First begotten means that jesus was the first occurrence of a SON which God caused to be.

Only begotten means that jesus exists alone of his kind which is a son of God.

only begotten and first begotten dont mean the same thing as my defs. have shown.

There is no other first or only begotten Son of God that i know of.

So what is your point?

Can God be begotten?

Can God change state?

Is God not unchangeable?

I laugh.

These guys just denigrate and insult the transcendence and perfection of God everyday!

karo93:

and while i am at it i want to know what you believe"begotten" to mean? other than being brought into existence by someone else which makes that person your superior.

for as far as i know jesus was begotten so would you like to shed some light on that?

Jesus was begotten cos he wasnt an angel that is lifeless/spirit being.That God wouldnt be a magician by suddenly appearing on earth.We said he came to feel our pulse,sufferings&emotions,he couldnt av done that as a non human.In research theres what we call observer participation.Which was what God did.

Does an unchangeable God change state?

Does a perfect God take on imperfection?

I laugh!

Deep Sight:

Does an unchangeable God change state?

Does a perfect God take on imperfection?

I laugh!

Sometimes it pays to save your ignorance rather than laughing it out and confirming the same in public. I have waited for your explication of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father" in Scripture, and since that has proven beyond your grasp, why come to the fore to laugh at your own ignorance?

Deep Sight:

Does an unchangeable God change state?

Does a perfect God take on imperfection?

I laugh!

The God i know isnt static/stagnant.His modules operandi is never the same thats y we call him a mystery&unsearchable.He never operated d same way at all times.In d garden of Eden he operated differently from how he did with Moses,Abraham,Elijah,Elisha,david etc.In Noah's time he used flood to wipe the earth(Gen7)&in Lots time he used brimstone&fire to wipe out sodom&Gomorah(Gen 19) God his never static.He changes his operational style.

karo93:

First begotten means that jesus was the first occurrence of a SON which God caused to be.

God did not "cause" Jesus to be, for that is not the meaning of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father". If it was a matter of the "first occurence", please tell us with Scripture verses: who was the 'second occurence' and the 'third occurence' up to the 'last occurence'. When you dribble your own ideas into the text by mere guesses, you find soon enough that you're dribbling with your shoe laces tied in a knot.

Only begotten means that jesus exists alone of his kind which is a son of God.

And what 'kind' would that be? Please tell me in specific terms, don't evade it.

only begotten and first begotten dont mean the same thing as my defs. have shown.

And again you have shown nothing besides your guesses. Do you care to look into Scripture and discuss them, please?

There is no other first or only begotten Son of God that i know of.

In other words, after the "first occurence", there was no other "occurences"? Good. Now it is up to you to go and find out why your assertions have failed you. Please show me in Scripture where you find the terms 'first occurence' in reference to Christ. For by implication, if you say 'first occurence', then there ought to be other 'occurences'. This is why I deliberately set my questions that way so you guys don't dribble your ideas and run away with them.

So what is your point?

My point is that you've been too bsy guessing and closing your eyes to Scripture so you could argue forever on your fallacies. Not even your amaneunsis DeepSight has been able to help, other than laugh at his ignorance, no?

Please, make another try - this time, put some substance to it and not your guess work.

^^^ The appeal to mytery is just escapism.

I have often told you that Hindu Cow worship may as well be justified by that as well. . . "Helllooooo. . . . Its a mystery!"

Quaint.

Deep Sight:

^^^ The appeal to mytery is just escapism.

I have often told you that Hindu Cow worship may as well be justified by that as well. . . "Helllooooo. . . . Its a mystery!"

Quaint.

No worries. Now please tell us specifically who that 'God' of your deism is. No mysteries or OOI or mathematically suicidal prose or dodgy quips of 'creator' at a singularity of juxtaposing infinities that do not impress you at all. Just give us the identity of your own 'god' in deism.

^^^ The Creator of all that exists.

If I've said once, I've said it a thousand times.

Deep Sight:

^^^ The Creator of all that exists.

If I've said once, I've said it a thousand times.

Who is that 'creator'? You keep using that term as your escape hatch, but it does not help one tiny bit. As anyone else of any worldviews, they have specific identities for the 'God' they believe in, and that is why they do not appeal to the 'god' espoused in other religions/worldviews.

You already know your own 'god' is unidentifiable - a fiction of your prose that has long evaporated in a buried thread of your infinity. So, the only thing you want to do now is keep waving this 'creator' up and down the street so you can jump between religions to steal concept for your rogue religion. Oh come forward and let's identify your 'god', if you dare. You won't dare - because you already know why.

^^^ You surprise me.

In every Theistic worldview God is primarily defined that the Supreme Being who created all that exists.

I subscribe to this.

I wonder what else you want me to subscribe to? Perhaps that he has spinach and eggs for breakfast? Or that he has three legs and one eye?

Really what? ? ?

The day will come when you will tire of this.

Deep Sight:

^^^ The appeal to mytery is just escapism.

What do u mean? I taught u said u believe in God.How can u believe in d existence of what u ve never seen? Isnt mystery? Or did any1 force u to belive a God exist? take a look at Abraham& Sarah Abraham at 100yrs&Sarah 90yrs were able to give birth to isaac after menopause(Gen21) yet Isaac had a delay with Rebecca&she gave birth to isau&Jacob not after menopause but after 20yrs delay.If God werent a mystery why didnt he dealt with isaac like he did with isaacs father Abraham?

Hi Toba -

I do not regard the EXISTENCE of God as a mystery.

It is no mystery - it is perfectly logical that existent things require a pre-existing Cause.

So it is not the existence of God that is a mystery.

What might be a mystery is the nature of God.

Unfortunately that simple fact has become an excuse for peeps to describe God as whatever they like and defend the description thus -

"Its a mystery!"

Deep Sight:

^^^ You surprise me.

In every Theistic worldview God is primarily defined that the Supreme Being who created all that exists.

I subscribe to this.

You subscribe to absolutely NOTHING. Your subscription is a duplicity that has long been exposed, that is why you go about like the jerk you are and laughing off your own ignorance. That was a 'diagnosis', remember?

There are so many 'supreme beings' in many worldview. You only subscribe to all of them because any resemblance for you will do, even though you have to steal from them to patch up your rogue religion. If you have something solid, why is your own 'god' such a nameless, faceless, vague and patently evasive? Why does your 'god' exist only in terms of a mathematical prose that has since been rubbished on Nairaland?

I wonder what else you want me to subscribe to?

It is not my world - you can subscribe to any number of the ones you stole from whatever religion . . . they won't notice. But when it comes to Christianity, please stop trying to impress yourself on your ignorance - that's why you laugh at what you have n clue about and then turn round to complain.

Perhaps that he has spinach and eggs for breakfast? Or that he has three legs and one eye?

If that is what you want us to believe about your 'god', it's up to you. Hahaha! And you would forever attack the Hindu? Dude, I hope you're not still on "free services" from your psychiatrist friend?

Really what? ? ?

Do I give a flip if your 'god' has three legs as you say?

The day will come when you will tire of this.

Hahaha! You're already crying??

I am still very interested in the identity of your own 'god'.  Use anything you can conceive of - three legs, whatever. It's up to you. But please give us some identity of your 'god' and stop hiding behind excuses only to come back and laugh off your ignorance.

Viaro i have answered your questions so it is high time you made another point known instead of using me to walk circles

if this "My point is that you've been too bsy guessing and closeing your eyes to Scripture so you could argue forever on your fallacies" is your point then it means you have reached a full stop on this "begotten" point and would want you to move on,shed more light on your point or let me move on.

You say jesus was not begotten thereby making him the supreme authority but i say he was begotten and is a subordinate to the higher power who gave all things into his hands.

Hence, you have to tell me how he came into existence if not begotten and how a supreme power to him gave him all things if he was the owner of all by then.

viaro:

You subscribe to absolutely NOTHING. Your subscription is a duplicity that has long been exposed, that is why you go about like the jerk you are and laughing off your own ignorance. That was a 'diagnosis', remember?

There are so many 'supreme beings' in many worldview. You only subscribe to all of them because any resemblance for you will do, even though you have to steal from them to patch up your rogue religion. If you have something solid, why is your own 'god' such a nameless, faceless, vague and patently evasive? Why does your 'god' exist only in terms of a mathematical prose that has since been rubbished on Nairaland?

It is not my world - you can subscribe to any number of the ones you stole from whatever religion . . . they won't notice. But when it comes to Christianity, please stop trying to impress yourself on your ignorance - that's why you laugh at what you have n clue about and then turn round to complain.

If that is what you want us to believe about your 'god', it's up to you. Hahaha! And you would forever attack the Hindu? Dude, I hope you're not still on "free services" from your psychiatrist friend?

Do I give a flip if your 'god' has three legs as you say?

Hahaha! You're already crying??

I am still very interested in the identity of your own 'god'. Use anything you can conceive of - three legs, whatever. It's up to you. But please give us some identity of your 'god' and stop hiding behind excuses only to come back and laugh off your ignorance.

Well I've given it already: If it doesn't do for you, I will just have to pass.

Deep Sight:

So it is not the existence of God that is a mystery.

What might be a mystery is the nature of God.

Oh, look who's talking now!

So, you do ackowledge something of a "mystery" about 'God'? You say the mystery is about the "nature"? right. So what have discussants in this thread been talking about in regards to the mystery of God?

Unfortunately that simple fact has become an excuse for peeps to describe God as whatever they like and defend the description thus -

"Its a mystery!"

Sweet. We note that you have been doing that same thing with your OOI until your descriptions here and there altogether collapsed. Well done. Your escape hatch is still a "mystery" all the same, no? Tell us more.

Deep Sight:

Well I've given it already: If it doesn't do for you, I will just have to pass.

Are you getting really tired already?
I don't know what three legs has to do with your deistic 'god'. Care to explicate?

You see how foolish you sound. (ooops, disgnosis, remember?). You have nothing to show for your own OOI and then you crawl in and laugh out your ignorance in pretence of making any sense. I don't think anyone would have bothered about your OOI if you learnt to let others hold their belief, especially in Christianity. When you skid here and there and start acting out your fundamentalism, do go back and reflect on your three-legged OOI. That in itself should be no "mystery", no?

Viaro i want to know your foundation views[so we get somewhere in the end] as mine are clear so you could answer these questions for me

1.after seeing so many scriptures[ i would not quote unless you request for u know them] do you believe that jesus and God are distinct entities but still one God just as it is in marriage?

if not tell me what you think in regards to the points of my question

karo93:

Viaro i want to know your foundation views[so we get somewhere in the end] as mine are clear so you could answer these questions for me

1.after seeing so many scriptures[ i would not quote unless you request for u know them] do you believe that jesus and God are distinct entities but still one God just as it is in marriage?

if not tell me what you think in regards to the points of my question

@karo93, I have addressed your querries. For now, I will rather you sit down and smart up to answer questions that are put across to you. For several pages while we discussed the same thing you're repeating here, you said absolutely zilch. This time around, if we're going to get anywhere, then you would have to address the questions put across to you. Don't ignore or run away from post #326.

viaro:

Are you getting really tired already?
I don't know what three legs has to do with your deistic 'god'. Care to explicate?

You see how foolish you sound. (ooops, disgnosis, remember?). You have nothing to show for your own OOI and then you crawl in and laugh out your ignorance in pretence of making any sense. I don't think anyone would have bothered about your OOI if you learnt to let others hold their belief, especially in Christianity. When you skid here and there and start acting out your fundamentalism, do go back and reflect on your three-legged OOI. That in itself should be no "mystery", no?

Ok.

DS the existence,nature,works&operations of God are mysterious.
If Gods existence is a mystery then we wouldnt hav atheists doubting his existence.Except if only theirs is ignorance

toba:

. . . . Except if only theirs are ignorance

Gbam!

viaro
the last time i asked you that question you said your God could not be contained by rigid bla bla bla , so why do you say it has been adressed.do it now[directly] and we will move forward.

i have looked at 326 so many times and i dont see any aim or point in it and your "point" as you replied is not helping matters so i see no point there. so tell me the "real" point or stop sending me back to it as i stated earlier.

Karo before viaro answers u.Kindly tell me for d umpteenth time who d bible is refering to in Acts 20:28

karo93:

viaro
the last time i asked you that question you said your God could not be contained by rigid bla bla bla , so why do you say it has been adressed.do it now[directly] and we will move forward.

Please go back to that same post where you're making this inference from and see what I said there. Besides, I'm not the only person who has commented on that same question. I notice you patently ignore what has been said before and keep evading reminders to those same issues - and that is why I have refrained from entertaining you dribbling so you also can start answering questions. If you don't want to move forward and just want to remain stagnant here, it's your choice.

i have looked at 326 so many times and i dont see any aim or point in it and your "point" as you replied is not helping matters so i see no point there. so tell me the "real" point or stop sending me back to it as i stated earlier.

Do you want me to repost my concerns from that post, or you simply do not want to see any point there so you can run from it?  Which one?

Let me post excerpts so you won't come back repeating your excuse:

---

(1)

karo93:

First begotten means that jesus was the first occurrence of a SON which God caused to be.

viaro:

God did not "cause" Jesus to be, for that is not the meaning of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father". If it was a matter of the "first occurence", please tell us with Scripture verses: who was the 'second occurence' and the 'third occurence' up to the 'last occurence'?

(2)

karo93:
Only begotten means that jesus exists alone of his kind which is a son of God.

viaro:

And what 'kind' would that be? Please tell me in specific terms, don't evade it.

(3)

karo93:

There is no other first or only begotten Son of God that i know of.

viaro:

Please show me in Scripture where you find the terms 'first occurence' in reference to Christ.

---

There, please attend them.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Monogenēs -  Etymology

The term monogenēs is derived from the adjective monos (“single,” “only,” “unique,”) and the verbal substantive genos (“race,” “kind,” “species”). Based on that information it can be suggested that monogenēs means “only one of its kind,” “unique.”1 This has become the most common rendering of the term in English. However, since genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), monogenēs could also mean “only begotten.” The question is whether or not the use of genos always expresses the verbal etymological idea of origin or birth.

Before we arrive at any conclusion we should examine some additional evidence. First, we should acknowledge that there are cases in Greek literature in which monogenēs seems to be connected to the idea of generation. This is particularly the case when the term is applied to humans or to offspring. For instance, in cases where it is stated that someone is the “only” child of a specific couple, monogenēs could mean “only child born to someone.”

- Christ as Monogenēs: Proper Translation and
Theological Significance
Ángel Manuel Rodríguez 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The foregoing is the first part of a Christian attempt to elucidate the term – monogenēs.

What can be directly gleaned from it is that the term means “only one of its kind” – and that since genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), monogenēs could therefore refer to “only begotten.”

THE ARTICLE IS WRITTEN BY A TRINITARIAN, and yet even he could not deny that - "there are cases in Greek literature in which monogenēs seems to be connected to the idea of generation."

Given that the use is obvious, they then have to resort to pranks - The attempt is made to suggest that “only begotten” was no longer the interpretation of this word at the time that the Greek was written. This is a FALSE and FRAUDULENT attempt.

If that is the case it would be eminently bizarre that in ALL of the following scripture the SAME term was used and it ALWAYS referred to humanbeings who were begotten –

- Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, a monogenes in relation to his mother, and she [was] a widow, and many people of the city [were] with her.”

- Luke 9:38 “And behold, a man from the crowd called out, saying, ‘Teacher, I am begging you to look at my son, because he is[i]monogenes[/i] to me.’ ”

- Luke 8:42 “And behold, [there was] a man who was named Jairus, and he was ruler of the synagogue.  And he, having fallen at the feet of Jesus, was exhorting him to enter into his house, because he had a monogenes daughter about twelve years [old], and she was dying.”

- Hebrews 11:17. “In faith, Abraham, when he was tested offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up the monogenes (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

If in ALL of the foregoing texts which are ALL New Testament writings in Greek, the same term was used to refer to humans WHO WERE BEGOTTEN BY THEIR PARENTS AND SINGULAR.

So it’s just AMAZING that the Trinitarian would desperately try to give a different colouration to that word once it is applied to Jesus. – because as we can see from the above: the word was used to refer to single BEGOTTEN children.

It is CLEAR that Jesus was begotten and these lies will NOT change the obvious.

Viaro
i just came back from the post 192 and there you resorted to mystery so what did you say you said there? and after that came deepsight who changed the topic so what are you saying? i would love to see what else i have evaded

ANSWERS
1.there are no other occurrences which is why jesus is called the ONLY  begotten son.
2.the kind is as a/the son of God.
3.i dont know the position of those verses so you could help me out.

i still dont know your "reasonable point" for all these so let me know.

so can you now tell me your opinion of how jesus came into existence and address my latest question?

i still dont know your "reasonable point" for all these so let me know.

He has none. His fraudulent lies on monogenes have been exposed above.

Perhaps he thought no one else has access to the internet.

Deep Sight:

He has none. His fraudulent lies on monogenes have been exposed above.

Perhaps he thought no one else has access to the internet.

We shall see soon enough who has been lying. I knew I'd seen that article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez sometime much earlier, but the delay in posting my reply is because I've been trying to see if I could find a copy online. I just did - and it's in PDF.

So dress warm and let's see how you have championed you lying spree once again.

karo93:

i still dont know your "reasonable point" for all these so let me know.

I know you don't want to see the point, so don't bother. This is not the first time you try to evade what has been presented, so no worries.