• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How did Christians abrogate these verses about hell?

Begotten does not mean one of a kind.

Did you not read the link? The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”​ Judges 11:34...even while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”​1 John 4:9...

Monogenes has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind".[1] Thus monogenēs (μονογενής) may be used both as an adjective monogenēs pais, meaning unique and special.[2] Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only". Monogenēs may be used as an adjective. For example, monogenēs pais means only child, only legitimate child or special child. Monogenēs may also be used on its own as a noun. For example, o monogenēs means "the only one", or "the only legitimate child".[3]

The word is used in Hebrews 11:17-19 to describe Isaac, the son of Abraham. However, Isaac was not the only-begotten son of Abraham, but was the chosen, having special virtue.[4] Thus Isaac was "the only legitimate child" of Abraham. That is, Isaac was the only son of Abraham that God acknowledged as the legitimate son of the covenant. It does not mean that Isaac was not literally "begotten" of Abraham, for he indeed was, but that he alone was acknowledged as the son that God had promised.

The term is notable outside normal Greek usage in two special areas: in the cosmology of Plato and in the Gospel of John.

Monogenēs - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
How about a "thank you"?

I should make a thread about how atheists raise their children and how they themselves have been raised.. :think:

Where would you get the info from? Every atheist in the world? Interview them all? You post nonsense.
 
Are you a little obsessed with the Lord of the rings? And orifices too, I think. You keep brining both up. I tell you, this is a forum for religion related topics as well as anti-religion related topics.

It's a good book, a far better read than the Bible. As works of fiction go the LOTR is a better book.
 
Are you a little obsessed with the Lord of the rings? And orifices too, I think. You keep brining both up. I tell you, this is a forum for religion related topics as well as anti-religion related topics.

Orifices? Are you feeling alright? I was merely pointing out that the Eye Of Sauron and The Lake Of Fire are both fictional places. When are you going to get around to giving a straight answer to a straight question?
 
Did you not read the link? The Greek Septuagint uses monogenes when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”​ Judges 11:34...even while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”​1 John 4:9...



Monogenēs - Wikipedia
You're saying monogenes means one of a kind and that begotten means one of a kind, but begotten does not mean one of a kind. The word begotten in the English translation of the Bible is a fabrication. This has been recognized by numerous scholars of Christianity and the Bible.

"[1] Michael S. Heiser writes,

It [i.e. monogenēs] doesn’t mean “only begotten” in some sort of “birthing” sense. The confusion extends from an old misunderstanding of the root of the Greek word. For years monogenes was thought to have derived from two Greek terms mono (“only”) and gennaō (“to beget, bear”). Greek scholars later discovered that the second part of the word monogenes does not come from the Greek verb gennao but rather from the noun genos (“class” or “kind”). The term literally means “one of a kind” or “unique” without connotation of created origin.
Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Rediscovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Bellingham WA: Lexham Press, 2015) (Google Books)"

Monogenēs: Only Begotten? | Marg Mowczko
Robot Check

"(...) After reading the Creed in Greek, it immediately became clear to me that the Nicene Fathers’s interpretation of MONOGENES is in direct conflict with a near consensus among modern New Testament scholars. Since about the middle of the 20th century, it has become commonplace among New Testament scholars to reject the Nicene Fathers’s interpretation of this term and to say that MONOGENES means “only” or “unique” and thereby to remove this term as an exegetical proof for eternal generation. I could multiply examples here, but I will just offer a sampling:

“In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the ‘literal’ meaning of MONOGENES… is ‘only begotten’… All of this is linguistic nonsense.”
–D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 28 (see also pp. 30-31)

“‘Only-begotten’ fails the etymology test, as it would require a different word… MONOGENES derives instead from a different root, GENOS, leading to the meaning ‘one of a kind.'”
–Craig Keener, The Gospel of John, Vol. 1, pp. 412-13

“We should not read too much into ‘only begotten’… To English ears this sounds like a metaphysical relationship, but the Greek term means no more than ‘only,’ ‘unique.'”
–Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, p. 93

“The emphasis is not that Jesus was ‘begotten’ of God, but that God had only one Son, and this ‘one and only’ Son he sent into the world…”
–Colin Kruse, The Letters of John, p. 159

“There is little Greek justification for the translation of MONOGENES as ‘only begotten.'”
–Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John (i-xii), p. 13

“MONOGENES therefore means not ‘only begotten,’ but ‘one-of-a-kind’ son…”
–Andreas Kostenberger, John, p. 43

As I said, I could go on with a list of examples as long as my arm. New Testament scholars routinely dismiss the “only begotten” interpretation of MONOGENES.(...)"


Deep in the Weeds on MONOGENES and Eternal Generation – Denny Burk
 
It's a good book, a far better read than the Bible. As works of fiction go the LOTR is a better book.
Nothing is better than the Qur'an. So you do like the Lord of the Rings. I tell you, reading such books is a waste of time.
 
Orifices? Are you feeling alright? I was merely pointing out that the Eye Of Sauron and The Lake Of Fire are both fictional places. When are you going to get around to giving a straight answer to a straight question?
Ask me a straight question.
 
Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"

Revelation 19:20 "And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."

2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;"


Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."


Matthew 25:41"“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

why would the suffering of others please you or a benevolent god?
 
You're saying monogenes means one of a kind and that begotten means one of a kind, but begotten does not mean one of a kind. The word begotten in the English translation of the Bible is a fabrication. This has been recognized by numerous scholars of Christianity and the Bible.

I realize some disagree...I disagree with them and here's why...

“Only-begotten.” Some commentators object to the translation of the Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ by the English “only-begotten.” They point out that the latter portion of the word (ge·nesʹ) does not come from gen·naʹo (beget) but from geʹnos (kind), hence the term refers to ‘the only one of a class or kind.’ Thus many translations speak of Jesus as the “only Son” (RS; AT; JB) rather than the “only-begotten son” of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1Jo 4:9) However, while the individual components do not include the verbal sense of being born, the usage of the term definitely does embrace the idea of descent or birth, for the Greek word geʹnos means “family stock; kinsfolk; offspring; race.” It is translated “race” in 1 Peter 2:9. The Latin Vulgate by Jerome renders mo·no·ge·nesʹ as unigenitus, meaning “only-begotten” or “only.” This relationship of the term to birth or descent is recognized by numerous lexicographers.

Edward Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (1885, p. 471) gives the definition of mo·no·ge·nesʹ as: “only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.” The Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament by W. Hickie (1956, p. 123) also gives: “only begotten.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, states: “The μονο- [mo·no-] does not denote the source but the nature of derivation. Hence μονογενής [mo·no·ge·nesʹ] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters. This gives us the sense of only-begotten. The ref. is to the only child of one’s parents, primarily in relation to them. . . . But the word can also be used more generally without ref. to derivation in the sense of ‘unique,’ ‘unparalleled,’ ‘incomparable,’ though one should not confuse the refs. to class or species and to manner.”​—Translator and editor, G. Bromiley, 1969, Vol. IV, p. 738.

As to the use of the term in the Christian Greek Scriptures or “New Testament,” this latter work (pp. 739-741) says: “It means ‘only-begotten.’ . . . In [John] 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9; [John] 1:18 the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father. . . . In Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 Jn. 4:9 μονογενής denotes more than the uniqueness or incomparability of Jesus. In all these verses He is expressly called the Son, and He is regarded as such in 1:14. In Jn. μονογενής denotes the origin of Jesus. He is μονογενής as the only-begotten.”

In view of these statements and in view of the plain evidence of the Scriptures themselves, there is no reason for objecting to translations showing that Jesus is not merely God’s unique or incomparable Son but also his “only-begotten Son,” hence descended from God in the sense of being produced by God. This is confirmed by apostolic references to this Son as “the firstborn of all creation” and as “the One born [form of gen·naʹo] from God” (Col 1:15; 1Jo 5:18), while Jesus himself states that he is “the beginning of the creation by God.”​—Re 3:14.

Jesus is God’s “firstborn” (Col 1:15) as God’s first creation, called “the Word” in his prehuman existence. (Joh 1:1) The word “beginning” in John 1:1 cannot refer to the “beginning” of God the Creator, for he is eternal, having no beginning. (Ps 90:2) It must therefore refer to the beginning of creation, when the Word was brought forth by God as his firstborn Son. The term “beginning” is used in various other texts similarly to describe the start of some period or career or course, such as the “beginning” of the Christian career of those to whom John wrote his first letter (1Jo 2:7; 3:11), the “beginning” of Satan’s rebellious course (1Jo 3:8), or the “beginning” of Judas’ deflection from righteousness. (Joh 6:64; see JUDAS No. 4 [Became Corrupt].) Jesus is the “only-begotten Son” (Joh 3:16) in that he is the only one of God’s sons, spirit or human, created solely by God, for all others were created through, or “by means of,” that firstborn Son.​—Col 1:16, 17;
 
why would the suffering of others please you or a benevolent god?

It doesn't...God is not that merciless or unjust...
 
It doesn't...God is not that merciless or unjust...

doesn't seem so with your version of god it still invented worldly suffering and even inflicted pain on others itself in the bible

in a similar vein there's the killing of people
 
Stop being a condescending jerk.

I know what many people suggest Hell is.
Been hearing about it all my life.

I'm asking you, what are the "facts of Hell" that YOU posted about.

If you can't answer, then perhaps it's you that lacks any kind of formal knowledge of the very thing you posted about.

I can answer but I don't give a $h!t whether you understand or not, if you care then research it if you don't then don't.
 
Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"

Revelation 19:20 "And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."

2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;"


Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."


Matthew 25:41"“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

It's only the cultist denomination that don't believe in its existence.

While we don't know for certain if the description of fiery lake should be taken literally or not - we do know that there is a
place of torment called hell, wherein those who aren't saved would be cast for eternal punishment.

Whether it's fire or not - we know it will be an "unpleasant" place to be for all eternity
 
Last edited:
we do know that there is a place of torment called hell, wherein those who aren't saved would be cast for eternal punishment.

This is much of a fabrication as is the trinity doctrine.
 
No sweat people, the Lake Of Fire is fictional. One might as well get worked up about the Eye Of Sauron.

Hahahaha Badly in need again of some comfort and reassurance........

.......................all these talk about hell must be giving you goosebumps, eh? Hahahahaha :lol:



Do it the way I do when I watch scary movies.
Cover your eyes with your hand.......and take a teeny-weeny peek through your fingers.
I swear it helps! FOR NOW. :mrgreen:
 
This is a real, and honest problem.

Religious texts written 1000's of years in ago in languages and contexts most don't understand today.
Then translated and edited 1000's of times over the centuries.

You give the same book to 1000 different people and you'll end up with 1000 different interpretations for what they've read.
Making it worse is giving hundreds of different versions of the same book to 1000's of people.

Some will take passages literally. Some will say those same passages are metaphors.

This falls into the category of, when the vast majority of those in a religious group can't even agree on what they believe, how could they expect other to believe it too?

This is why serious students make an effort to learn what the author was trying to say to the audience the book was intended for. It may have an application for a 21st century audience, or it may not.
 
I can answer but I don't give a $h!t whether you understand or not, if you care then research it if you don't then don't.

So you admit there are no "facts" about hell.

You admit there are dozens, if not hundreds of myths, stories, fables, lies, and more lies, but no actual "facts".

Thanks
 
So you admit there are no "facts" about hell.

You admit there are dozens, if not hundreds of myths, stories, fables, lies, and more lies, but no actual "facts".

Thanks

If that's how you want to interpret my earlier answer then fine, like I said I don't give a $h!t whether you understand or not.
 
Posted by Valery

Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”"

Revelation 19:20 "And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur."

2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment;"


Matthew 10:28 "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."


Matthew 25:41"“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

why would the suffering of others please you or a benevolent god?

Great question, all one has to do is look at the Muslim slaughter house the Middle East is. Sadly, the unbridled violence reflects the Quran and its backwards inhuman way of thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom