In article , basicallyblues says...
>
>
>
>> Does being "divine" or godlike mean that Jesus Christ is himself
>> almighty and coeternal with God the Father?
>
>>In the context, without doubt.  That John drew from Gen 1:1
>>necessitates such a correspondence.
>
>You are assuming John drew from Gen. 1:1 but you are wrong.

No, he is right. The parallel is obvious. How can you deny it? Will you deny it
even when the two verses are set side-by-side, so that the whole NG can see how
confused you are? REcall:

   In the beginning God created...(Gen 1:1)
   In the beginning was the Word  (Jn 1:1)

> John draws
>from Genesis 1:1 at John 1:2 "This One was in the beginning with God"

There could be aconnection there too, but it is weaker.

>
> >That he later further draws the
>>distinction in v 14, obviates that he is being apologetical in nature,
>>arguing against the gnostic heresies which had grown at the time of
>>this Gospels writing.  That all the earlier manuscripts read, "only
>>begotten God" in v 18 also adds depth to the already growing
>>crescendo
>
>John 1:18 is actually damaging to trinitarians:

No, it is not.


>"No man has seen God at any time.."

No, that is not damaging at all. You are interpreting too literally. If you
interpet it _that_ literally, then you have a contradiction between John and
Exodus, because Moses _did_ see God.

>plenty saw Jesus who is not God.

SO what? This is no more a problem than the fact that Moses saw God.

>"...; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the
>Father has explained him."

'Explained' is wrong here.

>Jesus is the only created "god".

No. There are no 'created gods'. TO believe that there is one _is_ paganism.

> The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is
>defined by lexicographers as "single of its kind, only," or "the
>only member of a kin or kind."

"Defined by lexicographers"? Even your bizarre way of wording
this betrays your
lack of familiarity with the proper use of a lexicon!

> (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of
>the New Testament, 1889, p. 417;

Why are you using something so out of date? And why are you ignoring the other
renditions he gives for the word?

How dishonest of you! For even Thayer, with his non-standard Christology,
admitted that the word means "only-begotten" here! But you had to
pass over that
in silence.

Recall, the _entire_ Thayer entry is:

1) single of its kind, only
1a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
1b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

Again, how dishonest of you!

[snip]


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/16/05 8:57:24 AM ---