Unique, Not Only-Begotten

[SolaScriptura]

I suggest that this same translation should also carry over into John 8:58.

why? to support your theology?

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

why? to support your theology?

I agree that "I AM" does not fit my theology, but possibly the KJV and most other translations prefer "I AM" as most Trinitarians consider that this is quoting and alluding to "I AM" in Exodus 3:14. For a number of reasons I consider that "I Will Be" is the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 and I have given my explanation of this in the following thread:

The Yahweh Name

The Yahweh Name Part 1 Initial Declaration and Fulfilment The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14-15. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ...

christianforums.net

But in the context of John's Gospel, it is not only the fact that the same words are used, but there is a build up of this theme in John chapter 7 and 8, of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. I recommend reading these two chapters at one go, but a few verses show that this is the topic:
John 7:25–31 (KJV): 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? 27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. 28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. 30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. 31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
John 7:40–44 (KJV): 40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? 43 So there was a division among the people because of him. 44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.

There is a build up of tension in John 7 when the Council failed to have him arrested, and then failed again in John 8 to entrap him. Then there was the dispute about who are the true seed of Abraham, and this flows down to John 8:56-58. I suggest that my theology is based upon a reasonable understanding of these Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[SolaScriptura]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

I agree that "I AM" does not fit my theology, but possibly the KJV and most other translations prefer "I AM" as most Trinitarians consider that this is quoting and alluding to "I AM" in Exodus 3:14. For a number of reasons I consider that "I Will Be" is the correct translation of Exodus 3:14 and I have given my explanation of this in the following thread:

The Yahweh Name

The Yahweh Name Part 1 Initial Declaration and Fulfilment The following is a consideration of the Yahweh Name that was revealed in Exodus 3:14-15. It is hoped that the following comments will help to explain some of the language of both the OT and NT and the true role of our Lord Jesus Christ...

christianforums.net

But in the context of John's Gospel, it is not only the fact that the same words are used, but there is a build up of this theme in John chapter 7 and 8, of whether or not Jesus is the Christ. I recommend reading these two chapters at one go, but a few verses show that this is the topic:
John 7:25–31 (KJV): 25 Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he, whom they seek to kill? 26 But, lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? 27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. 28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me. 30 Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. 31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?
John 7:40–44 (KJV): 40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. 41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? 43 So there was a division among the people because of him. 44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.

There is a build up of tension in John 7 when the Council failed to have him arrested, and then failed again in John 8 to entrap him. Then there was the dispute about who are the true seed of Abraham, and this flows down to John 8:56-58. I suggest that my theology is based upon a reasonable understanding of these Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

Firstly, for anyone to understand the Hebrew, "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh", as "I will be that/what/who I will be", makes absolutely no sense at all! It is clear that the Israelites at this time, were very much looking to Yahweh for assurance of their future. "I will be", clearly says that God WILL BE whatever in the FUTURE, but says nothing about the PRESENT. I AM removes any problems, as it clearly states that God is ALWAYS. It is like when Jesus was departing from this earth, He does not say to His followers, "I will be with you always", but, "I AM (Ἐγώ εἰμι) with you always" (Matthew 28:20). THIS is the assurance that they needed.

Secondly, I don't deny that the Hebrew "Eheyeh" has the meaning, "I will be". However, there are uses in the Old Testament, where it is clearly used for "I am".

Jeremiah 31:9, “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am (ehyeh) a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.”, and Micah 7:1, “Woe is me! for I am (ehyeh) as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first ripe fruit.”, and, Job 11:4, “For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am (ehyeh) clean in thine eyes.”. In each case the verb “’ehyeh” is in the “present tense”.

Fourthly, there are Jewish Versions of the Old Testament, that read "I am" in Exodus 3:14

"And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you." (https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0203.htm. About this site: "Mechon Mamre is a small group of observant Jewish Torah scholars in Israel")

"And G-d said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you" (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/shemot-exodus-chapter-3)

Fourthly, it is not "Trinitarians" who want John 8:58 to read "I am", so that they can link this to Exodus 3:14.

The Jehovah's Witnesses Greek Interlinear, reads "I am", under the Greek text, (https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/kingdom-interlinear-greek-translation/books/john/8/). As they do in their other Greek Interlinear, the Emphatic Diaglott, (https://archive.org/details/emphaticdiaglott00wils/page/n337/mode/2up)

The Unitarian George Noyes, in his New Testament, reads "I have been", but in a footnote says, "otherwise, I have been he, otherwise, I am" (https://archive.org/details/newtestament00noye/page/220/mode/2up). Like yourself, his "theology" does not allow him to accept "I am"!

Fifthly, in John 8:24, just a few verses earlier, Jesus says, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (ἐγώ εἰμι), you will die in your sins". There is no "he" in the Greek! To make such a serious statement, Jesus clearly means that HE IS GOD, which is also clear from verse 58

 

[Josef]

all the Old Testament passages you quote, are Prophecy!

Hey All,
Yes they are. But you cannot deny that the verses show the Father speaking about His Son. You also cannot deny the verses, in the New Testament, that show their fulfillment in Jesus. And that is what you asked for.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hey All,
Yes they are. But you cannot deny that the verses show the Father speaking about His Son. You also cannot deny the verses, in the New Testament, that show their fulfillment in Jesus. And that is what you asked for.

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz

you seem to have missed what I am saying

I am NOT denying that Jesus Christ is The Son of God, as the Bible clearly says so. What I believe, is that this "Sonship" started at His Incarnation, when Jesus was conceived in the Virgin Mary. He is not eternally "the Son", as we read in Luke 1:35, "The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the Holy Child will be called (klēthēsetai, future tense. Not, "IS called") the Son of God"

John 1:1 says that "in the beginning was The WORD...", this refers to before Genesis 1:1, from "eternity past". It does not say, "in the beginning was The SON"

In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is called, YHWH, ELOHIM, "Malakh YHWH" (Messenger of Yahweh), ADON, etc, etc

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again SolaScriptura,

Firstly, for anyone to understand the Hebrew, "Eheyeh asher Eheyeh", as "I will be that/what/who I will be", makes absolutely no sense at all! It is clear that the Israelites at this time, were very much looking to Yahweh for assurance of their future. "I will be", clearly says that God WILL BE whatever in the FUTURE, but says nothing about the PRESENT. I AM removes any problems, as it clearly states that God is ALWAYS.

Perhaps you did not read "The Yahweh Name" thread that I referenced. Possibly I am not very clear in my exposition. I did a search using "shall know that I am the LORD" and this occurs 57 times, starting with the following reference which I mentioned in my thread:
Exodus 6:7 (KJV): And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
Yes, perhaps existence could be sufficient, but if you check the 57 occurrences you will find that they are stated after some Divine activity, usually future, "then" ye shall know that I am Yahweh.

Secondly, I don't deny that the Hebrew "Eheyeh" has the meaning, "I will be". However, there are uses in the Old Testament, where it is clearly used for "I am".

The immediate context Exodus 3:12 translates Ehyeh as "I will be". If you have an old fashioned Englishman's Concordance you will find that Exodus 3:14 is listed in the "Future Tense" category and looks out of place next to the other references which are in the future tense. Our major pioneer of my fellowship was invited to a meeting in 1858 by a Trinitarian Jew to an audience of Jews, and he was very disappointed that he did not endorse the Trinity, but in his address expounded Exodus 3:14 as "I will be who I will be". He was not invited to speak again but the outcome was that our brother gave a series of addresses on this subject in another location and I have both the magazine copies and the booklet published as a result of these talks.

Fourthly, it is not "Trinitarians" who want John 8:58 to read "I am", so that they can link this to Exodus 3:14.

My experience on forums is that this is one of many Trinitarians' major references, that Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14.

Fifthly, in John 8:24, just a few verses earlier, Jesus says, "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (ἐγώ εἰμι), you will die in your sins". There is no "he" in the Greek! To make such a serious statement, Jesus clearly means that HE IS GOD, which is also clear from verse 58

And here is evidence of that claim. Do you believe that Jesus is claiming the "HE IS GOD" in the next reference, or is he claiming to be a frail mortal, the Son of Man, soon to be crucified, and his absolute dependence upon God His Father:
John 8:28 (KJV): Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

There is no "he" in the Greek!

The KJV transalators and most other versions saw the necessity of supplying the "he" or even "he" in ALL the other references. Perhaps their understanding of the Greek is better than yours.

Jesus is a human, now exalted and sitting at the right hand of God His father in God the Father's Throne, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Randy]

Greetings again Randy,

I still stand by what I stated in that Post:

Looking first at the two references in the immediate context:
John 8:24,28 (KJV): 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
This is exactly the same expression as in John 8:58 and the KJV translators saw the necessity of adding the "he" in both of their individual immediate contexts, and I suggest that this same translation should also carry over into John 8:58.

The following are also part of this theme, of whether or not Jesus is the Christ and these are also occurrences of the same words as John 8:58. Actually it starts with John the Baptist, and then Jesus explicitly states that he is the Christ to the Samaritan woman:
John 1:19–20 (KJV): 19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

John 4:25–26 (KJV): 25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. 26 Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.

"I am" is a bit awkward in English and the translators see the need to add the "he" to make better sense, and the same words are used by the blind man:
John 9:8–9 (KJV): 8 The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

Kind regards
Trevor

You can stand with opinion, but my Lord is Gods firstborn which is truth in my understanding.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds

Very clear from JTB even before the 12 understood
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony.

Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Again
"I am telling you the truth," Jesus replied. "Before Abraham was born, 'I Am'

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Apparently, God is the God of the living not the dead

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been.

yet for us there is
one God, the Father,
from whom all things are and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom all things are and through whom we exist.

I don't know how one who states Jesus's life began in Mary knows Him.

But I know Him and tell you the Son who was, His spirit, was in the body God prepared for Him.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Randy,

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation.

"I am telling you the truth," Jesus replied. "Before Abraham was born, 'I Am'

I prefer the rendition "I am he".

Apparently, God is the God of the living not the dead

Yes, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be resurrected.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Randy]

Greetings again Randy,

Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation.

I prefer the rendition "I am he".

Yes, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be resurrected.

Kind regards
Trevor

You ignore a great deal in what doesn't fit your opinion. Who are you fooling other than yourself?
Jesus is stated before all things and all those things God brought into existence by, through and for Him. To deny that is to deny truth.

It doesn't state Jesus is before the new creation. It states He is before all things. Is the world a new creation or the creation?

This is the creation God brought about by, through and for Jesus. As the writer of Hebrews is contrasting the Superiority of Jesus's sonship vs the angels of God.
But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”[e]
10 He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

Why are you unable to hear what God says?
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him

 

[Randy]

The Father Himself Addresses Jesus Christ is The Creator in Hebrews 1:10-12 (see Psalm 102:24-27)

This is clear that the Father cannot be "the only true God", as Creation is what Almighty God Preforms, which is also done by Jesus!

Then you deny Jesus's testimony that the Father is the only true God.
What is clear is that God by His command and at His will brought all things into existence through, by and for His Son. And that same God exalted Jesus as Lord above all others except Himself. That is why Jesus is Lord. "From whom" vs "through whom"

God doesn't have a God or a Father. Jesus has both unless again you deny His testimony.

You will not find any other testimony from Jesus's mouth in heaven and earth that the one on the throne in heaven is anything other than His God and Father. And Jesus calls no other person God. Thats doesn't suggest Jesus was demoted to a lesser being with a God. He was made lower than the angels for a little while. As Hebrews 1 states the case of the superiority of His Sonship and given name as contrasted to the angels. He is not a newly created super Son. He has always been that Son.

How can one who always was and always was God become a Son with a God? The answer is He didn't become a Son rather He has always been the Son. The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body prepared for Him. As is stated begotten from the Father before all worlds or things. The Father is unbegotten.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Then you deny Jesus's testimony that the Father is the only true God.
What is clear is that God by His command and at His will brought all things into existence through, by and for His Son. And that same God exalted Jesus as Lord above all others except Himself. That is why Jesus is Lord. "From whom" vs "through whom"

God doesn't have a God or a Father. Jesus has both unless again you deny His testimony.

You will not find any other testimony from Jesus's mouth in heaven and earth that the one on the throne in heaven is anything other than His God and Father. And Jesus calls no other person God. Thats doesn't suggest Jesus was demoted to a lesser being with a God. He was made lower than the angels for a little while. As Hebrews 1 states the case of the superiority of His Sonship and given name as contrasted to the angels. He is not a newly created super Son. He has always been that Son.

How can one who always was and always was God become a Son with a God? The answer is He didn't become a Son rather He has always been the Son. The Son who was, His spirit, was in that body prepared for Him. As is stated begotten from the Father before all worlds or things. The Father is unbegotten.

Jesus Christ The Only Wise God

Jesus Christ The Only Wise God It is argued by some, that verses in the Bible, like John 17:3, where the Father is called, “The only True God”; and Romans 16:27, where the Father is called, “God only wise”; that Jesus Christ is not “God” (ὁ θεὸς), because in these passages, the Father is...

christianforums.net

 

[Randy]

Jesus Christ The Only Wise God

Jesus Christ The Only Wise God It is argued by some, that verses in the Bible, like John 17:3, where the Father is called, “The only True God”; and Romans 16:27, where the Father is called, “God only wise”; that Jesus Christ is not “God” (ὁ θεὸς), because in these passages, the Father is...

christianforums.net

Opinion to explain away what Jesus Himself clearly stated about His God and Father.
You deny what Jesus stated but not what others wrote. Hmm.
I follow Him. In this topic He is my teacher.
He has always been the Son.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Opinion to explain away what Jesus Himself clearly stated about His God and Father.
You deny what Jesus stated but not what others wrote. Hmm.
I follow Him. In this topic He is my teacher.
He has always been the Son.

according to your "theology"!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Randy,

You ignore a great deal in what doesn't fit your opinion. Who are you fooling other than yourself?

I am conscious of the verses that you quote but I do not have a clear, simple answer that would satisfy you. I have been happy to whittle away at some of your views, but you mostly ignore this.

This is the creation God brought about by, through and for Jesus.

One Scripture that speaks to me of the New Creation is Psalm 8 which takes the language and framework of the Edenic Creation and speaks of the New Creation in and through Jesus Christ. It projects into the 1000 year Kingdom of God upon the earth. I believe that Jesus started with his conception and birth, made a little lower than the Angels.

At least you have progressed one step away from the Trinity, but still hold onto the eternal pre-existence of Jesus and a few other strange concepts. I suggest that you have strange ideas on some verses. Have you developed most of these views on your own, or do you represent a wider fellowship? My fellowship, although small, is represented worldwide, and has been much the same since the 1840s. There has been some ebb and flow of people and ideas, but has been consistent since the early days of consolidation.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[JLB]

Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

This is Jesus speaking from His position of being a Man during His earthly ministry.


Jesus was God before all creation and He Himself created all things as God (the Son).


God the Son became flesh.

Do you understand this?


And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16




JLB

 

[JLB]

As I have very clearly shown in the OP, there is no "begetting" in μονογενὴς

Sorry bro, but it’s your opinion that Jesus was not begotten.


How does a Father have a Son if not by begetting Him?





JLB

 

[Randy]

Greetings again Randy,

I am conscious of the verses that you quote but I do not have a clear, simple answer that would satisfy you. I have been happy to whittle away at some of your views, but you mostly ignore this.

Its's very clear, God brought into existence all things through, for and by Jesus. Jesus came down from heaven.
I don't understand why you can't believe that. I suggest you examine yourself to determine what is driving your belief that Jesus's life began in Mary's womb. Because that spirit isn't from above. You have Jesus's testimony, the Apostles testimony and JTB's testimony that Jesus came from above. Hebrews 1 contrasting the Superiority of His sonship to the angels of God is not ambiguous. "through whom God made the universe". As in Micah the prophecy of the comings and goings, origins, of the one born in Bethlehem are from the distant past or ancient times.

One Scripture that speaks to me of the New Creation is Psalm 8 which takes the language and framework of the Edenic Creation and speaks of the New Creation in and through Jesus Christ. It projects into the 1000 year Kingdom of God upon the earth. I believe that Jesus started with his conception and birth, made a little lower than the Angels.

At least you have progressed one step away from the Trinity, but still hold onto the eternal pre-existence of Jesus and a few other strange concepts. I suggest that you have strange ideas on some verses. Have you developed most of these views on your own, or do you represent a wider fellowship? My fellowship, although small, is represented worldwide, and has been much the same since the 1840s. There has been some ebb and flow of people and ideas, but has been consistent since the early days of consolidation.

I asked Jesus the one I believe in "Can anyone explain the trinity"
The judgment or understanding given is that He is God's firstborn and has always been the Son.
"The firstborn of all creation" "The beginning of the creation of God"
I also was informed He is all that the Father is.
We read, in Him it did please the fullness to dwell. -From the will of another
We read, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being,"
We read, "The image of the invisible God"
So in the past when another, who didn't like my answers which really weren't from me, asked this question, "Is Jesus God?"
At that moment not before, this answer was given to me from above.
He never dies.
Yes, He is all that the Father is.
No, He has always been the Son.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Randy]

This is Jesus speaking from His position of being a Man during His earthly ministry.


Jesus was God before all creation and He Himself created all things as God (the Son).


God the Son became flesh.

Do you understand this?

I know from above, the Son who was, his spirit, was in the body prepared for Him.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:16

The Net bible has "He was manifested in the flesh". I contacted via email Dr Dan Wallace who was on the translation team and is a trinitarian, about that translation and He informed me the reasoning is in the notes. I asked him did He agree with that reasoning, and he stated "yes"
1 Timothy 3:16 net bible
And we all agree,[a] our religion contains amazing revelation:[b]

He[c] was revealed in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
seen by angels,
proclaimed among Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory.

reasoning notes given for "He was revealed in the flesh"
Good luck understanding them. (smile)
1 Timothy 3:16 tc The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (א3 Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88] 1241 1505 1739 1881 M al vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the textual problem. At least two mss have ὁ θεός (69 88), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 1175 Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered the Ausgangstext: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a hymn with six strophes. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: q-=s vs. os. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been Χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)tn Grk “who.”sn This passage has been typeset as poetry because many scholars regard this passage as poetic or hymnic. These terms are used broadly to refer to the genre of writing, not to the content. There are two broad criteria for determining if a passage is poetic or hymnic: “(a) stylistic: a certain rhythmical lilt when the passages are read aloud, the presence of parallelismus membrorum (i.e., an arrangement into couplets), the semblance of some metre, and the presence of rhetorical devices such as alliteration, chiasmus, and antithesis; and (b) linguistic: an unusual vocabulary, particularly the presence of theological terms, which is different from the surrounding context” (P. T. O’Brien, Philippians [NIGTC], 188-89). Classifying a passage as hymnic or poetic is important because understanding this genre can provide keys to interpretation. However, not all scholars agree that the above criteria are present in this passage, so the decision to typeset it as poetry should be viewed as a tentative decision about its genre

JLB

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sorry bro, but it’s your opinion that Jesus was not begotten.


How does a Father have a Son if not by begetting Him?





JLB

IF the Father "begot" Jesus Christ, then Jesus CANNOT be COEQUAL with the Father, nor, YHWH, nor, God in the same sense as the Father is! which is HERESY!

 

[Josef]

you seem to have missed what I am saying

I am NOT denying that Jesus Christ is The Son of God, as the Bible clearly says so. What I believe, is that this "Sonship" started at His Incarnation, when Jesus was conceived in the Virgin Mary. He is not eternally "the Son", as we read in Luke 1:35, "The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the Holy Child will be called (klēthēsetai, future tense. Not, "IS called") the Son of God"

John 1:1 says that "in the beginning was The WORD...", this refers to before Genesis 1:1, from "eternity past". It does not say, "in the beginning was The SON"

In the Old Testament, Jesus Christ is called, YHWH, ELOHIM, "Malakh YHWH" (Messenger of Yahweh), ADON, etc, etc

Hey All,
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other word would smell as sweet.” from "Romeo and Juliet" by William Shakespeare
(Who doesn't love Shakespeare? He has got to the best writer since the apostles.)

I believe I found what you are looking for.

2 Samuel 7:11-17 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

This is a prophecy from God, through Nathan unto David. This person is referred to as "he."

"I will be his father, and he shall be my son."

He will establish a house, and a kingdom that lasts forever.

There are currently no kings in Israel. So this is a future looking prophecy.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

I will stop the comparison here. This is clearly a prophetic passage about Jesus. God calls Himself the Father. He calls the person whom He establishes as His Son.

Is this what you are looking for?

Keep walking everybody.
May God bless,
Taz