- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mikeboll said to Is. 1:18:
Quote The posts were thousands of words long and it took me hours to respond to one post.
This is why I quit the debate because it was taking hours to respond to one post and I could not enjoy posting other places because of exhaustion. After Mike said that he has nothing to do but watch TV or post I knew that it would not end unless I stopped it. Mike had a lot more idle time on his hands than I.KJ
Hi Is 1.18,
Indeed he is the first begotten son in whom are saved other sons and daughters.
None come after him so he is the last.Is. 1:18 said to Mikeboll:
Quote Comparing Rev 22:12-13 with Rev. 1:17-18 and Revelation 22:20 reveals that it is Yeshua who is the first and last, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
Paul,Isaiah 44:6 is also another scripture which must refer to Jesus as the First and the Last. Jehovah called Himself Israel's “goel” which means “blood relative-redeemer.” Under Hebrew law it was a blood relative kinsman that was required to ransom a person.
The Father clearly was not Israel's “goel” (blood kinsman). Only Jesus can fit the bill. Therefore, Jesus is the Jehovah who spoke in Isaiah 44:6.
Jack
Hi KJ,
Where would you be without THEREFORE?God is the ultimate first and last whence life begins and from whom there is eternal life in his Spirit.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,20:16) Hi KJ,
Where would you be without THEREFORE?God is the ultimate first and last whence life begins and from whom there is eternal life in his Spirit.
Where would Paul be without “therefore.” He used the word over 100 times in his writings.KJ
Mikeboll said to Is. 1:18
Quote “I am” is not the translation of YHVH. Did Jesus ever say he was the “I will be who I will be”? Is. 1:18 replied:
Quote “I will be who I will be”” is not used in the NT at all, so your point is not a cogent one. “I am” is an appelative used of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. It's rendered “ego eimi” in the LXX.
Paul,Mike overlooks that it was the Messenger of Jehovah who said of HIMSELF, “I will be who I will be.” The statement, “I will be who I will be” indicates change and Mike believes that Jehovah cannot change. So by Mike's own standard this must be someone else who said, “I will be who I will be.”
Actually it literally reads, “I will BECOME what I will BECOME.” This clearly indicates change. It is the same form of the verb used when God said to Moses that his rod “shall BECOME a serpent.” Therefore, the expression “I will become what I will become” necessariy indicates change which Mike swears that Jehovah cannot do.
But the Messenger of Jehovah can indeed change and He did by becoming a man and suffering for our sins.
Jack
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,03:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,01:37) First, our debate at that point was supposed to only be about “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes”. Both of us kept getting off topic. The posts were thousands of words long and it took me hours to respond to one post. I sometimes neglected to answer things that had nothing to do with the points we were debating. This was one of those times. See if you can find a point he made about “pasa ktisis” or “monogenes” that went unanswered. You might have to look hard, because many times, if I had already answered it two or three times, I started ignoring repeats of the same questions. 
Would you like me to answer Jack's point to you here and now?
You're full of excuses. Why don't you just admit you ducked the question?Quote “I am” is not the translation of YHVH. Did Jesus ever say he was the “I will be who I will be”?
“I will be who I will be”” is not used in the NT at all, so your point is not a cogent one. “I am” is an appelative used of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. It's rendered “ego eimi” in the LXX.Read this article and learn something:
http://vintage.aomin.org/EGO.htmlQuote Your point is so lame because YHVH is the Father.
Eisigesis.Quote Why would the Son, even if he was God, be saying he was the Father? Oh, that's right. You think Jesus had the same name. 
Prove it.
Straw man fallacy.Quote You also think it was Jesus speaking in Rev 22:13. Prove it.
Pay attention to the details:Revelation 22:20 records:
“He who (testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly ” Amen Come, Lord Jesus.Yeshua is “coming quickly” (cf. Titus 2:13).
Revelation 1:17-18 records:
“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”Yeshua was “dead” and is alive forevermore. Yeshua is the “first and last”.
Comparing Rev 22:12-13 with Rev. 1:17-18 and Revelation 22:20 reveals that it is Yeshua who is the first and last, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
I contend these details make it plain that Yeshua is the first and last in Revelation 22:13, but if you think you have a better candidate please bring him forward and we'll let occam's razer decide.
Quote Because you, like Jack and Keith, have used the “monogenes has nothing to do with Jesus' beginning” line. I put proof positive in all your faces (actually, WJ did)
No you gave us an appeal to authority akin to John Smith is a noted cosmologist, he once claimed the earth was flat therefore the earth must be flat. What you tout as a powerful argument is flimsy and laughable.Quote Your answer was, he could have meant preeminent over all creation. Really? When he thinks it happened before there was any creation? Your supporting scripture didn't even support your view, and left open the gaping hole that even though the scriptures foretell of things that hadn't happened yet, why would Eusebius speak in that way? Was his letter inspired of God?
As I've already said it's not unusual for Yeshua to be spoken of in a predictive/prophetic sense. You didn't argue that point so I assume it's not in dispute.
Hi PaulYes, this has been shown to Mike by me and he ignores it still, yet he calls others dishonest!
WJ
Mike said to Is. 1:18:
Quote Because you, like Jack and Keith, have used the “monogenes has nothing to do with Jesus' beginning” line. I put proof positive in all your faces (actually, WJ did) Is. 1:18 replied:
Quote No you gave us an appeal to authority akin to John Smith is a noted cosmologist, he once claimed the earth was flat therefore the earth must be flat. What you tout as a powerful argument is flimsy and laughable.
Paul,I offered Mike one example of the Septuagint's use of “monogenes” in Psalm 25:16 where it simply means “alone.” But Mike expects us to accept his sources over the 70 Jewish scholars which Jesus and the apostles quoted 67% of the time.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,09:37) Because you, like Jack and Keith, have used the “monogenes has nothing to do with Jesus' beginning” line. I put proof positive in all your faces (actually, WJ did), and not one of you is honest enough to face that proof. It's time you face facts, man. Get off this ride you are on. Come join those of us on the narrow road. This broad a spacious road you are on with billions of other trinitarians leads to destruction.
MikeWhat proof? That a questionable Arian supporter may have suggested that Jesus had a beginning.
What about Ignatius and the other Fathers before Eusibius that I posted that clearly disagree. Ignatius clearly said Jesus was “Born yet not born” but you deny this and stick your head in the sand!
Clearly the Trinitarian faith held by the Forefathers do not believe that “firstborn” and “begotten” or “monogenes” means what you say it means!
So you are beating a dead horse…
Mike I really do not appreciate you calling me dishonest since I am merely taking the side of the majority and since Eusibius signed off on the Creed is an indication that he could have changed his thinking. So there is a lot of ambiguity surrounding him and his claims.
WJ
Hi KJ,
Do you think that finding one friendly use of any word justifies your personal choice for any situation?
Personal interpretation of scripture is not for the wise for this reason.
I AM WHO I AM is now, was then, and will be.Hi Paul,
Are we aggitated today? “Sounds” like it.
You said:
Quote You're full of excuses. Why don't you just admit you ducked the question? I take it you found no point left unaddressed by me that had to do with monogenes and pasa ktisis?
You said:
Quote “I will be who I will be”” is not used in the NT at all, so your point is not a cogent one. “I am” is an appelative used of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. It's rendered “ego eimi” in the LXX. The tetragrammaton was used in the earliest copies of the Septuagint. Of that there is concrete proof. So your statement is incorrect. And because God said the words “I am” in the OT, and the LXX translated it as “I am” is no big mystery. Did the LXX ever translate JHVH as “I am”?
You said:
Quote I contend these details make it plain that Yeshua is the first and last in Revelation 22:13, but if you think you have a better candidate please bring him forward and we'll let occam's razer decide. I'm not sure what your $5 words have to do with this, but it was Jehovah who said he was the beginning and the end.
You said:
Quote No you gave us an appeal to authority akin to John Smith is a noted cosmologist, he once claimed the earth was flat therefore the earth must be flat. What you tout as a powerful argument is flimsy and laughable. No, what I gave you is proof positive that in 325 A.D., a man thought to be the most learned theologian of his day knew that prototokos pasa ktisis meant firstborn of every creature, not preeminent over mankind. Who are the experts that you put your trust in that Eusebius was mistaken? The fact that you will readily accept this “startling new information” over someone who probably forgot more about scriptures than we'll ever learn, not to mention the KJV, Strong, and virtually every scholar in history who ever translated the scriptures up until the 20th century is what is laughable. Did you forget that Eusebius was one of the most prominent men invlolved with the Nicene Council? Yet you now belittle his understanding while not so long ago, WJ posted the info I've been using while bragging up his importance in theocratic history.
You said:
Quote As I've already said it's not unusual for Yeshua to be spoken of in a predictive/prophetic sense. You didn't argue that point so I assume it's not in dispute. Maybe in scripture. Do you really think that reasoning should apply to the Eusebius letter? Nevermind, Paul. I knew going in with this letter that none of you guys would be objective or honest. It would hurt your cause.
But again I thank WJ for the info that supports what I've thought all along just from reading the Bible on my own.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 16 2010,02:53) Actually it literally reads, “I will BECOME what I will BECOME.” This clearly indicates change. It is the same form of the verb used when God said to Moses that his rod “shall BECOME a serpent.” Therefore, the expression “I will become what I will become” necessariy indicates change which Mike swears that Jehovah cannot do.
Hi Jack,So in those scriptures that you think have two different Jehovahs, they must both be Jesus, right?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 16 2010,04:07) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,03:17) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,01:37) First, our debate at that point was supposed to only be about “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes”. Both of us kept getting off topic. The posts were thousands of words long and it took me hours to respond to one post. I sometimes neglected to answer things that had nothing to do with the points we were debating. This was one of those times. See if you can find a point he made about “pasa ktisis” or “monogenes” that went unanswered. You might have to look hard, because many times, if I had already answered it two or three times, I started ignoring repeats of the same questions. Would you like me to answer Jack's point to you here and now?
You're full of excuses. Why don't you just admit you ducked the question?Quote “I am” is not the translation of YHVH. Did Jesus ever say he was the “I will be who I will be”?
“I will be who I will be”” is not used in the NT at all, so your point is not a cogent one. “I am” is an appelative used of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. It's rendered “ego eimi” in the LXX.Read this article and learn something:
http://vintage.aomin.org/EGO.htmlQuote Your point is so lame because YHVH is the Father.
Eisigesis.Quote Why would the Son, even if he was God, be saying he was the Father? Oh, that's right. You think Jesus had the same name. Prove it.
Straw man fallacy.Quote You also think it was Jesus speaking in Rev 22:13. Prove it.
Pay attention to the details:Revelation 22:20 records:
“He who (testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly ” Amen Come, Lord Jesus.Yeshua is “coming quickly” (cf. Titus 2:13).
Revelation 1:17-18 records:
“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”Yeshua was “dead” and is alive forevermore. Yeshua is the “first and last”.
Comparing Rev 22:12-13 with Rev. 1:17-18 and Revelation 22:20 reveals that it is Yeshua who is the first and last, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
I contend these details make it plain that Yeshua is the first and last in Revelation 22:13, but if you think you have a better candidate please bring him forward and we'll let occam's razer decide.
Quote Because you, like Jack and Keith, have used the “monogenes has nothing to do with Jesus' beginning” line. I put proof positive in all your faces (actually, WJ did)
No you gave us an appeal to authority akin to John Smith is a noted cosmologist, he once claimed the earth was flat therefore the earth must be flat. What you tout as a powerful argument is flimsy and laughable.Quote Your answer was, he could have meant preeminent over all creation. Really? When he thinks it happened before there was any creation? Your supporting scripture didn't even support your view, and left open the gaping hole that even though the scriptures foretell of things that hadn't happened yet, why would Eusebius speak in that way? Was his letter inspired of God?
As I've already said it's not unusual for Yeshua to be spoken of in a predictive/prophetic sense. You didn't argue that point so I assume it's not in dispute.
Hi PaulYes, this has been shown to Mike by me and he ignores it still, yet he calls others dishonest!
WJ
Hi WJ,Which part?
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 16 2010,04:44) Paul, I offered Mike one example of the Septuagint's use of “monogenes” in Psalm 25:16 where it simply means “alone.” But Mike expects us to accept his sources over the 70 Jewish scholars which Jesus and the apostles quoted 67% of the time.
Jack
And as I answered you probably 47 times: Does that mean that “lonely” is the only definition for monogenes in the LXX? Did God send His “lonely” Son to saves us?And I gotta laugh, man!
MY sources? It was WJ's source that lambasted you guys! Remember? The “hero” of the trinity! Seriously Jack, do you think that it always must mean “alone”?
Hi WJ,
You're getting closer to being completely honest. You said:
Quote What proof? That a questionable Arian supporter may have suggested that Jesus had a beginning. Now if you take the final leap and admit that there is no doubt about what Eusebius DID suggest in his letter, you will be honest. You don't have to agree with him, but all three of you KNOW you're lying to say it doesn't mean what it clearly does.
You and Paul (and maybe Roo, I can't remember) have both hit me with what Thomas said in Titus. I didn't do end runs around the question, did I? As I remember, I simply stated that I have no response for that scripture. I don't know why Thomas said it, and I don't know why John or Jesus didn't correct him. That's honesty. All I wanted was the same from any or all of you.
You said:
Quote I am merely taking the side of the majority and since Eusibius signed off on the Creed is an indication that he could have changed his thinking. A majority doesn't equal right. And you are right – he could have changed his mind. But for him to have changed it, it would have to mean that he believed what he wrote first. And that was my only point – that in Eusebius' view, at least at the time he wrote the letter you produced, prototokos pasa ktisis DID mean firstborn of every creature.
And the creed that Eusebius signed off on doesn't even imply a trinity. It says the Son was genao by the Father, that he is God FROM God, Light FROM Light, etc.
And you ignore both the info from Wikipedia I posted that says Eusebius submitted under threat of excommunication, and the info that Roo posted that says he came to believe that Arius didn't think Jesus was divine at all, so he joined the “opposition”. So it is just conjecture on both our parts whether he actually changed his beliefs. I don't think so. I think he was like the leaders in John who believed in Jesus, but wouldn't admit it for fear of being put out of the synagogue. By that is my opinion, you're welcome to yours that he truly changed his mind – but that opinion is only valid if you believe he thought differently when he wrote the letter.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,11:24) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 16 2010,04:44) Paul, I offered Mike one example of the Septuagint's use of “monogenes” in Psalm 25:16 where it simply means “alone.” But Mike expects us to accept his sources over the 70 Jewish scholars which Jesus and the apostles quoted 67% of the time.
Jack
And as I answered you probably 47 times: Does that mean that “lonely” is the only definition for monogenes in the LXX? Did God send His “lonely” Son to saves us?And I gotta laugh, man!
MY sources? It was WJ's source that lambasted you guys! Remember? The “hero” of the trinity! Seriously Jack, do you think that it always must mean “alone”?
Mike,Quit being ridiculous. I also gave evidence that “monogenes” simply meant “only” or “one of a kind” (see our debate). I also gave instances where the LXX uses “monogenes” in place of the Hebrew “yachid” which always means “one” or “only.” So I have used an example that is not so good. That doesn't get you off the hook because “monogenes” was used as an equivalent for the Hebrew “yachid” which means “only.”
I am not at all impressed by your “evidence” from Eusebius. Jesus and the apostles did not quote Eusebius did they? In the end Eusebius retracted his views anyway.
Your continuing argument from Eusebius shows your desperation. You are the only one here who is impressed by Eusebius. I don't see your Arian friends rallying around your argument. On the Protokos thread Nick even said that Eusebius was not an anointed man.
the Roo
Mikeboll said:
Quote Seriously Jack, do you think that it always must mean “alone”?
See our debate. I also said that “monogenes” may also mean “only” or “one of a kind.” I see now that I have relied too heavily on the example from Psalm 25:16 like you rely too heavily on Eusebius.You just want to have the last word all the time. You won't say to yourself, “Hmmm…this Eusebius argument ain't working” and then try another argument. Even your man JA suggested that we drop it. But it's only about having the last word for you.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 17 2010,13:28) In the end Eusebius retracted his views anyway.
Hi Jack,What views did he retract?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 17 2010,13:42) You just want to have the last word all the time. You won't say to yourself, “Hmmm…this Eusebius argument ain't working” and then try another argument.
Jack, it's like I said to WJ further up this page. All I wanted is for one or all of you three to be honest enough to admit what was plain to see. I didn't require you believed as Eusebius, just that you acknowledged that to him, “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant firstborn of every creature, at least in that letter. WJ came close to admitting it, but you and Paul attacked me personally and said it was “laughable” and other such nonsense because you couldn't bring yourselves to admit what your own eyes were seeing. And that's sad. If any of us believe so much in our OWN understanding that we can't admit when we've been shown our error, then all of this is for nothing.Your error is in plain sight, Jack. You claim that “pasa ktisis” ALWAYS referred to only mankind in the NT, and Eusebius showed you that you are wrong. So did Ignatius. They both thought Jesus to be the “firstborn of all creation” before there was any other creation. So how in the world could it have referred only to mankind?
Be honest, Jack. Admit your error. And admit that you can't now be as sure of the “only mankind” claim as you once were.
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
