Born and begotten

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,14:09)

Quote (t8 @ June 13 2010,11:27)

Quote (Oxy @ June 13 2010,08:38)

Sorry, totally disagree with you on this one. My soul and my spirit are two distinctly different things.

Is the marrow the bone or part of the bone?
Perhaps one is a part of the other and can be used interchangeably because of that?

Hi All,

This one confuses me. Gene is right according to Genesis. It says “man BECAME a living soul”. But later, Jesus tells us to fear Him that can, after destroying the body, throw the soul in Gehenna.

And Nick is right that our spirit goes back to who it came from.

I don't know what to make of it all. I do know that Oxy's point about us consisting of three things is silly, IMO. Hey Oxy, which one of us consists of three separate yet equal persons?

peace and love,
mike

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't mind I'll stick with the way God explained it to me.

June 13, 2010 at 5:46 am#195572

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,13:35)

Quote (Oxy @ June 12 2010,18:08)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 12 2010,16:16)

Hi Oxy,

So Jesus is his own Son and God is his own God? Is that about right?

peace and love,
mike

Haha, how on earth did you get that out of what I said???

Hi Oxy,

Well, you said:

Quote

Jesus was not begotten in the Beginning because He was God and was with God..in the beginning.

So in your (trinitarian, I assume) mind, the Son is God, and the Father is God. They are the same being, right?

Then you said:

Quote

After the ressurection of Christ all authority was given to the restored Word of God (Jesus), so what did Father do? He did what He always wanted to do and received for Himself the same blessing He bestowed upon Abraham. He became a Daddy.

Again the Son is God and the Father is God. So God is his own Son. And God is his own Father. Now add that to the fact that Jesus calls the Father “my God”, and you have God being his own God.

Understand how messed up this trinity thing is? Anyway, you asked, I've answered. But this is for another thread.

mike

Shall I just pray against the spirit of confusion for you Mike? You do seem terribly confused.

I am not a trinitarian as they tend to think that God exists of 3 coequal beings. I strongly disagree with that.

It is ridiculous to say the Father is the Son etc. Do I really have to explain that?

And Jesus wasn't God as He was made a little lower than the angels, and they are not Gods, however, Jesus was reinstated to His former Glory after His resurrection, which means that He, along with the Holy Spirit and the Father, is God.

Now surely you can see that the soul and spirit are different.

The soul is the thinking, learning, personality, understanding etc.

The spirit of man is the conscience, instinct, intuition etc.

And I will finish by saying I am NOT a trinitarian…

June 13, 2010 at 6:40 am#195578

Participant

Hi Oxy,
Now the Lord is the Spirit.[2Cor3]
The Spirit serves God as the finger of God[Lk11/Mt12]

June 13, 2010 at 8:36 am#195590

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 13 2010,19:40)

Hi Oxy,
Now the Lord is the Spirit.[2Cor3]
The Spirit serves God as the finger of God[Lk11/Mt12]

Once again Nick, I have to agree with you. Yes, God is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is different again otherwise how could Jesus say that His Father would send the Holy Spirit?

June 13, 2010 at 8:57 am#195597

Participant

Hi Oxy,
God has said such things before.
In Joel 2 he pours of His Spirit.

June 13, 2010 at 9:08 am#195598

Participant

Hi OXY,
Read Mt 10.20 and the parallel verse in Mk 13.11
Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Father?

June 13, 2010 at 9:19 am#195603

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 13 2010,22:08)

Hi OXY,
Read Mt 10.20 and the parallel verse in Mk 13.11
Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Father?

Nick, the Father is spirit, no question. But the Holy Spirit of God is a seperate spirit. I have mentioned several times now that
John 14:26 But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.

If the Father sends the Holy Spirit, does that not indicate to you that the Holy Spirit is different from God who is spirit?

I would like you to seriously think about that Scripture and either give me a rational explaination or accept the possibility that I am right in this. Please ask the Lord Nick, because He will only speak truth.

June 13, 2010 at 9:21 am#195604

Participant

Hi Oxy,
So when you compared the verses did you learn that the Holy Spirit can be called the Father's Spirit?
Does reading romans 8 teach you other names of the Spirit?
The Spirit PROCEEDS from God.[Jn15]

June 13, 2010 at 9:23 am#195605

Participant

Hi Oxy,
God GAVE of His Spirit to His Son.[Jn3]
But God did not lose His Spirit in so doing.

June 13, 2010 at 9:25 am#195607

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 13 2010,22:21)

Indeed the Spirit proceeds from God.

But can you proceed from yourself?

This strengthens my argument Nick. The Spirit can only proceed from God if He is a part of God rather than God Himself.

June 13, 2010 at 9:27 am#195609

Participant

Does God speak to you Nick? I mean do you actually hear what He has to say to you? The reason I ask is because if He does speak to you, then you should ask Him about the Spirit. He taught me so there's no reason why He can't teach you also.

June 13, 2010 at 9:27 am#195610

Participant

Hi Oxy,
So you think we should understand God by studying ourselves.
No compare scripture with scripture is God's way.[2Cor13.1]

June 13, 2010 at 9:30 am#195612

Participant

Hi Oxy,
I know the voice of God as the Spirit reminds me of Scripture.[Jn14.23, 15.26, 16.13]

June 13, 2010 at 10:20 am#195620

JustAskin

Participant

Brother Mike,

The post you refer to was to Nick, who would not have known that we were pm'ing.

Therefore it would look worse to 'him' than we know between us.

I asked your permission, with pleading and asked you to be not part of the revelation I was about to make.
I knew this against what you saying with 'roo' and thought that 'roo' was going to be strengthened against you so I asked for you to be no where near.

Like 'Lot', I asked you to 'get out' before the devastation/revelation hit and you were caught in it.

However, you chose to stay…
I could not 'hold off any longer'.

In fact, though, you need not have participated in this thread. It is not necessary to be posting in every thread, it is everyone's personal choice.

I was quite happy exchanging personal scriptural differences in private hoping to come to an agreement and thus presentna united front in brotherhood.

Had you 'got out' from this subject, seeing that you debated it with 'roo' over how many pages…, you were never going to come to anyagreement, and how long should I hold myself before posting my view without being seen to be contending (with/against) you. forever…?

Further, like many debates, the prolonged discord is all about lack of definition. Each person has defined the point of issue in their own understanding and firmly believes that definition.
I have posted many times that this should be avoided anda single definition be made to which the discord is couched on.
Did we do that?

I said, 'We are debating …''this day, I gave begotten you'''

This limits the points of the debate otherwise we could debate 'Begotten' forever as begotten has many meanings…and which shoukd be applied and how at any point in a verse, sentence, paragraph or rendering?

To wit, the thread title, we know that 'Born' is usually applied to the female giving birth, hence Ishmael was 'born' of the Egytian slave, but Isaac was 'begotten' of Abraham.

But why the difference in reference? Both Ishmael AND Isaac were 'Born' of their mother, AND both Ishmael AND Isaac were 'Begotten' of Abraham.

Scriptures writing is not accidental, so, why the difference?

Because Ishmael was born 'not of the promise of the covenant promise', so…he was 'born in sin'.

Ishmael is Abraham's 'Firstborn' and, by rights, should hold the inheritance. But…because 'he was in sin' he was disenfranchised, cut off, from his natural position as 'Firstborn' and…another..was 'raised up', 'brought up in rank', 'adopted', 'Spiritually reborn' as Abraham's 'Firstborn' son, the heir to Abraham's inheritance and the Covenant.
In fact, the story goes even further because Isaac, at the 'test' of his human blood sacrifice, is then called, 'the Only Son of Abraham'.
Genesis 22: 2 & 22: 12 & 22:16, Hebrews 11:17.
(Jesus trusted that 'God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from whom he also received him in a figurative sense',verse 19… Figuratively 'reborn from the dead', 'spiritually begotten', 'spiritually raised up')

Not only was Isaac not the 'only' son of Abraham, but he was not the 'first born' (Strict, by birth), but he 'became the firstborn AND the 'Only Son'. Even more, we read that Abraham then also had 'other sons', so Isaac then was 'later' Not The Only Son of Abraham, just as Jesus was the 'Only [Human] Son of God' but others would also later become '[Human] Sons of God.

When Jesus was born of Mary, there was no declaration,'This is my Son'…
It was at his baptism at the river Jordan that God declared, 'This is my Son…' and then he was anointed, a precursor to being appointed heir, just as David was first anointed, then appointed.

June 13, 2010 at 1:09 pm#195641

Blocked

Oxy,June wrote:

[/quote]
Hi Oxy,

You said:

Quote

What version of the Bible is that? I have never seen it written like that before and I have 8 versions of the Bible.

And then you posted the Greek that I quoted.

(GNT+) εν1722 PREP αρχη746 N-DSF ην2258 V-IXI-3S
in beginning was

ο3588 T-NSM λογος3056 N-NSM και2532 CONJ ο3588 T-
the word and the

NSM λογος3056 N-NSM ην2258 V-IXI-3S προς4314 PREP
word was toward(or with)

τον3588 T-ASM θεον2316 N-ASM και2532 CONJ θεος2316
the god and god

N-NSM ην2258 V-IXI-3S ο3588 T-NSM λογος3056 N-NSM
was the word

The Koine Greek that the NT was written in did not distiguish between upper case and lower case letters. All letters were upper case. So without the mordern translator's capital g's, you can see a distinction between the two mentions of “god”. The first “god” has the definite article “the” in front of it, while the second doesn't. The indefinite article “a” in Koine Greek was “implied” or “assumed”. In other words, the reader had to mentally insert it. Therefore, one translation that you apparently don't have is the one that puts it most correctly.

The New World Translation, or NWT, says:

In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

peace and love,
mike

June 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm#195642

Blocked

Quote (Oxy @ June 13 2010,16:39)

I don't know what to make of it all. I do know that Oxy's point about us consisting of three things is silly, IMO. Hey Oxy, which one of us consists of three separate yet equal persons?

peace and love,
mike

You are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't mind I'll stick with the way God explained it to me.

I wonder why God chose to explain it personally to you, but didn't mention it at all in His Word so all could understand it?

mike

June 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm#195646

Blocked

Quote (Oxy @ June 13 2010,16:46)

Hi Oxy,

Jesus returned to a greater glory than the one he left. He is now at the right hand of who he called “my God and your God” and “the only true God”. His apostle Paul said, “for us, there is but ONE God, THE FATHER”.

How can one be at the right hand OF God if he IS God?

Yet, you say you will pray about my confusion? First remove the rafter from your own eye before extracting the splinter from mine, okay?

mike

June 13, 2010 at 1:55 pm#195649

Blocked

Hi JA,

Thank you for the more coherent post.

You said:

Quote

Like 'Lot', I asked you to 'get out' before the devastation/revelation hit and you were caught in it.

However, you chose to stay…
I could not 'hold off any longer'.

Are you unable to see the arrogance in this statement? Like all of HN was just waiting on the edge of their seat for the great JA to drop the bomb of his knowledge and understanding on us.

You said:

Quote

I said, 'We are debating …''this day, I gave begotten you'''

Okay, let's debate this statement. Heb 1:5 says,

5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son;
today I have become your Father”? Or again,
“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?

Now you think the “today I have begotten you” wording means it happened on the “today” that Jesus was raised. But in the same verse, it also has the “I will be” wording. So which happened when Jesus was raised? Did he BECOME God's begotten Son, or did that mark the time from which later he “WILL BE” God's begotten Son?

Please explain the “will be” in light of your opinion that the “today” means it happened when Jesus was raised.

You said:

Quote

This limits the points of the debate otherwise we could debate 'Begotten' forever…

Are you saying we can only use the words “today I have become your Father” in this debate? Isn't that a little one-sided? No, no, no. You must also, along with your diamond, look at my gems. The first gem still awaits your refute…..

In John 3:16, Jesus says God GAVE His only begotten Son. In what sense did God GIVE His Son? Has God GIVEN His Son since he was raised?

Please stop avoiding these questions. It is not fair to me to only answer the “today” thing, (which I have refuted solidly with the “will be” thing), while you avoid every point blank question I put forth. ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, PLEASE.

peace and love,
mike

June 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm#195655

GeneBalthrop

Participant

JA…………….Mike does have a point brother. The (will be) indicates a future time right? So Jesus could not have been a (PREEXISTED SON OF GOD) as all the angles are. JA and Mike I believe that Jesus became a Begotten son of GOD at the Jordan River when He recieved into him the Spirit of GOD, He was at that time adopted as a son of the Living GOD. IMO

Mike…….The scripture that says that God can destory (BOTH) (two things) The body and the Soul in Hell. The word Hell is comes from Sheol the Greek meaning (the grave), not Gehenna . If you care to look it up you will find the word Soul used there is Spirit . When the Spirit is separated from the body of a person that is it , no more nothing left of that person except Their DNA which GOD Has, Spirit is simply Spirit and goes back to the Pool from which it came. GOD Must resurrect a BODY and Add Spirit back into it for us to live as a LIVING SOUL AGAIN. A resurrection is vital for our future existence, without which we will no longer exist. Jesus truly was dead in his grave and would still be there if God did not raise his body and add spirit back into it. God did not allow his (SOUL) Body + spirit, to see corruption in the (GRAVE)> the same is with us A resurrected BODY is vital for our future existence after death . IMO

peace and love to you and JA Both, Both of you have good sound points about scriptures and I believe God is using you both Here brothers………………….gene

June 13, 2010 at 3:38 pm#195663