₦airaland Forum

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][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]

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:
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?

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?

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.

Gunnaz007:
Criticisms against Pastors is an attack on the annointing and we as Christians should desist from such acts because although they (Pastors) are anointed, they also are human beings still working towards their own perfection!

With due respect, not only should careless "pastors" be criticized, they should be exposed if any one of them begins to preach a corrupt message for filthy lucre's sake. READ your Bible - it's all there! Hooligans with religious positions in many "churches" will do very well in their trade when the followers are too gullible to not ask questions where it really matters.

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake."

Titus 1:10-11 is still in your Bible, no?

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 -

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(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.

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(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"?

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(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.

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.

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.

Deep Sight:
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.

Hehehe . . .  why don't you simply refer to viaro? What is all this hanky-panky about "all you who say . . ."??

I was not encouraging a breach of the forum rules. You're free to do as you please if being petty is all there is to your career. Not that I give a flip, though - no. If it comes down to showing you up for the sort of person you are, gravity might bend time on your behalf . . . afterall, I have just been entertained on your conceit on 'monogenēs' stuff.

All this is really making for wonders . . . the 'complexity' and 'superhumanity' of the way you Deepsight scream out falsehood at others when you never take care of your own quarters on falsehood - boy! that must be truly "complex" indeed. The topic doesn't seem to matter to you anymore.

@Purist,

Thank you so much for highlighting your concerns, even though we may in deference to the OP let it stand as is. I should note my acknowledgement of your concern that my statement may sound 'ridiculous' where the context of what I stated may not have come across. Yes indeed, some may not be too concerned about specifics in these matters; that was why I was particular about DeepSight's deism, and not Deism in general.

Best regards.

@DeepSight,

Part (3),

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

[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]https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[quote author=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.[/quote]https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[quote author=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[/quote]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.

@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:

[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. 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]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 (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:

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[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] 

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

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.

karo93:
i still dont know your "reasonable point" for all these so let me know.

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

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

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

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

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

karo93:
viaro
the last time i asked you that question you said your God could not be contained by rigid bla bla bla , so why do you say it has been adressed.do it now[directly] and we will move forward.

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

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

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

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

---

(1)

karo93:
First begotten means that jesus was the first occurrence of a SON which God caused to be.

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

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif
(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.

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif
(3)

karo93:
There is no other first or only begotten Son of God that i know of.

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

---

There, please attend them.

karo93:
Viaro i want to know your foundation views[so we get somewhere in the end] as mine are clear so you could answer these questions for me

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

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

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

Deep Sight:
Sir: I have not said that there is a God in Atheism.

But you did say, dear sir, that the atheist is a "better worshipper" of a 'God' you have refused to identify only to return today and try to turn this thread into your platform to argue Christianity. That is something I would expect you to consider - a dubious exercise like that makes a sorry case for your style of discussing.

I urged you to consider that the lifestyle of the Atheist may be more in consonance with the will of the God that you and other Theists profess.

The atheist "worships" nothing - no God, no deity, no devas, no deistic OOI. This thread was not about lifestyle comparing between worldviews, but you have left off your OP and tried to gull the reader to make it into something else. Thus, if you are asserting the atheist to be a "worshipper" (whether "better worshipper" or any other type at any rate), then I reckon the first thing that atheist would ask is this: 'DeepSight, show me that 'God' that you think is worshipped by the atheist'. Why is that a most difficult thing for you to show in ATHEISM? Oh, we know why already: because your assertions are unfounded and dubious.

I believe the parable of the Good Samaritan bears this out.

The parable of the Good Samaritan has nothing to do with the atheist "worshipping" any 'God'.

The back-and-forth on the very same things which I have said already is frankly irritating.

You can take the blame all by yourself. Your pathetic duplicity in dragooning the atheist into a "worship" was quite out of this world, not to mention irritating.

I can't say anything more.

Just zip it - you had absolutely nothing to say that made any sense and have never stood to reason intelligently in the first place.

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

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

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

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

What might be a mystery is the nature of God.

Oh, look who's talking now!

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

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

"Its a mystery!"

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

Deep Sight:
^^^ You surprise me.

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

I subscribe to this.

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

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

I wonder what else you want me to subscribe to?

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

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

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

Really what? ? ?

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

The day will come when you will tire of this.

Hahaha! You're already crying??

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

Deep Sight:
^^^ I said it all already -

What else is there to add?

I was very specific in everything -


Can't add anymore to it. Its a simple enough statement to make that whereas the Theist may disdain the atheist, the lifestyle of the Atheist may actually be more fulfulling of the will of God - whom the Theist describes and subcribes to.

And why are you evading this reply that spells out my simple request? ----

viaro:
Okay, here.

DeepSight, I've looked through your post and saw nothing of substance to invite a reply. I've made the salient points needing your attention, but since you provided none I let you be. However, since you're seeking a reply from me (as you said in the other thread), that's why I came here to make a few comments.

Please give me an identity of your own 'God'.

I've said that this thread cannot be switched on magically to become an platform for discussing Christian issues. From the OP you made clear that you wanted to discuss the merits of Buddhism, and that was why I initially avoided it. besides, I was one of the first to note that Buddhism actually makes reference to 'God' but not in the theistic sense generally. So, it is either you have to sort yourself out on that most crucial point if you want to make any sense, or we just let you enjoy scuttling round your unfounded assertions.

Nonetheless, when you talk about the atheist being a "better worshipper" of 'God', I wondered where you got the idea that any atheist makes any appeal to 'God' in their outlook - and even that one you have never at any time tried to answer. If you keep evading germane issues, how does anyone gain anything from your evasive arguments, DeepSight? Why did you refuse to identify your own 'God' specifically? Why was that a very difficult thing?

When you come here pretending to talk about Buddhism and the atheist being a "worshipper" of 'God', I wanted you to be clear on specifics. As far as we know, atheists do not make any appeal to 'God' let alone be termed 'worshippers'. This has nothing to do with the sleight of hand you introduced about the question of whether people are 'good' or 'bad' - rather, it has everything to do with your identifying that 'God' in Buddhism for the atheist, as well show them how they are 'worshipping' that 'God'. To turn round and dribble in arguments that are not germane to your subject on Buddhism is only showing your tendency to be dubious at every opportunity.

Yes, I am willing to discuss - and I most definitely will reply your post just above. But if you again refuse to oblige, then I might as well conclude that you really wanted to be dubious once again and had nothing to offer in this thread - not even a dot to benefit you, let alone the atheist that you're trying to goon on your fallacy.

So, that is the first question I would ask you to deal with before any other discussion: please identify your own 'God' more specifically and let's see where it stands in all your talk about Buddhism and the atheist worshipping that 'God' which you refused to identify in your deism.

. . . as well this one ----

viaro:
That is rather dubious, in so far as you categorically refused to identify your own 'God'. How has this thread with the title 'Buddhism' suddenly become a platform to discuss Christianity?

Excuse me to say this by way of repetition: I saw the pretences from the onset and had the premonition that you really were going to switch midway and jump on to Christianity. Otherwise I don't see how you would have refused identifying the 'God' of your deism as the foundation of your talk about Buddhism so you can dragoon the atheist into all that fluff. As soon as you get down to specifics in the same way as you outlined specifics on Buddhism in the OP, you will then see why all your talk is hanging in the air and not making any sense at all.

This is why this part of your response was well anticipated:


That was only today in your recent post of #63, and not as if that was your subject from page 1. And if you insist on that, then again there are a few things I would request of you:

(1) please read my post in #19 again and oblige those 4 points;

(2) then let me know if you are now saying that you as a deist identifies your own 'God' as the same which Jesus in the New Testament preached.

(3) you would then identify the reference in Buddhism and atheism where that same 'God' is the foundation of this thread.

(4) and so, you next have to reconcile your appeal to this 'God' with your assertion in the OP that -

(a) "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"

(b) "Atheists, come on board .[color=Black].[/color]. Don't worry, it says nothing about God!"

Particularly on (4) above, it seems that you're trying to gull the reader by asserting something and then arguing the direct opposite. It is that kind of legerdemain that cannot just pass in the way you discuss any subject. One does not have to resort to these underhanded means to argue obvious fallacies as in your case, so why bother? It is just obvious that when your arguments are closely examined, you never stand up to keep on a sturdy leg.

You like to dribble here and there and end up saying absolutely nothing. Go ahead and spin round all you want, your assertions about the atheist being a "better worships" still hangs in the air - please show the 'God' in atheism and let's get talking [size=14pt]if[/size] you dare!

Deep Sight:
^^^ The Creator of all that exists.

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

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

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

^^ You said nothing but dribbled here and there. That was why I initially let you on your drama in this thread. Now when it comes to actually saying something, you decline and say nothing. No surprises there.

Deep Sight:
^^^ The appeal to mytery is just escapism.

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

Quaint.

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

karo93:
First begotten means that jesus was the first occurrence of a SON which God caused to be.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is your point?

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

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

Deep Sight:
Does an unchangeable God change state?

Does a perfect God take on imperfection?

I laugh!

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

Deep Sight:
Let's leave it then. It was clear within my post the God i referred to and what I thought may be relevant to please him - whether the subject belives that such a God exists or not.

That is rather dubious, in so far as you categorically refused to identify your own 'God'. How has this thread with the title 'Buddhism' suddenly become a platform to discuss Christianity?

Excuse me to say this by way of repetition: I saw the pretences from the onset and had the premonition that you really were going to switch midway and jump on to Christianity. Otherwise I don't see how you would have refused identifying the 'God' of your deism as the foundation of your talk about Buddhism so you can dragoon the atheist into all that fluff. As soon as you get down to specifics in the same way as you outlined specifics on Buddhism in the OP, you will then see why all your talk is hanging in the air and not making any sense at all.

This is why this part of your response was well anticipated:

Deep Sight:
I said -

I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity -  certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

That was only today in your recent post of #63, and not as if that was your subject from page 1. And if you insist on that, then again there are a few things I would request of you:

(1)   please read my post in #19 again and oblige those 4 points;

(2)   then let me know if you are now saying that you as a deist identifies your own 'God' as the same which Jesus in the New Testament preached.

(3)   you would then identify the reference in Buddhism and atheism where that same 'God' is the foundation of this thread.

(4)    and so, you next have to reconcile your appeal to this 'God' with your assertion in the OP that - 

           (a)   "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"

           (b)   "Atheists, come on board .[color=Black].[/color]. Don't worry, it says nothing about God!"

Particularly on (4) above, it seems that you're trying to gull the reader by asserting something and then arguing the direct opposite. It is that kind of legerdemain that cannot just pass in the way you discuss any subject. One does not have to resort to these underhanded means to argue obvious fallacies as in your case, so why bother? It is just obvious that when your arguments are closely examined, you never stand up to keep on a sturdy leg.

karo93:
and while i am at it i want to know what you believe"begotten" to mean? other than being brought into existence by someone else which makes that person your superior.

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

I'm sure you never read through my post at #305. If you ever did, you would not come back and ask that same question. Nice try. Why don't you look for another excuse?

kenn4smile:
Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry and have families?

Good questions. But I thought that's what the other thread ('Should Catholic Priests be Allowed to Get Married?') is addressing? --
{"Must you be a celibate, before you can serve God?  Where did did catholics get the doctrine of mandatory celibacy, for reverend fathers, even when they are conspicuously not keeping to it?"}

karo93:
viaro i did not say they are separate gods i say that only the father is God and the others are his subordinates.

I have seen your questions and will answer them properly before i bring in more points. i just dont know the need of the questions hence i have to make sure they are answered to suit any reason for which you may want them.

Please address those questions. Your continued attempt to argue tritheism is no longer amusing but rather getting boring as it is.

karo93:
Oh! viaro i now get your understanding of the trinity[correct me if i am wrong] you believe it to be similar to the husband and wife as one.

this clearly shows us that though they are one flesh;they are not the same person and yet they are called couple[God] they are two different people. and that is my point.

while jesus is one with God[because he follows his fathers ways as solidified in jn.14.20 where his disciples are in him too]he is not yahweh just as a wife does not bear her husbands real name but his family name.

According to your belief jesus is one flesh with God but assuming my marraige analogy is correct they are not the same person so jesus is not Yahweh.

Please don't put words in my mouth. What you're doing is preaching your tritheism, not Trinity. The relationship in the Godhead does not make Jesus one God while the Father is another God - where did I ever imply that in any one of my posts?

Besides, karo93, why is it taking you more than eternity to answer those questions? I have answered every single objection you whip up, quoted other verses to compare them, and presented you with some questions. First you complained that you did not see the questions - and I have reminded you in recent posts no less than twice at least! Why are you always and forever dodging questions so you can come back with new fallacies?