₦airaland Forum

honeric01:
@viaro
Thank you.

Cheers, honeric01.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5716368#msg5716368 date=1268894957]there is such a thing as free will in the Church.[/quote]There is no such thing as 'free will' in a matter of institutional vows. One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married while under that vow and then retaining the privileges of the same institutional vow(s).

There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests,

Yes, there is case of at least a pope who resigned (Pope Benedict IX, May 1045) in order to get married - even selling his office to his godfather, the priest John Gratian, who named himself Gregory VI.

amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

That does not even begin to make any sense. Marriages fail not because of any intitutional vows of celibacy. Nada. Zilch. In the case of married priests, how many of them could claim that the successes of their marriages are because of such institutional vows of celibacy?

An institutional vow of celibacy at any level (from priest to pope) does not in itself work any miracles or magic that transform the lives of the vowers. This is why even pope Benedict IX, while holding the office of the pope and before he resigned to pursue marriage, was described in very unfortunate terms with regards to his lifestyle. He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders"; while Pope Victor III in his third book of Dialogues, referred to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."

The same could be said about any man in any religious, philosophical or non-religious system. An institutional vow does not in itself transform the life of the vower. For that reason (IMO), we read of many scandals both in the Catholic and the Protestant divides in christendom. You may have come across the List of Se[color=Black]xu[/color]ally Active Popes at Wikipedia.

I would rather say that God Himself transform the lives of His people in a way that no 'vows' are able to do.

Another thing people do not know.

THERE ARE MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Some of us actually know that - and we also know that in some cases these 'married priests' in the Catholic church were already married clergymen from other churches before they joined the Catholic church. Besides, in other cases, a few of these 'married priests' are not too happy with the inaccurate designation of 'ex-priests', for they are still priests but only 'ex-clerics'.

A married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry.

It is in this instance the talk about 'free will' becomes meaningless.

^^^^
(2)   Some RCCG pastors (like Moses Adekola) are/were objective:

[quote author=Asonzeh Franklin-Kennedy UKAH](page 161)

The amount of moneys that accrues to parishes, as tithes, donations and offerings remain one visible way of assessing and measuring the productivity and progressiveness of a pastor. As one senior pastor puts it, a pastor's “productivity must be  measurable and progressive”.¹⁵⁸  The measurable factors are tithes, attendance and  the number of church-workers.

Adekola (1989: 291)*, himself a senior pastor of RCCG at the time, writing over a decade ago about the role of finance in RCCG complains:

[list]religion has been commercialised today and people no longer heed the warning of Jesus that 'you cannot serve God and mammon' again. To exonerate the church under study (that is, the  RCCG) from this cankerworm is to be grossly unfair both to scholarship and justice.[/list]

Through different means the RCCG raises fund for diverse projects and clergy remuneration. As one of the pastors rightly says, “RCCG is one of the richest churches in Nigeria today.”¹⁵⁹ Another senior pastor says “a church that could not raise four hundred naira twenty years ago is now budgeting and spending four hundred million naira for a programme of three days”.¹⁶⁰
__________

notes:

¹⁵⁸   Personal interview with Pastor  'Delana Adeleye-Olusae, RCCG Headquarters, Ebute-Metta, Lagos, 14 May 2001. Adeleye-Olusae is the Assistant Director of Missions at the RCCG national headquarters.
¹⁵⁹   Pastor Joel Oke, “Tragedies of the Mission Opportunities”, Catalyst magazine vol. 1, no., 3 (October 2002), p. 27.
¹⁶⁰   Personal interview with pastor Ezekiel A. Odeyemi, RCCG national HQ, Ebute-Metta, Lagos, 4 June 2001.

* Adekola, Moses A. 1989. The Redeemed Christian Church of God: A Study of an Indigenous Pentecostal  Church in Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept of Religious Studies, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.[/quote]

^^ When we consider the big picture, the greater concern is not so much that some leaders will emerge to speak twisted things (Acts 20:30, ESV), but that these twisters will be encouraged by many of their listerners to continue in such things (2 Peter 2:2). That is precisely how perversion is birthed and nursed to full growth.

More excerpts from the doctoral dissertation by Asonzeh Franklin-Kennedy UKAH:


(1)   Tithe/tithing - part of qualification for ordination:

[quote author=Asonzeh Franklin-Kennedy UKAH](pages 128-129)

An assistant pastor remains in that position for at least five years “with real achievements”. Such achievements include the demonstration of enhanced productivity in terms of tithes and attendants. Furthermore, the candidate must have passed through the mandatory training at the Redeemed Christian Bible College (RCBC). This last condition came into effect in 2001.⁴¹ The above requirements are only necessary but not sufficient conditions for ordination, for there are other factors that are considered during screening for ordination.⁴²  Those who are assistant pastors on a part-time basis could remain on this rung for not less than eight years.⁴³

Fulfilling these conditions does not earn an aspirant automatic ordination. There are some conditions that may bring about denial of ordination. Such conditions include (i) a drop in the level of moneys collected as tithes; (ii) a decline in the number of church attendants (which is different from and higher than membership);  (iii) petition against a candidate by a church member.
________
⁴¹   Personal interview with Pastor Bolarinwa, op. cit.
⁴²   Personal interview with Pastor ‘Delana Adeleye-Olusae, op. cit.
⁴³   Redemption Light, Vol. 6, No. 8, September 2001, p. 17.[/quote]

karo93:
Acts.3.13 shows that Jesus is not the God of Abraham,isaac and jacob.

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

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

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

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

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

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

^^KunleOshob,

Please don't mind me. My stance may seem to have 'changed' only because I had been discussing with you guys largely on my ignorance on the Nigerian situation. I never realised how very serious and widespread this situation is in the Nigerian landscape even in large churches, but what is wrong is clearly wrong.

_________

^^Enigma,

Very good observation - this:

Enigma:
I wonder how long before the rest of the RCCG websites (such as South Africa and Netherlands above and etc) also take it off; if they do, don't be deceived, they will have only gone underground with it; internally they will still be fleecing their flock with both subtle and strong arm tactics.

You may be closer to the truth than I could imagine. Although this is not about bad-mouthing people for being members of the RCCG, it is not out of place to highlight what is questionable in the Body of Christ. I might be fortunate to fellowship in a Baptist church where I live in the UK, and if my own denomination is practising just about the same thing, I should stand to expose and frown on such tendency as well without favour.

Since the New Year 2010, I began looking at the Nigerian situation - whether churches within or those outside with a Nigerian connection. It just breaks my heart what I found. Sample this article by Pastor S.O.L Awobode from the Oyo Province 1 (emphasis mine) -

[quote author=Pastor S.O.L Awobode]2. Tithe: You need to sow your tithe. Your tithe is just 10% of your total earning, be it daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly, the rest belongs to you. Mal.3;10 says “bring ye all the tithes into the store house that there may be meat in my house and prove me now herewith saith the Lord of host if I will not open the windows of heaven and pour out blessing that there shall not be room to receive it”. Many thought that when they give their tithe it is the pastor that will spend it therefore they determine not to give it. Your responsibility stops where you obey God by paying the tithe, leave the rest to God to determine and judge. Everybody that steals God’s money god knows how to deal with him or her.

http://rccgvictoryarea.org/keys.htm[/quote]Notice the 'subtle and strong arm tactics' there. The official tithe doctrine of RCCG explicitly states that tithes are exclusively for the minister's welfare; but in the article above, pastor Awobode in the blue highlighted part tries to excuse the fact by saying "Many thought that when they give their tithe it is the pastor that will spend it therefore they determine not to give it." For pete's sakes, of course it is the pastors that will spend it - that is official "duty stamp" of RCCG tithe doctrine!

What amazes me is this: do RCCG members on Nairaland know anything about these matters? What would any believer say when his/her pastor/MOG is teaching that tithing is a prerequisite to heaven {“You do not pay your tithe, you do not go to Heaven”}?!?

nuella2:
@viaro
You said you are not against giving in churches, so what are you against just curious. We need to preach this gospel on television, internet, satelite, print and any possible means. God gave his best for us, so what can a christian give that can be too much. Even poor people gave thier very last in the bible, people sold thier properties in the early church. The riches of the christian is to finance the kingdom of God, i dont believe in building mansions here and let the work of God suffer. Afterall we are strangers here, this is not our home. Jesus is coming soon and we need to tell everybody about him and our money is involved. So should we only give when is convenient?  the remnants? or just give little and eat the rest? How and when should a christian give?  can a christian give too much as long as he is doing so willingly?

Thank you, nuella 2.

Indeed, viaro is not against giving. In very fact, I would encourage Christians to give to further the Gospel and most importantly to care for the needy in the Body of Christ.

However, what I stand against is the manner of giving where it becomes compulsory, obligatory or coerced in one form or another. We cannot deny that the NT is clear about this - that Christian giving should NOT be 'by force', or 'under compulsion', or 'obligatory' in any manner (2 Cor. 9:7).

I do not mean to harm anybody, trust me. Yet, we are very well admonished to be on the look out for those who use fair speeches to make merchandise of God's people (2 Peter 2:3). We should not support schemes that turn the Father's house into "an house of merchandise" (John 2:16).

In spite of these simple verses above, many pastors and leaders have found very subtle ways of preaching a 'commercial gospel' to their congregations. They do so by setting up various kinds of "payment schemes" and put on some sort of "duty stamp" on them. The whole thing assumes a 'legalised' scheme to the point that it becomes a sort of 'visa' to heaven. In simple terms, salvation is no longer free in such churches but must be 'purchased' by all under their canopy!

You don't have to look very far to recognize these "payment schemes" that commercialize the salvation of Christ. I'll give you very simple examples of what I mean -

[quote author=RCCG SA II Region]Tithe and Offering
Regular payment of tithe and offering is obligatory because it is God's command. It is God's way of providing for the Ministers in the Church. The ministers and other church employees are paid their food, allowance through tithe. The offering is used to cater for the needy in the Church. Tithe and Offering must be paid on every income e.g. salary, profit from business transaction, gifts, etc. Mal. 3:8-12; Gen. 14:19-20; Num. 18:20-21; Deut. 26:12-13; Lev. 27:30; Heb. 7:2-5; I Cor. 16:2; Matt. 23:23. Tithe is exclusively for the minister's welfare.

(1)  The Redeemed Christian Church of God, South Africa II Region

(2)  Also the RCCG Netherlands Mission[/quote]As if making tithe payments a regular affair on every single income (salary, business, gifts, etc) is not enough, or the "exclusive" factor stamped with assurance for "minister's welfare" not enough, you should know that failure to fulfill this "obligatory" payment will determine your place in HELL. See this study (a doctoral dissertation by Asonzeh Franklin-Kennedy UKAH, University of Bayreuth, pages 177-178 [PDF document]) -

[quote author=Asonzeh Franklin-Kennedy UKAH]The church’s Constitution specifies that members of the church “are expected to give tithes of their income towards the general purposes of the church” (art. 23; ii). Adeboye has, however, reinterpreted this provision in the light of his understanding of the scriptures and directs that revenue from tithe be exclusively devoted to the welfare of ministers of the church.

For the church, tithe and tithing is so central that it is a prerequisite for entering into heaven “You do not pay your tithe, you do not go to Heaven”.²³⁵  Those who cut or jump tithes are called “children of perdition” who will end up in the devil's house where there is a great deal of fire.²³⁶  The reason why they will end up in hell is that there are no robbers in heaven and cutting tithes is an act of robbery against God, the church and the ministers.²³⁷

_________

footnote:

²³⁵  Adeboye, Behold He Cometh, op cit., p.25

²³⁶  Adeboye, The Son of Perdition, Lagos: CRM, n.d., p. 15
 
²³⁷  Tithe collection is a form of taxation. However, the ministers are not accountable to the people from whose taxes they are paid their salaries. Since the church is not a democratic institution, it has no position that requires voting or being voted for, or structure that articulates the problems or  opinions of the laity. The RCCG as an institution thus represents a typical case of taxation without representation.[/quote]There are far too many examples I can give you where the RCCG taxes believers in very subtle ways. Many people are quite familiar with the example above, and it is chosen here to illustrate why this "payment scheme" for heaven is nothing short of a perverse gospel that sells redemption to people.

One cannot but ask: what has happened to the vicarious work of the Lord Jesus Christ that freely and completely saves a believer? Is redemption now a thing to be bought and sold in such subtle language?

What is even far more heinous is that believers in their millions are happy to be duped by such subtle 'payment schemes' - a sort of taxation that turns the Father's house into 'a house of merchandise'. Those who turn a blind eye to these perversion and excuse it away with such clichés like 'touch not mine anointed and do my prophet no harm'. As long as we keep mute and applaud these perversion in religious language, these "tax payment schemes" will continue to be peddled by the "exclusive ministers" who sell redemption to the public in their various camps.

I do not mean to hurt anyone. However, we cannot close our eyes to any scheme that sells redemption to any believer in whatever religious and 'spiritual' forms. May we have the boldness of faith with Peter to declare to these 'exclusive ministers': "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money"  (Acts 8:20).

karo93:
Viaro

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

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

karo93:
Viaro
it pains me to see that the only reply you could give was that against a typographical error for what do i stand to gain from "us" in the verse?.i expected more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joagbaje:
Nobody is forced into any giving in Gods house, People that gives are the one benefiting.

I already anticipated people like you would be making such excuses -

viaro:
well, of course, you will at this time be reading and hearing things like: "it is not by force - it is their choice".

@Joagbaje, when you say that "nobody is forced", have you considered what is meant by "obligatory"? Please go and carefully consider this before you assert what you have no clue about.

@karo93,

karo93:
Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors has given us divine glory to HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.

karo93:
Acts.3.13
The God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of our ancestors has given us divine glory to HIS SERVANT JESUS CHRIST.

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

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

compare with your twist -

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

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

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

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

karo93:
THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.

Stop lying. It belittles you as a person.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

afrobaby:
is tithe not meant to be used in the church? Why do we have to pay tithes, pay offering and still pay some other offerings again, [pls someone should explain to me

It should be obvious that something is wrong here (not wrong with you, afrobaby - but certainly wrong with the system asking all these "payments". I've wondered about all these things, because my experience is quite different from what many people express about the widespread Nigerian situation on tithes and all other types and shades of offering 'payments'.

While trying to understand the Nigerian scenario in these types of 'payments', I was struck with the fact that quite a handful of obligations are factored out to be met by congregants:

 Tithe :
 Worship Offering :
 Thanksgiving Offering :
 Free Will Offering :
 Missions Support :
 First Fruit :
 G.O. Partners Support :
 Others (Please specify) :

 Special Occasion offering :
 Special Project offering (e.g., Rapsody of reality offering) :
 Special Visitation offering (so-and-so is coming to town) :
 Seed-sowing offering :
 Faith offering :
 Building Project/Improvement offering :
 etc.-etc. offering (part 1)
 etc.-etc. offering (part 2)
 Normal Church offering (this is always at the bottom) :

Now, of course, not all that are listed above applies to any single church at the same time. However, the first eight listed (highlighted in purple) are what obtains in RCCG. You can see a sample online here.

It is not that simple as if there are only eight "payment" schemes as listed and highlighted above in the RRCG. Some of those particular schemes are elaborated into groups where specific amounts are determined (and advertised) so that payers can then find where they fit into. An example of such an elaboration is the collection scheme called "RCCG Covenant Partners". I'll let them speak directly from [url=http://]themselves[/url]:

[list]Welcome to RCCG Covenant Partners Page. This page is for special people who have decided to partner with Daddy GO, Pastor E. A. Adeboye in the work of the Lord. The Covenant Partner Group is divided into the following categories.

Group 1
Fasting and prayer for 20 days for 3 months in a year; February, July and December either 14 days all through or 10 days breaking at 6.00pm and 10 days continuous for the next 10 years.

Group 2
Manual Labour at the Camp for 60 days in a year i.e. January – July, February - August, March - September etc for the next 10 year or payment of $500.00 (N60,000) per annum.

Group 3
Payment of $7,500.00 (1 Million Naira) per year for the next 10 year.

Group 4
Payment of $75,000.00 (10 million Naira) per year for the next 10 years

Group 5
Daily fasting and prayer for the whole of February, July and December excluding 25th of December for the next 10 years.

Group 6
Payment of $100 - $1,000. (N1,000 – N100,000 Naira) for the next 10 years with one day fasting and prayer per week.

Group 7
The combination of all Group i.e. Fasting and Prayer, Manual Labour and $7,500.00 (N1 Million Naira) for the next 10 years.[/list]

well, of course, you will at this time be reading and hearing things like: "it is not by force - it is their choice". Hang on .[color=Black].[/color]. who says this is all about "choice"? Just click on the 'Make A Donation' icon on the lefthand and you will find the catch-22: "The monthly obligation of our work is increasing with added responsibilities each passing month."

Yes, it is a "monthly obligation" - which probably explains why you MUST "pay" up .[color=Black].[/color]. or else, you know you will end up in HELL according to the RCCG doctrine on tithes.

Do I hear more loud screams from RCCG? I didn't write out the "payment" schemes for RCCG, so please check yourself before tearing out your hair.


Disclaimer: I have loads of friends in RCCG, and observing these things does not mean I was looking to hurt anyone. As my fav Arab proverb has it: "Examine what is said, not him who speaks." _{In KJV style, that would read as: 'examine that which is spoken, not he that speaketh!'}

^^

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you're done with the username 'DeepSight', come back to Nairaland with something more lethargic - like de[color=Black]epsh[/color]it.

Pastor AIO:
I believe that Imhotep was referring to the Zen schools and the Chan schools of Buddhism. These schools of buddhism seek to confound any conceptual way of thinking about God or Reality.

My deepest respects, Pastor AIO - that's correct. In my careless assumption I'd not carefully considered the specifics, which is why I appreciate krayola's point here:

Krayola:
IMO there is no Buddhism, but Buddhisms. There are several expressions of Buddhism some with more dogma (IMO, ridiculous stuff) than others. Your statement is quite inaccurate, and IMHO, superficial.

@Krayola, I am deeply sorry to learn about your aunt. Please receive my heartfelt condolences.

nuella2:
But alot of Gods children do not know there place and just die like mere men, BUT wisdom is applicable in all things o, dont go and stand in front of a moving vehicle and say you are not ordinary. Am not ordinary,

Where is the superhuman OP of this thread?

49cents:
Chukwudi is not trying to syit up a catholic-pentecostal battle; the point he was trying to make is that celibacy is not the cause of sexual misconduct on the part of a priest since married pastors to fall too as well.

I don't remember anyone arguing that celibacy was the cause of any s[color=Black]e[/color]xual misconduct. The issue I responded to in smile4kenn's was whether it was better to remain celibate, whether it is a question of 'total commitment' from pastors or any other Christian.

It goes without saying that celibacy is not a cause of misconduct or piety. It is a choice, and not an institution.

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

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

Again, I should remind you of this pertinent question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[list][quote author=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).[/quote][/list]


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

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

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

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

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

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

[list](1) [quote author=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.[/quote][/list]

[list](2)

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

[/list]

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

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

Why did you conveniently dodge those questions, DeepSight?

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

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

Deep Sight:
Stop fiddling about with such crass desperation.

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

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

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[list]

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

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

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

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

[/list]

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

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][quote author=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.[/quote][quote author=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.[/quote][/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][quote author=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).[/quote][/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.

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!

Hello chukwudi44,

I would agree with honeric01 that we don't turn this thread into a battle between Pentecostals and Catholics. It never works that way but only furthers problems. So, let me deal with just onething here:

chukwudi44:
The fact is that he acts of sexual misconducts can not be stopped even if the celibacy were to be lifted it would still happen.If you doubt me check the immoral lifestyle of most penterascal pastors.

There are three things about celibacy in religious matters - please check Matthew 19:12. However, celibacy is a choice, not an institution. Whether someone chooses celibacy or not, does not mean that they automatically are immune [color=Black]to se[/color]xual desires. It is for that reason that those who desire to serve God in leadership capacities are urged to marry (1 Tim. 3:2 and Ti[color=Black]t[/color]us 1:6-7) rather than bind themselves to institutions of celibacy.

smile4kenn:
It is better they remain a celibate. God needs total commitment from pastors.

1 Corinthians 7 verse 9 -

New Living Translation: But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.

CEV: But if you don't have enough self-control, then go ahead and get married. After all, it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Amplified Version: But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire].

Haha, I laugh in tangerine! Don't kid yourselves, pals. The OP already outlined FOUR of its dogmas in Buddhism, so we really can't say that Buddhism has no dogma, could we?

And as to the farce of 'concept-less' and 'image-less' experience of God, that is a huge Monday-laugh! Please go and read up on Buddhism proper before making vacant assertions.

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.

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 .[color=Black].[/color]. 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:
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 .[color=Black].[/color]. 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 .[color=Black].[/color]. 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 .[color=Black].[/color]. 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.