And God called their name adam

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 23 2011,21:30)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 22 2011,14:19)

Now please explain what you think “begotten (monogenes)” means?

That God caused the existence of His Son directly. Unlike all other things that were created by God through His first creation, Jesus was created by God personally and first.

Is that the definition of “monogenes” Mike?

Scripture Please!

July 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm#253855

KangarooJack

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2011,19:35)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 21 2011,17:43)

TO ALL,

There you have it! Mike says that “begotten” distinguishes Jesus from angels and from mankind!

It distinguishes Jesus from the OTHER angels, Jack. What's your point again?

WJ replied:

Quote

The point is Jesus is the “only, single of its kind” Son of God.

That means there is no other like him just as there is no other like the Father.

Keith,

Mike's explanation that Jesus as “begotten” is distinguished from “other” angels makes no sense and MIKE KNOWS IT. Jesus being begotten is God's kind and therefore God also is distinguished from “other” angels.

Jack

July 26, 2011 at 10:33 pm#253857

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 26 2011,17:28)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 21 2011,19:35)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 21 2011,17:43)

TO ALL,

There you have it! Mike says that “begotten” distinguishes Jesus from angels and from mankind!

It distinguishes Jesus from the OTHER angels, Jack. What's your point again?

WJ replied:

Quote

The point is Jesus is the “only, single of its kind” Son of God.

That means there is no other like him just as there is no other like the Father.

Keith,

Jack

True! If Mike believes that Jesus was created like all other created beings then he would have to give up on his claim that “Yalad” in reference to Jesus has the default meaning that God brought birth to Jesus.

Beware of the JW doctrine it is full of dead mans bones!

July 26, 2011 at 11:09 pm#253862

KangarooJack

Participant

WJ said:

Quote

Jack

Beware of the JW doctrine it is full of dead mans bones!

Exactly! Mike is unable to maintain a consistent Christology because he lacks the mental capabilities to see his inconsistencies.

On April 04 2010,07:27 Mike said:

Quote

This is what the JW scholars actually believe:

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo‧no‧ge‧nes′] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.”

So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge.

When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17

The red bold in the box quote above is mine. Note that Mike advocated the JW explanation that God begat Jesus in the same sense that men beget sons and that Abraham begat sons. Note also that the source Mike advocated said that God was “Senior” and that Christ was “Junior.”

If Christ is God “Junior” then He cannot be an angel!

The black bold in the box quote above is Mike's. He advocated the JW explanation that the angels were created but Christ is the only being who was directly BEGOTTEN by God.

But now Mike is saying that Christ is not “begotten” but directly “created.”

Mike just cannot maintain consistency. I really believe that he lacks the mental faculties to see his inconsistencies.

ATTN MIKE: JESUS WAS EITHER CREATED AND NOT BEGOTTEN OR BEGOTTEN AND NOT CREATED. AS ISTARI WOULD SAY, “WHICH IS IT?”

Jack

July 27, 2011 at 12:33 pm#253959

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ July 25 2011,23:03)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,21:43)

Pierre,
No, it is not difficult at all for me to answer that. I want it to be easy for you also to find the answer to these simple questions without asking people. I want you to be able to study the Bible so that you won't have to ask.

Go here and see the Greek word that is used for 'love' in that verse:
http://biblos.com/colossians/3-14.htm
Find out what Strong's number is for 'love' and put it in the Strong's number box on this site:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/
There you can see more info about the word and also you can click on the list of the books of the Bible to see the verses that have that Greek word translated in them.

Keep those references handy, they are very helpful!

Kathi

but I know the answer ,this is why i ask you because it seems you do not in this case want to show the Greek word with the different type of love attache to it ,

so which love is it ;friendly love ?
Mother love ?
brother Love?
fathers love ??
romantic love ?
power love ?
material love ?
childish love?
love based on principals ?
or ?

so what you say ?

Pierre,
I agree with what the lexicon says that I linked you to.

Kathi

July 27, 2011 at 12:35 pm#253960

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ July 25 2011,23:08)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,20:33)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2011,20:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2011,22:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2011,22:19)

Mike,

Quote

Kathi, we are also said to be ONE with the Father.

Where?

Mike,
Did you answer this and I missed it or did you not answer this yet?

Kathi

John 17

Wrong, it says no such thing in John 17, Mike.

Kathi

Jn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Jn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Jn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Pierre

Pierre,
Please bold out the part that supposedly says that we are to be one with the Father.

Thanks,
Kathi

July 27, 2011 at 1:25 pm#253961

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….reation

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2011,23:31)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 25 2011,21:21)

If the statements contain the word 'of' then the parents of Jesus would be ALL creation and that's a lot of parents.

Also, the dead would make a lot of parents, too.

“Of” is not the right choice.

Kathi,

Exactly how many times DOES the NETBible translate “ek” as “of”?

And my question wasn't which translation of “ek” is the right choice. I have shown proof from REPUTABLE Bibles that the word “ek” in Rev 1:5 CAN BE translated as “OF”.

Now, my question is if you were reading one of THOSE Bibles, and came across the “OF” in Rev 1:5, WHAT WOULD YOU TAKE IT TO MEAN?

In other words, would you SERIOUSLY understand it to mean that ALL OF THE DEAD PEOPLE were the father of Jesus? SERIOUSLY?

Mike,
Since we both agree that all creation is not the father of the Firstborn and we know that the father of the Firstborn is God, then we know who Jesus is a member of and that is the same class of beings as God is. There are only two in that class, the Father and the Son.

With that understanding, the firstborn 'of' God as the firstborn of all creation would place Him as the 'Light' that was 'begotten,' not created, on day one. Before that He was within the Father.

So as the Light, all things came into being through Him and apart from Him, nothing came into being. All things were made by Him and for Him.

So whether you say that He is the Firstborn of all creation, or Firstborn over all creation, if the understanding is that He is the Firstborn of God and part of the 'group of beings' that God is part of, because God is His Father, then we know that He is not part of creation by birth, but by the timing of His begettal. In the events of creation, His begettal was first. IMO

A begettal is not a form of creating out of nothing. It is an event that started off the six days of creation with the bringing forth the light, as I understand it.

So whether the word is 'of' or 'over', the Son is both…the first event of the six days of creation in regards to His begettal which would show how He is 'of' all creation and He is also over all creation since all things were made for Him.

I made a whole thread about the firstborn of/over all creation last year. The 'of' or 'over' doesn't take away from the fact that He was begotten 'of' God and it is that fact that determines His nature and to which group He is a member.

So, which translation is it, 'of' or 'over.' I would say that 'over' is the best translation because of people like you who think that His membership is with the group of created things when He actually has His 'type of being' membership with the one who beget Him. He is deity, both the Father and the Son are deity.

Kathi

July 27, 2011 at 3:25 pm#253980

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 27 2011,07:35)

Quote (terraricca @ July 25 2011,23:08)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 26 2011,20:33)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 25 2011,20:20)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 24 2011,22:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 23 2011,22:19)

Mike,

Quote

Kathi, we are also said to be ONE with the Father.

Where?

Mike,
Did you answer this and I missed it or did you not answer this yet?

Kathi

John 17

Wrong, it says no such thing in John 17, Mike.

Kathi

Pierre

Pierre,
Please bold out the part that supposedly says that we are to be one with the Father.

Thanks,
Kathi

Kathi

Once again you are correct! The scriptures do not claim that we are to be “one with the Father” but we are to be “one with them”.

The relationship of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is more than just one of unity and purpose. It is an ontological oneness of their nature where everything that God is they are and that cannot be divided.

The fact that we cannot have God without having the three is proof of this or else the commandments of God to have no other gods before him are null and broken.

That is why I believe that those who reject Jesus and the Holy Spirit as being God cannot know the Father God since you cannot know him without knowing the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Blessings!

Keith

July 27, 2011 at 3:28 pm#253981

942767

Participant

Hi Kathi:

You state:

Quote

The fact that determines his nature is not that he was begotten of the Father but the fact that he has obeyed the Father even unto death of the cross.

He was begotten of the Father and born into this world as an infant just as all of us were, but he did not go astray like the rest of us.

He is the “express image of God's person” through the works of obedience to God that he did in his daily life.

Quote

Jhn 14:7 ¶ If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Jhn 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Jhn 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Quote

1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Love in Christ,
Marty

July 27, 2011 at 8:48 pm#254016

Participant

Hi Marty,
No one can become the nature of God. You were either born with it or without it. Believers will partake of the nature but believers will never be able to say that their original nature was the nature of God. We could never be good enough to become the nature of God. No one can become the nature of God for it must be an eternal nature otherwise it would not be the nature of God.

BTW, I saw that you posted in the anti-Jesus is God thread. If you want to discuss it in another thread, let me know. (pm me)

Blessings,
Kathi

July 27, 2011 at 8:52 pm#254017

Participant

Keith,
Thanks! You are right, you can't know the Father apart from knowing the Son and you can't know the Son apart from the Holy Spirit revealing Him to you. No one can say Jesus is Lord apart from the Spirit.

Some think that is just a 'master' and not Lord through whom all things come and through whom we are given life, the Lord of the universe.

Kathi

July 28, 2011 at 1:30 am#254074

942767

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ July 28 2011,07:48)

BTW, I saw that you posted in the anti-Jesus is God thread. If you want to discuss it in another thread, let me know. (pm me)

Blessings,
Kathi

Hi Kathi:

All of us including Jesus were born into this world as innocent infants, and from here we all could have conceivably obeyed God's Word even unto death just as Jesus did, but all of us, except Jesus were tempted and sinned, and so, we developed a sinful nature through the life that we lived.

And no, from this state, we cannot be a partaker of the divine nature until we have been born again and the blood of Jesus has washed away our sins, and God has become the Father of our spirit.

Of Jesus, the scripture states that he was tempted every way that we were and he was without sin. For thirty years he was under the law, and lived a sinnless life, and then was baptized and recieved the Holy Spirit, and was sanctified through perfect obedience to our Father for our sakes.

And through this spirit of obedience to God our Father by our Lord Jesus, and by his blood, we also, can be partakers of the divine nature of God.

I posted in the Anti-Jesus is God thread by mistake, and if see something in what I posted worthy of discussion as we seek to learn the truth of God's Word, I will be happy to discuss this with you in another thread.

Love in Christ,
Marty

July 28, 2011 at 3:47 am#254104

Blocked

Kathi,

Could you answer my question? I'm trying to gauge your intelligence level.

Revelation 1:5
NASB ©
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood—

NRSV ©
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,

Here are two respected translations of the scriptures, Kathi. If these were the only two Bibles in existence, and you read this verse, would you:

1. Understand that Jesus was the first to be raised back to life from among the dead?

OR…………………

2. Think that “the dead” were the parents of Jesus?

Pick a number, please.

July 28, 2011 at 3:54 am#254105

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2011,09:25)

Kathi

Once again you are correct! The scriptures do not claim that we are to be “one with the Father” but we are to be “one with them”.

But this “THEM” is always referred to as a “HIM”, right guys? So why would you now say “THEM” instead of “but we are to be one with HIM”?

See Keith? As I recently told Kathi, your own words refute the craziness you try to claim. You guys can't even bring your own selves to speak the ridiculous language that you claim the scriptures were written in. And I find that most amusing.

July 28, 2011 at 3:57 am#254107

terraricca

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 28 2011,21:54)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2011,09:25)

Kathi

Once again you are correct! The scriptures do not claim that we are to be “one with the Father” but we are to be “one with them”.

But this “THEM” is always referred to as a “HIM”, right guys? So why would you now say “THEM” instead of “but we are to be one with HIM”?

Mike

look what is more amusing ,they congratulate each other in there false believe

Pierre

July 28, 2011 at 3:57 am#254108

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 26 2011,12:44)

HaHa Mike

Please tell us how Jesus is different than the Father in nature?

Keith,

Is Satan a spirit being like his Father?

July 28, 2011 at 3:58 am#254109

Blocked

Pierre,

:laugh:

July 28, 2011 at 5:31 am#254141

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2011,22:54)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 27 2011,09:25)

Kathi

Once again you are correct! The scriptures do not claim that we are to be “one with the Father” but we are to be “one with them”.

But this “THEM” is always referred to as a “HIM”, right guys? So why would you now say “THEM” instead of “but we are to be one with HIM”?

Mike,
In the OT you do not see where God is called the Father and the Son called the Son. In the NT, they are called Father and Son all over the place. In the OT, the unity was presented as Jehovah our God who is God of gods and Lord of lords or just God and just Lord (Adonay) at times. In the NT Jesus came to reveal the “Father” and the Father revealed His Son. What we witness is further revelation of who Jehovah our God is.

In the OT we have Deut 10:17
“For the LORD your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.

In the NT we have clarification of Deut 10:17
1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Our one true God, Jehovah, is two persons that is why we can speak about 'Him' and 'them' and still be correct. Jehovah is the name of the unity and the unity when spoken about is referred to as 'He.' The persons within the unity are spoken about as plural pronouns or as individual persons.

I don't think you would be so amused if you saw how other's imagine you as putting your foot in your mouth, Mike.

Kathi

July 28, 2011 at 5:35 am#254142

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 27 2011,22:47)

Kathi,

Could you answer my question? I'm trying to gauge your intelligence level.

NRSV ©
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood,

Here are two respected translations of the scriptures, Kathi. If these were the only two Bibles in existence, and you read this verse, would you:

1. Understand that Jesus was the first to be raised back to life from among the dead?

OR…………………

2. Think that “the dead” were the parents of Jesus?

Pick a number, please.

Mike,
Number 1. Notice how you used the word 'from' Mike. You admit that 'from' is the word that should be there, not 'of.'

Kathi

July 28, 2011 at 2:57 pm#254178