Cos

So I have a question HollyW, does this quote from the watchtower reveal that the watchtower itself aligned with the US during the war? I thought they had nothing to do with war? Can anyone else reconcile this? I mean the expression below indicates that they did and approved of the outcome based upon their understanding of the Bible and God:
"Let there be praise and thanks-giving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy, the freeing of the captives (Isaiah 61:1) and the making of the world safe for the common people--blessings all assured by the Word of God to the people of this country and of the whole world of mankind."
Which side was YOUR God on? We see in the quote from HollyW that they supported the US in the war, but there is also a letter written to Hitler aligning themselves with him? 

If our minds cannot fully comprehend something, is that a sound reason for rejecting it?  No, of course not, there are many things that seem a mystery at times to us.  For instance, how about Time?  We don't reject the idea of time because there are aspects of it that we do not fully comprehend.  Or maybe Space. There seems to be no end to it but we don't reject the idea of space.
So, too, with the Trinity.  Just because you don't fully comprehend that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate persons who are the only true God, that is not a sound reason for rejecting.
Consider the opening words of the Bible: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  Do JWs consider God in this verse to be only the Father?  No, of course not, because they believe the Father created the heavens and the earth through the Son and by the Holy Spirit.  IOW "God created the heavens an the earth."
In Genesis 1:26 God went on to say: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness..."  JWs view God in this verse to be the Father, and he is speaking to the Son, and "our" refers to both the Father and the Son.  So does "God" in verse 27 "God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him"....Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all referred to as God.
 

The winning side, of course.  During WWI whose side did your church pray for?
"In accordance with the resolution of Congress of April 2nd, and with the proclamation of the president of the United States of May 11, it is suggested that the Lord's people everywhere make May 30th a day of prayer and supplication. ... As says the spirit through the Apostle Paul: "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Timothy 2:1-3) Let there be praise and thanks-giving to God for the promised glorious outcome of the war, the breaking of the shackles of autocracy, the freeing of the captives (Isaiah 61:1) and the making of the world safe for the common people--blessings all assured by the Word of God to the people of this country and of the whole world of mankind." Watchtower 1918 Jun 1 p.174

Bruce, you're the one who is running away.  I shared scripture with you and you failed to even reason on it.  You throw up this really lame argument because you've got nothing else to offer.  As I've already stated, a discussion with someone who can't bring himself to reason on the scriptures is pointless.  You stick your fingers in your ears and chant your so-familiar-refrain so that you can ignore what the Bible really teaches. 
I'll be waiting for you to reason on the scripture I posted.  Until then, well, getting to know you has been an experience I could have done without.

Not atall, bruceq, I find that in the course of conversation, some folks may simply state their own beliefs and they may do so with some conviction. But are they reasonable persons who are willing to listen to another viewpoint? If so, I can share with them what the Bible says, doing so with the conviction that it will find welcome response in the hearts of lovers of truth.  However, I find you are not a reasonable nor a reasoning person, nor a lover of truth.  Therefore, my time is more profitably spent elsewhere.

Don't you see what you're doing?  Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah either so you've built your argument on sand and can't seem to dig yourself out.  If you ever find yourself able to reason on the scriptures, maybe then we can resume our discussion.  In the meantime, I hope your day goes well for you.

Bruceq, could you do me a great favor and quote who you're replying to?  Thanks.
There are many scriptures that prove the Trinity teaching of three persons who are the one God, but the one that has had the most impact on me personally is 1 Corinthians 12:3 "Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit."

Moses?  Isn't this about the early Christians?
All the Apostles, even Paul, were Jews who became Christians.  I don't know what you think is wrong about that.

But the writers were Jews who became Christians.  The Jews you speak of who reject the Trinity also don't accept Christ as Messiah, so how wise would it be to allow them to form opinions for us.

Sure they did.  The sort of Bible reading they are referring to is described in their sentence just prior to that one: "to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home".  And they sure didn't describe it the way you did, did they.

Hi Ann, I'm coming into this discussion a bit late (to say the least) so someone may have pointed this out already, in reply to what I bolded in your post, did you know the WTS has expressed the view that if you read just the Bible, without any WTS publications, you will believe in the Trinity?

To all!
 
I’ve never seen so much hypocrisy; I am accused of changing the subject by a name caller, when it is everyone else going off subject. But “the Praeceter” is silent on this…why?
 
You know when people get intimidated by the truth they resort to childish acts of trying to humiliate others by poking fun at them or insulting them, this is NOT how Christians behave…"by their fruits you would recognize them", I believe bruceq quoted this, and then there is the person who thinks his a duck…I have to scratch my head in wonder on this one?
 
Hypocrisy seems to be the common trait with JWs, the claim on the uses of symbols is a point in fact. JW will point the finger and make false accusations which have no bearing of truth. Yet you are the ones guilty of using pagan symbols mixed in as Christian. Charles T. Russell’s gave site…pagan! The cover of Watchtower books with the Egyptian Sun god RA emblazoned on the cover…pagan!  And the list goes on.
 
But I’m even more dumbfounded by the claim made that it is not “fair to say that Arians didn't appear until the 4th century”. This is historically incorrect.
 
The Arian belief system appeared in the fourth century and is the closest to match the JW form of religion, although Arius and JWs differ on the personality of the Holy Spirit among some minor other things.
 
If any form of Arian belief system were present before Arius was even born then the ANF writers, who denounced false teachings, would surely have made mention of any such group! <><

It is claimed by JWs that shortly after the death of the apostles, the early Church soon fell victim to a full-scale apostasy, and thus the writings of the early church are irrelevant.
 
When we turn to the Scriptures we see that there is to be apostasy, 2 Thess 2:3, 1 Tim. 4:1-3, 2 Tim. 4:3-4.  
 
Please note that these verses say nothing of a full apostasy of the Church. In fact we see on the other hand, Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 28:20 and Acts 28:28 and also Isa. 59:21, that say explicitly that the Church will NEVER cease.
 
So then the question needs to be answered, namely, where were the JW's form of religion between 100 A.D. and the fourth century or even the nineteenth century? <><

Hello Ms O’Maly,
 
You claim that the ANF “before Tertullian” tendered to be  “Binitarian” is not quite correct, those that put this idea forward are themselves Binitarian. See my resent post to Eoin Joyce.
 
JWs are not the only group that reject the Trinity, there are others such as Binitarians and Unitarians. What gets me is the JW “rhetoric device” you mention is a deception if you asked me, just a ploy to stop people reading the Bible and instead read JW publications. <><

Hello Mister Joyce,
 
My deepest and sincere apology on referring to you as “Ms” I meant  “Mr” all I can say is that I for some reason pressed ‘s’ instead of ‘r’. Please accept my apology.
 
You say, “General principles can be drawn from Biblical passages, regardless of context.” I disagree. Who decided what the “general principles” are? In fact 2 Peter 3:16 is applicable in this instance. One must be careful to not read their own ideas into Scripture that is not the intent of the author.
 
I had asked you to explain what you were taught on the Trinity when you were growing up a Roman catholic but you say nothing on this, so I will ask again, can you tell me what you were taught?
 
You ask if I can quote first century examples from the early Christians, you do know that the first century is counted from the year 1 to the year 100 AD? The second century begins from 101 to 200 and so forth. You know we are living in the 21st century don’t you? The last book of the NT was written in the early 90’s of the first century.
 
Anyway, at the turn of the century, that is 100 AD, a person called Clement, believed to be the Clement mentioned in Phil. 4:3, wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, in that letter he said;
 
“For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, who are the faith and the hope of the elect.... Amen.” (Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 58:2)
 
The three are coordinated in this oath. This faith and hope by “the elect” (those, WHO BELIEVE the truth) is straight forward and is reliant on the three together.
 
Let me know if you require more proof on the Trinitarian belief of the first Christians. <><

bruceq said; "I noticed you had to go a hundred or so years after the Bible was written to find anything" 
 
Do you want earlier quotes? What silly comment will you then make?
 
Instead of making such outlandish comments why don’t you ask yourself why the Jews persecuted the disciples in the NT if they believed the same as you claim? I’m sure we’d all like to know! <><
 

Hello Ms O’Maly
 
Thank you for your thoughts.
 
Firstly you should look up Messianic Jews on the web, such as “Jews for Jesus”, and ask them whether they are “guided” and “influenced” to believe what they believe by others as you imply; I very much doubt it, but I can’t answer for them.
 
Secondly, can I just say your comment about what you heard “by the non-trinitarian JWs” about reading the Bible on its own is strange, for the Watchtower “warns” JW’s NOT do this.
 
“From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those, who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude... They say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such Bible reading, they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentators by Christendom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago...”” (Watchtower, August 15, 1981)
 
And
 
" . . . people cannot see the Divine Plan in studying the Bible by itself . . . if he then lays them [Scripture Studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness...," (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1910, p. 298).
 
So basically, what they are saying to the JW’s is that if they read the Bible on its own then after a short time they will believe exactly what I believe, how revealing is that!
 
I don’t know what kind of “killer texts” would satisfy your query; all I can do is show what the early church has believed.
 
Irenaeus (120-202) "For I have shown from the scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” (Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 19)
 
Tertullian (155-220) "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person” (Against Praxeas, chapter 25)
 
Hippolytus  (170-235) “A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three.” (Against The Heresy Of One Noetus, section 8)
 
This is just a few examples of what the early Christians believed; there are many more exemplar that could be called on. <><

Hello Bruceq
 
Thank you for your comments.
 
It is interesting to note that when Jews convert to Christianity and read and believe the New Testament (they are known as messianic Jews) that they believe in the Triune God. Also one of the reason the Jews persecuted Christians, you know the ones in the New Testament, was because of who they claimed Jesus actually is. And do you not know that the Devil counterfeits the truth, for example, in some pagan religions they have the story of the death and resurrection of a hero figure…sound familiar, does this then mean that the NT witness to Jesus is false? To follow your line of reasoning you must conclude this? <><

Hello JW Insider,
 
I’m sorry that I couldn’t get back to you earlier my week has been very busy.
 
You say,
“Also, if Origen said "A" in one place and "B" in another, how do we know whether Rufinus picked the correct places to edit. Perhaps Origen would have preferred all his A's to be corrected as B's and Rufinus corrected all his B's and made them A's.”
 
Origen did not say “A” in one place and “B’ in another maybe you missed how, not only Rufinus, but also Pamphilus, mention that Origen’s work had been altered by others. So how can we know for sure? By doing what Rufinus suggests and compare these renderings to Origen’s other writings. So shall we?
 
 “Light without splendor is unthinkable. But if this is true, there is never a time when the Son was not the Son. He will be, however, not, as we have described the eternal light, unborn (lest we seem to introduce two principles of light), but, as it were, the splendor of the unbegotten light, with that very light as His beginning and source, born of it indeed, but there was not a time when He was not. Thus Wisdom, too, since it proceeds from God, is generated out of the divine substance itself. Under the figure of a bodily outflow, nevertheless, it, too, is thus called 'a sort of clean and pure outflow of omnipotent glory' (Wis. 7:25). Both these similes manifestly show the community of substance between Son and Father. For an outflow seems ὁμοὐσιος, i.e., of one substance with that body of which it is the outflow or exhaltation” (Origen In Hebr. frg. 24,359 emphasis mine).
 
Let’s notice a few things from this. When Origen says that there never was a time when the Son was not, this is in stark contrast with the later Arian principle that “there was a time when the Son was not”.
 
Another point is the uses of the word homoousios which you imply is a distortion of the developing language. Yet Origen here uses the word hamoousios in speaking of the Son's basic relation with the Father. Homoousios (Greek. ὁμοούσιος) means "of the same substance," "of the same essence."  Homo means "same" and ousia means "essence."  Origen is saying that the Son is of identically the same substance as the Father and thus is God just as the Father is God. For a more detailed treatment see G. L. Prestige, “God in Patristic Thought”, pp. 197-199.
 
You say;
“People can pick and choose from more than one teacher. Paul of Samosata followed Origen in several ways. I see no misunderstanding.”
 
It is interesting that Eusebius makes no mention of this and we both know Eusebius’ leanings were more towards your belief system, but I do agree “People can pick and choose from more than one teacher” but there is no confirmation of this theory in regard to Paul of Samosats,… not even from Eusebius, but then he would appear to be a charlatan because, from what you say, he does not record the specifics of church history but only a whitewashed version to “tie in” with “the current official faith”.
 
Even though Eusebius mentions other heresies which the church faced in the years before his own time, there is no mention of Binitarianism none at all. Why would he “intentionally” not mention this heresy? It’s because this heresy did not appear until the late fourth century. If it were a belief system BEFORE the fourth century then people like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and of course  Eusebius, would have referred to it, but there is nothing; just as there is no belief system that even resembles the JW form of religion being mentioned by these early church writers.
 
What you need to consider is this fact, the early church writers refuted all forms of heresy they do not even mention any group that resemble your type of religion because it did not exist until much later! This is fact, it’s not speculation no matter how many ways you want to “look at the issue” this fact speak volumes. <><
 

Hello JW Insider,
 
Thanks for your further comments. I really feel now that there is no need for me to respond to the other two posts as you have encapsulated what my response was to be, and that is that there are many scholars, as you acknowledge, that hold a completely different view on Origen to those that you quoted, such as E. J. Fortman, “The Triune God” page 58, expressing that “Origen is Trinitarian in his thought…”
 
I also would have said that we look at the other writings of Origen which we have Greek copies of, because as Rufinus admits the alteration he made in De Principiis were because they were “corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons” as explained in “Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen”. And these alterations that Rufinus made are consistent with what Origen said in his other works;
 
“If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.” (Prologue of Rufinus)
 
After reading the Prologue, Rufinus’s honesty does not need to be impugned in the way stated in your quotes. What he says is credible and straightforward. There are many other examples that Origen makes regarding the Trinity in his other works that can be looked at and compared as just as Rufinus said.
 
In another work by Rufinus, “On the Falsification of the Books of Origen” also titled “Rufinus’s Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr’s Apology for Origen”; he states his arguments for why some of the passages in Origen’s work De Principiis were corrupted by those he calls “heretics and malevolent persons” I think you might find that interesting.
 
You say;
“My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th.”
 
It is exactly to this allegation that I want to look, if Christian’s as early as Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus (just to name a few), are speaking in definite terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, how can it have “developed over time” or “evolve”?
 
The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the fourth century formulated creeds.
 
We notice that from the Scriptures the testimony is that Jesus’ church would not cease at any time and then re-emerge some years later, this "restoration" claim contradicts Scripture. Yet it is this very claim that is made by all religions which were founded in the past 150 years!
 
I think you can see what I’m getting at.
 
You say in one of the other posts,
“…Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God. 
 
If I can just say the use of the word “begotten” does not mean “made” or “created”.
 
When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a rabbit begets little rabbits a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds.
 
To create is to make. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a rabbit makes a barrow a man makes a house.
 
As the early church writers stipulate, what God begets IS God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.
 
I’m certain that you can access more articles on this through your college alumni account which will give a more detailed description then can be done in this short space. <><

Hello JW Insider,
 
Thanks for your further comments. I really feel now that there is no need for me to respond to the other two posts as you have encapsulated what my response was to be, and that is that there are many scholars, as you acknowledge, that hold a completely different view on Origen to those that you quoted, such as E. J. Fortman, “The Triune God” page 58, expressing that “Origen is Trinitarian in his thought…”
 
I also would have said that we look at the other writings of Origen which we have Greek copies of, because as Rufinus admits the alteration he made in De Principiis were because they were “corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons” as explained in “Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen”. And these alterations that Rufinus made are consistent with what Origen said in his other works;
 
“If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.” (Prologue of Rufinus)
 
After reading the Prologue, Rufinus’s honesty does not need to be impugned in the way stated in your quotes. What he says is credible and straightforward. There are many other examples that Origen makes regarding the Trinity in his other works that can be looked at and compared as just as Rufinus said.
 
In another work by Rufinus, “On the Falsification of the Books of Origen” also titled “Rufinus’s Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr’s Apology for Origen”; he states his arguments for why some of the passages in Origen’s work De Principiis were corrupted by those he calls “heretics and malevolent persons” I think you might find that interesting.
 
You say;
“My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th.”
 
It is exactly to this allegation that I want to look, if Christian’s as early as Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus (just to name a few), are speaking in definite terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, how can it have “developed over time” or “evolve”?
 
The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the fourth century formulated creeds.
 
We notice that from the Scriptures the testimony is that Jesus’ church would not cease at any time and then re-emerge some years later, this "restoration" claim contradicts Scripture. Yet it is this very claim that is made by all religions which were founded in the past 150 years!
 
I think you can see what I’m getting at.
 
You say in one of the other posts,
“…Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God. 
 
If I can just say the use of the word “begotten” does not mean “made” or “created”.
 
When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a rabbit begets little rabbits a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds.
 
To create is to make. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a rabbit makes a barrow a man makes a house.
 
As the early church writers stipulate, what God begets IS God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.
 
I’m certain that you can access more articles on this through your college alumni account which will give a more detailed description then can be done in this short space. <><

Hello JW Insider,
 
Thanks for your further comments. I really feel now that there is no need for me to respond to the other two posts as you have encapsulated what my response was to be, and that is that there are many scholars, as you acknowledge, that hold a completely different view on Origen to those that you quoted, such as E. J. Fortman, “The Triune God” page 58, expressing that “Origen is Trinitarian in his thought…”
 
I also would have said that we look at the other writings of Origen which we have Greek copies of, because as Rufinus admits the alteration he made in De Principiis were because they were “corrupted in numerous places by heretics and malevolent persons” as explained in “Apologeticus, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen”. And these alterations that Rufinus made are consistent with what Origen said in his other works;
 
“If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have brought it forward agreeably to the rule which we frequently find affirmed by himself If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer, added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own, but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other portions of his writings.” (Prologue of Rufinus)
 
After reading the Prologue, Rufinus’s honesty does not need to be impugned in the way stated in your quotes. What he says is credible and straightforward. There are many other examples that Origen makes regarding the Trinity in his other works that can be looked at and compared as just as Rufinus said.
 
In another work by Rufinus, “On the Falsification of the Books of Origen” also titled “Rufinus’s Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr’s Apology for Origen”; he states his arguments for why some of the passages in Origen’s work De Principiis were corrupted by those he calls “heretics and malevolent persons” I think you might find that interesting.
 
You say;
“My main point was that the Trinity doctrine as defined in the 4th century was developed over time, and actually "evolved" somewhat from the 2nd century through the 4th.”
 
It is exactly to this allegation that I want to look, if Christian’s as early as Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus (just to name a few), are speaking in definite terms of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as God, how can it have “developed over time” or “evolve”?
 
The early church, from the first century onwards, always agreed that there were three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God. If one examines carefully and with all honesty the writings of the early church their language and theology bear forth their understanding of the Triune God long before and in complete harmony with the fourth century formulated creeds.
 
We notice that from the Scriptures the testimony is that Jesus’ church would not cease at any time and then re-emerge some years later, this "restoration" claim contradicts Scripture. Yet it is this very claim that is made by all religions which were founded in the past 150 years!
 
I think you can see what I’m getting at.
 
You say in one of the other posts,
“…Origen himself, who was famous for this in his works, and he testifies to the "only begotten God" reading. Whether he ever used this particular verse, I'm not sure, but he did argue for a begotten God in the sense of a "created" Son who is called God. 
 
If I can just say the use of the word “begotten” does not mean “made” or “created”.
 
When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a rabbit begets little rabbits a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds.
 
To create is to make. When you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a rabbit makes a barrow a man makes a house.
 
As the early church writers stipulate, what God begets IS God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.
 
I’m certain that you can access more articles on this through your college alumni account which will give a more detailed description then can be done in this short space. <><

Hello JW insider,
 
What a surprise I got after I sent in my post, within 36 hours I receive not one but two well detailed posts from you, that’s quite impressive, and on top of that you also must have an extensive library to boot.
 
If I may, I would like to respond to what you say, but I can’t do it in the same timeframe as your replys, it will take me a lot longer I’m afraid, as my family and work necessitate much of my time, so please bear with me. <><

Hello JW insider,
 
What a surprise I got after I sent in my post, within 36 hours I receive not one but two well detailed posts from you, that’s quite impressive, and on top of that you also must have an extensive library to boot.
 
If I may, I would like to respond to what you say, but I can’t do it in the same timeframe as your replys, it will take me a lot longer I’m afraid, as my family and work necessitate much of my time, so please bear with me. <><

I tried exactly what you propose, only to have the subject changed. On top of that, there cannot be an intellectual conversation when one chooses to dismiss a point without hearing it out.