Christ is God

[Pro goes to great lengths to show that "son of God" is used in various senses in the Bible, but that was unnecessary because I already acknowledge it]If Con really acknowledges it then it means that he just have concurred in my case that the Son is begotten from the Father and hence, of same nature with him because I had gone to greath lenghts to show that "son of God" is used in various senses in the Bible in which I contrasted Jesus to others, that Jesus is the begotten Son ( hence, same in nature with the Father) and that Israelite kings, Israel as nation, angels, humans and Christians are all creature sons.[It has been my position throughout this debate that when "only begotten son" is used of Jesus, it is used in the messianic sense. I have already provided scripture in support of that, and Pro has not rebutted my case]I disagree with Con that when "only begotten son" is used of Jesus, it is used only in the messianic sense because I already gave scriptural evidences that the messianic sense is not the only sense of the begetting metaphor. Here's what I presented on Round 4 that Con has yet to refute: But that's only one sense of it, the other sense is that he's of same nature with the Father. Romans 1:4 speaks of this truth: " declared ( not made) Son of God with power." The fact that the first sense only covers entering glory proves that the second sense is solely referring to Jesus alone for he alone is "the Annointed One." Psalm 2:7 (LXX) is quoted in these three New Testament Scriptures:Hebrews 1:5 about eternal generation ( sonship)Hebrews 5:5 about priesthood ( sonship)Acts 13:35 about kingship ( sonship)It is because the begotten Son is the Messiah based on Psalm 110:3 (LXX). The Messiah is the only begotten one who is God by nature ( John 1:18) that is why he is Priest and King (and many more). [Although Pro cited several scriptures in support of his explanation, the only relevant passage he cited was John 1:18, which in some translations called Jesus the "monogenes theos," meaning "unique god" or as some translations say, "only begotten god.""Monogenes" does not mean "begotten," by the way. It means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind." The word for "only begotten" is "monogennao." "Genos" means "kind" or "type." "Gennao" means to beget.[1] So Pro's whole case about eternal begetting is invalid]I agree with Con that textual variants indeed exists in John 1:18. We should favor the reading "monogenes theos" ( only begotten, God) because of the following cogent reasons:1) LECTIO DIFICILIORThe copyist has more likely to change "theos" to "huios" that vise versa.In fact, Monogenês theos is a so-called hapax legomenon - a rare one-time occurrence in the NT. Even if it were a simple scribal error, the sudden appearance of a "difficult reading" in the manuscript tradition would likely be corrected back to the normative text.2) NOT A GNOSTIC TRANSLATION AT ALLSome say that it's a gnostic corruption of the text but if that were so then why do we find the Old Testament and Jesus' ancestry in the very MSS?3) EARLY MSS ATTESTS ITS VERACITYmonogenês theos is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.Greek MSSP66 ( A.D. 100-150) p77 ( A.D. 175-225)Codex SinaitucusCodex VaticanusCodex RegiusCodex Ephraemi RescriptusMiniscule 33*Apostolic Constitution*Harclean MarginAncient VersionsSyriac Peshitta ( A.D. 150) Arabic Diatessaron ( A.D 160-170)Coptic MSS ( The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huiosis completely absent)Ethiopic MSSLatin MSS ( Iraneus quotes John 1:18 " unigenitus deus" in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11)4) CHURCH FATHERS (BOTH EAST AND WEST) AND HERETICS USED IT Irenaeus, Clement ,Eusebius, Basil, Cyril, and Origen, Didymus, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory-Nyssa, Heracleon, Hilary, Jerome, Origen, Ps-Ignatius, Ptolemy, Serapion, Synesius, Tatian, Theodotus, Valentinius, and Arius. 5) FITS THE CONTEXT OF THE PROLOGUEJohn 1:1 - with God/ was God by natureJohn 1:1 - with GodJohn 1:14 -only-offspringJohn 1:18 -only-offspring, God by natureYou'll notice that in the entirety of John's prologue, the word "Son" is nowhere used in it and also notice how coherent the prologue is when monogenes theos is the reading.SOURCES:http://www.forananswer.org...http://classic.net.bible.org... The Greek word "monogenes" is a compound word of monos ( one. only) and genos (kind, stock, offspring). These definitions are uncontested and is accepted by all Bible scholars despite of divergence in interpretation of the Scriptures. Based on context, both "only-offspring" (only child) and " only one of its sort" ( unique) Jerome ( and others) did not corrupt the scripture but rather, they justly translated "monogenes" into Latin as " unigenitus " because an only offspring highly implies that this offspring is only begotten. The translation theory "dynamic-equivalence" used nowadays reflects the ancient practice. We have NLT as an example.monogenes huios ( John 3:16)- only-offspring/child, [who is] a Son. It's interesting to note that the Latin word"unigenitus,"(translation of the Greek word "monogenes") in John's gospel, is found in Codex Harleianus, a 10th century copy of the 2nd century Old Latin. SOURCES:http://www.ecclesia.org...http://www.bible-researcher.com...Conclusion: The Son is the "only offspring/Son who is God by nature"(John 1:18). The Bible clearly said that the ONE GOD is THE FATHER ( 1 Cor. 8:6, 1 Tim. 2:5). Again, it said that the ONE GOD is THE FATHER. It is THE FATHER.Now let me ask you this: What makes someone a Father?You got it. It's an OFFSPRING. You can't be a Dad without your own child.This means that the one God surely has an offspring whoever he/she/it/they may be.The Bible speaks of these entity or entities as God's son/sons.Adam ( Luke 3:38)Angels ( Job 38:7)Israel ( Exodus 4:22)kings ( Psalm 2:7)Jesus ( John 3:16)Christians (John 1:12)all humans ( Acts 17:28)Only Jesus is the " only offspring/Son who is God in nature" ( John 1:18).On John 1:1The Greek word theos in the 3rd clause of John 1:1 can only mean three things in its anarthrous form: 1)God by nature2)a god3)divine (1) fits best because (2) there's only one God not many as JW's teach (3) it includes all the qualities of God including personality not just being "of God" or "related to God" as used by Unitarians ( Socinians, I.N.C).On Philippians 2:6 Morphe means "form" ( nature, shape). It's dual meaning is used in the Bible, morphe is used in the OT as "nature" for about 5x ( Phil. 2:6, Romans 12:2, Phil. 3:10 and 21,Gal. 4:19 ) and as "shape" in both OT LXX (Daniel 3:19 ) and NT ( 2 Timothy 3:5 ). On 2 Peter 1:4Christians only shares in the divine nature while Christ possesses it wholly and innately ( Jn 1:1,Phil. 2:6,Col.2:9).In fact, the Hellenistic Jewish backround of this participating in the divine nature proves that it isn't referring to the entire essence of God but rather, only to virtues and immortality lost after the fall( even as the context speaks: 2 Pet. 1:2-4, glory, power, excellence, corruption, lust).Sources:Philo's Post Cain. 28. .Wisdom of Solomon 2:23On Mark 13:32 The Son knows all things ( Pre-incarnate state)-John 1:1The Son doesn't know all things not because he's not God by nature anymore but because he was incarnated( Incarnate state)- Mark 13:32/Philippians 2:6-7The Son knows all things via having the authority to now access his omniscience(post resurrection state)- Matthew 28:18/Colossians 2:3Because the Son is God by nature, his omniscience cannot cease but rather, only concealed as a side effect of assuming human nature. Con cannot say " It is still the case that Jesus didn't know all things, regardless of what the reasons is for why he didn't know all things" because he first needs to refute the doctrine of the Incarnation ( that it is unbiblical) before surmising such opinion.On John 5:26It is explicit in John 5:26 that the Father gave his Son the very same sort of life that he has that's why verse 27 says that the Son has the ability to raise the dead. If the Son is not of same nature with the Father, he couldn't raise the dead for only God has such ability. In fact, John 5:21 is explicit that the Son will raise the dead and will give them life in the same way his Father can do it. John 5:19 is best in concluding this. "Whatever the Father does the Son also does." ( NIV).On Hebrews 1:3 The Son himself has the nature of the Father like a stamp on a coin or letter. It only means that the Son is of same nature with the Father for the Son has his Father's own nature, in an perfectly identical manner. Sorry for my English.English is not my native language.Thanks Con for the debate! The Blessed Trinity bless Us!