- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 02 2012,16:48) BD,
Your questions with my answers:So let me get this straight you say that Jesus is a Begotten God, correct?
Almost…I say that Jesus is THE ONLY Begotten God.But you say he was always begotten, yes or no?
No, not always begotten, but begotten before the agesYou say that the Father was never begotten, correct?
CorrectSo what does begotten mean if it has nothing to do with time?
To bring forth as an offspring/bornIf the Father did not precede the son what makes the Father greater as Jesus said?
He is the Father, the begetterWhat does begotten mean?
same as before,To bring forth as an offspring/born
Kathi,how can you bring forth something you claim that was already and always present?
BD and Mike,
Of course we are talking theory here because we aren't given specifics in scripture. As I have said, early on in this discussion, your mother had 1/2 of the DNA that has always belonged to you within the particular ovum that became you, in her ovary, right from birth. Many years later, this ovum is implanted with the other 1/2 of your DNA by your father. This fertilized ovum grows for about 9 months and then begotten from the womb. In other words, 1/2 of you existed within your mother as long as she existed. Then many years later, 100% of you existed within your mother and therefore you were already present. She brought forth something that was already present.That is an earthly example of how something that was already present can be brought forth. As far as how can something that was 'always present' be brought forth, well, that which was always present was always present 'within' and yet to be begotten/brought forth/born. How is it that there was always an offspring within God, well, when we can answer that, we will be closer to answering how God always existed. These things we don't have specific scripture for or earthly examples for.
It seems that you believe that God had no eternal offspring within Him and I believe that He did. I believe that He eternally existed within the Father in some manner and was begotten on day one of creation, i.e. 'the 'Firstborn over all creation.'
Mike,
you ask:
Quote
So, jammin Jr., before you continue posting these doctored translations, you ought to first show proof that they are legit, don't you think?Number 1…don't call me Jammin' Jr.
Number 2…Can there be any degree of proof for you that shows ANY translation as legit? What does legit mean in your opinion? What kind of evidence would satisfy you? Can you provide any of that kind of evidence to prove YOUR favorite translation as legit?
I think that the split word evidence is strong evidence of the Aramaic primacy, also Aramaic being a common language of the Jews AND Jesus, of that day. And then there are the OT passages that designate YHWH as doing something in the future that we see in the NT that Jesus does that thing. Then there are other historical Syriac documents, early church father's writings, and martyrs that gave their lives for the belief that Jesus is the God of/from God, begotten before the ages.
Realize that not only is Jesus called YHWH in the Aramaic Bibles, He is called God also.
Not to mention that I had the impression from personal Bible study that there were two that were called YHWH BEFORE I read any early church writings, or historical Syriac documents, or Aramaic Bibles. I believe that there will be more evidence from ancient writings that turn up as time goes by. I think that it is exciting!
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,05:20) BD and Mike,
Of course we are talking theory here because we aren't given specifics in scripture. As I have said, early on in this discussion, your mother had 1/2 of the DNA that has always belonged to you within the particular ovum that became you, in her ovary, right from birth. Many years later, this ovum is implanted with the other 1/2 of your DNA by your father. This fertilized ovum grows for about 9 months and then begotten from the womb. In other words, 1/2 of you existed within your mother as long as she existed. Then many years later, 100% of you existed within your mother and therefore you were already present. She brought forth something that was already present.That is an earthly example of how something that was already present can be brought forth. As far as how can something that was 'always present' be brought forth, well, that which was always present was always present 'within' and yet to be begotten/brought forth/born. How is it that there was always an offspring within God, well, when we can answer that, we will be closer to answering how God always existed. These things we don't have specific scripture for or earthly examples for.
It seems that you believe that God had no eternal offspring within Him and I believe that He did. I believe that He eternally existed within the Father in some manner and was begotten on day one of creation, i.e. 'the 'Firstborn over all creation.'
KathiI have nothing but respect for your love of God but it is for that very reason I am discussing this issue with you it is truly out of love, respect and admiration.
Now with your own explanation above that qualifies everything in existence as being eternal because every creation ever created came forth from the eternal GOD.
The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide. Even if you could you would still be stating that “Jesus” was something less before he was an offspring according to your own example or something more after he was begotten either way he was not consistently “God” as you would claim, while the ONE whom you call the unbegotten God has always existed as “GOD Almighty”
God can never be called the “firstborn”
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,05:41) Mike, you ask:
Quote
So, jammin Jr., before you continue posting these doctored translations, you ought to first show proof that they are legit, don't you think?Number 1…don't call me Jammin' Jr.
Number 2…Can there be any degree of proof for you that shows ANY translation as legit? What does legit mean in your opinion? What kind of evidence would satisfy you? Can you provide any of that kind of evidence to prove YOUR favorite translation as legit?
I think that the split word evidence is strong evidence of the Aramaic primacy, also Aramaic being a common language of the Jews AND Jesus, of that day. And then there are the OT passages that designate YHWH as doing something in the future that we see in the NT that Jesus does that thing. Then there are other historical Syriac documents, early church father's writings, and martyrs that gave their lives for the belief that Jesus is the God of/from God, begotten before the ages.
Realize that not only is Jesus called YHWH in the Aramaic Bibles, He is called God also.
Not to mention that I had the impression from personal Bible study that there were two that were called YHWH BEFORE I read any early church writings, or historical Syriac documents, or Aramaic Bibles. I believe that there will be more evidence from ancient writings that turn up as time goes by. I think that it is exciting!
KathiThe Lamsa bible is not a factually historical precedent to any of the original greek writings and syriac and aramaic are not twins of time Dr Lamsa just felt that since Jesus spoke Aramaic that the Aramaic version of the NT must have preceded the greek version.
The Peshitta (Classical Syriac: ܦܫܝܛܬܐ for “simple, common, straight, vulgate”, sometimes called the Syriac Vulgate) is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition.
The Old Testament of the Peshitta was translated into Syriac from the Hebrew, probably in the 2nd century AD. The New Testament of the Peshitta, which originally excluded certain disputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become the standard by the early 5th century.
New Testament Peshitta
The Peshitta version of the New Testament is thought to show a continuation of the tradition of the Diatessaron and Old Syriac versions, displaying some lively 'Western' renderings (particularly clear in the Acts of the Apostles). It combines with this some of the more complex 'Byzantine' readings of the 5th century. One unusual feature of the Peshitta is the absence of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation. Modern Syriac Bibles add 6th or 7th century translations of these five books to a revised Peshitta text.
Almost all Syriac scholars agree that the Peshitta gospels are translations of the Greek originals. A minority viewpoint (see Aramaic primacy) is that the Peshitta represent the original New Testament and the Greek is a translation of it. The type of text represented by Peshitta is the Byzantine. In a detailed examination of Matthew 1-14, Gwilliam found that the Peshitta agrees with the Textus Receptus only 108 times and with Codex Vaticanus 65 times, while in 137 instances it differs from both, usually with the support of the Old Syriac and the Old Latin, in 31 instances is stands alone.[10]
BD,
Quote I have nothing but respect for your love of God but it is for that very reason I am discussing this issue with you it is truly out of love, respect and admiration.
Thank you for the compliment
I love and respect you as well and that is why I am spending time down here with you. Quote Now with your own explanation above that qualifies everything in existence as being eternal because every creation ever created came forth from the eternal GOD. Well, I disagree. Everything did not come forth as an offspring, only one did, everything else was a NEW creation as a new kind of beings, by the Word of God…Jesus.
Nothing was made in heaven and earth apart from Jesus. Do you believe this, BD?
Quote The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide. Even if you could you would still be stating that “Jesus” was something less before he was an offspring according to your own example or something more after he was begotten either way he was not consistently “God” as you would claim, while the ONE whom you call the unbegotten God has always existed as “GOD Almighty” You said: “The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide.” Was the sun ever without its rays? Was the Father ever without His glory? The mysteries of what an eternal being can and can't do are beyond us. The scriptures testify that Jesus is the only begotten God who is the image and exact representation of His Father's nature. He is not less than His Father's nature if He is the exact representation of His Father's nature. He was never God, the Father but He was consistently God, the Son.
Quote
God can never be called the “firstborn”
The only begotten God is called the 'firstborn.' The never begotten God is not.Here, BD, a response to your Peshitta post:
This article gives a great deal of evidence for an Aramaic written original NT.
This resource is very interesting. It is in a PDF form and I can't copy and paste from it. You can find it by going to this google search link and clicking on the fourth option “Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek.”
https://www.google.com/search?….bih=821
Within chapter 6 regarding the historical (external proofs), you can find part of this quote from Josephus about Greek not being his own tongue. You can read his writings here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/josephus/complete.ii.xxi.xi.htmlFor those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning belonging to Jews; I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations, and so adorn their discourses with the smoothness of their periods; because they look upon this sort of accomplishment as common, not only to all sorts of free-men, but to as many of the servants as please to learn them. But they give him the testimony of being a wise man who is fully acquainted with our laws, and is able to interpret their meaning; on which account, as there have been many who have done their endeavors with great patience to obtain this learning, there have yet hardly been so many as two or three that have succeeded therein, who were immediately well rewarded for their pains.
I encourage you to read the PDF publication because it is very thorough.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,15:14) BD, Quote I have nothing but respect for your love of God but it is for that very reason I am discussing this issue with you it is truly out of love, respect and admiration.
Thank you for the compliment I love and respect you as well and that is why I am spending time down here with you. Quote Now with your own explanation above that qualifies everything in existence as being eternal because every creation ever created came forth from the eternal GOD. Well, I disagree. Everything did not come forth as an offspring, only one did, everything else was a NEW creation as a new kind of beings, by the Word of God…Jesus.
Nothing was made in heaven and earth apart from Jesus. Do you believe this, BD?
Quote The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide. Even if you could you would still be stating that “Jesus” was something less before he was an offspring according to your own example or something more after he was begotten either way he was not consistently “God” as you would claim, while the ONE whom you call the unbegotten God has always existed as “GOD Almighty” You said: “The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide.” Was the sun ever without its rays? Was the Father ever without His glory? The mysteries of what an eternal being can and can't do are beyond us. The scriptures testify that Jesus is the only begotten God who is the image and exact representation of His Father's nature. He is not less than His Father's nature if He is the exact representation of His Father's nature. He was never God, the Father but He was consistently God, the Son.
Quote
God can never be called the “firstborn”
The only begotten God is called the 'firstborn.' The never begotten God is not.
Kathibefore the sun was developed and while it was forming it was without its rays just like while a child is forming it is without its sight for a time.
You seem to pick and choose what is literal, is this literal:
Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.Is this literal? If Not why not and when is Jesus called the offspring of God and how would that be any more literal paul confesses to the poetic use of words:
Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:20) It seems that you believe that God had no eternal offspring within Him and I believe that He did.
BUT……………. since the scriptures were inspired by God Himself to be written by humans to teach humans, those teachings are written so that humans can understand them.So when a human hears of a “son”, that human knows that a father – who existed BEFORE that son – preceded that son.
When a human hears of one being “begotten”, that human knows that there was also a time when the begotten one DIDN'T EXIST at all.
So you are right that WE think the fact God “begot” Jesus means that the Father existed first, and that there was a time when the Son was not. We have no logical or scriptural reason to assume any differently.
So YOU can go on believing that God always had “eternal offspring” inside Him if you want to. But there is no scripture that teaches such a thing, and many scriptures that contradict your belief that Jesus has existed eternally.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:41) Number 1…don't call me Jammin' Jr
Then don't post doctored translations like he does.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:41) Number 2…Can there be any degree of proof for you that shows ANY translation as legit? Realize that not only is Jesus called YHWH in the Aramaic Bibles, He is called God also.
Jesus is called a god in most Bibles, Kathi. But this “YHWH” thing is what I'm talking about.Can you LEGITIMIZE the claim you've posted that says the Aramaic word “MarYa” means “the Lord Jehovah”? YES or NO?
All my sources say it simply means “lord”. I've even linked you to a interlinear NT where the word “marya” was translated simply as “Lord” in the scriptures you posted earlier on this thread as saying “the Lord Jehovah”.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,22:14) Nothing was made in heaven and earth apart from Jesus. Do you believe this, BD?
Ecclesiastes 11:5
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.Kathi, do YOU believe God is the Maker of ALL things?
See, I already know the point YOU'RE going to try to make with John 1:3, so I nipped it in the bud.
Thanks Mike,
Another plug for the unity of God…the Father did not make one thing in heaven and on earth apart from the SonQuote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 04 2012,12:38) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:41) Number 1…don't call me Jammin' Jr
Then don't post doctored translations like he does.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 03 2012,12:41) Number 2…Can there be any degree of proof for you that shows ANY translation as legit? Realize that not only is Jesus called YHWH in the Aramaic Bibles, He is called God also.
Jesus is called a god in most Bibles, Kathi. But this “YHWH” thing is what I'm talking about.Can you LEGITIMIZE the claim you've posted that says the Aramaic word “MarYa” means “the Lord Jehovah”? YES or NO?
All my sources say it simply means “lord”. I've even linked you to a interlinear NT where the word “marya” was translated simply as “Lord” in the scriptures you posted earlier on this thread as saying “the Lord Jehovah”.
Mike,
I will post info that supports what is being said about the Aramaic Bible and how they substituted the name YHWH as I come across it. I am not stopping my life's activities because you cannot accept it without a mountain of proof. I think that we need to study the targums of the OT and we will see this evidence. I found this just this morning and it was written back in the late 1800's about this very thing. This site won't let me copy and paste so you have to go there and read on page 10.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 04 2012,00:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,15:14) BD, Quote I have nothing but respect for your love of God but it is for that very reason I am discussing this issue with you it is truly out of love, respect and admiration.
Thank you for the compliment I love and respect you as well and that is why I am spending time down here with you. Quote Now with your own explanation above that qualifies everything in existence as being eternal because every creation ever created came forth from the eternal GOD. Well, I disagree. Everything did not come forth as an offspring, only one did, everything else was a NEW creation as a new kind of beings, by the Word of God…Jesus.
Nothing was made in heaven and earth apart from Jesus. Do you believe this, BD?
Quote The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide. Even if you could you would still be stating that “Jesus” was something less before he was an offspring according to your own example or something more after he was begotten either way he was not consistently “God” as you would claim, while the ONE whom you call the unbegotten God has always existed as “GOD Almighty” You said: “The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide.” Was the sun ever without its rays? Was the Father ever without His glory? The mysteries of what an eternal being can and can't do are beyond us. The scriptures testify that Jesus is the only begotten God who is the image and exact representation of His Father's nature. He is not less than His Father's nature if He is the exact representation of His Father's nature. He was never God, the Father but He was consistently God, the Son.
Quote
God can never be called the “firstborn”
The only begotten God is called the 'firstborn.' The never begotten God is not.
Kathibefore the sun was developed and while it was forming it was without its rays just like while a child is forming it is without its sight for a time.
You seem to pick and choose what is literal, is this literal:
Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.Is this literal? If Not why not and when is Jesus called the offspring of God and how would that be any more literal paul confesses to the poetic use of words:
Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
BD,
you said:Quote before the sun was developed and while it was forming it was without its rays just like while a child is forming it is without its sight for a time. Imagine if you will, that the sun always existed in its complete developed state, the rays would have always existed then also. Get it?
Quote Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.Is this literal? If Not why not and when is Jesus called the offspring of God and how would that be any more literal paul confesses to the poetic use of words:
Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.Of course an only begotten Son who is therefore the only begotten God, would be unique among any other 'offspring'…they would not be begotten in the manner that like begets like and be called begotten Gods. There is obviously a one of a kind offspring that the only begotten Son/only begotten God is.
Mike,
Quote Jesus is called a god in most Bibles, Kathi. Actually, He is called God in most Bibles, Mike. I do not see any that say 'a god' apart from the doctored NWT.
Quote
BUT……………. since the scriptures were inspired by God Himself to be written by humans to teach humans, those teachings are written so that humans can understand them.So when a human hears of a “son”, that human knows that a father – who existed BEFORE that son – preceded that son.
When a human hears of one being “begotten”, that human knows that there was also a time when the begotten one DIDN'T EXIST at all.
Oh, ok, then explain how God created the sun to the class, Teacher Mike. Then you can teach us all how that Red Sea thing happened when Israel walked across the dry bed. After that, explain to me how water became wine without putting grapes in it. Or maybe how a father always exists as a father before having a child. And then tell us how a man pre-exists his earthly birth by hundreds of years. Need I continue…do you get the point that the earthly things aren't exact copies of how things work in heaven but they are only a type of the heavenly truths?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,10:03) Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 04 2012,00:28) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,15:14) BD, Quote I have nothing but respect for your love of God but it is for that very reason I am discussing this issue with you it is truly out of love, respect and admiration.
Thank you for the compliment I love and respect you as well and that is why I am spending time down here with you. Quote Now with your own explanation above that qualifies everything in existence as being eternal because every creation ever created came forth from the eternal GOD. Well, I disagree. Everything did not come forth as an offspring, only one did, everything else was a NEW creation as a new kind of beings, by the Word of God…Jesus.
Nothing was made in heaven and earth apart from Jesus. Do you believe this, BD?
Quote The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide. Even if you could you would still be stating that “Jesus” was something less before he was an offspring according to your own example or something more after he was begotten either way he was not consistently “God” as you would claim, while the ONE whom you call the unbegotten God has always existed as “GOD Almighty” You said: “The fact is you cannot have both the word “Eternal” and “Offspring” coincide.” Was the sun ever without its rays? Was the Father ever without His glory? The mysteries of what an eternal being can and can't do are beyond us. The scriptures testify that Jesus is the only begotten God who is the image and exact representation of His Father's nature. He is not less than His Father's nature if He is the exact representation of His Father's nature. He was never God, the Father but He was consistently God, the Son.
Quote
God can never be called the “firstborn”
The only begotten God is called the 'firstborn.' The never begotten God is not.
Kathibefore the sun was developed and while it was forming it was without its rays just like while a child is forming it is without its sight for a time.
You seem to pick and choose what is literal, is this literal:
Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.Is this literal? If Not why not and when is Jesus called the offspring of God and how would that be any more literal paul confesses to the poetic use of words:
Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
BD,
you said:Quote before the sun was developed and while it was forming it was without its rays just like while a child is forming it is without its sight for a time. Imagine if you will, that the sun always existed in its complete developed state, the rays would have always existed then also. Get it?
Quote Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.Is this literal? If Not why not and when is Jesus called the offspring of God and how would that be any more literal paul confesses to the poetic use of words:
Acts 17:28
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.Of course an only begotten Son who is therefore the only begotten God, would be unique among any other 'offspring'…they would not be begotten in the manner that like begets like and be called begotten Gods. There is obviously a one of a kind offspring that the only begotten Son/only begotten God is.
We don't need to imagine because the world was Dark in the beginning it didn't always have light and the sun was already created so when God said let there be light there was light, two diggerent states. since you say Jesus was begotten that would mean he was not begotten at some point.You keep switching up info with mike first you said God was Jesus and his Father and then later you started claiming that Jesus was lord and the Father was God so you put the 2 together as “lord God” but when he accepts your own definition and says “God” made all things suddenly Jesus switches over from “lord” to God.
You are really quite deceptive and although I am sure it is not on purpose you should check your own deeper motives and desires because you are putting “being right” over what is right.
An only begotten son would be no different than future begotten sons other than their order of being begotten so I ask you iact 17:28 is it literal or poetic?
BD,
It may seem like I am changing when I say that the Father is God and then I see that God is also a general term for the supreme authority. I also see Jesus as God but specifically the only begotten God. So, as I have said, over and over…it depends on the context. For instance, I know that 1 Cor 8:6 credits both the Father and the Son for creation, so when verses like this come up: Ecclesiastes 11:5
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.
God would be according to a more general idea of supreme authority and not necessarily an individual.I don't believe that you answered my question:
Nothing was made in heaven and earth apart from Jesus. Do you believe this, BD?BD,
In light of the Father being the only true God, Jesus is the only true Begotten God. There is no conflict there.So, with that understanding, yes, Jesus said that and no, He was not mistaken.
BD,
Quote We don't need to imagine because the world was Dark in the beginning it didn't always have light and the sun was already created so when God said let there be light there was light, two different states. since you say Jesus was begotten that would mean he was not begotten at some point. I was making an analogy between the eternal Father and also imagining an eternal sun. I say the Father always was complete with the Son ready to come forth from Him. If the sun were eternal, the rays would be eternal also as something that would come from the sun. I don't believe the sun was eternal.
Do you believe that the sun was created before day four? How about before day one?
Quote An only begotten son would be no different than future begotten sons other than their order of being begotten so I ask you iact 17:28 is it literal or poetic?
There are no future begotten sons in a natural begotten manner except the one who is called the only begotten God. Acts 17:28 is literal in a sense that all created beings were from God and in that sense were begotten in a created out of nothing but the word of God sense and not as a natural offspring that carried the same nature as the one who begot Him.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2012,17:03) Imagine if you will, that the sun always existed in its complete developed state, the rays would have always existed then also. Get it?
Imagine now that it was said the sun existed in the beginning, and at some point before the ages, the sun begot its rays.Would you STILL think that the rays were always right there along with the sun?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
