All Trinity discussion goes here!

[MustafaMc]

Do you want to know a secret. 7 years ago I did convert to Islam in the local mosque in Christchurch. But, a couple of weeks afterwards, I felt ashamed and guilty, because I felt like I was insulting God by not acknowledging the first time that I submitted to God. I felt pretentious and a liar. There are enough hypercrites in the world!

I can somewhat relate to this perception of being true to an earlier submission to the will of God, but to have first been a Christian one would have a certain set of religious beliefs and then to become a Muslim one would acknowledge that those Christian beliefs were faulty and that those of Islam were True. From what I have read of your posts, I see that they are much closer to Islam than they are to any form of Christianity that I am aware of.

I have prayed to God and I asked him what I should call myself. In my heart I know that he wants me to call myself a Christian, but to embrace Islam too.

I hope not to offend you, but I would probably call you an "Irreligious Monotheist". The reason I say that is that I see you believe in One God, but you don't adhere to any established religious practice or set of beliefs. Since you reject the virgin birth of Jesus, you also deny the truth of the Quran which is fundamental to our Islamic faith.

So, Prophet Mohammed is my spiritual role-model, too

Well, that is a good thing - you're almost there. Why not come the rest of the way and accept what he taught is the Truth and adhere to the sunnah that he established in how we are to live our lives and to worship Allah? That is what it means to submit in Islam - to believe in what Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salaam) taught and to follow his sunnah, including the 5 daily Islamic prayers. My opinion is that it is not enough to just believe in God and try to live a good moral life based loosely on what Jesus or Muhammad taught.

 

[Sol Invictus]

on ezra:

the fact of the matter is that you have no proof to suppose that ezra was ever referred to as the son of god. there is absolutely no documentary evidence and in fact no one at all made such a declaration until a seventh century arab claimed to have received the information from god. given that the qur'an speaks of something for which there is absolutely no proof for, the most logical position is that of doubt. you feel quite confident in making the above inferences because there is no way to substantiate your claims yet this also means that you have no conclusive argument. if you'd like us to believe the jews then i can whole heartedly agree with that because the jews themselves are quite emphatic in the fact that they have never called ezra the son of god. you have no logical foundation for believing in the qur'an as it regards the matter.

on walad and matthew 3:4 and isaiah 9:6

let us at this time make clear that matthew 3:4 has nothing to do with christ whatsoever and so i do not know what you mean by it in your above post. here it is in english:

John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. -- Matthew 3:4

i for one do not see what the above has to do with the term walad.

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. --- Isaiah 9:6

remember that the claim was that walad related to physical birth (this itself being accomplished through a sexual union). considering such a definition, there is absolutely no problem with the above. christ's humanity was created within the womb and he was the biological son of mary. what about this is supposedly a nail in the coffin? from the above we can see that walad does relate to physical birth and as such that the qur'an is in fact wrong when it says that god could not have a son because god has no wife. in that surah, the speaker incorrectly believes that christians understand the sonship of christ as referring to his human birth. that is incorrect and borders once again on adoptionism. christians believe that christ was always the son of the father and his human birth did not entitle him to this claim nor detract fom it. do you see the difference? to the qur'an sonship is not possible because it involves a union with a consort (and hence why the speaker says that god could not have a son because he has no consort) yet that itself is a misunderstanding of what christians mean by the sonship of christ. once again, to the qur'an sonship is the product of a union between god and a consort while to the christian sonship describes th relationship which christ has had to the father from eternity past. this is why i said that never do christians call christ "waladu'llah" but always ibnu'llah. the title son of god always uses ibn instead of walad in using walad the qur'an shows itself to be in error.

here is the quote again:

you should also think about is the fact that arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah (implying a metaphorical sonship). given that the qur'an uses walad instead of ibn, it clearly has the wrong idea of what the sonship of christ entails.

you insistence on forcing the word (walad) when related to God , to mean nothing but a fruit of sexual activities have poisoned the well (Isaiah 9) ,and gave a golden chance to those who would argue that christ was the offspring of God as long as he was prophecised in Isaiah 9 ,to be a (walad) to be born .....

I could have been the bad guy ,and use that as irrefutable proof of God predicting his offspring ,as long as he used the word (walad) ,but my honesty and objectivity ,won't allow me to do so ..... as I don't think christians at least understand that Jesus to be offspring of God.....

it has not poisoned the well because walad relates to a biological birth (which in all cases except that of christ is accomplished through a sexual union). god says that a child would be born and that is in fact what happened. not too dissimilar to artificial insemination god simply created a y chromosome within her womb which then started the pregnancy process. it is still a biological act and as such we have no problem with the use of walad in this sense. to the christian, that has nothing to do with the concept of sonship. if the same miracle had been performed for another individual that would not given them any claim to the term "son of god". once again to the christian, the christ did not become the son of god because of how he was born but rather he has always been the son to the father from all eternity and certainly before he chose to enter his creation and to be born a man. the qur'an's understanding is markedly different seeing as it understands sonship as the result of a union between god and a consort. to conclude, walad refers to biological birth yet the sonship of christ is not rooted in his biological birth (as the qur'an mistakenly believes).

i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary!

where is that in the Quran?

i have shown my proofs over and over again. i said that the qur'an nowhere gets the trinity correct and when it does engage in denouncing it, it becomes trapped in the very same mistakes that trinitarians condemned as it concerns the trinity! i have repeatedly asked the individuals the individuals on this thread to give even a single reference where the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are not listed as being the father, the son, and mary but rather the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as you yourself can see, no one has been able to produce such a verse.


that said, this will also be my last post (most likely until the two individuals whom i had initially engaged in a conversation respond) and while your offer of debating in your thread is tempting, i will most likely have to pass on the offer. at 52 pages, the thread is far too long. now i have just read the last page (there seems to be a discussion on troublemakers as it regards to luke) and it seems that you haven't gotten to your argument yet so i might actually join in. we'll see. anyway thanks for the discussion and maybe we'll do this again sometime.

 

[Woodrow]

I apologize for my delay in getting back to this thread. real life is momentarily very hectic and I am only dropping in sporadically. I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread before I reply to anything specific.

 

[Woodrow]

This thread is starting to off topic. Keep with the topic and only the original topic. And remember no bashing of any member. I deleted a few threads and those who needed any warnings about their posts have been warned.

Now let us return to Trinity discussions and only trinity discussions

 

[Sol Invictus]

well it has been quite a while since there has been any activity within this thread and while this post serves largely as a bump i thought it appropriate to list my major arguments again and perhaps speak a little bit concerning them. so far i have said the following:

1. that eventual incomprehensibility does not prove falsehood: the premise that the op relied on to make his initial argument is false and in fact the author himself is inconsistent in his reasoning given that he himself believes in incomprehensible things. in light of the aforementioned things, this position is not only illogical but blatantly hypocritical.
2. that the author's accusation that christians deny oneness is unfounded: i have given my examples and to this moment they have not been brought into question (largely) and when questioned, they still await refutation. furthermore, given our understanding of, for example, the oneness of matter, to then preclude that the trinity as it is defined does not teach oneness is to be inconsistent in one's reasoning and in fact, to practise hypocrisy.
3. that the op's syllogism is wholly incorrect. it is based on a false premise which skews it entirely and i believe that i have adequately shown this through my examples. considering that i have yet to be taken to task concerning this point, i think that my refutation of the syllogism is not too controversial.
4. that nowhere does one find a condemnation of the trinity within the qur'an and wherever the author takes it upon themselves to describe the trinity, they fall into the very same pitfalls that trinitarians condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam. i have repeated this claim again and again and it has largely been ignored. the usual counter has been to term this mistake as merely semantics yet this ignore the very real problem that trinitarians did condemn these formulations (which the qur'an would later repeat) a long time before islam came to be. this matter would in fact be semantics if christians only brought this up post-islam, yet the fact is that even before the qur'an repeated these inaccurate formulations, christians did in fact view them as wrong and judged them as heresies and as such the semantics issue is not a defense, but merely an aversion of the problem.

the above are my basic arguments. while one can't really gain their specifics merely from reading this post, let us at this time remember that this is merely to bump the thread, the hope is that this post will be of some use.

 

[M.I.A.]

the trinity is like attributing a burning bush alonside god.. no doubt it applied but you must understand it was not the bush that was important to any other, other than moses pbuh.. hope you understand.
similarly the ark was a means of salvation, a tool and something that the life of noah pbup was intertwined with but it is ultimately god that drives all things forward.

hope you understand the trinity a little better.

edit*
..i just remembered our prophet mohammed pbup, the whole winged horse thing.

maybe why prayer was enjoined upon us...but this point is just conjecture on my part.


so next time you try to find the oneness of god, a burning bush might not be the best place to start..
the quran shows the way for mankind.. we imperfect little things that cover the face of the planet.

flippant i know, i hate me more than any other.

 

[Sol Invictus]

well to be perfectly honest i don't quite understand what you're getting at with the above but all the same you have not touched on my argument. that said, your participation is certainly appreciated.

 

[M.I.A.]

in regards to the trinity, muslims understand that the power of all things is ultimately with god.

everything else can be conjectured upon and debated till the end of time.

i cant answer the questions on sonship and how jesus pbuh relates to god in any other way than to attribute all power to god. i dont get how you can attribute that same power to three different things. they can not all be the same but they can all represent the same.. and then correct myself by saying that actually two represent the third.. and then correct myself again saying that only one holds power and the others serve.

im not doubting the power of the prophet pbuh or the spirit.. im sure they could part the sea's if they were commanded.
correct myself again.. i do not doubt the power of god.

that is the point i was trying to make in the above post, just because jesus pbuh was stregthened by the spirit does not mean the same applies to us. god works through all things, the days of working through one alone are written time and time again.. then you and i have a say.

the bold text represents the understanding that we are all servants.. to become anything more is to claim something that none have the right to do. see enough of the world and you may understand what point in time we are at and how important the quran becomes.

 

[Sol Invictus]

once again thanks for the reply but no one here is debating whether or not god can use a prophet in order to fulfill a purpose, on that point everyone is in agreement. the point of contention is on the trinity and while i certainly don't have a problem with you sharing your opinion and your beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that you (and largely everyone else in this thread) have yet to deal with my points.

 

[جوري]

it doesn't change the fact that you (and largely everyone else in this thread) have yet to deal with my points.

You have non-points and not equipped to psychologically handle being controverted and again largely people really don't care about your self-immolating mangod beliefs!
your entire bible is corrupt with additions and subtractions, conflicting ideas and opinions, dubious authors, ineffectual apostles, and self-proclaimed ones.. Why should anything you present at all take up anyone's time beyond what the OP has already presented?

 

[M.I.A.]

once again thanks for the reply but no one here is debating whether or not god can use a prophet in order to fulfill a purpose, on that point everyone is in agreement. the point of contention is on the trinity and while i certainly don't have a problem with you sharing your opinion and your beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that you (and largely everyone else in this thread) have yet to deal with my points.

i get it but you must understand that any concept of the trinity only applied to jesus pbuh.. his method, his story.. his way of passing on the message to a people who were open to it.
to a chosen people? ..thats another debate altogether.

actually you could argue that it was not jesus's pbuh chosen method of passing on the message.. but he was built for the job.. by whome would not be a logical next step for most.

much the same as you and i have been created for a purpose, to worship god and offer submission in all things.. if you call out to anything, it should probably be to god alone.


it must be clear by now that the trinity is false simply because it does not apply to us, you have aknowledged the prophets pbu them.

you know that there is the god...ie the oneness of god thing.

if the trinity requires belief in the spirit then the angels need jobs aswell.


i guess only a few more steps of understanding and you could well get to know that god better, shame you are stuck in the grammer of the book..those were your questions not mine.

 

[Sol Invictus]

to be perfectly honest, i still can't quite see what your argument is. in so far as you're stating your own beliefs and opinions then this is perfectly fine but it does not change the fact that my argument has not been addressed and the errors with the qur'an's formulation of the trinity (and so forth) have largely been ignored.

 

[M.I.A.]

to be perfectly honest, i still can't quite see what your argument is. in so far as you're stating your own beliefs and opinions then this is perfectly fine but it does not change the fact that my argument has not been addressed and the errors with the qur'an's formulation of the trinity (and so forth) have largely been ignored.

im saying i could easily turn three into seven, tenets of faith

belief in one god

belief in the the prophets pbuh

belief in the angels

belief in the books

belief in heaven and hell

belief in the day of ressurection

belief in the day of judgement

it probably a little harder to distort than just using the top three.. odd concept of the trinity but give it time.

 

[Tyrion]

@Sol Invictus: Are you here to learn or to argue/debate? I feel as if your points have been refuted and argued many times over, and if you don't think so, then perhaps you should spend some time rereading this thread and others on this forum that have covered similar debates.

 

[Sol Invictus]

it's perfectly alright for you if you feel that way but it does strike me as strange that you would consider claims along the lines of "that's merely semantics" as a proper refutation. there are only two individuals who saw that this wasn't merely semantics and i am still waiting for one of their reply (given that he said he would reply). as to the rest of your post, it is rather baseless given that i was engaging with the previous poster who made statements that were irrelevant to the discussion and as such i simply made him aware of that. if the call to get back to the discussion suddenly constitutes arguing then i think that one of us defines this incorrectly. furthermore, learning and debating (and yes, even arguing) are not mutually exclusive and as such it's not necessarily an either or question. that said, i have not found a thread which deals with the exact issues that i brought up but if you feel that there are any, you are certainly welcomed to share them with me.

 

[جوري]

You have non-points and not equipped to psychologically handle being controverted and again largely people really don't care about your self-immolating mangod beliefs! your entire bible is corrupt with additions and subtractions, conflicting ideas and opinions, dubious authors, ineffectual apostles, and self-proclaimed ones.. Why should anything you present at all take up anyone's time beyond what the OP has already presented?

@Sol Invictus: Are you here to learn or to argue/debate? I feel as if your points have been refuted and argued many times over, and if you don't think so, then perhaps you should spend some time rereading this thread and others on this forum that have covered similar debates.

very true as seen by most!

 

[Woodrow]

I apologise that at the moment I am only giving a partial answer, more as a token answer to let you know I have not forgotten this thread.

I just got Home from Fargo long enough to feed the horses and now I am going to try to get 2 hours sleep before I drive back to Fargo. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to stop these daily drives to Farg and concentrate on giving an actual complete answer. But in the meantime here is a partial effort.

1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods.. Please notice in your quote of the ayyat it begins: They say,
( a ) Does that mean Christians say or is it refering to those who call themselves Christian?
( b ) Keep in mind the majority of those who called themselves Christian were and still are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and that statement in the Quran is very much in line with Catholic belief and doctrine although the Catholic explanation is quite confusing as to how God begot a son equates to having a son .

( a ) even if we were to concede this point and term all trinitarians as pseudo-christians, it would still not change the fact that trinitarians don't at all claim that god took a son--that is adoptionism. trinitarians condemned adoptionism and as such the quoted surah has nothing to do with the trinity whatsoever and cannot at all function as a refutation thereof. i must however commend you on implicitly admitting that this concerns not mere semantics but that there is a very real theological difference between the two.

I will agree that from what I understand mainstrean Christian Doctrine condemns adoptionism in canon and liturgy. However, what is often taught and has been taught is adotionism and many if not most called Christion have a belief in adoptionism although they condemn to word.I contend that the majority Christian belief is that Jesus(as) is the actual son of God(swt). That may or may not be the truth of trinitarian belief, but it is very typical of Christian belief.

( b ) neither roman catholics nor eastern orthodox christians adhere to adoptionism and so i can't at all agree with that. they are trinitarian and condemn adoptionism as well. so therefore the statement in the qur'an is not at all in line with the position of these institutions because it fails to condemn the trinity (just as i had, in my "fristianity" example failed to condemn tawhid even though i did use the word "tawhid" or mentioned god in the singular. from the context of my post it was quite clear that i had an improper understanding of it and the same can be said for every reference of the trinity within the qur'an).

My days as a Roman Catholic and an avid catechism student and seminarian instilled in me a strong adherence to the concept of adoptionism. So for myself anyhow I found Roman Catholocism to adhere to adoptionism.

if i understand the section on "begot a son" and "having a son" then you acknowledge that the statement "god has a son" does not necessarily invoke the aspect of temporality while the phrase "the father begot the son" does seem to invoke this very same thing and as such they cannot be made to equate to one another (do let me know if i am mistaken in my understanding of what you meant). let us then move on to talk of this concept. in actuality, the phrase is not merely begotten but rather "only-begotten"

Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel.

I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..

 

[Woodrow]

I apologise that at the moment I am only giving a partial answer, more as a token answer to let you know I have not forgotten this thread.

I just got Home from Fargo long enough to feed the horses and now I am going to try to get 2 hours sleep before I drive back to Fargo. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to stop these daily drives to Farg and concentrate on giving an actual complete answer. But in the meantime here is a partial effort.

1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods.. Please notice in your quote of the ayyat it begins: They say,
( a ) Does that mean Christians say or is it refering to those who call themselves Christian?
( b ) Keep in mind the majority of those who called themselves Christian were and still are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and that statement in the Quran is very much in line with Catholic belief and doctrine although the Catholic explanation is quite confusing as to how God begot a son equates to having a son .

( a ) even if we were to concede this point and term all trinitarians as pseudo-christians, it would still not change the fact that trinitarians don't at all claim that god took a son--that is adoptionism. trinitarians condemned adoptionism and as such the quoted surah has nothing to do with the trinity whatsoever and cannot at all function as a refutation thereof. i must however commend you on implicitly admitting that this concerns not mere semantics but that there is a very real theological difference between the two.

I will agree that from what I understand mainstrean Christian Doctrine condemns adoptionism in canon and liturgy. However, what is often taught and has been taught is adotionism and many if not most called Christion have a belief in adoptionism although they condemn to word.I contend that the majority Christian belief is that Jesus(as) is the actual son of God(swt). That may or may not be the truth of trinitarian belief, but it is very typical of Christian belief.

( b ) neither roman catholics nor eastern orthodox christians adhere to adoptionism and so i can't at all agree with that. they are trinitarian and condemn adoptionism as well. so therefore the statement in the qur'an is not at all in line with the position of these institutions because it fails to condemn the trinity (just as i had, in my "fristianity" example failed to condemn tawhid even though i did use the word "tawhid" or mentioned god in the singular. from the context of my post it was quite clear that i had an improper understanding of it and the same can be said for every reference of the trinity within the qur'an).
[/QUOTE]
My days as a Roman Catholic and an avid catechism student and seminarian instilled in me a strong adherence to the concept of adoptionism. So for myself anyhow I found Roman Catholocism to adhere to adoptionism.

if i understand the section on "begot a son" and "having a son" then you acknowledge that the statement "god has a son" does not necessarily invoke the aspect of temporality while the phrase "the father begot the son" does seem to invoke this very same thing and as such they cannot be made to equate to one another (do let me know if i am mistaken in my understanding of what you meant). let us then move on to talk of this concept. in actuality, the phrase is not merely begotten but rather "only-begotten"

Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel.

I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..

 

[Sol Invictus]

I apologise that at the moment I am only giving a partial answer, more as a token answer to let you know I have not forgotten this thread.

i appreciate that and it's alright, partial answers are better than none. i hope that things become less hectic for you.

I will agree that from what I understand mainstrean Christian Doctrine condemns adoptionism in canon and liturgy. However, what is often taught and has been taught is adotionism and many if not most called Christion have a belief in adoptionism although they condemn to word.I contend that the majority Christian belief is that Jesus(as) is the actual son of God(swt). That may or may not be the truth of trinitarian belief, but it is very typical of Christian belief.

If by "actual son" you mean a literal sonship accomplished through a physical union then I would have to disagree and ask you for some proof if you'd like me to at all believe this claim. most christians are in fact trinitarian and so in that sense it would not be "the typical christian belief". now you say that adoptionism is often implicitly taught and once more i'd ask for some examples. it's rather easy to make these claims but they don't exactly mean anything unless accompanied by some proof so please show me an example of adoptionism being implicitly taught by the church.

My days as a Roman Catholic and an avid catechism student and seminarian instilled in me a strong adherence to the concept of adoptionism. So for myself anyhow I found Roman Catholocism to adhere to adoptionism.

given that they themselves condemn adoptionism i would be very interested in seeing some examples of this teaching being put into practise because as is these arguments you've put forth have no weight behind them. as a non-muslim, i could not for instance merely say that in my opinion, islam teaches complete violence towards individuals who are not muslim and believe that i have actually made an argument. without some sort of proof what i have written would merely be seen as baseless and rightly so.

Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel. I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..

the simple fact is that even in our very own common parlance, we can use beget figuratively and this in itself should enlighten you to the fact that it does not necessarily denote physical sonship. i will also note that you have not tried to dismantle my argument but have merely just stated your opinion. aside from this, i should mention that throughout genesis beget is only used of a human male in conjunction with a human female who then birth a child and as such, if we are to identify the use of a word through a pattern, then the use of beget for god does not fit this pattern given that there is no consort involved. the concept of the virgin birth completely refutes this line of reasoning. that said, this does not change the matter that by the time these qur'anic verses were revealed (and not merely the one concerning betting but all the other mis-formulations of the trinity) these christian doctrines were firmly set in place and as such any decently educated individual would in fact be able to know what it was that christians (and primarily trinitarians) believed. i hope that in your next post, whenever you find the time, you will not only touch on the problem of adoptionism but also on why the qur'an condemned sabellianism, a trinity involving the person of mary (while any mention of the holy spirit is surprisingly absent) and a trinity that misorders the persons, when seemingly wishing to condemn the christian trinity which quite obviously has nothing to do with these.

anyway, i'll await your reply.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel.

I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..

Let me suggest a reason then. When you read the term "begat" in Genesis, you are not reading the actual word used in Genesis, but an English translation of the original. If that term in the original was at that point in time referring to biological reproduction, and then the translator uses the term "begat" then it may appear that the term "begat" refers only to biological reproduction (though that does not rule out its use being a figurative referral). The question however is not whether the term begat does or does not refer to biological reproduction, but whether the term from which it is translated does or does not. And is that the term behind other places where the English term "begat" is also used. Answer, in the OT it does indeed refer to to one term, yawlad, which means to bear, to cause, to give birth or to bring forth children. But in the new testament the original word that gets translated into English as "to beget" is most commonly (though not 100% of the time) gennao which can and most generally does mean to procreate, but can also refer to any sort of generating or even regenerating activity.

Further, when one reads phrases like "only begotten", the term from whcih that particular phrase is translated is mongenes and is uniquely used in the NT. In context we find that it is applied in reference not only to Jesus, but to Isaac as the monogenes of Abraham. Now, surely the author new that Isaac was not actually the only begotten son of Abraham, in fact not even the firstborn. But what Isaac was is the unique son who was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to have a son via Sarah. So, despite the fact that you will find the term monogenes translated as "only begotten" by many translators, I argue that it is not the best or even the properly connotated translation of that term.

One other thing I think we have to be careful of is proper understanding of the use and misuse of learning a words etemology. For instance, as I learned in a 3rd grade reading class today, the etemology of the English word "disaster" comes from Latin and Greek words meaning "star". One can see the connection when one recognizes that people once used to think that disasters were fortold in the stars. But, it would hardly follow that the use of the word today as anything whatsoever to do with stars.

Language changes with time, and the meaning and usage of the English word "begat" is one of those words in which we see this change. Those who insist that because a translator several centuries ago selected that term is what he thought was the best way to express a Hebrew or Greek thought in English, and today what people mean by the term is to procreate that it therefore follows that this is what the Hebrew and Greek writers were themselves expressing, are arguing backwards. It would be as if I was to look at the Qur'anic passage 4:144 "O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? (Yusuf Ali) and interpret that to mean that the Qur'an says Muslims cannot be friends with non-Muslims because the English word used in the translation is friends. And then to substantiate myself I look at the Arabic and I find that indeed the Arabic word "Auliya' " does indeed translate as "friend." Would you not (have you not in other threads) dispute that interpretation as not being the best understanding of the passage, because you would respond the word that is translated "friend" can also be translated as "helper" or "protector", and you would argue that it is the last understanding that best carries the connotation of the original meaning behind the word translated as "friend."

So, too, I argue, despite the possibility of translating the idea contained in the original languages as beget, it does not convey the best connotation of its meaning if you make to exclusively refer to biological procreation.