And God called their name adam

[terraricca]

Quote (shimmer @ July 17 2011,00:10)

Note Terrarica, Attack false belief not the person. So you say 'what you say is not true' But don't say 'you are lost, you have no truth'. So attack the post not the poster.

shimmer

yes but sometimes it is difficult were the same person comes continuously with the same view what scriptures do not support
so it does not matter what that person discuss his or her view away from scriptures make their mind put that idea interlaced with all they quote and in that way it becomes deceit and devious

but i try like you say.
Pierre

[shimmer]

Terra,

I know.

Also, it is hard. Because Jesus and others used words like: hypocrites, liars, snakes and generation of vipers, devoid of truth and things.  

If we are in a spiritual battle, then what?  The times are bad, so would it be more urgent today? I think so.

So, do we be nice, to NOT hurt feelings, or what?

If we are quiet, then is it helping them – or anyone else? No.

If we are concerned that someone is telling lies, causing division, or being decietful, then what?

I think the secret is, if what we say will embarrass them,  such as on an internet forum, where others can read, then thats mean.

It should be in private – with the person only – and no-one else.

But thats hard on internet forums, because it's not face to face, and it can get abusive in private.

So, on an internet forum, where anyone can read, then, attacking the post content but not the poster is the best thing.

So, a good thing to say, would be – “That is not true” or “that is not in scripture”

Instead of  – “You do not have the truth” or “You are a liar”

So the difference is in the word YOU.

But, I like the way you write, always have. (Just never told you).

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ July 17 2011,01:43)

I think the secret is, if what we say will embarrass them,  such as on an internet forum, where others can read, then thats mean.

Well, as a man who just posted a poll to EMBARRASS Paladin into finally answering a simple question, I say that if they're not spouting scriptural garbage, then they'll have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Shimmer, as you have pointed out, Jesus didn't take the Pharisees aside and embarrass them privately, did he?

I agree with t8, who is okay with calling another member out about a LIE they've told, when it's clear they did, but NOT okay with one calling another a “LIAR”.

I will work on myself, and try to remember to use phrases such as, “IT SEEMS TO ME that you are being deceptive about this issue”, etc.

Just my two cents,
mike

[shimmer]

Ok Mike fair enough. I know what it's like to be publically humiliated for no good reason, on the Procreation and other threads, so when it gets personal, that's not right, not on an internet forum, where anyone could be reading.

I also recieved a warning for doing the same thing, so we all do it.

Internet forums are different than face to face.

We all have to learn thing's.

Terrarica I love his writing style. I don't know why some pick on him about it, I can understand him perfectly. It has a nice flow to it.

Anyway ok, this is off topic! (I wasn't even following this topic). So, I better leave it, bye.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ July 17 2011,17:57)

I know what it's like to be publically humiliated for no good reason

Hi Shimmer,

I guess “no good reason” is open to interpretation and opinions will most likely vary.

But I get your point and have no intention of ever embarrassing anyone at any time for “no good reason”.

[shimmer]

Ok Mike..

[mikeboll64]

Bump for Keith, Jack and Kathi

[terraricca]

Quote (shimmer @ July 18 2011,01:43)

Terra, I know. Also, it is hard. Because Jesus and others used words like: hypocrites, liars, snakes and generation of vipers, devoid of truth and things.   If we are in a spiritual battle, then what?  The times are bad, so would it be more urgent today? I think so. So, do we be nice, to NOT hurt feelings, or what? If we are quiet, then is it helping them – or anyone else? No. If we are concerned that someone is telling lies, causing division, or being decietful, then what? I think the secret is, if what we say will embarrass them,  such as on an internet forum, where others can read, then thats mean. It should be in private – with the person only – and no-one else. But thats hard on internet forums, because it's not face to face, and it can get abusive in private. So, on an internet forum, where anyone can read, then, attacking the post content but not the poster is the best thing. So, a good thing to say, would be – “That is not true” or “that is not in scripture” Instead of  – “You do not have the truth” or “You are a liar” So the difference is in the word YOU. But, I like the way you write, always have. (Just never told you).

shimmer

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,14:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,13:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,11:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,12:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,10:58) Mike Is Jesus the “Only Begotten Son of God” or not? Well of course he is.  Scripture says so, right?    What a silly question.   Ha Ha Mike If he is the “ONLY” Begotten Son of God then that means that he is all alone as the Fathers “ONLY” Son. That means he is not a part of the “Spirit species” you claim! WJ Oh.  I wasn't aware that the Father only has ONE son period. Why do you misrepresent my words and then create a smoke screen? This is what you do to everyone here Mike. Didn't I say he was the “Only Begotten Son of God”! Is there any other “Only Begotten Son” that bears the exact image of the Father? 'Only” means he is the Fathers “Only Son” Begotten, that is right. But what does the word “Begotten” mean to you Mike? Are you changing your definition of the word now? WJ Are you kidding me, Keith?   Look at your first post, where you tried your best to slink from “only begotten Son” to “ONLY Son”, period.

Mike

There you go again misrepresenting my words. But please do explain how there is more that “ONE” Begotten Son in the scriptures. If Jesus is the “Only Begotten Son of God” then that means there is “no other Begotten Son” which means he is the “ONLY” Son Begotten.

But then as usual words like “ONLY” have no meaning to you just like the words “Only One True God” yet you say there are “other true Gods”.

Your fight to diminish Jesus to being the same as every other created being in the Universe is a fight against the truth of Gods word and means that you serve a false Jesus who is nothing to you but a servant to his God. You are still following the Jesus who was in the flesh before all things were in his hands. Of course you deny this truth because you have said all things do not come from Jesus hands.  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

And then you only posted the first LINE of my response.  And then have the nerve to accuse ME of a “smokescreen”?

Exactly, because the rest of your post was a smoke screen! I responded to the meat of the discussion. But hey, isn’t that just a taste of your own medicine Mike?  

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

And now, look at your response to my response: Quote 'Only” means he is the Fathers “Only Son” Begotten, that is right. See?  You're STILL trying to sneak “only begotten Son” into “ONLY Son”.

Do you see my words “ONLY SON BEGOTTEN”?

Is Jesus a Son as all other sons? Does the word “ONLY” mean anything to you Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

Where are you going with this question anyway?  Do you think you will convince me that because Jesus is the only begotten SON of God, he is also the God he is the Son OF?

No of course I nor anyone else can convince you that Jesus is God in nature like the Father is God. It will take Gods Spirit to show you the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are God.

You have closed your eyes to Jesus being of the same nature or kind of being as the Father because he is the “ONLY BEGOTTEN” of the Father and in essence Jesus is all the Father God is just as a human is in essence all that his Father is as a human being.

Instead to you Jesus is not “The Only Begotten of the Father” for you say that he is like all the other sons and you even claim he is an angel and that all angels are gods like Jesus including satan That is Heresy and anathema Mike.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

And to answer your question, “begotten” means “brought forth, as in childbirth”, just as Strong says it does.  And yes, just like I could use the English phrase, “That GIVES BIRTH to another question”, the Hebrews and Greeks also used “begotten” metaphorically – WITHOUT EVER CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE WORD ITSELF.

Sorry Mike there is a difference in a “metaphoric Son”  and a “literal Son” or else you believe Paul literally brought birth to those he espoused. Scripturally every kind bears after its own kind but to you Jesus the Father and
the Angels are the same kind which means to you the Father is an angel also. You teach JW lies from the pit of hell and only meant to reduce Jesus nature which is after his Fathers nature as God.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

See?  When I “GIVE BIRTH” to a question, I AM actually CREATING a new question, right?  It's just that I'm metaphorically applying a phrase that refers to a literal childbirth to a situation that doesn't have to do with a child.  But the phrase “GIVE BIRTH” STILL continues to refer to a literal childbirth even after I use it metaphorically in reference to something else.

Confusion!

So I gather from your words that  when “Begotten” refers to Jesus then that means to you he was “literally born” from the Father?

So then that must mean Jesus is the “Only Son that was literally born from the Father”, is that right Mike? If so then that means Jesus is not “A Son” like all the others. If Jesus was a “son of God” lile all other sons then why did Peter have to have Divine revelation from the Father that Jesus is the Son of the living God? Why did the Jews want to kill him for saying he was the “Son of God” and God the Father was his own personal Father?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

Kathi came up with a brilliant rule of application for “yalad” and “ginomai”:  Begotten ALWAYS has the default meaning of a LITERAL childbirth………….UNLESS there is clear and obvious context that shows otherwise.

Is this some kind of Greek rule? Context should have a lot to do with it, and we know in context Paul did not bring birth to “sons of God”.

But then again that must mean that you believe Jesus was “literally born” from the Father.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23)

And since none of you can show any SCRIPTURAL reason (as opposed to your own wishes) to suggest that the begetting of Jesus was anything other than the DEFAULT meaning, the DEFAULT meaning applies.

Yet you have been arguing with Kathi that Jesus is a created being like all the others and not a “literal Son” born of the Father which would mean he is in nature God like the Father in every way if he is a “True Son”. Again that means that he is not “a Son” like the others doesn’t it Mike?

WJ

[KangarooJack]

WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll64:

Quote

Instead to you Jesus is not “The Only Begotten of the Father” for you say that he is like all the other sons andyou even claim he is an angel and that all angels are gods like Jesus including satan That is Heresy and anathema Mike.

On April 06 2010,15:14 Mikeboll said:

Quote

I'm not saying anything, it's God's Holy Word that tells us that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son.  Not that he is the only person who is a son of God.  Do you see now why the word “begotten” is so important?  It distinguishes Jesus from the angels and mankind.  To say that Jesus is the ONLY Son of God would make no sense considering God already called Solomon His son, and Paul says we ARE sons of God,

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=90

TO ALL,

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

So what other “kind” is there? This is proof that Mike cannot maintain a consistent Christology. By Mike's own process of elimination the word “begotten” must have the prefix “only” with it. Christ is the “only begotten” of God, that is, the only Son after God's kind.

Thank you Mikey!

KJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 21 2011,13:06)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,21:23) And now, look at your response to my response: Quote 'Only” means he is the Fathers “Only Son” Begotten, that is right. See?  You're STILL trying to sneak “only begotten Son” into “ONLY Son”.   Do you see my words “ONLY SON BEGOTTEN”?

I see your quoted and bolded words “Only Son”, followed by the unquoted and unbolded word “Begotten”.  Why would you place that word AFTER “Only Son” and separate it from the bolded, quoted words?  After all, the “begotten” part goes WITH the “only” part – as in ONE WORD (monogenes).  So why would you separate those two words that should be linked together, Smokescreen……………..er…………….I mean Keith?  

Quote

Is Jesus a Son as all other sons? Does the word “ONLY” mean anything to you Mike?

NO…………and YES.  Jesus is most definitely NOT a son like all the others.  He is the ONLY son said to be begotten by God.  

I think I finally know where you're going with this now, so let's nip it in the bud before there are a hundred more of you super long posts I have to contend with.  

You think that since Jesus is begotten, and has the nature of the God who beget him, that he is somehow EXACTLY THE SAME as the God who beget him.  Is this correct?

Let's discuss it then.  First, do you truly believe that Jesus was LITERALLY begotten, as in brought forth into existence, by his God?  Because you must believe this in order to make your claim stick.  So……………do you?

peace,
mike

[mikeboll64]

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?

You asked, “What other 'kind' is there?”

Do you really think there is only “Godkind” or “Angelkind”? Can't Jesus be something in between the two? If not, then what scripture tells you this?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,19:52)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2011,13:44) YES MIKE YOU AND I ARE THE SAME “BEING” BECAUSE WE ARE THE SAME ESSENCE AND SUBSTANCE. So we are the same INDIVIDUAL “being”, Jack?   Kathi, do YOU agree with this?   How about you, Keith? Jack, have you ever heard the plural phrase “human beingS“?  Are you implying that since all humans are really the same exact BEING, the plural phrase “human beings” is a misnomer? Jack, please either find someone reputable that supports your claim here, or let it go.  You are making yourself look silly. peace, mike

Bump for Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,11:28)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2011,11:13) Keith, Mike has gone off the deep end with his comparison. Jesus is the exact “charaketer” of God's nature. No other spirit being is the exact “charakter” of God's nature. Therefore, Jesus shares in ALL God's personal attributes. Jack, The word “charakter” refers to the IMAGE made BY the engraving tool.  It is true that the image left behind is an exact representation of the tool, but the image left behind is NOT the tool that made the image in the first place, is it? And the fact that your wording says, “Jesus shares in ALL God's personal attributes” shows us that you realize Jesus is not the God whose personal attributes he shares. Btw, I deleted the first post for you. peace, mike

Bump for Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,20:35)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 16 2011,14:11) Animals, fish, birds, and humans are all of the same “species”. Just like he is saying “demons, satan, angels, the Father and Jesus are all part of the “Spirit Species”. Okay Keith, Show me the scripture that teaches that angels are of, let's say, “bird flesh” and demons are of “fish flesh”. Is there any scripture that implies there are different natures of spirit beings? I mean really, you guys are going overboard trying to say that Jesus is the same nature as his God because Jesus is the Son of his God.  But angels are also the sons of their God and are also spirit beings.  And remember that for every scripture you can use to show how Jesus is higher than the other spirit beings, there are at least TWO scriptures we can use to show that God is higher than Jesus. So…………..do you really want to enter into this lopsided affair?

Bump for Keith

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,19:45)

Quote (Lightenup @ July 16 2011,13:20) Not all spirit beings are the same either.  Two are of divine nature-the Father and the Son, the angels have their own nature, still spirit beings but not the same kind as the Father and the Son. Hi Kathi, How do you know this?  Please point me to the SCRIPTURE that taught you this knowledge. Also, please tell me what scripture mentions ONLY the Father and the Son as “divine beings”.  Because it seems to me that some of us will also participate in this divine nature.  So who's to say that there aren't any other angels of God besides Jesus who also have a divine nature right now? And finally, how is it that you come to the conclusion that EVERYTHING ELSE is different from the Father and the Son (a thought that I DO agree with), but that there is no difference BETWEEN the Father and the Son? I've just asked Keith this same thing.  Why is it that when it comes to scriptures that set Jesus higher than everything else in creation, you guys are scriptural EXPERTS…………..but when it comes the the ABUNDANCE of scriptures that set Jehovah higher than Jesus, it's like none of you have ever opened the Bible in your lives?   peace, mike

Bump for Kathi

[Lightenup]

Mike,
There are angels in heaven and we are not to worship angels. The firstborn over all creation created them. Only the Father and the Son receive worship.

If you want verses to prove that there are angels in heaven, do a word search.
If you want to see that the firstborn over all creation created all things in heaven, go to Col 1.
If you want to see who we are to worship, see Deut 10:17 The God of gods and the Lord of lords.
There is no mention of anyone else to worship from what I can tell.

The Father and the Son both have the wisdom and power and nature of God. The difference between them is one is the Father and one is the Son.
Jehovah is the Father and the Son in a compound unity, Deut 10 17. When Jesus is mentioned as distinct from Jehovah, the ministry of the Son according to the flesh, is meant, imo.

That is all I have time for now.

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2011,19:45)

If you want verses to prove that there are angels in heaven, do a word search.

 I know there are angels in heaven.

Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2011,19:45)

If you want to see that the firstborn over all creation created all things in heaven, go to Col 1.

That passage tells of the firstborn OF God's creation, and never says he actually CREATED a single thing.

Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2011,19:45)

If you want to see who we are to worship, see Deut 10:17  The God of gods and the Lord of lords.

Yes Kathi.  Worship the God of gods.  The fact that he is ALSO the Lord of lords does not prove that Jesus is Jehovah anymore than the fact that Nebuchanezzar was the King of kings proved that HE was Jehovah or Jesus.

But I have a better idea.  Let's see who JESUS HIMSELF says to worship:

Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’
I'll ask you what Keith just asked me:  Does the word “ONLY” mean NOTHING to you?  

And you can't seriously think that Satan was trying to get the very God who created him to worship him, right?  So therefore, the “Lord God” Jesus referred to had to have been someone OTHER THAN himself.  Add that to Keith's favorite word “ONLY”, and you'll have the truth about the ONE we are to worship.  Even Jesus worshipped that ONE, Kathi. He lead by example.

Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2011,19:45)

Jehovah is the Father and the Son in a compound unity, Deut 10 17.

No.  Jehovah is our one God.  He has a Son and Servant named Jesus, who He placed as Lord of lords.  Your use of Deut 10:17 is an embarassingly lame attempt by someone to change the clear truth of a scripture into something they can falsely claim as support to their own made up doctrine.

Quote (Lightenup @ July 21 2011,19:45)

When Jesus is mentioned as distinct from Jehovah, the ministry of the Son according to the flesh, is meant, imo.

And this is just more of the same.

Kathi, the fact that you realize Jehovah is sometimes mentioned as distinct from Jesus is a good sign.  Just take that as “Jehovah IS distinct from Jesus”, without adding in your own imagination, and you'll have the truth of the matter.

Will you address this point:

Jesus is called the Lord of lords AND King of kings, right?  Nebuchadnezzar is called the King of kings, right?  So if we use the same formula that you use in Deut 10:17, we can come to the conclusion that Jesus is really a “compound unity” of Jesus AND Nebuchadnezzar.

Because you say Jehovah is made up of the God of gods AND SOMEONE ELSE WHO IS the Lord of lords.  So then Jesus must be made up of the Lord of lords, AND SOMEONE ELSE LIKE NEBUCHADNEZZAR who is the King of kings.

Do you see how lame it is when it is displaced from your “Jesus must be God” mentality?

Please address this WITHOUT the usual “Exception for Jesus” fallback.

peace,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 22 2011,10:43)

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

Hi Jack,

Mike is right!   …why do have a problem with this?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 22 2011,11:36)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 16 2011,19:52) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 16 2011,13:44) YES MIKE YOU AND I ARE THE SAME “BEING” BECAUSE WE ARE THE SAME ESSENCE AND SUBSTANCE. So we are the same INDIVIDUAL “being”, Jack?   Kathi, do YOU agree with this?   How about you, Keith? Jack, have you ever heard the plural phrase “human beingS“?  Are you implying that since all humans are really the same exact BEING, the plural phrase “human beings” is a misnomer? Jack, please either find someone reputable that supports your claim here, or let it go.  You are making yourself look silly. peace, mike Bump for Jack

Hi Mike,

Seems they will twist the language, in an attempt to prove their beliefs; quite sad, really.

Your brother
in Christ, Jesus
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Author]

Posts