> I am sorry if the following post is seen as "bantering" by anyone. This is
> not the kind of dialogue I had in mind, but sometimes people tend to forget
> to deal with the arguments for or against a particular view, and tend to
> focus instead on the motivation of an individual.
This thread is getting a bit worn...
For Trinitarians... Even if MONOGENES means "begotten",
it *could* simply refer to Christ's Human nature... i.e. because
Christ as the God the Son _was_ *begotten* in regard to
"his human nature/flesh" !
For non-Trinitarians... Even if MONOGENES means unique/one of a
kind, it *could* simply mean that he is the *unique* "Son of God."
i.e. no one else lived a sinless life and died to provide salvation
for the world (although he was still just a man).
Grammatically the verse is ambiguous... it does not *neccessarily*
affirm or endorse either a trinitarian or non-trinitarian stance.
This is a theological matter that will not be resolved by simply
looking at the grammar that is used in this one passage.
So... Why not just agree to disagree and go onto something
else? I know... how about someone starting a thread on
AGAPAW and FILEW...eh Carl ??? ;-)
Semper Fi,
Walt McFall
ana@net1.nw.com.au
=============================================
CHESTY PULLER, USMC
(When surrounded by Eight
Divisions of enemy forces...)
"All right men...
they're on our left, they're on our right,
they're in front of us, they're behind us...
THEY CAN'T GET AWAY THIS TIME!!!"
=============================================