Article: Definition of Monogenes by Scott Jones - Revision history

Beza 1598 at 14:21, 8 March 2016

2016-03-08T14:21:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 8 March 2016
Line 61:		Line 61:

	* [http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm Definition of Monogenes] by [[Scott Jones]]		* [http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm Definition of Monogenes] by [[Scott Jones]]

			{{Donate}}

Nick: /* Modern Versions */

2011-01-14T21:41:32Z

Modern Versions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 14 January 2011
Line 46:		Line 46:


	"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."		::"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

Nick: /* See Also */

2011-01-14T21:40:55Z

Nick: /* Modern Versions */

2011-01-14T21:39:42Z

Modern Versions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 14 January 2011
Line 50:		Line 50:

	θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο		θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο


	End of article.		End of article.

Nick: /* Modern Versions */

2011-01-14T21:39:32Z

Modern Versions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:39, 14 January 2011
Line 43:		Line 43:


	For now, hear the ~~TRUE~~ and ~~ACCURATE~~ translation of [[John 1:18]] –-		For now, hear the '''''true''''' and '''''accurate''''' translation of [[John 1:18]] –-

Nick: /* Modern Versions */

2011-01-14T21:38:57Z

Modern Versions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 14 January 2011
Line 37:		Line 37:


	Any bible version which translates '''''monogenes''''' as '''''unique''''' or '''''one and only''''' or '''''one of a kind''''' - in short, any bible version which forces generational descent out of the semantic domain of '''''monogenes''''' - has grossly blundered, especially in those passages relating to the eternally begotten Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, since the eternal generation of the Son – that is, the '''''only-begotteness''''' of the Son, ergo, the eternal '''''begetting''''' of the Son - the very '''''action''''' '''''of''''' '''''begetting''''', and begetting '''''eternally''''' - thus establishing '''''consubstantial identity''''' - a '''''begetting''''', as the Scripture so plainly reveals to the truly born again, which happens to be ~~THE~~ cardinal revelation undergirding the Trinity, thereby fixing the Godhead of Jesus Christ immutably, a fixing which only '''''begetting''''' can achieve - which begetting '''''alone''''' can achieve, this '''''begetting''''' thereby '''''defining''''' the Trinity and giving it form - that is, this '''''begetting''''' revealing the '''''doctrine''''' of the Trinity itself, a doctrine that would be forever hidden and withheld from men and angels alike were it not revealed by the Holy Ghost that the Eternal Son of God was '''''begotten''''', and begotten '''''eternally''''' from the '''''same substance''''' as the Father and the Holy Ghost. But alas, the Trinity is nevertheless a doctrine that modern bibles and modern theologians habitually assail with unrelenting malice - one example being their iniquitous attempt to redefine '''''monogenes''''', as shown here (but only one example of '''''many''''') - even though these same theologians and scholars protest and claim otherwise - some of them even claiming to believe in the Trinity - yet never realizing that their own syntax and verbiage betrays them (blind leaders of the blind) and warns the truly born again that these false teachers are themselves unregenerate.		Any bible version which translates '''''monogenes''''' as '''''unique''''' or '''''one and only''''' or '''''one of a kind''''' - in short, any bible version which forces generational descent out of the semantic domain of '''''monogenes''''' - has grossly blundered, especially in those passages relating to the eternally begotten Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, since the eternal generation of the Son – that is, the '''''only-begotteness''''' of the Son, ergo, the eternal '''''begetting''''' of the Son - the very '''''action''''' '''''of''''' '''''begetting''''', and begetting '''''eternally''''' - thus establishing '''''consubstantial identity''''' - a '''''begetting''''', as the Scripture so plainly reveals to the truly born again, which happens to be '''''the''''' cardinal revelation undergirding the Trinity, thereby fixing the Godhead of Jesus Christ immutably, a fixing which only '''''begetting''''' can achieve - which begetting '''''alone''''' can achieve, this '''''begetting''''' thereby '''''defining''''' the Trinity and giving it form - that is, this '''''begetting''''' revealing the '''''doctrine''''' of the Trinity itself, a doctrine that would be forever hidden and withheld from men and angels alike were it not revealed by the Holy Ghost that the Eternal Son of God was '''''begotten''''', and begotten '''''eternally''''' from the '''''same substance''''' as the Father and the Holy Ghost. But alas, the Trinity is nevertheless a doctrine that modern bibles and modern theologians habitually assail with unrelenting malice - one example being their iniquitous attempt to redefine '''''monogenes''''', as shown here (but only one example of '''''many''''') - even though these same theologians and scholars protest and claim otherwise - some of them even claiming to believe in the Trinity - yet never realizing that their own syntax and verbiage betrays them (blind leaders of the blind) and warns the truly born again that these false teachers are themselves unregenerate.

Nick: /* Modern Versions */

2011-01-14T21:36:32Z

Modern Versions

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 14 January 2011
Line 37:		Line 37:


	Any bible version which translates '''''monogenes''''' as '''''unique''''' or '''''one and only''''' or '''''one of a kind''''' - in short, any bible version which forces generational descent out of the semantic domain of '''''monogenes''''' - has grossly blundered, especially in those passages relating to the eternally begotten Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, since the eternal generation of the Son – that is, the '''''only-begotteness''''' of the Son, ergo, the eternal '''''begetting''''' of the Son - the very '''''action''''' '''''of''''' '''''begetting''''', and begetting '''''eternally''''' - thus establishing ~~CONSUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY~~ - a '''''begetting''''', as the Scripture so plainly reveals to the truly born again, which happens to be THE cardinal revelation undergirding the Trinity, thereby fixing the Godhead of Jesus Christ immutably, a fixing which only '''''begetting''''' can achieve - which begetting '''''alone''''' can achieve, this '''''begetting''''' thereby ~~DEFINING~~ the Trinity and giving it form - that is, this '''''begetting''''' revealing the '''''doctrine''''' of the Trinity itself, a doctrine that would be forever hidden and withheld from men and angels alike were it not revealed by the Holy Ghost that the Eternal Son of God was '''''begotten''''', and begotten '''''eternally''''' from the '''''same substance''''' as the Father and the Holy Ghost. But alas, the Trinity is nevertheless a doctrine that modern bibles and modern theologians habitually assail with unrelenting malice - one example being their iniquitous attempt to redefine '''''monogenes''''', as shown here (but only one example of '''''many''''') - even though these same theologians and scholars protest and claim otherwise - some of them even claiming to believe in the Trinity - yet never realizing that their own syntax and verbiage betrays them (blind leaders of the blind) and warns the truly born again that these false teachers are themselves unregenerate.		Any bible version which translates '''''monogenes''''' as '''''unique''''' or '''''one and only''''' or '''''one of a kind''''' - in short, any bible version which forces generational descent out of the semantic domain of '''''monogenes''''' - has grossly blundered, especially in those passages relating to the eternally begotten Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, since the eternal generation of the Son – that is, the '''''only-begotteness''''' of the Son, ergo, the eternal '''''begetting''''' of the Son - the very '''''action''''' '''''of''''' '''''begetting''''', and begetting '''''eternally''''' - thus establishing '''''consubstantial identity''''' - a '''''begetting''''', as the Scripture so plainly reveals to the truly born again, which happens to be THE cardinal revelation undergirding the Trinity, thereby fixing the Godhead of Jesus Christ immutably, a fixing which only '''''begetting''''' can achieve - which begetting '''''alone''''' can achieve, this '''''begetting''''' thereby '''''defining''''' the Trinity and giving it form - that is, this '''''begetting''''' revealing the '''''doctrine''''' of the Trinity itself, a doctrine that would be forever hidden and withheld from men and angels alike were it not revealed by the Holy Ghost that the Eternal Son of God was '''''begotten''''', and begotten '''''eternally''''' from the '''''same substance''''' as the Father and the Holy Ghost. But alas, the Trinity is nevertheless a doctrine that modern bibles and modern theologians habitually assail with unrelenting malice - one example being their iniquitous attempt to redefine '''''monogenes''''', as shown here (but only one example of '''''many''''') - even though these same theologians and scholars protest and claim otherwise - some of them even claiming to believe in the Trinity - yet never realizing that their own syntax and verbiage betrays them (blind leaders of the blind) and warns the truly born again that these false teachers are themselves unregenerate.

Nick at 21:34, 14 January 2011

2011-01-14T21:34:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 14 January 2011
Line 37:		Line 37:


	Any bible version which translates ~~MONOGENES~~ as ~~UNIQUE~~ or ~~ONE AND ONLY~~ or ~~ONE OF A KIND~~ - in short, any bible version which forces generational descent out of the semantic domain of ~~MONOGENES~~ - has grossly blundered, especially in those passages relating to the eternally begotten Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, since the eternal generation of the Son – that is, the ~~ONLY~~-~~BEGOTTENESS~~ of the Son, ergo, the eternal ~~BEGETTING~~ of the Son - the very ~~ACTION OF BEGETTING~~, and begetting ~~ETERNALLY~~ - thus establishing CONSUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY - a ~~BEGETTING~~, as the Scripture so plainly reveals to the truly born again, which happens to be THE cardinal revelation undergirding the Trinity, thereby fixing the Godhead of Jesus Christ immutably, a fixing which only ~~BEGETTING~~ can achieve - which begetting ~~ALONE~~ can achieve, this ~~BEGETTING~~ thereby DEFINING the Trinity and giving it form - that is, this ~~BEGETTING~~ revealing the ~~DOCTRINE~~ of the Trinity itself, a doctrine that would be forever hidden and withheld from men and angels alike were it not revealed by the Holy Ghost that the Eternal Son of God was ~~BEGOTTEN~~, and begotten ~~ETERNALLY~~ from the ~~SAME SUBSTANCE~~ as the Father and the Holy Ghost. But alas, the Trinity is nevertheless a doctrine that modern bibles and modern theologians habitually assail with unrelenting malice - one example being their iniquitous attempt to redefine ~~MONOGENES~~, as shown here (but only one example of ~~MANY~~) - even though these same theologians and scholars protest and claim otherwise - some of them even claiming to believe in the Trinity - yet never realizing that their own syntax and verbiage betrays them (blind leaders of the blind) and warns the truly born again that these false teachers are themselves unregenerate.		Any bible version which translates '''''monogenes''''' as '''''unique''''' or '''''one and only''''' or '''''one of a kind''''' - in short, any bible version which forces generational descent out of the semantic domain of '''''monogenes''''' - has grossly blundered, especially in those passages relating to the eternally begotten Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, since the eternal generation of the Son – that is, the '''''only-begotteness''''' of the Son, ergo, the eternal '''''begetting''''' of the Son - the very '''''action''''' '''''of''''' '''''begetting''''', and begetting '''''eternally''''' - thus establishing CONSUBSTANTIAL IDENTITY - a '''''begetting''''', as the Scripture so plainly reveals to the truly born again, which happens to be THE cardinal revelation undergirding the Trinity, thereby fixing the Godhead of Jesus Christ immutably, a fixing which only '''''begetting''''' can achieve - which begetting '''''alone''''' can achieve, this '''''begetting''''' thereby DEFINING the Trinity and giving it form - that is, this '''''begetting''''' revealing the '''''doctrine''''' of the Trinity itself, a doctrine that would be forever hidden and withheld from men and angels alike were it not revealed by the Holy Ghost that the Eternal Son of God was '''''begotten''''', and begotten '''''eternally''''' from the '''''same substance''''' as the Father and the Holy Ghost. But alas, the Trinity is nevertheless a doctrine that modern bibles and modern theologians habitually assail with unrelenting malice - one example being their iniquitous attempt to redefine '''''monogenes''''', as shown here (but only one example of '''''many''''') - even though these same theologians and scholars protest and claim otherwise - some of them even claiming to believe in the Trinity - yet never realizing that their own syntax and verbiage betrays them (blind leaders of the blind) and warns the truly born again that these false teachers are themselves unregenerate.


Line 51:		Line 51:
	θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο		θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο

			End of article.

	==See Also==		==See Also==

	* [[Scott Jones]]		* [[Scott Jones]]

Nick: /* Modern Greek */

2011-01-14T21:26:34Z

Modern Greek

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 14 January 2011
Line 4:		Line 4:

	==Modern Greek==		==Modern Greek==


	It is well-known among native Greeks that modern Greek morphology is virtually identical to Koine/Biblical morphology. That means the language has been relatively stable for the past two thousand years and thus the definitions have undergone virtually no change as well.		It is well-known among native Greeks that modern Greek morphology is virtually identical to Koine/Biblical morphology. That means the language has been relatively stable for the past two thousand years and thus the definitions have undergone virtually no change as well.
Line 12:		Line 13:

	Following their own vain imaginations down the corrupt path of their own inner delusions in their never-ending and systematic attempt to devalue the Eternal Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, the modern Anglo-Sanhedrin states that '''''monogenes''''' (μονογενὴς) means '''''unique'''''. Of course, only a non-Greek speaker or someone with a '''''huge''''' theological bent would make such an ignorant statement, as the Greek language has had a different word for '''''unique''''' for more than two thousand years.		Following their own vain imaginations down the corrupt path of their own inner delusions in their never-ending and systematic attempt to devalue the Eternal Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, the modern Anglo-Sanhedrin states that '''''monogenes''''' (μονογενὴς) means '''''unique'''''. Of course, only a non-Greek speaker or someone with a '''''huge''''' theological bent would make such an ignorant statement, as the Greek language has had a different word for '''''unique''''' for more than two thousand years.


	==Monogenes==		==Monogenes==

Nick: /* Modern Greek */

2011-01-14T21:26:24Z

Modern Greek

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 14 January 2011
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Following their own vain imaginations down the corrupt path of their own inner delusions in their never-ending and systematic attempt to devalue the Eternal Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, the modern Anglo-Sanhedrin states that '''''monogenes''''' (μονογενὴς) means '''''unique'''''. Of course, only a non-Greek speaker or someone with a '''''huge''''' theological bent would make such an ignorant statement, as the Greek language has had a different word for '''''unique''''' for more than two thousand years.		Following their own vain imaginations down the corrupt path of their own inner delusions in their never-ending and systematic attempt to devalue the Eternal Son of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, the modern Anglo-Sanhedrin states that '''''monogenes''''' (μονογενὴς) means '''''unique'''''. Of course, only a non-Greek speaker or someone with a '''''huge''''' theological bent would make such an ignorant statement, as the Greek language has had a different word for '''''unique''''' for more than two thousand years.

	~~''Italic text''~~==Monogenes==
			==Monogenes==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 14 January 2011
Line 57:		Line 57:

	* [[Scott Jones]]		* [[Scott Jones]]

			==External Links==

			* [http://www.lamblion.net/Articles/ScottJones/monogenes.htm Definition of Monogenes] by [[Scott Jones]]