Search Results
6/23/2025, 12:26:19 AM
>>17783690
>Now, I don't believe you can give me any evidence monogenes theos is distinctly Gnostic (or distinctly Arian, now that's an absurd one).
While the Marcionites used a corrupted form of Luke's Gospel, there was another Gnostic group known as the Valentinians which used a corrupted form of John's Gospel.
'John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it “Son” and “Only-Begotten God.” In this (the Only-Begotten) the Father emitted all things in a process involving posterity.'
-Writings of Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic (Layton, Bently, 'The Gnostic Scriptures' p. 316)
'We believe, conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the Universe, from whom are all things. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God, by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father...'
-Arian Creed, Council of Antioch AD 341
>>17783692
>This reading, which is supported by the best and oldest manuscripts,
No it isn't.
>Note that modern scholarship interprets monogenes as meaning only or unique, rather than only-begotten (this is also how it is rendered in the ESV, so you have miscited it),
I'm talking about the source text right now obviously. If I brought that up you would instantly try to correct me by saying that's only a translation difference. I'm not focused on that right now, but it is also yet another error and also absolutely false. Error piled on another error.
If they were honest, they would take the longer version of Matthew 27:49 and add that into their versions. The longer reading of Matthew 27:49 is found in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; they've used that reason to overturn all kinds of other readings. They are inconsistent in choosing source texts for individual verses.
>Now, I don't believe you can give me any evidence monogenes theos is distinctly Gnostic (or distinctly Arian, now that's an absurd one).
While the Marcionites used a corrupted form of Luke's Gospel, there was another Gnostic group known as the Valentinians which used a corrupted form of John's Gospel.
'John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it “Son” and “Only-Begotten God.” In this (the Only-Begotten) the Father emitted all things in a process involving posterity.'
-Writings of Ptolemy, a Valentinian Gnostic (Layton, Bently, 'The Gnostic Scriptures' p. 316)
'We believe, conformably to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, in One God, the Father Almighty, the Framer, and Maker, and Provider of the Universe, from whom are all things. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God, by whom are all things, who was begotten before all ages from the Father...'
-Arian Creed, Council of Antioch AD 341
>>17783692
>This reading, which is supported by the best and oldest manuscripts,
No it isn't.
>Note that modern scholarship interprets monogenes as meaning only or unique, rather than only-begotten (this is also how it is rendered in the ESV, so you have miscited it),
I'm talking about the source text right now obviously. If I brought that up you would instantly try to correct me by saying that's only a translation difference. I'm not focused on that right now, but it is also yet another error and also absolutely false. Error piled on another error.
If they were honest, they would take the longer version of Matthew 27:49 and add that into their versions. The longer reading of Matthew 27:49 is found in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; they've used that reason to overturn all kinds of other readings. They are inconsistent in choosing source texts for individual verses.
Page 1