₦airaland Forum

JeSoul:
^LOL . . . . when I first saw the thread title, I laughed cos I knew it was DS type of topic.

I hope you have finished writing your book, or else what are you doing here?

Am almost there but now sufferring some writers block.

Maybe cos am missing my fianceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Lacrissa:
I really hope God forgives me. I just wish intimacy with your loved one not every tom, dic*k and harry, just your loved one wasn't bad. God knows I love him, though I still fornicate as in have intimacy with my loved one. Help

Se.x is a perfectly natural instinct.

It is no different from hunger or thirst.

These instincts are given by the Creator for the propagation and survival of species.

Yes, Man being an advanced creature is entitled to deploy discretion in the excercise of his instincts.

And in terms of such discretion i can conceive of no higher principle than that which you are already applying: to wit - limiting your se.xual life to one person who you love deeply.

Any person who attempts to make you feel guilty for this simply has no understanding of existence, creation and nature.

Indeed such persons are a danger to all reason and commonsense.

The reality is that such persons have been indoctrinated by a bizzarre and most unnatural anti-se.x dogma which has its origins in misguided notions of morality deriving from religion and culture.

The only culture you should be beholden to is the culture of nature.

Examine it.

stand erect there.

Haba guys. . . I still full ground now.

No stress Viaro o. . . that carpenter worshipper makes me feel alive!

Am writing a book and i needed to take a break to focus and complete it.

When i said "Last post"' i meant temporary cos am writing a book and NL had become a distractng obsession i needed to give a break.

Once am done with the book, una go hear my wahala again.

takia!

haba. . . why are you exposing the christian c.rap for what it is?

1. Existence and Nature are full of wonders. Be wondrous at what exists.

2. Whatever caused things to be is doubtless enigmatic, compelling and wonderful - you may call it God, or nature - it doesn't really matter. Be appreciative for everyday.

3. Life is beautiful. Live it to the fullest.

4. What's the need for this or that division: we are human - members of a great and rising brotherhood. Hand in hand we should stand. We are the world.

4. Love is all there is. Give it.

5. Be still. . .

^^^ 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.

^^^ Address the issue and stop dribbling.

Heaven help me. Astonishing contradictions all over the place -

This character assasinates Jesus by saying -

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:

So, from the worship perspective, [size=16pt]the Priest and the Levite were better worshippers[/size] though the Samaritan was a better lover.

And then instantly contradicts that by admitting that LOVE is the key -

For us in the new Testament, [size=16pt]there are no such rigid rules that have to adhered to above LOVE, [/size] and that is what Jesus was teaching in that story.

So if they adhered to their rigid rules above Love, how then are they the "better worshippers" of God - since you have admitted -

  1. Love is the Key and

  2. The samaritan was the better lover.

Jesus Christ! Are you for real at all? ? ? ? ?[img][/img]

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.

^^^ Define for me the worship of God.

What does it mean to you?

Did you read the post on the Parable of the good Samaritan above?

Maybe for you the Priest and the Levite were better worshippers of God than the good samaritan?

Let's look to the spirit please.

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

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.

OLAADEGBU:
And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. -- Daniel 11:32

You will only read what you want to see and understand.  I did not say it was His actual second Coming, what I said was that it was an actual demonstration of Christ coming in His glory to earth, that is, how Jesus would appear in glory.  Peter who was one of the eyewitnesses to this event went on to assure us that we have a more sure word of prophecy than the evil bibles that you and ROSSIKE are quoting (2 Peter 1:16-18,19-21).

Olaadegbu why are you peddling deceit with this terrible subterfuge? ? ?

The fact remains that Jesus said clearly -

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom

The transfiguration is NOT a "coming."


So stop trying to defend the indefensible.

^^^ Why are you dribbling about? ? ?

^^^ Krayola, my sincere sympathies.

Stay blessed.

^^^ Jesu Oyigbo

Amin, amin, amin, amin, amin, amin, amin. . . lo ruko Jeeeeesssuu! ! !

Oya, since you are superhuman, can you conduct a walking on water ceremony for us to see?

OLAADEGBU:
The greatest lie is when you are being lied to by the father of lies who turns the truth into lies and transform lies into half truths and blatant lies and you see his followers swallowing his lies hook, line and stinker.

Let us see what the Truth said in Matthew 16:28 which was wrongly interpreted and quoted by you and ROSSIKE:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.

If you had patiently read further instead of jumping to conclusions (this is the only form of exercise some folks are able to do), you would have realised how this truth spoken by Jesus Christ was being fulfilled there and then.

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, [2] And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. [3] And, behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. . . . [5] While he yet spake, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. -- Matthew 17:1-3,5

Jesus was referring to Peter, James and John as seeing Him transfigured. They will see Him just as He will appear in the Kingdom when it is set up at the second Advent which was an actual demonstration of His coming in glory to earth to set up His Kingdom (Read Matt.24:29-31 which ROSSIKE partly quoted). Peter spoke of this eyewitness account on the Mount of Transfiguration where they heard God's voice and saw the glory of God and the appearance of Moses and Elijah in 2 Peter 1:16-18

You can now see that this prediction by Jesus was fulfilled 6 days after the prophesy was uttered.

I just cannot get over this. This is just wow! I mean evryy line is completely false and unscriptural.

And this degree of blatant falsehood is being peddled here by  Nairaland's resident gospel-preacher.

Olaadegbu, you of all people could stoop this low?

Look at Jesus' words agian -

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom.

Since when did the transfiguration become "the son of man coming in his Kingdom" ? ? ? ?

Everyone knows what the coming of the kingdom of God is - and you shamelessly twist scripture to state that the transfiguration was the coming of the kingdom.

I am dumbstruck.

What lies!

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.

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!}

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.

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? ? ? ? ? ? ?

@ Odunnu. . . are you for real?

Quote from Noetic -

did Jesus in any way imply that He would return in the days of His listeners?,  . . . .Nope.

Look at this blatant lie.

Did Jesus not say that some standing before him would not taste death before he returns?

Good grief.

A lot of Christians ignore what Jesus actually says in the Bible.  They also tend to add things to the actual words to make them say something else.

A truer word has never been said.

noetic16:
whats the difference between islam and satanism?. . , , they both have the same source

Is there any less Idolatry in worshipping your fellow man? ? ?

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.

^^^ Excellently put. Which is why a maze of definitions of "which God" is not very helpful.

Beyond acceding that God is the creator, can we really box him with further definitions?

Thoughts!

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.

^^^ Liar, liar, pants on fire. The only person being circuituous here is YOU - because you could not even so much as give a yes or no.

The February 22nd coincidence is not something that an investigator would overlook.

And SHARRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPP THERE! ! ! - all you who say one is being petty - is multiple I.D not a breach of Forum rules? ? ? ?

Aside the insult to our intelligence.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.