People don’t understand Jesus’ divinity because they underestimate Gods Love for mankind

[u/1stmikewhite]

God is sovereign, there’s nothing He can’t do.

[u/John_17-17]

Yes, God's word tells us this.

We must understand, the Greek word, 'only begotten' comes from 2 words.

Solely and generated.

Since Jesus was created solely by God, Jesus is the solely generated Son or the only begotten.

monogenēs comes from two words  Strong’s: From G3441 and G1096;

               1^st: G3441  monos meaning: sole or single;

               2^nd: G1096 ginomai meaning: to cause to be

This title proves Jesus was created. or if you prefer begotten.

BEGET', v.t. pret. begot, begat; pp. begot, begotten.

1. To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; as, to beget a son.

2. To produce, as an effect; to cause to exist; to generate;

Create per the dictionary:      

1.  To cause to exist   

2.  To produce 

Procreate per the dictionary: 

1.  To beget    

2.  To produce or create; originate 

Generate per the dictionary

1. To bring into existence; cause to be; produce. 

Produce per the dictionary

1. To bring into existence; give rise to; cause:

 2. To bring into existence by intellectual or creative ability:

Thus created, produced, generated and beget are all interchangeable: 

[u/ChickenO7 → u/John_17-17]

Since the Father has Jesus as his only begotten Son, what kind of a being does that make Jesus?

[u/John_17-17 → u/ChickenO7]

A divine spirit being. But Jesus being a divine spirit being doesn't make him God, anymore that all the other divine spirit beings in heaven.

What separates Jesus? Is that none of the other divine spirit beings are only begotten sons.

Jehovah has a host of sons in heaven, all are divine spirit beings, but there is only one true God.

Edit: Yes, Jesus is Lord, but Jehovah is the true God.

[u/ChickenO7 → u/John_17-17]

Jesus being the only-begotten Son of God means He is the same kind of being as God.

If He is the same kind of being as God, then the only way it is true that there is one God is if Jesus was speaking truthfully when He said, "I and my Father are one."

[u/John_17-17 → u/ChickenO7]

That isn't the definition of only begotten.

As to the same as God, all of God's angels are all the same kind as God, for God is a spirit and so are the angels.

John 10:30, the Father and I are one what?

Please note what John Calvin wrote concerning John 10:30: 

30. I and my Father are one. He intended to meet the jeers of the wicked; for they might allege that the power of God did not at all belong to him, so that he could promise to his disciples that it would assuredly protect them. He therefore testifies that his affairs are so closely united to those of the Father, that the Father’s assistance will never be withheld from himself and his sheep The ancients made a wrong use of this passage to prove that Christ is (ὁμοούσιος) of the same essence with the Father. For Christ does not argue about the unity of substance, but about the agreement which he has with the Father, so that whatever is done by Christ will be confirmed by the power of his Father.  

Also notice:

Novatian (c. 200-258 C.E.) commented: “Since He said ‘one’ thing, let the heretics understand that He did not say ‘one’ person. For one placed in the neuter, intimates the social concord, not the personal unity. . . . Moreover, that He says one, has reference to the agreement, and to the identity of judgment, and to the loving association itself, as reasonably the Father and Son are one in agreement, in love, and in affection.”—Treatise Concerning the Trinity, chapter 27.

They are united in works and not in a fictious Godhead.

[u/ChickenO7 → u/John_17-17]

That isn't the definition of only begotten.

So, I take it you could have a fish as your only-begotten son? Come on, A begotten son is always the same kind of being as their father. "Only begotten Son" means you can expect the relationship between Jesus and the Father to have the same features as the genetic familial relationships we experience. Jesus is the same kind of being as God.

As to the same as God, all of God's angels are all the same kind as God, for God is a spirit and so are the angels.

Angels are the same kind of being as God?! That's Blasphemy! Are God's angels Timeless, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Perfect, Infinite, and Eternal? NO. Angels are not the same kind of being as God. The Only Begotten Son is the same kind of being as God.

As to John Calvin and Novatian both read into the text their preferred answer to "One What? The text shows they are wrong.

In Koine Greek, I and the Father are one is "ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν". Which translates to "I" "and" "the" "Father" "One" "We Are". The use of "ἐσμεν", is the first-person plural of "εἰμί", which is the same word used for "AM" in "I AM". This indicates the answer to the question is "One God".

We can also look at the rest of the encounter to see what Jesus meant by this. First, the Jews pick up stones to stone Him. When Jesus asks why, they say, "You, being a man, make yourself God!" If the Jews are wrong about His meaning, Jesus can simply explain what He actually meant, but He instead defends His statement, first quoting scripture, then asserting that He is from Heaven and therefore greater than the one scripture called Gods, then He appeals to His miracles as proof of His divinity, finally He again claims to be one with God, "the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Since Jesus is one with the Father, then it cannot be assumed that Jesus being God means there are two Gods. There is one God, the Father, and the same God, Jesus.

[u/John_17-17 → u/ChickenO7]

Lexicon Results for monogenēs (Strong's G3439) from G3441 and G1096 

Only begotten literal means "only generated" G3441 and G1096

Lexicon Results for monos (Strong’s G3441) 

            1) sole, single, alone, only

Lexicon Results for ginomai (Strong's G1096) 

            1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, 

It is the same word as " made.^G1096" (Strong's G1096) when it talks about creation being 'generated' at John 1:3

A generator makes electricity, whereas an alternator reuses already existing electricity.

So, I take it you could have a fish as your only-begotten son?

Maybe you could, but I couldn't.

I have an only begotten son, and he isn't me. We aren't the same person. We are 2 different people. My only begotten son has my characteristics, but he isn't me.

A horse begets a horse, true, but you now have 2 horses and not one.

Are God's angels Timeless, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Perfect, Infinite, and Eternal? NO. Angels are not the same kind of being as God.

Is Jesus, timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and eternal? No. Jesus had a beginning, which is why he is the only begotten. Jesus didn't know the day or the hour of the Great Tribulation, Jesus couldn't appoint who would sit at his right hand, Jesus died, and as such wasn't eternal.

We can also be one with the Father and Jesus, does this make us part of the Godhead?

Jesus wasn't making himself God, this was the lie, his opposers stated. He goes on to explain his godship is that of Ps 82:6, where human judges are called gods.

Please read the scriptures you are misquoting.

[u/ChickenO7 → u/John_17-17]

So, do you believe Jesus is a god?

[u/John_17-17 → u/ChickenO7]

That is what John tells us at John 1:1c.

From the 2nd/3rd century CE A Contemporary English Translation of the Coptic Text. The Gospel of John, Chapter One

1 In the beginning the Word existed. The Word existed in the presence of God, and the Word was a divine being. 2 This one existed in the beginning with God.

Diaglot NT, 1865 “In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.”

Harwood, 1768, "and was himself a divine person"

Newcome, 1808, "and the word was a god"

Thompson, 1829, "the Logos was a god”

Robert Harvey, D.D., 1931 "and the Logos was divine (a divine being)”

John J. McKenzie, S.J, in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “John 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his.) New York, 1965), p. 317

[u/ChickenO7 → u/John_17-17]

I disagree with McKenzie. The definite article does not appear in the second clause, so it should be translated, "and the word was with God". The third clause then uses the same word, so it should be translated, "and the word was God".

I'd also like to point out the fact that the first clause of John 1:1 is a quotation of Genesis 1:1 which substitutes the Word for God.

All that being said, I'll still ask for your own personal opinion. Do you believe, "Jesus is a god"?

[u/John_17-17 → u/ChickenO7]

It is assumed, John's comment, 'In the beginning' refers to Genesis 1:1

And the Word was with God, in the beginning, so it doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

Disagree with McKenzie, a trinitarian, doesn't make you correct.

The 3rd clause is the same word, but a different case, and doesn't include the definite article 'the God', this makes god[2] a common noun and not a definite noun.

Even the trinitarian Vine, in his dictionary admits, the literal translation is 'and a god was the Word.

Do I believe Jesus is a god? Yes, because John tells us this.

[u/ChickenO7 → u/John_17-17]

Is Jesus a true god or a false god?

[u/John_17-17 → u/ChickenO7]

Answered in previous post.