@DeepSight,

Part (1)

Deep Sight:

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.”

There - 'monogenēs could therefore refer to “only begotten.”' I don't think there was any place where I argued differently. My question has been simply this:

     (1)   what is the meaning of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"
             with reference to Christ.

The reason I asked that question is not whether or not 'monogenēs' could refer to "only begotten", but rather what that term actually means in particular reference to Christ. It is because of this that I noted that no other being (of angels or human) is called by that term {"the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"} in SCRIPTURE.

For those who want to argue blindly the way you do, I have given them the benefit of doubt such that, if they assume that the term 'μονογενής' was in reference to 'creating' or beginning, surely then there would be others. Therefore, as karo93 had tried to cash in on that idea, I asked if he could ever find ANYONE else who was also called by the same term (nevermind the idea of 'first occurence', etc. which is found no where in Scripture).

I would have thought the simplicity in these matters are obvious to the careful reader before you posted your calculated fallacy once again.

Deep Sight:

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."

I was particular about ONLY ONE CASE - not "cases". I am very aware of some of those 'cases' where the Greek use seems to be pointing to the idea of generation - and I could very quickly give you examples. However, instead of allowing you to detract from what I had particularly asked, I would rather again and again remind you and your pals of the only particular case I had presented - "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father" in reference to Jesus Christ.

What you have tried rather to do is force all attempts to narrow it down to just one suggestion of cases that have no bearing upon the one case I particularly referenced. If that was not another display of how dubious you can be, what is it really?

Let's even look again at the excerpt you made:



[list]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 [/list] 



The laughable thing here is that even in your own citation, you failed to see that the author noted that those 'cases' of the Greek where it could 'generation' is "particularly the case when the term is applied to humans or to offspring".  You didn't go further than this, but just dubiously stopped there and trailed off as if the case of DEITY is now the same thing as "humans or to offspring". Why do you like to be so cowardly stupid in displaying these kinds of duplicity, DeepSight?

In my subsequent post, I shall bring you round these matters once again with particular reference to just one thing: with particular reference to Jesus Christ, what is the meaning of the term "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father" as far as DEITY is concerned, and not on the cases of "humans or to offspring".  As long as you don't confuse them and avoid your prevarications, the issues to be set forth will be easy enough to be seen.

@DeepSight,

Part (2),

First, let me make plain how you cheated on that excerpt you made, DeepSight. It's a good thing I'd already seen that article from which you excerpted that piece; but what you did not want the reader to also know is this part of the author's caution which you categorically ignored in order to force your own fallacy into a flawed conclusion:

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez:
Third, we should be careful not to press the argument of etymology too much.³ The study of semantics indicates that 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. We have already shown that monogenēs is often used without any connection at all to the idea of generation of birth while in other places it seems to retain some of the etymological significance. The conclusion is that in both cases the context was the determining factor in establishing the meaning of the term. We will examine the New Testament materials in the light of that conclusion.

I don't know what on earth you had intended by your deceit, DeepSight. Is it not plain for all to you that you had conveniently skipped the salient points of the author when your forced only the etymology into your arguments? Shame.

Here in outline are the things we should note from that same piece -

[list][li]the meaning of a term is not determined by its etymology but by the way the author employs it[/li][/list]

[list][li]the context in which the term is used should determine how it is being used by the writer[/li][/list]

[list][li]it is incorrect to force the etymological meaning of a term into every usage of it[/li][/list]

[list][li]We have already shown that monogenēs is often used without any connection at all to the idea of generation of birth while in other places it seems to retain some of the etymological significance.[/li][/list]

You certainly broke all conventions of good thinking that the same author cautioned against - and then argued your fallacy on the 'etymology' of the term! The author noted indeed that "monogenēs is often used without any connection at all to the idea of generation of birth - I'm sure you saw that point on the same page from which you argued on etymology!

Why did you try to cheat like that, DeepSight?!? I am deeply ashamed at your duplicity - it just keeps showing every single day!

@DeepSight,

Part (3),

I am continuing the excerpt from Ángel Manuel Rodríguez whose piece you had cited:

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).

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez:
Second, the title monogenēs is applied to Christ to indicate that He is the only and unique revelator of God: “We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only [monogenēs], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).  As in the previous passage the title monogenēs is used in the absolute, i.e. the term son is not attached to it. The context indicates that He is unique in that He is the only one who can reveal the glory of God to us. This is possible because He is divine. In other words, the title monogenēs speaks of Jesus as unique in nature and in function. These two ideas are found in John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” His divine nature and His closeness to the Father enable Him to be the only and unique revelator of the Father.

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez:
Third, the title monogenēs identifies Jesus as the one and only redeemer through whom God’s saving love reaches us: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son [monogenēs] into the world that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9). Here we find two terms together, son and monogenēs. In His redemptive mission Jesus demonstrated to be God’s unique and only Son, i.e., to have a unique relationship with God that made possible our redemption. In fact, the Father loved us so much that He “gave his one and only Son” to save those who believe in Him (John 3:16, 18).

source: http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Christ%20as%20Monogenes.pdf 

Let's recap on what Ángel Manuel Rodríguez explicated on 'Monogenēs' in particular reference to Christ:

(1)   with particularly reference to Jesus, He is the monogenēs in the sense that He is divine.

(2)   in that sense, the idea of "generation" DOES NOT fit the context at all.

(3)   the title monogenēs speaks of Jesus as unique in nature and in function.


So, DeepSight ,  just WHY have you tried to lie so shamelessly in forcing the idea of "generation" into monogenēs in reference to Jesus Christ? Ain't you ashmed of such cowardice? The author Rodríguez whose article you had excerpted did NOT infer "generation" for what you tried to do with reference to Christ; so what in the bleeping universe were you trying to do by deliberately twisting what the author argued in his article?

You really are full of all fluff and your duplicity  is most heinous.

Viaro,i'v always been challenged with your great understanding of the bible.It might sound crazy but please kud u give me the priviledge of knowing you beyond NL?In simple words, Sir, Kud u mentor me?

@viaro
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

this would really take us somewhere-pls u have not addressed it before as i pointed in post 344

karo93:

@viaro
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

this would really take us somewhere-pls u have not addressed it before as i pointed in post 344

My answer to you remain the same as in post #340.

Odunnu:

Viaro,i'v always been challenged with your great understanding of the bible.It might sound crazy but please kud u give me the priviledge of knowing you beyond NL?In simple words, Sir, Kud u mentor me?

Lol, sure Odunnu - we can interract beyond NL. But 'mentor', I'm not sure I qualify at all. Pls check my profile for my e-addy.

viaro i answered your questions in post 348

karo93:

viaro i answered your questions in post 348

Look karo93, I'm not in the business of this dribbling around issues. Your post in #348 are not answers but excuses; and since you are not inclined to offer answers to serious questions, what's the point making the same roundabout dribbling on and on?

Even going back to that post, here are the questions and then your answers to them -



(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'?

And you answer to that was:

karo93: 1.there are no other occurrences which is why jesus is called the ONLY  begotten son.

My comments:  now if you see no other occurences in Scripture, does that not make it plain to you that there is no such thing as your "first occurence"? It just means that your "first occurence" has no bearing whatsoever to the use of the term "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father". Which means you just do not have an answer to the question I asked about that term but had excused it by your own idea that you cannot find or defend in Scripture.



(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.

And your answer was:

karo93: 2.the kind is as a/the son of God.

My comments:  That again is another excuse and evasion. The answer that "kind" refers to 'son' is just without substance, and that was why I felt you're just wasting our time. The term "son(s) of God" is used even of angels and men; but when it comes to "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father", you will not find any being (angel or human) who is ever addressed that way. Therefore, if you're speaking of a "kind", since it is not of angel or human "kind", what should be the "kind" specifically that would help you come round your excuses on that question - of what "kind" was Jesus Christ: angels, man or DEITY?

There are only three simple options here: human, angel, and Deity/Divinity. If the "kind" is neither angel or human, what else was that "kind"?



(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.

And your answer was:

karo93: 3.i dont know the position of those verses so you could help me out.

My comments:   I have helped you out in responding directly to DeepSight's empty bragado - see post #352, #353 and #354. These are issues that we have long discussed before I asked the 5 questions which you have excused several times. If you have anything to argue of substance in my replies to Deepsight, then do so.



I will not entertain you any further making excuses up and down UNTIL you address these issues and leave your excuses behind. That is why you will not read me answering any fresh questions from you, because it is now time you sat up and answer some yourself. I do not make excuses when you ask questions - I discuss them and provide answers with substance. Please do the same, before I would ever answer you henceforth.

Viaro will you quit defending the indefensible? ? ?

It is so harrowing that the Christian Trinitarian will run around in such desperate incoherent circles in a sickening attempt to explain away the many clear indicators in scripture that Jesus could not be God.

We have said something simple: that Jesus being begotten could not be God as God has no beginning - and this argument is so compelling and forceful that the Trinitarians have had to write thousands of books seeking to twist again the meaning of the word interpreted as "Monogenēs." - namely - "only begotten."

I have two posers for you WHICH will simply get you to shhhhhaarrrraaaaaaaappp if you have any honesty -

ONE - DID YOU NOT READ THIS IN MY EARLIER POST -

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.”

See the highlighted portion. Do you know nothing at all of word derivation? Can you not see the derivative explanation above - namely that since genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), monogenēs could therefore refer to “only begotten.”

If you know anything about word derivation you would shat ya yap right there and quit the circus of ridiculous dishonesty.

Genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), - AND no amount of lies from you will change that fact! ! !


TWO - CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SAME WORD IS USED TO REFER TO BEGOTTEN SINGLE CHILDREN OF HUMANS?

In fact it is never used save in this context! So when applied to Jesus tell me EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION - If not simply to escape the obvious!

The self same Greek writters used the same word four other times -

- Luke 7: 12 “And when he drew near to the gate of the city, and behold, a dead [man] was being carried out, [size=16pt]a monogenes[/size] 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 [size=16pt]monogenes[/size] 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 [size=16pt]monogenes daughter[/size] 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 [size=16pt]the monogenes[/size] (he) to whom it was said that, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ ”

IN [B]ALL[/b] of these verses the word referred to single begotten children. ALL!

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD SUDDENLY DEVELOP A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN USED WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Joker.

That clot seeking mentorship from you must be looking for a course in grammatical deceit.

For those who want to argue blindly the way you do, I have given them the benefit of doubt such that, if they assume that the term 'μονογενής' was in reference to 'creating' or beginning, surely then there would be others. 

Did you, Viaro, actually say this? ? ? ? ?

Did you not see the FOUR REFERENCES I GAVE? ? ? ? ? ? ?

@Deepsight,I dnt really kia if u call me a 'clot' or somethn worse.I wnt answer 2 it/them.
I'm an adult and hv d right to choose my friends.I saw you,yet chose Viaro. Does dat warrant d insult?

Odunnu:

@Deepsight,I dnt really kia if u call me a 'clot' or somethn worse.I wnt answer 2 it/them.
I'm an adult and hv d right to choose my friends.I saw you,yet chose Viaro. Does dat warrant d insult?

Lol, @Odunnu . . . take it easy. When DeepSight hauls insults are others, he actually calls it 'diagnosis' - he says so himself. I have been waiting for him to be done with his hysteria before I post my replies, because I don't want to provide him the opportunity of distracting readers.

Okay DeepSight, I notice you're done with your hysteria at the moment, so I'll be responding to yours.

Deep Sight:

For those who want to argue blindly the way you do, I have given them the benefit of doubt such that, if they assume that the term 'μονογενής' was in reference to 'creating' or beginning, surely then there would be others.

Did you, Viaro, actually say this? ? ? ? ?

Yes, and triply and factually yes - I said that. So, if you're one of those to assume that the term 'μονογενής' was in reference to 'creating' or beginning with particular reference to Christ, then you should be able to find others who are called "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father". If, on the other hand, you could not and have not been able to find any other being (whether of angels or humans) who is called by that term, then for all intents and purposes you're still the same goon who's been lying through your yellow teeth.

Did you not see the FOUR REFERENCES I GAVE? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I saw them - and I could give you some more. Just to ease your pain from the shame you caused yourself in this thread, I shall discuss them as well in my subsequent replies. It is not my style to evade anything (which is what you do apart from twisting articles you excerpt) - but I try to discuss issues squarely and fairly without ignoring the big picture and gist of what I present.

You, on the other hand, have lied and keep lying to cover a previous lie. Shame. Not only have you ignored other statements in the article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez which you cited, you hastily drew a biased conclusion that was never intended by the author in the first place. Please tell the house why you have chosen to be such a gutless and shameless liar?

Odunnu:

@Deepsight,I dnt really kia if u call me a 'clot' or somethn worse.I wnt answer 2 it/them.
I'm an adult and hv d right to choose my friends.I saw you,yet chose Viaro. Does dat warrant d insult?

I apologize. Sincerely. Just flew off the handle there.

Deep Sight:

Viaro will you quit defending the indefensible? ? ?

It is so harrowing that the Christian Trinitarian will run around in such desperate incoherent circles in a sickening attempt to explain away the many clear indicators in scripture that Jesus could not be God.

DeepSight, it's the beginning of a new week - and one which I hope to enjoy without having to be entertained by your duplicity. Please spare me your rubbish. You ran to an article which laid out issues so simply that no simpleton could ever have missed his point - and after your public career for falsehood has been exposed, you crawl back this morning to further the railroad for your fallacy? Please.

Deep Sight:
We have said something simple: that Jesus being begotten could not be God as God has no beginning - and this argument is so compelling and forceful that the Trinitarians have had to write thousands of books seeking to twist again the meaning of the word interpreted as "Monogenēs." - namely - "only begotten."

You are the very same fellow who twisted the excerpt that you referenced to mean entirely something other than what the author Ángel Manuel Rodríguez had conveyed. Could you please tell us why you were so conceited as to twist his meaning? That is what you have to clear up here instead of making an early morning noise.

Deep Sight:
I have two posers for you WHICH will simply get you to shhhhhaarrrraaaaaaaappp if you have any honesty -

I've always tried to be fair and honest. You on the other hand just have to zip it up and stop all this spree of lying through your yellow teeth. Was it not you who twisted the conclusion in that piece by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez? And you have the audacity of a schmuck to have missed the shame of it all?

Deep Sight:
ONE - DID YOU NOT READ THIS IN MY EARLIER POST -

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.”

See the highlighted portion. Do you know nothing at all of word derivation? Can you not see the derivative explanation above - namely that since genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), monogenēs could therefore refer to “only begotten.”

If you know anything about word derivation you would shat ya yap right there and quit the circus of ridiculous dishonesty.

Don't make me laugh!  Dude, go back to my Part (1) reply in post #352 - that portion was the first part I quoted from you. That should tell you that I did not ignore or evade it, but rather discussed it as I often do in the way I handle issues. The one thing was that having noted that part of your argument, I reminded you of what exactly was my question - which up until now you have NOT attempted any answers!!

This was my comment in noting that part of your quote:

[list]

viaro: There - 'monogenēs could therefore refer to “only begotten.”' I don't think there was any place where I argued differently.

My question has been simply this:

    (1)   what is the meaning of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"
           with reference to Christ.

The reason I asked that question is not whether or not 'monogenēs' could refer to "only begotten", but rather what that term actually means in particular reference to Christ. It is because of this that I noted that no other being (of angels or human) is called by that term {"the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father"} in SCRIPTURE.

[/list]

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.

However, you never dealt with them, but just trailed off with your penchant to twist articles and arrive at a completely different idea than the author of that article had made! Please DeepSight, tell us why you had arranged to be so dubious?

Deep Sight:

Genos is related to the verb ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”), - AND no amount of lies from you will change that fact! ! !

The author (and Greek scholars) know that Greek terms are not defined by etymology. You don't just try to cheat your readers by factoring on etymologies of any Greek term to arrive at any conclusions - that point was made by the same author you had cited, and I could show you several other Greek scholars who acknowledge the same thing.

It is therefore a display of your vast ignorance (and duplicity, of course) to arrive at any conclusions based merely on the etymology of any Greek word, whether in Scripture or in classical Greek literature. To argue the way you do is to show you're merely an illiterate on this subject and are better suited to your day job of lavatory retriever.

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez (the author you cited) had noted that -

[list]

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]

Now, since it is incorrect to force the etymological meaning of the term into every usage (as you Deepsight have done!), we note that Greek philosophers and authors outside the Bible have used that same word μονογενής (monogenēs) in reference to other entities without the idea of ginomai (“be born,” “be made,” “become”). For example, Clement of Rome is said to have used that term monogenes to describe the Phoenix, a bird reported to live 500 years - - a unique bird, in a class by itself. It did not convey the idea that it was "begotten" for 500 years.

Further, Doug Kutilek captures this problem of etymologies so well:

[list]

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]

I don't know how many Greek or literary scholars would argue that any conclusions about Greek terms are derived from mere etymologies rather than context and usage! The only goons who argue from etymologies and only on that, are the sort of dubious fellows trolling the internet such as yourself!

Deep Sight:

TWO - CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE SAME WORD IS USED TO REFER TO BEGOTTEN SINGLE CHILDREN OF HUMANS?

Your answer was already in the part of Rodríguez' piece which you ignored for reasons best known to you! I have lightly touched upon this in post #352 in noting that such use is in particular reference to HUMAN or to OFFSPRING, and not in the case of DIVINITY or DEITY.

The author argues that "the meaning of a term is not determined by its etymology but by the way the author employs it." Yet, where the term is used for humans (as you requested) , the author also notes that {"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"}. I also noted that as long as we are looking at the cases where it is used for "humans", we should not confuse it to apply them in every case as to refer to cases concerning DEITY or DIVINITY.

If you confuse them and drag on the meaning to every case so that you apply the term to Jesus Christ, then my question to you is this: who was the wife of God when Jesus was "begotten"? Please do answer this question - sincerely.

I would go so far as to say that you will not find any being as the "wife" of God for the idea that monogenes should suggest that Christ was "begotten" in the sense that it applies to HUMANS! This is why the verses where monogenes are used in particular reference to human relationships are found in those examples which you've posted earlier (post #347). Those examples are showing human relationships, and NOT divine relationships.

There is a reason for the difference between monogenes in human relationships and that in divine relationship. It is striking that while those examples you gave (Luke 7: 12; 8:42; 9:38; and Hebrews 11:17) use the term monogenēs in speaking of natural biological relationships where parents have sired children, it is NOT the case in John's Gospel and his epistles in reference to Christ. This again is why you will not find the other evangelists (Matthew and Mark) using monogenēs for Christ to speak of human relationship in reference to the Father.

Instead, the other evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke use another term (agapētos) in reference to Christ: for example, "Thou art my beloved (agapētos) Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22). But when John uses the term monogenēs, it is only in reference to Christ in a divine relationship.

This is why I don't ignore issues but rather deal directly with them - no evasions or prevarications or capricous twisting as is very characterististic of you. I have asked a simple question earlier (post #302): who was Jesus Christ before His Incarnation? None of your friends have ever answered that question, because you probably know it is your blackhole where all your duplicity will collapse and implode on you. Do you care to answer that question, or just keep playing games with your hysteria?

Deep Sight:

In fact it is never used save in this context!

You're wrong! Thrice calculatedly and factually wrong! This was why I noted earlier:

"I don't know how many Greek or literary scholars would argue that any conclusions about Greek terms are derived from mere etymologies rather than context and usage! The only goons who argue from etymologies and only on that, are the sort of dubious fellows trolling the internet such as yourself!"

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.

Deep Sight:

So when applied to Jesus tell me EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION - If not simply to escape the obvious!

I have discussed "WHY" - please scroll above and see. You, on the other hand, never discuss anything other than demonstrate your hysteria over issues you have twsited from authors whose piece you quote.

Deep Sight:
The self same Greek writters used the same word four other times -

- 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 monogenes 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.’ ”

IN [B]ALL[/b] of these verses the word referred to single begotten children. ALL!

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY WE SHOULD SUDDENLY DEVELOP A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION WHEN USED WITH REFERENCE TO JESUS? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I have done so already. Do you want me to repeat it? If so, here again:

viaro: Your answer was already in the part of Rodríguez' piece which you ignored for reasons best known to you! I have lightly touched upon this in post #352 in noting that such use is in particular reference to HUMAN or to OFFSPRING, and not in the case of DIVINITY or DEITY.

The author argues that "the meaning of a term is not determined by its etymology but by the way the author employs it." Yet, where the term is used for humans (as you requested) , the author also notes that {"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"}. I also noted that as long as we are looking at the cases where it is used for "humans", we should not confuse it to apply them in every case as to refer to cases concerning DEITY or DIVINITY.

If you confuse them and drag on the meaning to every case so that you apply the term to Jesus Christ, then my question to you is this: who was the wife of God when Jesus was "begotten"? Please do answer this question - sincerely.

I would go so far as to say that you will not find any being as the "wife" of God for the idea that monogenes should suggest that Christ was "begotten" in the sense that it applies to HUMANS! This is why the verses where monogenes are used in particular reference to human relationships are found in those examples which you've posted earlier (post #347). Those examples are showing human relationships, and NOT divine relationships.

There is a reason for the difference between monogenes in human relationships and that in divine relationship. It is striking that while [size=14pt]those examples you gave (Luke 7: 12; 8:42; 9:38; and Hebrews 11:17)[/size] use the term monogenēs in speaking of natural biological relationships where parents have sired children, it is NOT the case in John's Gospel and his epistles in reference to Christ. This again is why you will not find the other evangelists (Matthew and Mark) using monogenēs for Christ to speak of human relationship in reference to the Father.

Instead, the other evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke use another term (agapētos) in reference to Christ: for example, "Thou art my beloved (agapētos) Son; in thee I am well pleased" (Luke 3:22). But when John uses the term monogenēs, it is only in reference to Christ in a divine relationship.

This is why I don't ignore issues but rather deal directly with them - no evasions or prevarications or capricous twisting as is very characterististic of you. I have asked a simple question earlier (post #302): who was Jesus Christ before His Incarnation? None of your friends have ever answered that question, because you probably know it is your blackhole where all your duplicity will collapse and implode on you. Do you care to answer that question, or just keep playing games with your hysteria?

Are you satisfied now? Of course not - I know you would yet come forward with another attempt to cover up your duplicity. Please entertain us further ... or just crawl back to your day job - the lavs are waiting for your attention.

Deep Sight:

That clot seeking mentorship from you must be looking for a course in grammatical deceit.

Hehe ... what grammatical erudition have you demonstrated of the Greek other than twisting etymologies with your vacuity?

I had some hope for you when I first joined Nairaland. But I've learnt a valuable lesson: when next I see anyone going by 'Deepsight', I know I've met an illiterate troll.

You on the other hand just have to zip it up and stop all this spree of lying through your yellow teeth.

you're still the same goon who's been lying through your yellow teeth.

Jesus. What's happening here. How did you know my teeth are yellow? ? ?

_{They actually are! - Have been since Childhood!}

because to evade it will only confirm the illiterate you are who is better suited to your day job of lavatory retriever

Baba ke! You be professional yabbist o!

Lol. . .

Off to the office now, will revert later. . .

Cheers.

Deep Sight:

Jesus. What's happening here. How did you know my teeth are yellow? ? ?

_{They actually are! - Have been since Childhood!}

Dude, I know ... I know. It's a phrase I picked up somewhere - so don't take it as the perfect escape hatch from the substance of my post.

Deep Sight:

Baba ke! You be professional yabbist o!

Lol. . .

Off to the office now, will revert later. . .

Cheers.

Haha! Okay bro, see you later.

lavatory retriever

 

Viaro and Deep Sight, mega-LOL, You guys won't be the end of me! 

The monogenes, I believe, SIMPLY means "unique", "in a class of its own".

In those examples cited by Deep Sight, the monogenes referred to human beings, and it was the "unique" progeny. But God is neither birthed nor gives birth, so as the article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez correctly asserted, monogenes as applied to humans and offspring is not a generic definition for the word.

I have told Deep Sight this before, the Trinity is a thing of substance of Deity. That substance, in this case, is the uniqueness described in monogenes.

Monogenes of the Father means "that exact unique quality of the Father". The unique quality of the Father is that He is God, and Christ has this same UNIQUE quality.

There you have it, Father and Son having an equally unique quality of being God. It makes the term "unique" sound strange, but that's the mystery of the Trinity. 

Why are you peddling this deceit? ? ?

Did I not ask you WHERE the breath of life that created man came from? ? ? ? ?

If it came from God then WE ARE ALL whatever-genes.

Deep Sight, I won't want to insult you or report your posts, so please keep your insults to yourself. Thanks.

The breath of life came from God, but are you trying to say that the works of your hand are as unique as yourself? Please answer this without unnecessary verbiage.

I edited my post above to curb my excesses. Apologies Mavenbox.

.

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.

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, generation of a 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.

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.

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

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

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

Given this fact it is most bizarre to ask me to produce another monogenes of the Father. The very word “mono” is enough to tell you if you could read that it refers to “single” and as such is indicative of only one. Why then would a red eyed cultist be asking me to produce others?

Whatever you do you cannot escape the fact that the Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring.  It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

Why is it translated so in these verses? ? ?

GBAM! ! ! Nowhere for you to run on this one.

Quit the chit chat.

viaro:

The author (and Greek scholars) know that Greek terms are not defined by etymology. You don't just try to cheat your readers by factoring on etymologies of any Greek term to arrive at any conclusions.

It is therefore a display of your vast ignorance (and duplicity, of course) to arrive at any conclusions based merely on the etymology of any Greek word, whether in Scripture or in classical Greek literature.

Aha! This clown is happy to cite the etymology of every word in zillions of his debates on this forum and the minute we delve into the etymology of a word that YOU brought up you come here with this pathetic cry that we should not make references to etymologies of words anymore? ? ?

What stark hypocrisy.

The etymology of the word monogenes embarrasses and exposes you and the authours of that article and thus you now seek to discard the etymology.

That is pathetic.

Your answer was already in the part of Rodríguez' piece which you ignored for reasons best known to you! I have lightly touched upon this in post #352 in noting that such use is in particular reference to HUMAN or to OFFSPRING, and not in the case of DIVINITY or DEITY.

Gbam! Exactly! Why is that word applied to human begotten offprings? ? ? ?

Is that not further proof of what the word means? ? ? ?

That CLEARLY shows that it refers to begotten offspring.
That clearly ruins your argument!

If you confuse them and drag on the meaning to every case so that you apply the term to Jesus Christ, then my question to you is this: who was the wife of God when Jesus was "begotten"? Please do answer this question - sincerely.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I won’t even bother with this nursery-school analogy.

Wife of God indeed.

Grow up!

I have asked a simple question earlier (post #302): who was Jesus Christ before His Incarnation?

Another laugh.

Who were YOU before your incarnation ? ? ?

Jesus was a proven mortal human being and as such I see no reason to suppose that he had a different origin from you and I. Or Pygmies for that matter.

Deep Sight, I am hoping that you are cautious to note that unlike those other human beings in the scriptures you quoted, Jesus is not called the monogenes of Mary, or of Joseph, or of David or Abraham or Adam? He is called the monogenes of the Father, God. This alone sets valid weight to viaro's question: who was he before his incarnation?

Your attempts to force-read monogenes to mean a birthing, engendering or creation BECAUSE it so applies for humans will be inadequate because we have many loosely typed words related in language as attributes or characteristics of God, but they dont exactly figure that way with mankind. The mind of God. The hand of God. Etc

InesQor:

Deep Sight, I am hoping that you are cautious to note that unlike those other human beings in the scriptures you quoted, Jesus is not called the monogenes of Mary, or of Joseph, or of David or Abraham or Adam? He is called the monogenes of the Father, God. This alone sets valid weight to viaro's question: who was he before his incarnation?

Thank you, InesQor. The highlights in yours are most valid - which is a better way of putting across the very same things that I had asked these Christ-deniers. Of course, I did not expect Deepsight to attempt answering the simple questions - the reason is obvious.

Your attempts to force-read monogenes to mean a birthing, engendering or creation BECAUSE it so applies for humans will be inadequate because we have many loosely typed words related in language as attributes or characteristics of God, but they dont exactly figure that way with mankind. The mind of God. The hand of God. Etc

Good one. We just have to wonder with amazement that the only thing he knows how to do is force his fallacies into a simple matter - even where issues are set plainly for all to see. Why would anyone read that article by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez (which DeepSight had excerpted) and deliberately evade the author's point on CHRISTOLOGICAL USAGE of monogenēs in that same article?!? The reason, again, is quite obvious - DeepSight's duplicity at its finest!

Please, is true or false.

First, Deepsight, you had quoted this excerpt from Ángel Manuel Rodríguez:

Deep Sight:

___________________________________________________________________

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.

Now, I would really like to know something from you:  why did you evade the CHRISTOLOGICAL USAGE of the term monogenēs which appears in that same article by the same author, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez?!?

You had argued the meaning of the term on merely its etymology; but the author particularly noted that -

[list]

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez: Third, we should be careful not to press the argument of etymology too much.³ The study of semantics indicates that 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.

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez: We have already shown that monogenēs is often used without any connection at all to the idea of generation of birth while in other places it seems to retain some of the etymological significance. The conclusion is that in both cases the context was the determining factor in establishing the meaning of the term. We will examine the New Testament materials in the light of that conclusion.

[/list]

Can you tell us, DeepSight, why you deliberately ignored that part of the author's piece from which you had excerpted you previous quote?!? WHY did you have to bend all meanings of the term monogenēs to merely its etymology when in very fact the author had noted that "the meaning of a term is not determined by its etymology but by the way the author employs it?!?


Further, this is what that same author had presented on the Christological usage of that term monogenēs, which you have repeatedly prevaricated upon and evaded ~~

[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]

DeepSight, please, please and please: you owe it to the house to explain WHY you patently EVADED this part of the author's piece on the Christological usage of that term! That part of the same article which you excerpted from, appears so conspicuously that even a simpleton would not have missed it. So, WHY did you DeepSight deliberately prevaricated on that author's conclusion and argued what he never argued? Why did you ignore that part of the author's piece on the Christological usage of that term monogenēs?

Please don't dodge these questions - for doing so would only mean that you always had something to hide and are happier duping your readers! Please explain why you had to be so dubious to the public on these matters. Thanks.