Many claim that physical healing is a guarantee for every christian in accepting the gospel.
benny hinn ministries
•Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement and is the privilege of all believers (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:16-17).
Kenneth Copeland ministries
•We believe in divine healing, through faith in the Name of Jesus Christ, and that healing is included in the Redemption.
Kenneth hagin ministries
We Believe....
DIVINE HEALING - Healing is for the physical ills of the human body and is wrought by the power of God through the prayer of faith, and by the laying on of hands. It is provided for in the atonement of Christ, and is the privilege of every member of the Church today (James 5:14,15; Mark 16:18; Isa. 53:4,5; Matt. 8:17; 1 Peter 2:24
53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
So the question is is the word healing in 4 refer to physical healing? Certainly when we use the word healing more often than not we are talking about physical healing. But many times we use it figuratively of healing, as in healing relationships and the heart. Does the Bible ever use the word figuratively?
Jeremiah 3:22 Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God.
Backsliding here is a term for falling in sin. When we are healed of it, nothing physically changes. And yes healing is the same hebrew word "rapha"
Also looking back isa. 53:5 his chastisement or beatings lead to our peace. peace is a spiritual reality. the same can be said about bruises dealing with iniqutities, and wounds with transgressions.
The focus of this is dealing with the spiritual realities of sin. Jesus would be a sacrifical lamb.
In the Old Testament, lambs did not offer physical healing to the jews, they were used as temple sacrifices for sin. (vrs.7)
But if physical healing is guaranteed in the atonement through this verse. Wouldn't it explain how the process works? here we know it was made. This verse is repeated, was it explained then?
Matthew 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
18 Now when Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side.
Here we do find that this passage is quoted is fulfillment of healing. Which would make many people think there is a point to universal healing. But it says prophesy was fulfilled and it was completed back 2,000yrs ago. Still even more telling is that this was a spiritual healings (vrs.17)from demons. so the universal gospel promise of healing is not offered.
1Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Here we see living unto righteousness instead of physical healing vrs. 24.
Never do we find any explanation of how we attain the physical healing of the gospel.
Word of faith preachers teach that we recieve it with our atonement and therefore by faith. But there references don't guarantee this.
also let's look at hagins....
James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
the problem is that this work does not match the universal offer of the gospel. first it is concerning believers that are sick. Even though the healing would have been past tense so they should not be theoretically. Secondly the prayer of faith is not even personal and the gospels is very personal.
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
also....
mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
this is a promise for the apostles and not believers. If you do believe this you may want to start drinking poison and carrying snakes though! ;)
There is only one gospel and it is not to be altered.
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
We are not to change the gospel. It is the perfect instrument of salvation.
In Christ,
Matt
Friday, August 24, 2012
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
begotton son or.....
John 1:18
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
This leads to Arianism. The idea of God being born means jesus is a sort of demi-god. In fact this is the exact same translation as the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation.
John 1:18
New International Version (NIV)
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only Son, who
These seems to contradict the adoption of believers as children of God.
John 1:18
the message
No one has ever seen God,
not so much as a glimpse.
This one-of-a-kind God-Expression,
who exists at the very heart of the Father,
has made him plain as day.
Here Christ may not even be a person! Very panthiestic.
John 1:18
Good News Translation (GNT)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
This translation has arian tendencies elsewhere. "the same as" does not necessitate unity.
John 1:18
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son is the one who has shown us what God is like. He is himself God and is very close to the Father. [a]
Here the deity of the Son is afirmed but the identity of the father is mysterious.
John 1:18
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[a][b] who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
b.John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
Here the deity of the father is denied.
John 1:18
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known.
Here again either polytheism or arianism.
John 1:18
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
18 No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like.
Polytheism
John 1:18
English Standard Version (ESV)
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
b.John 1:18 Greek in the bosom of the Father
John 1:18
polytheism
Amplified Bible (AMP)
18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [a]unique Son, or [b]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
b.John 1:18 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: This reading is supported by “a great mass of ancient evidence.”
both?
John 1:18
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
18 No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side — he has made him known.
These deity statements are still confusing.
John 1:18
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
18 No one has ever seen God.[a]
The One and Only Son[b]—
the One who is at the Father’s side[c]—
He has revealed Him.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Since God is an infinite being, no one can see Him in His absolute essential nature; Ex 33:18-23.
b.John 1:18 Other mss read God
c.John 1:18 Lit is in the bosom of the Father
John 1:18
New King James Version (NKJV)
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[a] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 NU-Text reads only begotten God.
John 1:18
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
These translations are not heretical.
John 1:18
American Standard Version (ASV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
18 No man saw ever God [No man ever saw God], but the one begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father, he hath told out.
John 1:18
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.
John 1:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
And so we see this general agreement with the text.
"Only Begotten God?
The Codex Vaticanus has μονογενὴς θεός (only begotten God) here in John 1:18. P66 and P75 both read θεός. In the Alexandrian tradition, scibes used the abbreviations (Υς/Θς). Υς for son and Θς for God.
The NASB translated this into English: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB)
James White who is a critical consultant for the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible[2] believes that monogenes theos is the correct reading as he says in his article "Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John "In Reference to the Deity of Christ"[3] that "John describes Jesus as the unique God (monogenes theos) in John 1:18." Also "The only "Him" in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well."
It is not only supporters of the Textus Receptus on King James Version that believe "only begotten God" is a scribal error. There is also division between modern textual critics as to whether μονογενὴς θεός should be the correct reading.
Nestle-Aland Committee Member Allen Wikgren who served on the UBS-4, quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, pg. 170.
"It is doubtful that the author (i.e., John) would have written monogenes theos, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition." Professor Bart Ehrman, recognized scholar in the field of Biblical textual criticism, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has stated that the original reading is monogenes heios and not monogenes theos.
The majority of orthodox church fathers support the reading monogenes heios, as do the majority of existing Greek cursive manuscripts. The reading contained in the majority of uncials (such as A, C3, K, W, Q, Y, D, P, X, and 063), Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and the Old Syrian also support the reading monogenes heios. [1]
Support for the reading 'uios' ('son')
Uncials: A (5th century), E, F, G, H, Delta, Theta, Psi (these last 7 codices from the 8th and 9th centuries);
- Miniscules: family 1, family 13, 28, 157, 180, 205, and numerous others;
- Lectionaries: majority;
- Ancient versions: several Old Latin mss. (including "a," 4th century), the Vulgate, the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac (3rd-4th century), the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, the earlier of two Georgian versions (9th century), and the Old Church Slavonic version;
- Church fathers: Hippolytus (d. 235), Letter of Hymenaeus (about 268), Alexander, Eustathius, Chrysostom, Theodore, Tertullian, Jerome, and countless others.
Old Latin
The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).
Other
"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him:
'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300).
Augustine (430 AD) wrote: "For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him." (Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3).
Dean Burgon believed that the reason that the Revised Version committee including Wescott and Hort did not include it in their version because they were ashamed of the reading:
“We are offended at reading (against S. John 1:18) – ‘Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten:’ whereas the ‘authorities’ alluded to read ‘monogenes Theos’ – whether with or without the definite article prefixed – which, as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware, means ‘the only-begotten God,’ and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? Because, we answer, they were ashamed of the expression.” John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester College, The Revision Revised, pg. 182.
Burgon also gives us some insigth into possible reasons for the texts corruption:
"It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing to admit.
But, as we have seen, the heresiarch (Valentinus) and his followers denied that ‘the Word’ is also the Son of God. As if in order to bar the door against this pretense, St. John announces (ver. 18) that ‘the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him’: thus establishing the identity of the Word and the Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it?" John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester College, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, pg.215.
Even the liberal scholar Philip Schaff agreed: "The Gnostics of the second century, especially the Valentinians and Basilidians, made abundant use of the fourth Gospel, which alternately offended them by its historical realism, and attracted them by its idealism and mysticism… Valentinus himself (according to Tertullian) tried either to explain it away, or he put his own meaning into it…
In the Gnostic systems, especially that of Valentinus, "pleroma" signifies the intellectual and spiritual world, including all Divine powers or aeons, in opposition to the "kenoma," i.e., the void, the emptiness, the material world… They included in the pleroma a succession of emanations from the Divine abyss, which form the links between the infinite and the finite; and they lowered the dignity of Christ by making him simply the highest of those intermediate aeons." Philip Schaff, First Period: The Church Under The Apostles, Chapter XII. (emphasis added).
"Valentinus or Valentine is the author of the most profound and luxuriant, as well as the most influential and best known of the Gnostic systems… He was probably of Egyptian Jewish descent and Alexandrian education… He made much use of the Prologue of John’s Gospel and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians; but by a wild exegesis he put his own pantheistic and mythological fancies into the apostolic words, such as Logos, Only Begotten, Truth, Life, Pleroma, Ecclesia…
Tertullian says his heresy ‘fashioned itself into as many shapes as a courtesan who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day.’" Philip Schaff, Second Period: Ante-Nicene Christianity, Chapter XI. (emphasis added).
References
1. John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" by Thomas Holland
2. "Lockman Contributor Page". The Lockman Foundation. Retrieved 2006-10-10.
3. Ego Eimi Purpose and Meaning of Ego Eimi in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ by James White
External Links
Monogenes by Scott Jones
Begotten Son by Scott Jones
Metzger on John 1:18 "References
1. John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" by Thomas Holland
2. "Lockman Contributor Page". The Lockman Foundation. Retrieved 2006-10-10.
3. Ego Eimi Purpose and Meaning of Ego Eimi in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ by James White
External Links
Monogenes by Scott Jones
Begotten Son by Scott Jones
Metzger on John 1:18
"
www.textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18
My question is this. Is the deity of christ essntial to our preaching?
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
This leads to Arianism. The idea of God being born means jesus is a sort of demi-god. In fact this is the exact same translation as the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation.
John 1:18
New International Version (NIV)
18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only Son, who
These seems to contradict the adoption of believers as children of God.
John 1:18
the message
No one has ever seen God,
not so much as a glimpse.
This one-of-a-kind God-Expression,
who exists at the very heart of the Father,
has made him plain as day.
Here Christ may not even be a person! Very panthiestic.
John 1:18
Good News Translation (GNT)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
This translation has arian tendencies elsewhere. "the same as" does not necessitate unity.
John 1:18
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son is the one who has shown us what God is like. He is himself God and is very close to the Father. [a]
Here the deity of the Son is afirmed but the identity of the father is mysterious.
John 1:18
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[a][b] who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
b.John 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
Here the deity of the father is denied.
John 1:18
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
It is true that no one has ever seen God at any time. Yet the divine and only Son, who lives in the closest intimacy with the Father, has made him known.
Here again either polytheism or arianism.
John 1:18
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
18 No one has ever seen God. But God, the one and only Son, is at the Father's side. He has shown us what God is like.
Polytheism
John 1:18
English Standard Version (ESV)
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[a] who is at the Father's side,[b] he has made him known.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
b.John 1:18 Greek in the bosom of the Father
John 1:18
polytheism
Amplified Bible (AMP)
18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [a]unique Son, or [b]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
b.John 1:18 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: This reading is supported by “a great mass of ancient evidence.”
both?
John 1:18
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
18 No one has ever seen God; but the only and unique Son, who is identical with God and is at the Father’s side — he has made him known.
These deity statements are still confusing.
John 1:18
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
18 No one has ever seen God.[a]
The One and Only Son[b]—
the One who is at the Father’s side[c]—
He has revealed Him.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 Since God is an infinite being, no one can see Him in His absolute essential nature; Ex 33:18-23.
b.John 1:18 Other mss read God
c.John 1:18 Lit is in the bosom of the Father
John 1:18
New King James Version (NKJV)
18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son,[a] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
Footnotes:
a.John 1:18 NU-Text reads only begotten God.
John 1:18
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
These translations are not heretical.
John 1:18
American Standard Version (ASV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:18
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
18 No man saw ever God [No man ever saw God], but the one begotten Son, that is in the bosom of the Father, he hath told out.
John 1:18
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.
John 1:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
And so we see this general agreement with the text.
"Only Begotten God?
The Codex Vaticanus has μονογενὴς θεός (only begotten God) here in John 1:18. P66 and P75 both read θεός. In the Alexandrian tradition, scibes used the abbreviations (Υς/Θς). Υς for son and Θς for God.
The NASB translated this into English: No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. (NASB)
James White who is a critical consultant for the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible[2] believes that monogenes theos is the correct reading as he says in his article "Purpose and Meaning of "Ego Eimi" in the Gospel of John "In Reference to the Deity of Christ"[3] that "John describes Jesus as the unique God (monogenes theos) in John 1:18." Also "The only "Him" in the context is Jesus; hence, for John, Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh on His throne, was in reality seeing the Lord Jesus. John 1:18 says as much as well."
It is not only supporters of the Textus Receptus on King James Version that believe "only begotten God" is a scribal error. There is also division between modern textual critics as to whether μονογενὴς θεός should be the correct reading.
Nestle-Aland Committee Member Allen Wikgren who served on the UBS-4, quoted in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, pg. 170.
"It is doubtful that the author (i.e., John) would have written monogenes theos, which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition." Professor Bart Ehrman, recognized scholar in the field of Biblical textual criticism, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has stated that the original reading is monogenes heios and not monogenes theos.
The majority of orthodox church fathers support the reading monogenes heios, as do the majority of existing Greek cursive manuscripts. The reading contained in the majority of uncials (such as A, C3, K, W, Q, Y, D, P, X, and 063), Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, and the Old Syrian also support the reading monogenes heios. [1]
Support for the reading 'uios' ('son')
Uncials: A (5th century), E, F, G, H, Delta, Theta, Psi (these last 7 codices from the 8th and 9th centuries);
- Miniscules: family 1, family 13, 28, 157, 180, 205, and numerous others;
- Lectionaries: majority;
- Ancient versions: several Old Latin mss. (including "a," 4th century), the Vulgate, the Curetonian version of the Old Syriac (3rd-4th century), the Harclean and Palestinian Syriac, the Armenian and Ethiopic versions, the earlier of two Georgian versions (9th century), and the Old Church Slavonic version;
- Church fathers: Hippolytus (d. 235), Letter of Hymenaeus (about 268), Alexander, Eustathius, Chrysostom, Theodore, Tertullian, Jerome, and countless others.
Old Latin
The Old Latin manuscripts of John 1:18 read, "deum nemo uidit umquam. unigenitus filius. qui est in sinu patris. ipse narrauit." The word "unigenitus" means, "only begotten, only; of the same parentage." (Dr. John C. Traupman, Latin Dictionary, 323).
Other
"Moreover, that the Son of God was not produced out of what did not exist, and that there never was a time when He did not exist, is taught expressly by John the Evangelist, who writes this of Him:
'The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.' The divine teacher, because he intended to show that the Father and the Son are two and inseparable from each other, does in fact specify that He is in the bosom of the Father." (W.A. Jurgens, The Faith Of The Early Fathers, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, p. 300).
Augustine (430 AD) wrote: "For Himself hath said: No man hath seen God at any time, but the Only-Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. Therefore we know the Father by Him, being they to whom He hath declared Him." (Homilies On The Gospel According To St. John, XLVII:3).
Dean Burgon believed that the reason that the Revised Version committee including Wescott and Hort did not include it in their version because they were ashamed of the reading:
“We are offended at reading (against S. John 1:18) – ‘Many very ancient authorities read God only begotten:’ whereas the ‘authorities’ alluded to read ‘monogenes Theos’ – whether with or without the definite article prefixed – which, as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware, means ‘the only-begotten God,’ and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? Because, we answer, they were ashamed of the expression.” John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester College, The Revision Revised, pg. 182.
Burgon also gives us some insigth into possible reasons for the texts corruption:
"It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing to admit.
But, as we have seen, the heresiarch (Valentinus) and his followers denied that ‘the Word’ is also the Son of God. As if in order to bar the door against this pretense, St. John announces (ver. 18) that ‘the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him’: thus establishing the identity of the Word and the Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it?" John William Burgon, Dean of Chichester College, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, pg.215.
Even the liberal scholar Philip Schaff agreed: "The Gnostics of the second century, especially the Valentinians and Basilidians, made abundant use of the fourth Gospel, which alternately offended them by its historical realism, and attracted them by its idealism and mysticism… Valentinus himself (according to Tertullian) tried either to explain it away, or he put his own meaning into it…
In the Gnostic systems, especially that of Valentinus, "pleroma" signifies the intellectual and spiritual world, including all Divine powers or aeons, in opposition to the "kenoma," i.e., the void, the emptiness, the material world… They included in the pleroma a succession of emanations from the Divine abyss, which form the links between the infinite and the finite; and they lowered the dignity of Christ by making him simply the highest of those intermediate aeons." Philip Schaff, First Period: The Church Under The Apostles, Chapter XII. (emphasis added).
"Valentinus or Valentine is the author of the most profound and luxuriant, as well as the most influential and best known of the Gnostic systems… He was probably of Egyptian Jewish descent and Alexandrian education… He made much use of the Prologue of John’s Gospel and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians; but by a wild exegesis he put his own pantheistic and mythological fancies into the apostolic words, such as Logos, Only Begotten, Truth, Life, Pleroma, Ecclesia…
Tertullian says his heresy ‘fashioned itself into as many shapes as a courtesan who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day.’" Philip Schaff, Second Period: Ante-Nicene Christianity, Chapter XI. (emphasis added).
References
1. John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" by Thomas Holland
2. "Lockman Contributor Page". The Lockman Foundation. Retrieved 2006-10-10.
3. Ego Eimi Purpose and Meaning of Ego Eimi in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ by James White
External Links
Monogenes by Scott Jones
Begotten Son by Scott Jones
Metzger on John 1:18 "References
1. John 1:18 - "only begotten Son" by Thomas Holland
2. "Lockman Contributor Page". The Lockman Foundation. Retrieved 2006-10-10.
3. Ego Eimi Purpose and Meaning of Ego Eimi in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ by James White
External Links
Monogenes by Scott Jones
Begotten Son by Scott Jones
Metzger on John 1:18
"
www.textus-receptus.com/wiki/John_1:18
My question is this. Is the deity of christ essntial to our preaching?
Friday, August 3, 2012
Wrong message!!
The message is a false gospel sold and endorsed by evangelicals as a modern Bible.
I always used to check a bible according to John 3:16. let'as look.
first at KJV which most agree is a decently accurate translation.
John 3:16-18
King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now the message
John 3:16
The Message (MSG)
16-18"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.
Now in the message, Jesus is not the only begotton Son. He is the only Son. What does that say about adoption?
Perhaps adoption is no longer needed? This would be the thought pattern of the New Age.
Also What is the promise? No longer is it everlasting life. All it is is "whole and lasting Life"
Can the Satan make this offer? We know that Satan cqan not offer eternal life.
Nottice how the penalty is a "Death sentence" So now the punishment is only death. But doesn't everybody die?
Also nottice the added language "refuse" to believe, when introduced to him. No longer is it necessary to spread the gospel all over the earth. Because people might not go to hell.
This just is not the gospel.
I always used to check a bible according to John 3:16. let'as look.
first at KJV which most agree is a decently accurate translation.
John 3:16-18
King James Version (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now the message
John 3:16
The Message (MSG)
16-18"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it. And why? Because of that person's failure to believe in the one-of-a-kind Son of God when introduced to him.
Now in the message, Jesus is not the only begotton Son. He is the only Son. What does that say about adoption?
Perhaps adoption is no longer needed? This would be the thought pattern of the New Age.
Also What is the promise? No longer is it everlasting life. All it is is "whole and lasting Life"
Can the Satan make this offer? We know that Satan cqan not offer eternal life.
Nottice how the penalty is a "Death sentence" So now the punishment is only death. But doesn't everybody die?
Also nottice the added language "refuse" to believe, when introduced to him. No longer is it necessary to spread the gospel all over the earth. Because people might not go to hell.
This just is not the gospel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)