the same "Servant" (Jesus) is to be worshipped, have you not?

Viaro,seen my mail yet?

'for whosoever believeth in him would not perish but have everlasting life' i dnt think a mortal can guarantee him/herself eternal life,talkless of granting it to another.No deity can claim eternity except such deity is eternal.All these claims were made by Jesus,which God didnt dispute.This shows their equality.

Viaro

John.8.58
…before Abraham was I am

Satan also was too. Where did Jesus say he was their God?? U disappointed me!

2. in that verse Jesus was drawing a thin line btw him and God for many others were also called “good” see matt.25.21

3.your father is a son to someone dosnt make him less of your father, the head servant is a servant to oga but a master to all servants
Your father is a son to someone but is a father to u. Jesus is a servant to God but still master to others.

@toba
do you then brand jesus a liar when he said in jn.14.28 that the father is greater?

satan and the angels are also immortal.

jn.3.35.God GAVE christ all things so he has the power to grant all things and in matt.28.18 all authority was GIVEN to him-

he did not always have them

Odunnu:

Viaro,seen my mail yet?

Odunnu, good morning - and thank you for reminding me. I have not seen the email yet - probably was auto-deleted (I just learnt that my settings may be the problem). Is it possible for you to give me your email-addy just now so I could rush you an email? (pls. delete your email address afterwards).

karo93:

@toba
do you then brand jesus a liar when he said in jn.14.28 that the father is greater?

satan and the angels are also immortal.

jn.3.35.God GAVE christ all things so he has the power to grant all things and in matt.28.18 all authority was GIVEN to him-

he did not always have them

I agree with u that he was given authority.U should then tell what the authority given to him qualifies him to be.
Yar adua is sick,the NA gave goodluck authority to act as what? Which function is goodluck performing? Liken that to d functions Jesus is performing

odunnu@yahoo.com

karo93:

Viaro

John.8.58
…before Abraham was I am

Satan also was too. Where did Jesus say he was their God?? U disappointed me!

(1)   In John 8:58, Jesus did not say "I was" - rather He said "I AM". It was not a question of whether He had been existing as in the past (I 'was'), but rather He shows He is eternal by words which cannot be controverted: "I AM".

(2)   We know that Satan never claimed anywhere in Scripture to be "I AM" - Satan "was"  created - and the Bible clearly teaches this (see Ezekiel 28:13 - "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

(3)   The "I AM" of Jesus Christ shows that He is the very One who is the God that the patriarchs and the Israelites knew (see Exodus 3:14).

2. in that verse Jesus was drawing a thin line btw him and God for many others were also called “good” see matt.25.21

(1)  In that verse (Mark 10:18) which you had quoted, Jesus did NOT say that He was "not good", as you had argued. To argue that is what he had sad would be to directly lie against that verse.

(2)  When He said "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11 & 14), He was not drawing any so-called 'thin line' between Himself and God for any "others" to be called 'good'. In Matthew 25:21, He showed that He is the Master who sets others as 'rulers' over many things - but as regards redemption and salvation, He is "the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep".

(3)  That immediately tells His audience that He was indicating His Deity to them, for in the Psalms is written 'The LORD is my shepherd' (Psalm 23:1); and also with regards to redemption, Psalm 49:7-9 shows that only the Messiah could redeem humanity because of His divinity -

    'None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God
    a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it
    ceaseth for ever) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.'

(4)   In all of this, let it be remembered that your arguments are flawed, because there is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus ever said that He is "not good".

3.your father is a son to someone dosnt make him less of your father, the head servant is a servant to oga but a master to all servants

Even you karo93 are the same person who said that the "Servant" (Jesus) is to be worshipped, not so? Why are you still beating yourself over this issue?

Your father is a son to someone but is a father to u. Jesus is a servant to God but still master to others.

Jesus is DEITY - He is God (John 1:1). That is why ALL the angels worship Him (Heb. 1:6) and that is why ALL men will worship Him (John 5:23).

You can argue forever on this issue, but I have noted again and again that even your own preferred version (GNB) and the KJV clearly say in John 1:1 that the Word was GOD, because it is the same Word that "became" flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). I ask you: who was Jesus Christ before He "became" 'flesh', huh?

And here is a small appendix: Jesus is the very One who is called 'the Word of God' (Rev. 19:13, GNB and KJV) - and that Word "became" flesh (or Human) and dwelt among us (John 1:14, GNB and KJV); and before He "became" flesh, He was that same Word that was GOD (John 1:1, GNB and KJV).

Please, karo93 - again I ask: Who was Jesus Christ before He became a Man?

Odunnu:

****@****.com

Got it. I'll email you today. Thanks.