Biblical discussion &#8211; BD, LU, Mikeboll, ST

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,15:39)

BD,
Wherever did you get the idea that I think Jesus is the God 'of' the Father? He is from the Father, not over the Father!

Also as there is one true God, there is also one true begotten God. Both are united as one supreme authority.

How is there one supreme Authority when One has Authority over the other and therefore is THE ONLY SUPREME AUTHORITY. The Father always has authority over the son and the son NEVER has authrity over the Father, Agreed?

August 9, 2012 at 3:29 am#308626

Participant

BD,
Perhaps the role of parents in the family would help you understand what I am saying.
The husband is the head of the wife, yet they are considered one flesh…right?
The husband and wife are equally human…right?
The husband and wife are together the supreme human authority of their children…they are to present a united front to their children…right?
Their children are not one flesh with them although they are in a unity as a family…right?
Within the family, there is a 'we' (parents) and a 'they' (children). The 'we' are a supreme earthly authority over the 'they.'

The Father AND the Son (the 'we') both sit on the throne of God and reign over us (the 'they').

There, I have given you an earthly example of how one supreme authority of two persons can have one who has authority over the other yet they are equal.

August 9, 2012 at 3:43 am#308627

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,18:56)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:06)

Gee, off the top of my head,
I have shown you this:

Quote

Here is what page 54 and 55 from the intro of the Hebraic Roots Version says about the placement of the name YHWH and how it is objective and not subjective:

The Sacred Name
In the past, sacred name versions of the New Testament have depended largely
on guesswork to determine where “Lord” means YHWH and where “Lord” means
ADON/ADONAI. This is because the Greek New Testament (at least as we have it
today) does not distinguish between the two, having Greek KURIOS for both YHWH and
ADON/ADONAI. However we know from both the Tosefta and Talmuds (ancient Jewish
writings) that certain New Testament manuscripts contained the name of YHWH in their
text (t.Shab. 13:5; b.Shab. 116a; j.Shab. 15c). Now our Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts
preserve for us knowledge of where “Lord” in the NT was YHWH and where it was
ADON/ADONAI. The DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew repeats the Hebrew
letter YUD two or three times encircled as to mark places where the name of YHWH
should go. The Shem Tob Hebrew version of Matthew has the Hebrew letter HEY
standing alone (and in one place the word HASHEM spelled out) to mark places where
the name of YHWH belongs. The Munster Hebrew text of Matthew actually contains the
name of YHWH spelled out where it belongs. The Old Syriac, Peshitta and Crawford
Aramaic manuscripts of NT books also distinguish between YHWH and
ADON/ADONAI. As a rule103 the Aramaic Peshitta Tanak (Old Testament) renders
EL/ELOAH/ELOHIM with ALAHA; ADONAI/ADON with MAR and YHWH with MARYA. For Example:
Psalm 110:1a Hebrew: YHWH said to my ADON…
Psalm 110:1a Aramaic: MARYA said to my MAR…
This pattern continues through the Aramaic NT as well. These Aramaic manuscripts
have Aramaic MARYA for YHWH and Aramaic MAR (or MARI or MARAN) for
ADON/ADONAI. Now we have objective manuscript evidence to support placement of
the sacred name into the NT text, the era of guesswork is over. The Hebraic Roots
Version will be the first “sacred name” NT to use such objective manuscript evidence to
restore the sacred name to the New Testament.

Kathi,

Could you point me to the part where we're taught that the Aramaic word “marya” MEANS “the Lord Jehovah”?

Also, perhaps you could tell us why I have been able show you FOUR different Aramaic dictionaries and FOUR different English translations of the Aramaic NT where the word “marya” simply means “lord”.

Thanks.

Mike,
See this “YHWH with MARYA.” in that quote.

August 9, 2012 at 4:02 am#308629

http://biology.about.com/od/genetics/ss/Asexual-Reproduction.htm

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,19:00)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,13:14)

Mike,
I would say that the rays came from within the sun and were always within the sun till the sun began to shine forth.

Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?

Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?

Mike,
Allow me:

Asexual Reproduction
In asexual reproduction, one individual produces offspring that are genetically identical to itself. These offspring are produced by mitosis. There are many invertebrates, including sea stars and sea anemones for example, that produce by asexual reproduction. Common forms of asexual reproduction include:

Budding

In this form of asexual reproduction, an offspring grows out of the body of the parent.

Hydras exhibit this type of reproduction.

Gemmules (Internal Buds)

In this form of asexual reproduction, a parent releases a specialized mass of cells that can develop into offspring.

Sponges exhibit this type of reproduction.

Fragmentation

In this type of reproduction, the body of the parent breaks into distinct pieces, each of which can produce an offspring.

Planarians exhibit this type of reproduction.

Regeneration

In regeneration, if a piece of a parent is detached, it can grow and develop into a completely new individual.

Echinoderms exhibit this type of reproduction.

Parthenogenesis

This type of reproduction involves the development of an egg that has not been fertilized into an individual.

Animals like most kinds of wasps, bees, and ants that have no sex chromosomes reproduce by this process. Some reptiles and fish are also capable of reproducing in this manner.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Asexual Reproduction
Asexual reproduction can be very advantageous to certain animals. Animals that remain in one particular place and are unable to look for mates would need to reproduce asexually. Another advantage of asexual reproduction is that numerous offspring can be produced without “costing” the parent a great amount of energy or time. Environments that are stable and experience very little change are the best places for organisms that reproduce asexually. A disadvantage of this type of reproduction is the lack of genetic variation. All of the organisms are genetically identical and therefore share the same weaknesses. If the stable environment changes, the consequences could be deadly to all of the individuals.

There is your Biology lesson for the day

August 9, 2012 at 6:05 am#308638

http://interlinearbible.org/john/1-18.htm

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,19:51)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:17)

Mike,
What you see in John 1:18 is THE only begotten God. Not 'a' begotten God.

Yes, in SOME mss, we see “the only begotten god”. (In others, we see “the only begotten son”.)

But what do you see in 2 Corintians 4:4? Do you see “THE god of this world”? Shall we equate Satan with Jehovah and Jesus too?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:17)

The NWT is the only one that assumes an 'a' in John 1:1 when it is a 'the' in v. 18.

Well, the word “the” is implied in 1:18 because of the word “monogenes” (ONLY begotten), so why wouldn't they translate it as such? As for 1:1, does it say, “and the Word was THE god”? If it doesn't, then why would the NWT translate it as such? Even the NETNotes Trinitarians acknowledge that “THE god” could not be with “THE god”. So what other choice does that leave us with? If the Word was not “THE god” he was with, then he must have been a DIFFERENT god, ergo “A god” who was with “THE god”.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:17)

Also, Col 1:16 adds the word 'other'
16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,
The word 'other' is not in the Greek or Aramaic. That is adding to scripture.

Well, since we're told many places that Jesus was “brought forth into existence”, “begotten”, and “created”, and we can assume that Jesus didn't create himself, then the word “other” in Col 1:16 is obviously implied. (Just like the words “with the exception of himself” are implied in John 1:3 and Eccl 11:5.)

But which one of the following translations will you call “doctored” for adding the implied “other”:
2 Kings 25:28
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
He treated him well and gave him a special position higher than the other kings who were with him in Babylon.

New International Version (©1984)
………higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon.

New Living Translation (©2007)
………higher place than all the other exiled kings in Babylon.

NLT ©
………over all the other exiled kings in Babylon.

MSG ©
………..experienced by the other political prisoners held in Babylon.

BBE ©
…………the other kings who were with him in Babylon.

NRSV ©
………a seat above the other seats of the kings who were with him in Babylon.

NET ©
………..than the other kings who were with him in Babylon.

How about these following translations? Which one of the translators “doctored” the Bible by adding the implied “other”:

Luke 11:42
English Standard Version (©2001)
“But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
………without neglecting the others.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
……..and not to leave the other undone.

International Standard Version (©2008)
…………..without neglecting the others.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
……….you should forsake the other!”

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
………….without ignoring the others.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
…….these ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

American King James Version
…….and not to leave the other undone.

American Standard Version
……and not to leave the other undone.

Douay-Rheims Bible
……and not to leave the other undone.

English Revised Version
………..and not to leave the other undone.

Webster's Bible Translation
…..and not to leave the others undone.

Weymouth New Testament
………..while not neglecting the others.

World English Bible
………..and not to have left the other undone.

NET Bible
……..without neglecting the others.

BBE ©
………….and not let the others be undone.

NRSV ©
…….without neglecting the others.

NKJV ©
………without leaving the others undone.

Will you only condemn the NWT for adding an obviously implied “other”? Or will you condemn all of these translations as well?

Mike,
you said:

Quote

Yes, in SOME mss, we see “the only begotten god”. (In others, we see “the only begotten son”.)

In the Aramaic Eastern Peshitta it says the only begotten God.
More points for the Peshitta!

Quote

But what do you see in 2 Corintians 4:4? Do you see “THE god of this world”? Shall we equate Satan with Jehovah and Jesus too?

This is what the Peshitta says:
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
2 Cor 4:4 Those whose intellects The God of this world has blinded, because they do not believe, lest the light of The Gospel of the glory of The Messiah, who is the image of God, should dawn upon them.

The Peshitta reads that God, not satan, has blinded the intellects. The 'God of this world' is the creator God, not satan! That makes sense since He wants us to receive Him by faith, not intellect.

Isaiah 37:16 New International Version (©1984)
“O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.

2 Kings 19:15 New International Version (©1984)
And Hezekiah prayed to the LORD: “O LORD, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.

The Bible confirms that it is YHWH that is the God of this world…not satan.

More points for the Peshitta for bringing truth and clarity!

Quote

Well, the word “the” is implied in 1:18 because of the word “monogenes” (ONLY begotten), so why wouldn't they translate it as such?

The word 'the' is in the Greek and in the Aramaic too. See your interlinear. It says '
only begotten God the' in the Greek.

Quote

As for 1:1, does it say, “and the Word was THE god”? If it doesn't, then why would the NWT translate it as such? Even the NETNotes Trinitarians acknowledge that “THE god” could not be with “THE god”. So what other choice does that leave us with? If the Word was not “THE god” he was with, then he must have been a DIFFERENT god, ergo “A god” who was with “THE god”.

I explained that to you…
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God-the only begotten God.

The Peshitta says this:
John 1:1 Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

This reading makes sense since the Jews had already an understanding that the 'word of God' was a divine entity within God Himself. See the Targums for that.

http://oneinmessiah.net/TargumMemraTheWordOfGod.htm

Quote

The early church fathers believed that the Son was begotten, not created, of which I agree. I believe the word 'other' is wrongly inserted into Col 1. NO other translation has it. By adding that one word the NWT changes a doctrine that the early church taught.

In other cases, 'other' can be implied safely without changing a doctrine. It can also be left out and the context is clear. Translators put it in apparently for a smoother translation.

Quote

Will you only condemn the NWT for adding an obviously implied “other”? Or will you condemn all of these translations as well?

Mike, if it were 'obvious' then there would not be a problem or a debate about it but history tells us that the idea of the Son of God being 'created' has caused quite a chasm. The early church believes He was begotten, not created, before the ages.

August 9, 2012 at 6:32 am#308639

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,19:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:24)

Begot means to bring forth into existence that which was in existence within when 'begot' refers to birth.

And what thing was ever brought forth into existence which had already existed from eternity?

Any examples?

Kathi, this grows tiresome after a while. It is clear that you WANT Jesus to have existed from eternity – even as you acknowledge he was begotten by his own God. But WANTING something and being able to prove it scripturally appears to be two different things.

You cannot prove that “begot” in reference to Jesus means anything other than it means in reference to anything else that was ever begotten. You WANT that to be the case, but the scriptures don't even HINT at such a thing.

Likewise, you WANT Jesus to be named YHWH, but there is no scripture that even HINTS at such a thing. The Most High God is named “YHWH”, and His Son is named “Jesus”. I've even showed you scripture where Jehovah “puts His name in/on” certain ones of those He created and formed.

When you find some actual PROOF of any of these things you WANT to be true, let me know, okay?

Mike,

Quote

And what thing was ever brought forth into existence which had already existed from eternity?

The Spirit of God was brought forth, not as an offspring, but was brought forth and sent.

The only begotten Son who is the only begotten God was brought forth, as an offspring.

I believe Jesus existed from eternity because I believe that God was complete and perfect…always able to create and save. I believe the only begotten God, the Word of God, was God's way to create. Nothing was created apart from the only begotten God.

Quote

You cannot prove that “begot” in reference to Jesus means anything other than it means in reference to anything else that was ever begotten.

I gave you a Biology lesson that shows that 'offspring' are begotten in many different ways. One way being where one cell becomes two cells from that which has always been within it. The result is an identical cell with the same strengths and weaknesses.

Quote

Likewise, you WANT Jesus to be named YHWH, but there is no scripture that even HINTS at such a thing.

That's funny because I gave you 17 verses that directly calls the Messiah, YHWH. There are many that 'hint' at it also. So for you to say there are no scriptures that even hints at such a thing is a rather uneducated statement.

YHWH puts His name in angels as 'El.' Example…Gabriel, Michael.

YHWH only gives His name, YHWH, to one…His Son. He couldn't give His name YHWH to created beings because of the very essence of the name means always existent.

August 10, 2012 at 12:10 am#308681

Blocked

Kathi,

There are others who think Jehovah is meant by Paul's words, “the god of this world” in 4:4. Jack even has a thread on this site about it. I don't right now have an opinion, and admit that the Peshitta could be right about that. It doesn't matter for our current discussion though, for Satan is called “THE God of Ekron” by Jehovah Himself – so the point I made stands.

You mentioned that the EASTERN Peshitta has “the only begotten god” in 1:18. What does the Western have?

You say that in 1:1, the Word was “God – the only begotten God”. Those words aren't in 1:1. In fact, the word THE doesn't precede the word “god” in part c. Jesus is NOT called “THE god” in John 1:1. But the God with whom Jesus was in the beginning IS called “THE god” in 1:1.

You said you don't agree with [other] in Col 1:16. I do. I think it is not only implied, but obvious.

You said you gave me 17 verses that call Jesus “Jehovah”. I meant from a LEGITIMATE translation. Until you can PROVE that “marya” means “the Lord Jehovah”, you haven't shown a single verse that calls Jesus “Jehovah”.

(Don't forget that I have already PROVED that “marya” is simply the emphatic Aramaic form of “lord”. I PROVED it from FOUR DIFFERENT dictionaries and FOUR DIFFERENT Aramaic to English interlinears.)

And finally, Jehovah was never said to have “given His name” to Jesus.

John 17:11 NKJV
“Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are .

I'm sure you'll argue that it was the NAME that was given Jesus, even though it is clear from verse 9 and 24 that PEOPLE were given to Jesus from his and our God.

But even if you INSIST upon the “name” understanding, you are still faced with Asana's point: When did Jesus NOT have the name Jehovah so that it had to be GIVEN to him? If Jesus was not Jehovah from the very beginning, then your “I think God was COMPLETE from eternity” point goes awry. How can Jesus, as “Jehovah the Son” be a part of a “complete Jehovah” if he wasn't even “Jehovah the Son” until God GAVE him the name?

August 10, 2012 at 3:11 am#308709

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 09 2012,14:29)

The Father AND the Son (the 'we') both sit on the throne of God and reign over us (the 'they').

There, I have given you an earthly example of how one supreme authority of two persons can have one who has authority over the other yet they are equal.

No you have shown That a Father is in Suoreme Authority over a Son as you said quite clearly the Children are not one flesh with the parents and so it follows that God is not One spirit or Authority with Christ although they are a unity in a “family”

August 10, 2012 at 3:22 am#308712

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 09 2012,17:32)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,19:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,15:24)

Begot means to bring forth into existence that which was in existence within when 'begot' refers to birth.

And what thing was ever brought forth into existence which had already existed from eternity?

Any examples?

When you find some actual PROOF of any of these things you WANT to be true, let me know, okay?

Mike,

Quote

And what thing was ever brought forth into existence which had already existed from eternity?

The Spirit of God was brought forth, not as an offspring, but was brought forth and sent.

The only begotten Son who is the only begotten God was brought forth, as an offspring.

Quote

You cannot prove that “begot” in reference to Jesus means anything other than it means in reference to anything else that was ever begotten.

Quote

Likewise, you WANT Jesus to be named YHWH, but there is no scripture that even HINTS at such a thing.

YHWH puts His name in angels as 'El.' Example…Gabriel, Michael.

YHWH only gives His name, YHWH, to one…His Son. He couldn't give His name YHWH to created beings because of the very essence of the name means always existent.

Brought forth from where? You keep insisting there are two different states or positions of Jesus but yet you keep saying his status is Eternal.

You don't say the Father was brought forth, do you? Kathi The Father IS GOD, The One and Only any other god or sons of God is an appointing, anointing or some other God Given designation. Do you not even see what was written about Jesus and his designation as being called a god?

Hebrews 1:9
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is saying that there is a reason Jesus was placed above others it was not a born identity it was an earned identity

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Now the Father doesn't learn obedience because who would HE be obedient to?

August 10, 2012 at 3:43 pm#308753

http://biology.about.com/od/genetics/ss/Asexual-Reproduction.htm

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,23:02)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,19:00)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,13:14)

Mike,
I would say that the rays came from within the sun and were always within the sun till the sun began to shine forth.

Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?

Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?

Mike,
Allow me:

Budding

In this form of asexual reproduction, an offspring grows out of the body of the parent.

Hydras exhibit this type of reproduction.

Gemmules (Internal Buds)

In this form of asexual reproduction, a parent releases a specialized mass of cells that can develop into offspring.

Sponges exhibit this type of reproduction.

Fragmentation

In this type of reproduction, the body of the parent breaks into distinct pieces, each of which can produce an offspring.

Planarians exhibit this type of reproduction.

Regeneration

In regeneration, if a piece of a parent is detached, it can grow and develop into a completely new individual.

Echinoderms exhibit this type of reproduction.

Parthenogenesis

This type of reproduction involves the development of an egg that has not been fertilized into an individual.

Animals like most kinds of wasps, bees, and ants that have no sex chromosomes reproduce by this process. Some reptiles and fish are also capable of reproducing in this manner.

There is your Biology lesson for the day

Here is a great example of two of something that existed as long as each other and where one is the exact representation of the other!! God's design-amazing!

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images….v1efogo

August 10, 2012 at 4:59 pm#308764

Participant

BD,
you said:

Quote

Brought forth from where? You keep insisting there are two different states or positions of Jesus but yet you keep saying his status is Eternal.

Hebrews 1:9
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is saying that there is a reason Jesus was placed above others it was not a born identity it was an earned identity

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Now the Father doesn't learn obedience because who would HE be obedient to?

Quote

Brought forth from where? You keep insisting there are two different states or positions of Jesus but yet you keep saying his status is Eternal.

See the example of Mitosis that God created in previous post.

Quote

You don't say the Father was brought forth, do you?

No, I don't say the Father was brought forth.

Quote

The Father IS GOD

True!

Quote

The One and Only any other god or sons of God is an appointing, anointing or some other God Given designation.

Actually, an 'only' indicates that there are no others. That 'only' was begotten, not appointed. Scriptures does not say 'the only appointed God.' It says the only begotten God. John 1:18 NASB as well as the Peshitta (Aramaic text).

Quote

Do you not even see what was written about Jesus and his designation as being called a god?

Hebrews 1:9
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This is saying that there is a reason Jesus was placed above others it was not a born identity it was an earned identity

This is about Jesus being appointed as the High Priest, higher than any other high priest, not appointed as a god.

Quote

Hebrews 5:8
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Now the Father doesn't learn obedience because who would HE be obedient to?[/

Obviously this is according to the flesh that the Son had to prove His obedience. The Father did not come as flesh and therefore did not have to learn to be obedient. Only the Son 'became lower than the angels' not the Father.

August 10, 2012 at 5:01 pm#308765

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 09 2012,22:11)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 09 2012,14:29)

The Father AND the Son (the 'we') both sit on the throne of God and reign over us (the 'they').

There, I have given you an earthly example of how one supreme authority of two persons can have one who has authority over the other yet they are equal.

BD,
In my example, the Father and Son were 'like' the parents in that they were together the supreme authority over everyone else.

August 11, 2012 at 12:32 am#308781

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2012,04:01)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 09 2012,22:11)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 09 2012,14:29)

The Father AND the Son (the 'we') both sit on the throne of God and reign over us (the 'they').

There, I have given you an earthly example of how one supreme authority of two persons can have one who has authority over the other yet they are equal.

BD,
In my example, the Father and Son were 'like' the parents in that they were together the supreme authority over everyone else.

But in your real life belief Jesus is the son and God his Father is the Parent and has Absolute authority over him. God has never been lower than the angels and has never needed to learn obedience and what do you mean “according to the flesh that the Son had to prove His obedience”

You said that Jesus was always hear and created everything which would include “flesh” so if you are correct why would Jesus need to learn about the “flesh”?

Even youridea about mitosis would only justify there being unlimited gods from your point of view because mitosis is a continuous occurence there is no only “one begotten cell” So your point with mitosis fails especially since Jesus did not become an exact duplicate anyway he was born in flesh which is something God cannot do because the flesh could not contain the Glory of GOD it wouldn't survive it, if a Man cannot even see God and live what do you think flesh would do if God tried to encase Himself in it?

August 11, 2012 at 7:26 am#308805

Participant

BD,
Mitosis answered these questions from Mike:

Quote

Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?

Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?

Would you agree that mitosis shows an example where the thing begotten was always within the thing that begot it? And would you agree that mitosis shows an example where the one that was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when it did not exist as long as the parent?

Yes or No
you asked:

Quote

God has never been lower than the angels and has never needed to learn obedience and what do you mean “according to the flesh that the Son had to prove His obedience”

God the Father has never been lower than the angels but the only begotten God had become flesh and thus lower than the angels. When I say 'according to the flesh' I am referring to the Son's existence as flesh or a human. Before His humanity, He was not human and did not feel hungry, cold, weak, tired, etc. So He had to learn how to properly handle these feelings of discomfort without sinning. In His flesh body, He had given up His glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world and He emptied Himself of whatever it took in order to become flesh.

My idea of mitosis was only to answer Mike's questions, not to explain how the Father beget His Son. The Father only needs one Son that is like Himself. The Father and Son will never cease to exist, so no need for more begotten Sons like themselves.

August 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm#308843

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2012,01:26)

BD,
Mitosis answered these questions from Mike:

Quote (mikeboll @ 64)

Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?

Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?

No it didn't.

1. Are you saying that wasps have ALWAYS existed from eternity? Or was any given wasp that has ever existed also subject to a time when it DIDN'T exist? Which one?

2. Are you saying that a fully developed wasp exists within the wasp that is currently being brought forth into existence? Or is it closer to the truth to say a maze of puzzle pieces that will SOME DAY be a fully formed wasp already exist within the wasp that is currently being brought forth into existence? Which one?

August 11, 2012 at 10:06 pm#308880

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2012,18:26)

BD,
Mitosis answered these questions from Mike:

Quote

Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?

Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?

Yes or No
you asked:

Quote

God has never been lower than the angels and has never needed to learn obedience and what do you mean “according to the flesh that the Son had to prove His obedience”

You brought up mitosis not me and it is an ongoing process so for you to say there not need to be anymore begotten sonsthan one is not to use mitosis as an example, you would have to use an example in which There is only One thing existing in another than ceases to produce anything else by choice, know of any?

Aso even your point on mitosis fail because those cells weren't always in existence anyway unless you are calling these cells eternal and immortal. My point is you didn't actually show Mike anything except your ability to use deceptive tactics that have no corresponding reality.

I can imagine that at least for a moment he thought “That is a good point” but it wasn't it was a slick point with no basis in reality unless you believe that cells are God and you don't.

So the answer to your question is NO because cells didn't always exist so data wasn't always within them and also even the example of Mitosis does not show that the one thing and theother were always there because the resulting two cells demonstrate that there was a process for theduplicate to come about so it wasn't always there only the potential was there if that cell had been interupted anywhere in its cycle the duplicate would not have come about or could have been damaged.

I want you to really try to be more honest and give serious thought before you throw out misguided posts.

August 12, 2012 at 5:08 am#308906

http://biology.about.com/od/genetics/ss/Asexual-Reproduction.htm

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2012,10:43)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2012,23:02)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 06 2012,19:00)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2012,13:14)

Mike,
I would say that the rays came from within the sun and were always within the sun till the sun began to shine forth.

Can you give me an example from nature where the thing begotten was “ALWAYS” within the thing that begot it?

Can you give an example where the one who was begotten wasn't also subject to a time when he did not exist?

Mike,
Allow me:

Budding

In this form of asexual reproduction, an offspring grows out of the body of the parent.

Hydras exhibit this type of reproduction.

Gemmules (Internal Buds)

In this form of asexual reproduction, a parent releases a specialized mass of cells that can develop into offspring.

Sponges exhibit this type of reproduction.

Fragmentation

In this type of reproduction, the body of the parent breaks into distinct pieces, each of which can produce an offspring.

Planarians exhibit this type of reproduction.

Regeneration

In regeneration, if a piece of a parent is detached, it can grow and develop into a completely new individual.

Echinoderms exhibit this type of reproduction.

Parthenogenesis

This type of reproduction involves the development of an egg that has not been fertilized into an individual.

Animals like most kinds of wasps, bees, and ants that have no sex chromosomes reproduce by this process. Some reptiles and fish are also capable of reproducing in this manner.

There is your Biology lesson for the day

Here is a great example of two of something that existed as long as each other and where one is the exact representation of the other!! God's design-amazing!

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images….v1efogo

Here Mike, look at this cell at the link in the bumped post, and how the parent cell has within it everything that develops into the offspring to result in two exact replicas.

Btw, this DOES satisfy your questions (which never mention the idea of eternity), whether you want to admit it or not.

August 12, 2012 at 5:26 am#308910

Participant

Well Bd, mitosis is a reality and it is God's design and it does demonstrate the fact that one living organism becomes two equal living organisms through the development taking place of what was already within it. That is all I set out to demonstrate. I obviously did not set out to say God was a single celled organism. He is the creator of the single celled organism and did design this process of reproduction.

The Father always existed and always within Him was the Pre-begotten Son in some manner, according to my understanding. The same thing can be said about the first cell that was to undergo mitosis aside from the eternal existence. Once that first cell was in existence, within it was the pre-begotten offspring in various stages of development. Don't make more of it than I intended and start a rant about it making more and more cells. Just look at the fact that one was within the other for as long as the other existed. Don't go beyond that. Stick to the point.

August 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm#308992

Blocked

Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 11 2012,16:06)

I can imagine that at least for a moment he thought “That is a good point” but it wasn't it was a slick point with no basis in reality unless you believe that cells are God and you don't.

Actually, I didn't even read it, Asana. I know from much experience with Kathi that her secular information doesn't ever end up proving the point she was “slickly” trying to prove with it. And I remembered enough from science classes to gleen that she was trying to imply that God is like a cell that divided into two equal Gods.

I now see that she has dodged my points by saying I didn't specifically say this or that the first time. It's time for me to drive those points home.

August 12, 2012 at 5:57 pm#308995