Born and begotten

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 13 2010,22:27)

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

Nick, this makes no sense my friend. When did I ever say we can hear God by studying ourselves?

I'm talking about hearing God's voice so that He may teach you.

June 13, 2010 at 6:11 pm#195687

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,02:38)

Hi Gene,

Thanks for your kind words. But you keep popping in here with your unsubstantiated views and don't answer the scriptures I post.

If we know that the Lamb of God is God's Son, how is it that John the Baptist knew Jesus as the Lamb of God before he baptized him? (Compare John 1:29 and Matt 3:13)

You said:

Quote

The word Hell is comes from Sheol the Greek meaning (the grave), not Gehenna .

No, Gene. Look closer. This is the Greek word used and what it symbolizes from Online Bible Study Tools:

Strong's Number: 1067
Original Word Word Origin
gevenna of Hebrew origin (01516) and (02011)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Geenna 1:657,113
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
gheh'-en-nah Noun Feminine

Definition
Hell is the place of the future punishment called “Gehenna” or “Gehenna of fire”. This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.

I have more info on it if you want to read it.

You said:

Quote

If you care to look it up you will find the word Soul used there is Spirit .

Again, that is incorrect. The word used is “psuche”. The word for spirit is “pneuma”.

So my confusion stands, unfortunately. For Jesus indeed says,

Matthew 10:28 NIV
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell [ghehenna].

peace to you, Gene – I hope you are well
mike

Mike…………First lets start with you question of How John knew Jesus was the lamb of GOD. It had nothing to do with Jesus' preexistences at all. Lets read it …

John 1: 32………Then John gave this (testimony): I (SAW) the the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. I would (NOT) have known him, (EXCEPT) that the one who sent me to baptize with water, (TOLD) me ,”the (MAN) on whom you see the Spirit come down and (REMAIN) is He who will baptize with the HOLY SPIRIT”,. So or as a result, John had seen and had testified that this is the son of God. That Spirit descended down on Jesus at the Baptism of the Jordan river, as scripture Say's it did.

Point is Mike John recognized Who Jesus was (because ) of what God had told him and had nothing to do with any prior existence of His. There is even other scripture where John even doubted If Jesus was indeed the Christ, i can produce that for you also if you would like Brother.

I will deal with the Gehenna thing later, i want to check it out again in my Greek text.

Peace and love to you brother…………………………gene

June 13, 2010 at 6:33 pm#195692

Blocked

Hello Mr. Gene

You said:

Quote

Mike…………First lets start with you question of How John knew Jesus was the lamb of GOD. It had nothing to do with Jesus' preexistences at all.

First, what do you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was a son of God like the rest of us before he was baptized? Or do you think even from his birth by Mary he was special? Spell it out for me.

I think Jesus as the Word was the only begotten Son of God from before time. He might not have had the name Jesus then, but the Word was a “job title”, not his name. So he very well could have been known as Jesus even then. Who knows?

As far as prior existence, don't you think Jesus was the Son of Man?

And I WOULD like to see the “doubting John” scripture. Thanks.

peace and love,
mike

June 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm#195694

JustAskin

Participant

Brother Mike,

I think you misunderstand several points.

One is that the revelation was in light of the fact that I would be siding with 'roo' in this issue.
And, considering the length and ferocity of your debate with 'roo' and possibly, WJ as well, would be a devastation.

Two antiTrinitarians arguing against each other, one siding with a Trinitarian.

How would you have felt had I not forewarned you?

As it turned out, neither 'roo' nor 'wj' seem to be in pursuit, and I am glad for that, glad for you, too.

You know that I did not reveal what I think with relish, but with reluctance for your sake and in deference, courtious respect, to your thoughts on the matter.
You, yourself stated that you would be …'man enough'… to take whatever came out of it, 'what's the worse that can happen' (I see you used in another thread also) but it seems that when the proverbial happened – this happened…!

Is it not curious that you are the only person who is 'really' opposing my idea? And further, you only have one question that is making all this noise, that of:
'If Jesus was not begotten before time, how then did he come to be'?

Does Scripture, anywhere say that God calls 'Jesus' 'His Son' before Jesus came into the World?
Does Scriptures say when 'Jesus' was 'created/came into being' (We agree that he did/must have at, some point, yes?)
Does Scriptures say that 'Jesus' was the 'Only' one created before time by God?
All the 'Stars' and the angels must have been created before time, because the 'Stars sang together' and 'the sons of God shouted with Joy'.
Where was 'Jesus' in this throng? Did he not also 'Sing together with the Stars' do you suppose? Then why was he not mentioned.
No where in the Old Testament is there any mention of 'Jesus' directly referenced in the same way that 'the Satan' is referenced.
Why do we assume that 'Jesus' was predestined to 'be the one' that God would send into the world to save it? Is it not because 'He Was The One Sent Into The World'? No you didn't misread it, just understand it. because of retrospectiveness, because of Hindsight.
If it had been another, then we would have said the same of that other!
What we know is that God sent 'His Most Beloved Son', and we know that 'most beloved Son' by the virtue of his human birth as man with the name given to him at that birth of 'Jesus'.

Scriptures, nowhere states when 'Jesus' came to be but it is certain that it was before there was such a thing as 'Time' and Scriptures states that God gave the word 'Day' after He called Light and Darkness into being, while the Earth was 'without form and void'.

So, again, which 'Day' was there before there was any such a thing as a 'Day', a 'Day' when God said, ' you are my Son, Today…This Day… I have begotten you'?

Why would God say that anyway?? That is a strange thing to say. “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”…why did God say that to him? Did 'Jesus' say, 'Hey, who am I and where did I suddenly come from?'?

Ok, Mike, are you married?
Whey or ney, what does a 'Father of the bride' say to his 'Son-in-Law' after the marraige, “You are now 'my Son', Today you have become so', and also, “I will be as a Father to you and you will be as a Son to me”

Why the 'Will'? can you not see? What is hard to see?
“I will be his Father”
Solomon is crowned King. The Lord says tohim, 'Solomon, don't worry about anything, You asked for Wisdom, but I will give not onky that but much more and thys you WILL be the wisest and richest King ever'? Why the 'Will' be. After being given wisdom doesn't he then automatically the 'wisest', or is it a 'progressive, now and future, feature'
“This day, I have become your Father and You have become my Son and I will be your Father [forever] and you will be my son [forever]”

Why did God say this to Jesus now, when He didn't say that to him when he first became man? Because, up until Jesus' 'rebirth' after being raised from the dead, ADAM was the God's Firstborn [of Man].

But Adam had sinned, and was now no longer 'firstborn' (in the likeness of Ishmael)

Jesus (In the likeness of Isaac) now becomes the human blood Sacrificial one, and is receive physically and spiritually from the dead, as Isaac was also received figuratively from the dead (Hebrews 11:19) begotten as 'firstborn by inheritance' and 'Only Son' by the Covenant promise, of their respected Fathers.

Mike, I know you want to pursue 'only begotten' as meaning 'Jesus was created' but do you not see that the Scripture picture is concerning Jesus' 'Spiritual Birth' and the appointment as 'only [Spiritually] begotten son, as man, of God, raised up in rank order over Adam, the firstborn.

Does this mean nothing, 'For he taketh away the FIRST in order to establish the SECOND'?

How many times is that repeated in the Scriptures? Is it just an amusing coincidence?

You readily use “Pharoah and Joseph” to prove “God and Jesus” but you can't see “Isaac and Jesus” yet they are both 'fractally' consistent.

May God bless you, Mike…

June 13, 2010 at 7:18 pm#195699

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,02:14)

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

Didn't mention it in His Word? Can you find me just ONE Scripture that says the Scriptures are the Word? And don't give me all Scripture is inspired.. I know that, but according to my Bible the Word was made flesh.

June 13, 2010 at 7:20 pm#195700

Participant

Hi Oxy,
So can the holy Spirit be called the spirit of the Father?
God is one, not three-Jesus said so.

June 13, 2010 at 7:21 pm#195701

Participant

I guess one of the reasons God speaks to me is because I was baptised in the Holy Spirit and since then have been able to speak in tongues, have the gift of prophecy, have prayed for people and seen them healed, had word of knowledge and have the gift of faith. Pretty awesome really, and the big bonus was that I learned to hear His voice.

June 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm#195702

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 14 2010,08:20)

Hi Oxy,
So can the holy Spirit be called the spirit of the Father?
God is one, not three-Jesus said so.

I agree Nick, God is one. and so are you, yet you are body soul and spirit as I have mentioned several times before.

We are made up of three parts. God also is one, but of three parts. Not exactly like us obviously. He is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

June 13, 2010 at 7:24 pm#195703

Participant

Hi Oxy,
Yes it is nice to have such evidence but miracles are not proof of salvation [mt7] or accuracy.

June 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm#195705

Ed J

Participant

Quote (Oxy @ June 14 2010,06:21)

I guess one of the reasons God speaks to me is because I was baptised in the Holy Spirit and since then have been able to speak in tongues, have the gift of prophecy, have prayed for people and seen them healed, had word of knowledge and have the gift of faith. Pretty awesome really, and the big bonus was that I learned to hear His voice.

Hi Oxy,

What does He tell you about me?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

June 13, 2010 at 7:27 pm#195707

Participant

Hi Oxy,
The Spirit can also be called the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of truth, the spirit of righteousness, the Spirit etc.
The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is poured and sent.

June 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm#195711

JustAskin

Participant

Guys,

This thread is entitled, 'Born or Begotten'.

If you are not discussing 'Born or Begotten', or some minor deviance, could you not post in here please.

(Moderator)

June 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm#195714

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,02:09)

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

So the Word was A God with God? Now we have two Gods???

June 13, 2010 at 8:28 pm#195733

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ June 14 2010,06:04)

Hi JA,

You are pulling a WJ. Remember? Paul's the one who tries to “big word” you to death, Roo's the one who yells the same crap so many times that he thinks eventually you will agree or give up, and WJ is the one who tries to kill you with a post so long that it takes hours to respond to. We've had this discussion in a pm, right?

While I appreciate your concern for my feelings, I told you in the pm that I am a big boy and I have been wrong before. Remember? I said what's the worst that can happen – I'll be shown truth and amend my beliefs – that's not a bad thing.

As far as opposers, Nick thinks he became begotten at the Jordan. So does Gene. Oxy seems to think it was when he was born of Mary. In fact, you are the only one here so far that believes the way you do.

As far as Isaac, it is not the “begotten” part that doesn't fit, for he was surely begotten by Abraham. It is the “only” part that seems out of place. And remember, Paul doesn't say Isaac is the “only begotten son” of God, but of Abraham.

Now, before I answer your points AGAIN, answer my one question I've asked 5 times now.

In what sense did God GIVE His only begotten Son AFTER he was raised?

Please, please, please! ONLY answer this ONE LITTLE POINT. The miles and miles of your beliefs are fine, but I've heard you loud and clear. You think this, I think that. Let's break it down and see who is the mistaken one, if possible.

I only want to see a short post on my ONE point above. PLEASE!

peace and love,
mike

June 13, 2010 at 8:39 pm#195738

Blocked

Quote (Oxy @ June 14 2010,06:18)

Are you serious, dude? You're not going to be one of those people, are you?

First, the Bible is very commonly called the Word of God by millions of people.

Second, then change my usage of God's Word to “the scriptures”.

I wonder why God chose to explain it personally to you, but didn't mention it at all in THE SCRIPTURES so all could understand.

Is that better?

mike

June 13, 2010 at 8:45 pm#195742

Blocked

Quote (Oxy @ June 14 2010,06:21)

Hi Oxy,

Far be it from me to deny what you've said. I will point out that Jesus said many will come in his name claiming this and that. But he said we would know from where they really were by their fruits.

You are producing thistles, man. You are supporting going against the first commandment. God didn't say to worship only Him and His Son as God. He (as in ONE GOD) said to have NO OTHER GODS. He also said that man has never seen His form, so don't worship anyone or anything with a form – including the form of a man. Isn't Jesus in the form of a man?

peace and love,
mike

June 13, 2010 at 8:51 pm#195744

Blocked

Quote (Oxy @ June 14 2010,06:41)

So the Word was A God with God? Now we have two Gods???

Two? The Bible mentions many. We are to worship and serve only one as our God, though.

What makes more logical sense, Oxy? A god with God. Or the thought of one being being WITH itself? God was WITH God? What?

And don't blame the translation. It is John who used the definite article “the” in front of both “words”, but only one of the “gods”. Why do you think he did that? If he meant that the word was “the” god, why didn't he say so?

mike

June 13, 2010 at 8:56 pm#195745