Oh, I see. I do beg your pardon. So you mean something like this then:
Trinitarians rely on this verse (John 3:16) very heavily when trying to prove that Allah or Jehovah came down to earth to die for our sins. They claim that Jesus being God's unique son, makes him the only Son for God, which ultimately lead us to the conclusion that Jehovah is Jesus.
Also, let us look at Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son...." Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was 13 years older than Isaac. Yet we see that "his one and only son" expression was used for Isaac. The Bible uses expressions like this to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. The Bible in this verse glorifies Isaac for being the chosen sacrifice to God, according to what the Jews and Christians claim in their Bible. So Jesus being God's "only begotten Son" in John 3:16 doesn't make him God nor the only Son of God.
Is that what you had in mind?
There is nothing wrong with my question, or my comprehension of what you wrote there. You are well known for being consistently inconsistent, so verbal gymnastics are your stock-in-trade. It's the only tool you have for evading the truth, and wriggling out of your own dubious 'interpretations'.
Which, btw, remind me very powerfully of that well-known hermeneutical device:
"Judas threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself" (Matthew 27:5).
"Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37).
So no, thanks all the same. I don't need you to 'analyse' it for me, anymore than I need your warped, skewed, self-serving or manufactured 'interpretations' of Scripture. I'm more than happy to let your own words stand as they are, and let others make up their own minds about what they mean
And I can cite several other posts from you in similar vein if they are still in any doubt about your meaning.
So let's be clear then. You are telling me you quoted them, but disown or disapprove what they plainly say? Is that it? Then why did you copy/paste them in the first place? And also v. strange that they echo precisely what you have said in this very thread.
Normally, if we post something with which we disagree, we would then follow it with something that either refutes or repudiates it. Show me where you did either, and I will withdraw my example link that illustrates your beliefs.
But then I reserve the right to post others that come directly from you, unless of course it proves to be the case that you always hide behind other ppl's errors.
No, not really. Why don't you tell us precisely which bits you approve of? Or better still, why not copy/paste them here for everybody else to see?
You won't even need to go to the trouble of writing them out for yourself then, unless of course you insist we have it all in your own words?
Either way, I don't mind. So go ahead, knock yourself out.
what does "only begotten" mean.
On the basis of your past form, I would surmise anything but what you think it means.
get to know the saviour. read the red words.
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
Would that be the same Saviour you denigrate by denying His uniqueness and deity, or your false saviour?
Thanks all the same, but I think I'll stick with the Saviour of the BIble, who you still don't know.
More's the pity.