The Trinity

[Johann!@#]

John 1:14,18 (KJV): 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
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.

John 1:14,18 (ESV): 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

I accept the KJV rendition of these two verses and reject the ESV. Please note that while John 1:14 is different in these two translations, the ESV of John 1:18 is radically different. And while we are about it, consider the following:

John 3:16 (KJV): 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.

John 3:16 (ESV): “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Trinitarians believe in a supposed incarnation of God the Son. Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14 teaches that Jesus is The Son of God through conception.

Hi TrevorL

You seem to be misunderstanding both the linguistic and theological aspects of these passages, especially regarding the incarnation and the term "only begotten" (μονογενής).

John 1:14 - The Word Became Flesh
In the Greek, the phrase "ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (ho logos sarx egeneto) means "the Word became flesh." The verb "ἐγένετο" (egeneto) comes from "γίνομαι" (ginomai), which means "to become" or "to come into being."

This doesn’t just mean that the Word was born; it emphasizes that the preexistent Word took on human nature. The Word (Logos) was not originally flesh but became flesh, indicating a change in form or manifestation, not a change in essence.

When John says "ἐσκήνωσεν" (eskenosen), meaning "dwelt" or "tabernacled" among us, he deliberately uses a word that echoes the Old Testament tabernacle, where God’s presence manifested. This indicates that the eternal Word took on a physical form to be visibly present among humanity.

John 1:18 - The Only Begotten God or Son?
Your issue with John 1:18 in the ESV versus the KJV hinges on manuscript evidence and the proper understanding of "μονογενὴς" (monogenēs). The verb root "γεννάω" (gennaō) means "to beget" or "to generate," but the word "μονογενής" historically means "unique" or "one of a kind," not strictly "begotten" as in physical procreation.

The oldest manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) read "μονογενὴς θεός" (monogenēs theos), which translates to "the only God" or "the unique God," while later manuscripts read "μονογενὴς υἱός" (monogenēs huios), meaning "only begotten Son."

The verb "ἐξηγήσατο" (exēgēsato) in John 1:18, from "ἐξηγέομαι" (exēgeomai), means "to explain" or "to make known." It emphasizes that the unique God, who is at the Father’s side, has made the unseen God known. Whether rendered as "only begotten Son" or "only God," the focus is on the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 - Only Begotten Son
The phrase "τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" (ton huion ton monogenē) in John 3:16 literally means "the only begotten Son." The emphasis here is on uniqueness rather than literal begetting.

Trinitarian theology does not assert that the Son is "begotten" in the human sense but that he is uniquely of the same essence as the Father—fully divine, yet distinctly the Son.

The Incarnation is Not Created Sonship
Trinitarians do not believe in the incarnation of "God the Son" as a separate creation event. The incarnation, described in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, teaches that Jesus was "συλλήψῃ" (syllēpsē) from the Holy Spirit--conceived, not created. The verb "συλλαμβάνω" (syllambanō) here means "to conceive" or "to take together," pointing to the miraculous conception without negating his preexistent divine nature. The Son took on human flesh, but his divine essence was never altered or diminished.

Early Church Understanding
The earliest Christians, including Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century), spoke of Jesus as both God and man:
"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh..." (Epistle to the Ephesians, 7)
The Greek here, "σαρκὶ γενόμενος" (sarki genomenos), means "having come in flesh," showing that the early church affirmed both his divinity and humanity from the very beginning.

Final Thoughts
The incarnation is not a Trinitarian invention but a biblically grounded truth. The preexistent Word (Logos) became (ἐγένετο) flesh, revealing (ἐξηγήσατο) God to humanity. The manuscript evidence for John 1:18 supports the ESV's rendering as the earliest and most reliable reading. You’re focusing on a linguistic misunderstanding of μονογενής, which doesn’t mean "begotten" in the sense of created but rather "unique" or "one of a kind."

If you reject the incarnation because of a perceived contradiction between the KJV and ESV, you are missing the consistent theological message: the eternal Word, who is divine, became flesh to reveal God to us, as affirmed by both the text and early Christian testimony.

Thanks.

J.

 

[JLB]

I have my own formula that is somewhat different, but I can at least understand what Free is saying! You apparently can not?

He is saying, as I understand it, that there is a history of words and an historic formula. In using arbitrary words, and in ignoring the technical use of these words, historically, you produce confusion.

At least with my formula I explain how my terminology conforms to and agrees with the historic formulation! I say "One Infinite Person" in place of "One Being" so as to not produce the confused formula, "One Person equals Three Persons."

I had a problem with "One Substance" not representing a Person. But at least I understand why there has to be a distinction between the one God Yahweh and the Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit.

In my view the "Being" of God may legitimately be described as an "Infinite Substance" which is parceled out into diverse revelations, including Father, Son, and Spirit. An Infinite Person, if you must, is revealed in these 3 finite expressions of Persons who reveal God on a lower level than His infinite Being.

This may not help anybody except myself! ;)

I was hoping we all could at least agree that Jesus is LORD.

He is the LORD who spoke through the mouth of the prophets.

He created the heavens and the earth.


While also agreeing that the eternal Godhead also are coequal in creation.


The way I explain it is …

It was the Father’s will that there was to be light.

The Son expressed the Father’s will in the words “let there be light”.

Light was then manifested by the power of the Holy Spirit.


So we can say Jesus the Son created all things, while at the same time saying, all things were created through Him and for Him.


He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:15-16


Some people don’t understand these things and deny the divinity of Christ.


I explain the Godhead from the scriptures anthropomorphically much easier.

I will keep that to myself for now because their is too much dissection in this thread no matter how hard I try to get people to agree on basic simple foundational elements of this topic from scripture, and put off their limited definitions that they learned from their denomination.

 

[JLB]

The preexistent Word (Logos) became (ἐγένετο) flesh, revealing (ἐξηγήσατο) God to humanity. The manuscript evidence for John 1:18 supports the ESV's rendering as the earliest and most reliable reading. You’re focusing on a linguistic misunderstanding of μονογενής, which doesn’t mean "begotten" in the sense of created but rather "unique" or "one of a kind."

Amen.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Johann,

You seem to be misunderstanding both the linguistic and theological aspects of these passages, especially regarding the incarnation and the term "only begotten"

I appreciate your thorough treatment, reflecting much theological and linguistic history of avoiding the simple truth that God the Father was his father and Mary his mother. I believe in the conception as the start of the life of Jesus, not a supposed incarnation, and as such he is the Son of God by birth. I have considered other aspects of John 1:14 in earlier posts. Time 10:55 PM here in Australia. Time to shut down until 2 PM tomorrow. I have finished all that I want to discuss on John 1:14. Have a nice evening in South Africa.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Hi TrevorL

You seem to be misunderstanding both the linguistic and theological aspects of these passages, especially regarding the incarnation and the term "only begotten" (μονογενής).

John 1:14 - The Word Became Flesh
In the Greek, the phrase "ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (ho logos sarx egeneto) means "the Word became flesh." The verb "ἐγένετο" (egeneto) comes from "γίνομαι" (ginomai), which means "to become" or "to come into being."

This doesn’t just mean that the Word was born; it emphasizes that the preexistent Word took on human nature. The Word (Logos) was not originally flesh but became flesh, indicating a change in form or manifestation, not a change in essence.

When John says "ἐσκήνωσεν" (eskenosen), meaning "dwelt" or "tabernacled" among us, he deliberately uses a word that echoes the Old Testament tabernacle, where God’s presence manifested. This indicates that the eternal Word took on a physical form to be visibly present among humanity.

John 1:18 - The Only Begotten God or Son?
Your issue with John 1:18 in the ESV versus the KJV hinges on manuscript evidence and the proper understanding of "μονογενὴς" (monogenēs). The verb root "γεννάω" (gennaō) means "to beget" or "to generate," but the word "μονογενής" historically means "unique" or "one of a kind," not strictly "begotten" as in physical procreation.

The oldest manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) read "μονογενὴς θεός" (monogenēs theos), which translates to "the only God" or "the unique God," while later manuscripts read "μονογενὴς υἱός" (monogenēs huios), meaning "only begotten Son."

The verb "ἐξηγήσατο" (exēgēsato) in John 1:18, from "ἐξηγέομαι" (exēgeomai), means "to explain" or "to make known." It emphasizes that the unique God, who is at the Father’s side, has made the unseen God known. Whether rendered as "only begotten Son" or "only God," the focus is on the unique revelation of God through Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 - Only Begotten Son
The phrase "τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ" (ton huion ton monogenē) in John 3:16 literally means "the only begotten Son." The emphasis here is on uniqueness rather than literal begetting.

Trinitarian theology does not assert that the Son is "begotten" in the human sense but that he is uniquely of the same essence as the Father—fully divine, yet distinctly the Son.

The Incarnation is Not Created Sonship
Trinitarians do not believe in the incarnation of "God the Son" as a separate creation event. The incarnation, described in Matthew 1:20-21 and Luke 1:34-35, teaches that Jesus was "συλλήψῃ" (syllēpsē) from the Holy Spirit--conceived, not created. The verb "συλλαμβάνω" (syllambanō) here means "to conceive" or "to take together," pointing to the miraculous conception without negating his preexistent divine nature. The Son took on human flesh, but his divine essence was never altered or diminished.

Early Church Understanding
The earliest Christians, including Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century), spoke of Jesus as both God and man:
"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh..." (Epistle to the Ephesians, 7)
The Greek here, "σαρκὶ γενόμενος" (sarki genomenos), means "having come in flesh," showing that the early church affirmed both his divinity and humanity from the very beginning.

Final Thoughts
The incarnation is not a Trinitarian invention but a biblically grounded truth. The preexistent Word (Logos) became (ἐγένετο) flesh, revealing (ἐξηγήσατο) God to humanity. The manuscript evidence for John 1:18 supports the ESV's rendering as the earliest and most reliable reading. You’re focusing on a linguistic misunderstanding of μονογενής, which doesn’t mean "begotten" in the sense of created but rather "unique" or "one of a kind."

If you reject the incarnation because of a perceived contradiction between the KJV and ESV, you are missing the consistent theological message: the eternal Word, who is divine, became flesh to reveal God to us, as affirmed by both the text and early Christian testimony.

Thanks.

J.

Here in the Old Testament we see Jesus as LORD and as a Man.


He is speaking through Zechariah before He became flesh, and testifying of His suffering to come in the future as a Man.

The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:, “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:1,10


Peter explains it this way -

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

 

[Johann!@#]

I believe in the conception as the start of the life of Jesus, not a supposed incarnation, and as such he is the Son of God by birth

believe in the conception as the start of the life of Jesus, not a supposed incarnation, and as such he is the Son of God by birth.

Where you are going wrong is in denying the clear Scriptural evidence of the incarnation of Christ Jesus. You are not willing to reason from the Scriptures, and if you get this foundational truth wrong, it affects your entire understanding of who Jesus truly is.

The Bible explicitly teaches that the Word, who was with God and was God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). By denying this, you are rejecting the testimony of Scripture about the pre-existence and divine nature of Christ.


Pre-existence of the Word (Logos) - John 1:1-3, 14
Greek Text (John 1:1)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.
(En archē ēn ho Logos, kai ho Logos ēn pros ton Theon, kai Theos ēn ho Logos.)
Translation:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

The Greek verb ἦν (ēn) is an imperfect indicative, denoting continuous existence in the past. This indicates that the Logos (Word) existed continuously from the beginning, affirming pre-existence rather than a beginning at conception. Where you are going wrong TrevorL

John 1:14 continues:
Καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν...
(Kai ho Logos sarx egeneto kai eskēnōsen en hēmin...)
Translation:
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

The Greek verb ἐγένετο (egeneto) (aorist indicative) denotes a specific event or action, highlighting the transition of the pre-existent Word taking on human flesh.

The language itself refutes the idea that Jesus' existence began at conception. Rather, the pre-existent divine Logos took on humanity at that point. Where you are going wrong--

2. Jesus Identified as the Pre-Existent Son - John 17:5
Greek Text:
καὶ νῦν δόξασόν με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί.
(kai nyn doxason me sy, pater, para seautō tē doxē hē eichon pro tou ton kosmon einai para soi.)
Translation:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
Plain, simple language brother

The verb εἶχον (eichon) (imperfect active indicative) indicates a state of having that existed continuously before creation.

This clearly demonstrates that Jesus (the Son) existed with the Father prior to his earthly birth. Not so?

3. Paul’s Doctrine of Pre-existence - Philippians 2:6-7
Greek Text:
ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων... ἀλλ’ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών...
(hos en morphē Theou hyparchōn... all’ heauton ekenōsen morphēn doulou labōn...)
Translation:
"Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant..."
Plain, simple language brother

The verb ὑπάρχων (hyparchōn) (present active participle) indicates ongoing existence as God before the incarnation.

The term ἐκένωσεν (ekenōsen) (aorist indicative) denotes a specific act of emptying himself to take on human nature. This supports the theological concept that Christ’s existence as God preceded his conception. Would you agree?

4. The Son Sent from Heaven - John 3:13
Greek Text:
Καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
(Kai oudeis anabebēken eis ton ouranon ei mē ho ek tou ouranou katabas, ho huios tou anthrōpou.)
Translation:
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

The verb καταβάς (katabas) (aorist participle) clearly states that the Son descended from heaven. This indicates his origin was not the earth or his conception but his pre-existent state in heaven.

5. Divine Sonship by Nature, Not by Birth - Hebrews 1:3
Greek Text:
ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ...
(hos ōn apaugasma tēs doxēs kai charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou...)
Translation:
"He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."

The participle ὢν (ōn) (present participle) indicates an ongoing state of being, meaning Christ's identity as the Son of God is inherent and eternal, not merely acquired by human birth.


Your assertion that Jesus became the Son of God solely at conception or birth does not align with the consistent biblical presentation of his pre-existence and divine nature.

The incarnation is not the start of Jesus’ existence but rather the event where the pre-existent Word took on flesh. Christ's divine Sonship is inherent and eternal, not the result of a human process of conception.

The language of the Greek text decisively supports the doctrine of the incarnation rather than a beginning at conception.

This was probably a waste of my time.

J.

 

[Johann!@#]

Here in the Old Testament we see Jesus as LORD and as a Man.


He is speaking through Zechariah before He became flesh, and testifying of His suffering to come in the future as a Man.

The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:, “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:1,10


Peter explains it this way -

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

Brother, you have not answered Free's questions, in a satisfactorly manner, that, plus your denial in do research fron secondary sources-I cant sent you links and have no idea how you go about doing a research outside of scripture CONFIRMING the scripture-its called apologetics, hermeneutics but I really am not familiar with your approach the the word

Here in the Old Testament we see Jesus as LORD and as a Man.


He is speaking through Zechariah before He became flesh, and testifying of His suffering to come in the future as a Man.

The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:, “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. Zechariah 12:1,10


Peter explains it this way -

Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 1 Peter 1:10-11

Brother, you have not answered Free's questions in a satisfactory manner. Additionally, your reluctance to consult secondary sources and do thorough research is concerning. Apologetics and hermeneutics require examining both Scripture and reliable external sources to confirm biblical truths.

Scripture itself encourages diligent study and reasoning from the Scriptures: "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11, ESV). The Bereans did not merely accept teachings at face value; they cross-referenced them with the Scriptures.

Moreover, Paul advises, "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21, NKJV)—which implies that we must be thorough and discerning, using sound methods to validate the truth. Apologetics, at its core, is about giving a reasoned defense of the faith (1 Peter 3:15).

I am genuinely trying to understand your approach to Scripture because it seems to lack the balanced method of confirming biblical truths with both primary and secondary sources.

Perhaps we can find common ground by discussing how we can better reason together from the Word while respecting sound hermeneutical practices.

Thanks.

J.

 

[JLB]

I am genuinely trying to understand your approach to Scripture because it seems to lack the balanced method of confirming biblical truths with both primary and secondary sources.

The Apostles that Jesus raised up taught what Jesus taught them.

This is called the doctrine of Christ. Also referred to as the Apostle’s doctrine.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9

In addition as we study the scriptures we have the Holy Spirit to teach and illuminate to us the truth of the scriptures. This is the promise of the new covenant.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. John 14:26

This is solid rock that Jesus is building His church upon. God teaches us.

Those who have ears to hear, can indeed hear what the Spirit is saying.

Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice.

The Spirit of truth leads and guides us, and teaches us.

But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.
1 John 2:27


If you or Free have a question for me, then please post a scripture to make your point, and ask a question that comes from the scripture you posted.

This way we are not talking in circles about the traditions of men, but we are finding common ground from the doctrine of Christ.


Example:

Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15


Do you believe a Christian brother who becomes offended by another Christian brother and begins to hate him, still has eternal life remaining in him? Based on 1 John 3:15

 

[Johann!@#]

If you or Free have a question for me, then please post a scripture to make your point, and ask a question that comes from the scripture you posted.

I don't have any questions for you, at the moment, as I'm not interested in circular reasoning.

"begging the question" (Latin: petitio principii). This logical fallacy occurs when the conclusion is assumed in the premises, essentially reasoning in a circle.

Other related terms include:

Tautology: A statement that repeats the same concept using different words, often leading to a form of circular logic.

Vicious circle: A situation where the reasoning goes in a loop, with the conclusion supporting the premise and vice versa.

Circular logic: A more informal way to describe circular reasoning, emphasizing the flawed logical structure.

Later.

J.

 

[JLB]

begging the question" (Latin: petitio principii). This logical fallacy occurs when the conclusion is assumed in the premises, essentially reasoning in a circle.

Yes. Please keep that in mind.

I have stated many times on this Forum to Free and others, that I’m not Oneness.

Oneness believes this one is three.

I believe these three are one.

Why that’s not good enough for you guys is known only by you.

When we add to the scriptures our own words then that is where strife and division usually start.

Following the teachings of men is how we become divided.

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Corinthians 1:10-13

 

[JLB]

have no idea how you go about doing a research outside of scripture CONFIRMING the scripture-its called apologetics, hermeneutics but I really am not familiar with your approach the the word

Please show me where Jesus or Paul or Peter or James used the words “apologetics” or hermeneutics or to confirm scripture with secondary sources.

Here’s what Jesus told the Pharisee’s, those who had a form of godliness but denied the power, which means they had only head knowledge and the traditions (teachings) of man.

Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.

 

[JLB]

Brother, you have not answered @Free's questions,

Like I told Free, I will answer one question at a time.

Then I will ask a question.

You or Free can ask 10 different questions in a post, but I will only answer one.

Then I will ask.


Let’s use scripture in our posts and questions.

Let’s find common ground in scripture not traditions of men.

 

[Johann!@#]

Please show me where Jesus or Paul or Peter or James used the words “apologetics” or hermeneutics

Apologetics (ἀπολογία - apologia)
The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek noun ἀπολογία (apologia), meaning "a verbal defense". The related verb is ἀπολογέομαι (apologeomai) - "to make a defense."

Key Usage by Paul:
Acts 22:1 (ESV):
"Brothers and fathers, hear the defense that I now make before you."
Greek:
Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοὶ καὶ πατέρες, ἀκούσατέ μου τῆς πρὸς ὑμᾶς νῦν ἀπολογίας.
(Andres adelphoi kai pateres, akousate mou tēs pros hymas nyn apologias.)

Here, ἀπολογίας (apologias) is a genitive singular noun meaning "defense" or "apology."

Paul is giving a reasoned defense of his faith before the people.

Usage by Peter:
1 Peter 3:15 (ESV):
"Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you..."
Greek:
ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον...
(hetoimoi aei pros apologian panti tō aitounti hymas logon...)

ἀπολογίαν (apologian) - accusative singular noun, indicating a verbal defense.


While the term "apologetics" itself is not used, the concept of giving a reasoned defense of the faith is directly expressed through the verb ἀπολογέομαι and the noun ἀπολογία.

2. Hermeneutics (ἑρμηνεύω - hermēneuō)
The term "hermeneutics" comes from the Greek verb ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō), meaning "to interpret" or "to translate."

Usage by Jesus:
Luke 24:27 (ESV):
"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Greek:
Καὶ ἀρξάμενος ἀπὸ Μωϋσέως καὶ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν προφητῶν, διερμήνευσεν αὐτοῖς...
(Kai arxamenos apo Mōuseōs kai apo pantōn tōn prophētōn, diermēneusen autois...)

The verb διερμήνευσεν (diermēneusen) is an aorist active indicative of διερμηνεύω (diermēneuō), meaning "he interpreted."

Jesus explained and made clear the meaning of Scriptures concerning himself.


While the specific word "hermeneutics" is not present, the Greek verbs and nouns related to interpretation (ἑρμηνεύω, διερμηνεύω, ἑρμηνεία) are directly found in the New Testament, especially in contexts of explaining or translating meaning.

Thanks.

J.

 

[JLB]

Scripture itself encourages diligent study and reasoning from the Scriptures:

Yes agreed. Why not try it.

 

[JLB]

While the term "apologetics" itself is not used,

Amen. I agree.

 

[Johann!@#]

Amen. I agree.

While the term "apologetics" itself is not used, the concept of giving a reasoned defense of the faith is directly expressed through the verb ἀπολογέομαι and the noun ἀπολογία.

Apologetics--something you are not very familiar with.

J.

 

[JLB]

Jesus explained and made clear the meaning of Scriptures concerning himself.

Amen. It’s called the doctrine of Christ.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9


Those who teach things outside of the doctrine of Christ will not do well on the Day of Judgement.

 

[JLB]

While the term "apologetics" itself is not used, the concept of giving a reasoned defense of the faith is directly expressed through the verb ἀπολογέομαι and the noun ἀπολογία.

Apologetics--something you are not very familiar with.

J.

Ok. Please give your reasonable defense from the scriptures.

Let’s find common ground in the scriptures.

 

[JLB]

While the term "apologetics" itself is not used, the concept of giving a reasoned defense of the faith is directly expressed through the verb ἀπολογέομαι and the noun ἀπολογία.

Apologetics--something you are not very familiar with.

J.

God has blessed you with a good keen mind.

Please use it to emphasize what the scriptures teach.

 

[RandyK]

Do you agree that Jesus is YHWH?

Not God the Father but the Son.

Yes, Jesus is YHWH. No, the "name" of YHWH is not God. The name of Jesus is "Jesus." The name of YHWH is "YHWH." Do you acknowledge the difference? You've been told this many times, and you keep asking the same questions. Here, I've answered it for you, giving you my own position. If you no longer insist that the name of YHWH is "Jesus," then why are we still having this discussion?