- This topic is empty.
- Posts
And now all YOU have to do is prove that claim.
Wasn't it you who once said that the “default understanding” will always take precedence UNLESS there is clear evidence to the contrary?Where is this “CLEAR evidence” that Jesus was the only being who was ever brought forth from his father without first being subject to a time when he didn't exist?
Here, Mike, I brought this over from the Peshitta thread so that it can be with the other Mitosis info.
Think of the mitosis single cell example. There is a parent cell with all that makes up its offspring within it. The offspring happens to end up exactly like the parent cell with the exception that one is the parent cell and the other is the offspring. The offspring cell is not the parent cell that it was from although they are identical and every bit of both of them existed as long as the parent cell was a parent cell. This is true even with your puzzle example. All the pieces of the 'puzzle' were present within the parent cell for as long as the parent cell existed. The cell containing ALL the 'puzzle pieces' would be the parent and the offspring within it would be the offspring. The whole entire 'puzzle' was within the parent cell for as long as the parent cell was a parent cell. Furthermore, the puzzle pieces were always also the puzzle albeit in different phases of completion. When completing the phases within, it was 'brought forth/ begotten.'
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,14:56) And now all YOU have to do is prove that claim. Wasn't it you who once said that the “default understanding” will always take precedence UNLESS there is clear evidence to the contrary?Where is this “CLEAR evidence” that Jesus was the only being who was ever brought forth from his father without first being subject to a time when he didn't exist?
Mike,
Yashua is called Yahweh, for one proof that He always existed. Another is that He is called the 'Word of God' and that referrred to the 'Word of God' in the OT that the targums write about and consider YHWH. Also, the NT tells us that Yahshua is in the form of God, and the exact representation of His nature, and was with God in the beginning as God.Mike,
you said:Quote 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. Oh, really…do you still think that the child did not exist before he/she was born/begotten? I believe that I proved that he/she did. Approximately nine months he/she existed within the womb. Now we add to that, the single cell that reproduces by mitosis and we see that all the parts that make up the offspring exist within the parent and is in various phases of development. The 'begettal/bringing forth' did not cause its existence but allowed what already existed to be begotten as a separate cell as the final phase of the parent's reproductive cycle.
So, now you can explain that you were wrong to say what you said to BD about me. And then apologize for your careless, inconsiderate error.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,07:53) Mike,
you said:Quote 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. Oh, really…do you still think that the child did not exist before he/she was born/begotten? I believe that I proved that he/she did. Approximately nine months he/she existed within the womb. Now we add to that, the single cell that reproduces by mitosis and we see that all the parts that make up the offspring exist within the parent and is in various phases of development. The 'begettal/bringing forth' did not cause its existence but allowed what already existed to be begotten as a separate cell as the final phase of the parent's reproductive cycle.
So, now you can explain that you were wrong to say what you said to BD about me. And then apologize for your careless, inconsiderate error.
You seem to keep confusing potentiality with actuality. Babies aren't actually fully functional babies until after a certain point. God didn't have to develop but Jesus did why is that hard to understand?Quote (bodhitharta @ Aug. 12 2012,17:58) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,07:53) Mike,
you said:Quote 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. Oh, really…do you still think that the child did not exist before he/she was born/begotten? I believe that I proved that he/she did. Approximately nine months he/she existed within the womb. Now we add to that, the single cell that reproduces by mitosis and we see that all the parts that make up the offspring exist within the parent and is in various phases of development. The 'begettal/bringing forth' did not cause its existence but allowed what already existed to be begotten as a separate cell as the final phase of the parent's reproductive cycle.
So, now you can explain that you were wrong to say what you said to BD about me. And then apologize for your careless, inconsiderate error.
You seem to keep confusing potentiality with actuality. Babies aren't actually fully functional babies until after a certain point.
This was always my stance too, Asana. I argued with Kathi that a 3 month old fetus in a womb is not an “existing child” from my point of view.But then she argued that people name their unborn children.
And then I argued that it's not technically an INDIVDUAL being until the umbilical cord is severed.
And then she argued back that people have funerals for the ones who are naturally aborted and stillborn, etc. And then she started posting stuff about how developed a fetus is at 1 month, and 3 months, and 6 months, etc.
I finally had to walk away from the discussion because it became too much.
My stance is, and has always been: A child is begotten, brought forth, born, etc., when that child actually comes out of the womb into the world, the cord is cut, and the child becomes an individual being – separate from its mother. Kathi apparently considers the act of conception to be the “begetting” of the child. There are those who support that understanding, but I'm not one of them. I don't recall the Bible ever mentioning the “begotten” child of anyone dying in the womb. But I often wonder if women like Sarah, who was “barren”, actually conceived and miscarried many times. If that is the case, then according to Kathi's understanding of “begotten”, Abraham would have “begotten” many children before Ishmael.
Kathi, if Sarah had miscarried three times before bringing Issac to term, would Isaac be her “first begotten” child, or her “fourth begotten” child?
In other words, have you ever heard of anyone who had previously miscarried calling the first child to be be born their “second begotten” child? I haven't.
Anyway, now we're on to this “mitosis” thing, where the mixed up puzzle pieces for the next generation are already existent in the current generation. But is this a fair comparison to her claim that Jesus existed as a complete being within his God before his God brought him forth? I don't think so, which is why I haven't really responded to the mitosis thing.
Now, if she wants to use mitosis to claim that Jesus was a non-sentient bunch of puzzle pieces within God before God brought him forth, she might have a chance with this mitosis thing. But even if that was her claim, she has not one shred of any proof that mitosis would apply to the way God brought Jesus into existence. It would still just be wishful thinking on her part.
This 15 minutes out of my life to write these things could have been used in a more worthwhile way, which is why I don't always respond to Kathi's many secular information posts.
peace,
mikeBD,
I think that it is you that confuses potentiality with actuality. For instance…when I was a teenager, I had the potential to be a mother. I had all the right parts. When I was married and conceived my first child, I changed from being a potential mother to being an actual mother since from the point of conception, a new life had begun within me and I began nurturing him. When he was born/begotten from within me, I became a more active mother.Quote Babies aren't actually fully functional babies until after a certain point.
Actually, 'babies' aren't fully functional even at age 22 which is the age of my third child who is almost completely dependent on my husband's and my financial support as he is entering his fifth year of a professional degree at a nearby university and using our car. A child is not fully functional until they are self-supported, imo.
You are not actually saying that a child does not exist until the point of birth though are you? That would be ludicrous! A preemie would clearly prove you wrong there!!
Quote God didn't have to develop but Jesus did why is that hard to understand? Well, you would have a hard time proving that Jesus had to or didn't have to develop before He was begotten before the ages. Scripture just tells us that He was an only begotten Son. What took place before He was brought forth, we aren't told from what I can tell. Can you show something different?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,20:43) Well, you would have a hard time proving that Jesus had to or didn't have to develop before He was begotten before the ages.
But the DEFAULT is that one who is begotten didn't exist prior to being begotten, so it is YOU who needs to prove that something other than the default happened in the case of Jesus.And the DEFAULT is that the one begotten goes on to develop, so again it is up to YOU to prove something other than the default.
Kathi, I almost fell off my chair when I read these words from you: What took place before He was brought forth, we aren't told from what I can tell.
How then can you even keep a straight face while trying to build your own doctrine that one who was begotten had already always existed?
Mike,
you said:Quote Kathi apparently considers the act of conception to be the “begetting” of the child. Wrong…I believe the act of conception the beginning of new life but the birth is what I refer to as the begetting. The act of conception begins a new life with it's own set of chromosomes different than the mother and a separate DNA from the mother, a fertilized egg is not a form of the mother's own life.
Quote If that is the case, then according to Kathi's understanding of “begotten”, Abraham would have “begotten” many children before Ishmael. Again, a begetton offspring is a live birth, not a miscarriage. Begetting does not happen at conception. Mike, do not speak for me, ok. You do not get it straight most of the time. Thanks.
Quote This 15 minutes out of my life to write these things could have been used in a more worthwhile way, which is why I don't always respond to Kathi's many secular information posts. Ha ha, that is really funny Mike. You have so much spare time, more than most anyone I know considering how often you are on here alone! Look at how many posts you have made since Feb. 2010-15,500. Also, YOU are the one asking me to show you from nature how an offspring can exist within the parent for as long as the parent existed. Then I show you that answer and then you say something like you said in that quote. You have a lot of nerve. You ask for evidence from nature, I give it to you, you complain that it is secular information. Can't you see what you are doing? You can not be satisfied if it disagrees with your false doctrine bias.
Do you believe that mitosis is not God's design?
Do you believe that it is a manmade concept?Good grief!! Please answer these questions that I have bolded, thanks!
If you have trouble with this, we can make a poll and show you what others think about it. You might be a bit embarrassed so just answer the questions without your twisted nonsense! We have already taken a poll “When does the bio. father become the bio. father?” As I remember, your view was held by you ALONE. I agreed with the popular view…life begins at conception and that is when the biological father becomes the biological father. I have invested soooo much time trying to educate you and untwist your thinking on HN and you complain about all the time you have spent. If you don't want to spend time looking at the proof that I give you AFTER you ask me for it, then don't waste my time by asking for it…got it? My time is valuable too, ya know!
Mike,
you said:Quote But the DEFAULT is that one who is begotten didn't exist prior to being begotten
No, the default is that a separate life begins in a person before he/she is begotten. I can't think of ANY living thing that isn't a living, growing organism before they are born/begotten.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,15:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,14:56) And now all YOU have to do is prove that claim. Wasn't it you who once said that the “default understanding” will always take precedence UNLESS there is clear evidence to the contrary?Where is this “CLEAR evidence” that Jesus was the only being who was ever brought forth from his father without first being subject to a time when he didn't exist?
Mike,
Yashua is called Yahweh, for one proof that He always existed. Another is that He is called the 'Word of God' and that referrred to the 'Word of God' in the OT that the targums write about and consider YHWH. Also, the NT tells us that Yahshua is in the form of God, and the exact representation of His nature, and was with God in the beginning as God.
Mike,Quote How then can you even keep a straight face while trying to build your own doctrine that one who was begotten had already always existed? I just gave you the answer to this earlier on this page in this bumped post.
Quote How then can you even keep a straight face while trying to build your own doctrine that one who was begotten had already always existed? Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 13 2012,13:43) BD,
I think that it is you that confuses potentiality with actuality. For instance…when I was a teenager, I had the potential to be a mother. I had all the right parts. When I was married and conceived my first child, I changed from being a potential mother to being an actual mother since from the point of conception, a new life had begun within me and I began nurturing him. When he was born/begotten from within me, I became a more active mother.Quote Babies aren't actually fully functional babies until after a certain point.
Actually, 'babies' aren't fully functional even at age 22 which is the age of my third child who is almost completely dependent on my husband's and my financial support as he is entering his fifth year of a professional degree at a nearby university and using our car. A child is not fully functional until they are self-supported, imo. You are not actually saying that a child does not exist until the point of birth though are you? That would be ludicrous! A preemie would clearly prove you wrong there!!
Quote God didn't have to develop but Jesus did why is that hard to understand? Well, you would have a hard time proving that Jesus had to or didn't have to develop before He was begotten before the ages. Scripture just tells us that He was an only begotten Son. What took place before He was brought forth, we aren't told from what I can tell. Can you show something different?
KathiYou keep jumping from biological points to philosophical points your 22 year old child most certainly can survive quite well without you or your husband anyone that chooses can take care of them. This is not the case with every stage of a developing fetus there is no such thing as a surviving 5 day old fetus separated from its mother is there?
The scriptures show Jesus Jesus grew in the Spirit after he was born.
Luke 2:40King James Version (KJV)
40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
BD,
I was asking about information regarding what took place BEFORE the Son was brought forth/begotten BEFORE the ages. Your Luke verse has nothing to do with that question, sorry.Obviously, when the pre-existent Son became flesh as a baby He had to grow and develop.
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,21:11) Do you believe that mitosis is not God's design?
Do you believe that it is a manmade concept?
All things in nature are by God's design, Kathi.Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,21:14) Mike,
you said:Quote But the DEFAULT is that one who is begotten didn't exist prior to being begotten
No, the default is that a separate life begins in a person before he/she is begotten. I can't think of ANY living thing that isn't a living, growing organism before they are born/begotten.
Okay, let me rephrase it:The DEFAULT is that anyone who is begotten was also first subject to a time when they didn't exist at all.
Can you argue against that one?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2012,07:57) BD,
I was asking about information regarding what took place BEFORE the Son was brought forth/begotten BEFORE the ages. Your Luke verse has nothing to do with that question, sorry.Obviously, when the pre-existent Son became flesh as a baby He had to grow and develop.
Why would he need to grow in Spirit and why would he need the Grace of God upon him if he himself is also God?So you are saying Jesus a spirit son first right? So he was begotten twice once in th spirit and once in the flesh?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,21:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2012,14:56) How then can you even keep a straight face while trying to build your own doctrine that one who was begotten had already always existed?
I just gave you the answer to this earlier on this page in this bumped post.Mike,
Yashua is called Yahweh, for one proof that He always existed. Another is that He is called the 'Word of God' and that referrred to the 'Word of God' in the OT that the targums write about and consider YHWH. Also, the NT tells us that Yahshua is in the form of God, and the exact representation of His nature, and was with God in the beginning as God.
Let's see if those are really “answers”.1. Yashua is called Yahweh
There is no proof of this, nor would sharing a name with God mean you must have existed from eternity. There is no known connection between these things.
2. Another is that He is called the 'Word of God' and that referrred to the 'Word of God' in the OT that the targums write about and consider YHWH.
First of all, if Jesus is the Word OF God, then he's not God Himself. And only God is said to have existed from eternity. Secondly, it seems this “proof” is only a repetition of the first one, ie: Yashua is called YHWH. In that case, see the answer to the first one.
3. Also, the NT tells us that Yahshua is in the form of God,
What is “the form of God”? I'd say “spirit form”. Don't many others also exist in this “form”? But once again, if Jesus was existing in the form OF God, then he couldn't be God Himself. And only God is said to have existed from eternity.
4. and the exact representation of His nature
Same answer. If Jesus is a representation OF God, then he is not God Himself. And only God is said to have existed from eternity.
5. and was with God in the beginning as God.
Well, if he was WITH “God”, then he couldn't have BEEN “God”. He was, however, “A god” who was WITH “THE God” in the beginning. But what words here say that Jesus has existed from eternity? The “in the beginning part”? If that were true, then the heavens and the earth have also existed from eternity, because they were said to have been created “in the beginning”.
See Kathi? Often times your “proof” is not even close to proof.
Kathi, Jesus is the Son of God, which means his Father was in existence before he was in existence. That, after all, is the DEFAULT, right?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 13 2012,17:39) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 12 2012,21:11) Do you believe that mitosis is not God's design?
Do you believe that it is a manmade concept?
All things in nature are by God's design, Kathi.
Ok, thank you! Now, Mike, why is an example of nature secular information? Isn't an example in nature appropriate to convey Biblical truths?Mike,
you said:Quote 1. Yashua is called Yahweh There is no proof of this, nor would sharing a name with God mean you must have existed from eternity. There is no known connection between these things.
One would have to always exist to have that name. In the Greek texts there IS reasonable proof that the Son is called YHWH, you admit that there is another that has that name except you make up the reason of a vice regent which has no proof nor consistency.
In the Eastern Peshitta, there is clear evidence that the Son is also YHWH.
Quote 2. Another is that He is called the 'Word of God' and that referrred to the 'Word of God' in the OT that the targums write about and consider YHWH. First of all, if Jesus is the Word OF God, then he's not God Himself. And only God is said to have existed from eternity. Secondly, it seems this “proof” is only a repetition of the first one, ie: Yashua is called YHWH. In that case, see the answer to the first one.
If Jesus is the Word of God mentioned over and over in the Targums, then He is not God the Father but is the only begotten God and was worshiped as one with God. The Targums believed that the Word of God was the creator.
Quote 3. Also, the NT tells us that Yahshua is in the form of God, What is “the form of God”? I'd say “spirit form”. Don't many others also exist in this “form”? But once again, if Jesus was existing in the form OF God, then he couldn't be God Himself. And only God is said to have existed from eternity.
The form of God would be the begotten God, the form of a bondservant would be a bondservant, the form of an angel would be an angel.
The begotten God would have existed within God, the Father from eternity in order to be the begotten 'God.'
Quote 5. and was with God in the beginning as God. Well, if he was WITH “God”, then he couldn't have BEEN “God”. He was, however, “A god” who was WITH “THE God” in the beginning. But what words here say that Jesus has existed from eternity? The “in the beginning part”? If that were true, then the heavens and the earth have also existed from eternity, because they were said to have been created “in the beginning”.
I didn't say He was the God that He was with. I said He was the begotten God who was with God the Father. We know that the heavens and the earth did not also exist from eternity because we are clearly told that the Firstborn created them, therefore they had to have a beginning.
Quote Kathi, Jesus is the Son of God, which means his Father was in existence before he was in existence. That, after all, is the DEFAULT, right? From your own statement you mention a Father who was in existence. The default meaning of a father is that he would have an offspring whether begotten/brought forth/born yet or not. The name 'Father' insists of the existence of an existing offspring.
If the Father always existed, He had to be the Father of someone for as long as He was the Father.
So much for your challenge, Mike. How is it that you forget everything that we have talked about so many times? Maybe you need to see a doctor about this
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
