Born and begotten

Participant

Mike,

Did you anwser the point about John 17:3 etc.

Puzzle:
Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?
Who came first, 'the Son' or 'the begotten Son'?

June 26, 2010 at 8:38 pm#200148

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,04:10)

And unto JA, Mike says, 'You are my brother, today you have made some good points'

Mike, only 'today'?

Gene, greatful for the complement, but prefer if you make contributions with conscientious thought.
Do you get paid to push your theory? You must be rich,… Or so poor you need to keep doing it?

See, you got me attacking you!

Shall i write some 'raps'
Hmm…not this time, perhaps
But maybe the next
So don't make me vex!

('you won't like me when i'm vex'
I grow huge and green, and get in a hex.)

JA…………You say mine are theories, and what of your theories are your any more concrete then others are. This self positioning of yourself is only a smoke screen. I personally could care less how vexed you become. You on the one Hand say discuss the subject but do not commit on what i have brought out , to say that it makes no sense without any explanation only shows you lack of Knowledge about a cop out. IMO I have posted my position please show the error if they are there , Just don't ridicule, post why you disagree. I noticed even when scripture is posted you just ignore them or ridicule them. Whats that all about?

peace and love……………….gene

June 27, 2010 at 3:05 am#200185

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,03:31)

JA………..I am sorry Mike see me as a fly in the anointment, But if the ointment is polluted already then what difference does it make.

Hi Gene,

What are you talking about? I never implied you were a fly in the ointment – that was JA.
I said:

Quote

But Gene and Nick and Oxy's points are just as valid as yours. And I can't come up with anything solid yet to refute their points that he was begotten when he was born of Mary or at the Jordan, because scripture can fit into both of those scenarios along with mine that he was begotten before all ages.

I think you misread something, brother.

peace and love,
mike

June 27, 2010 at 3:09 am#200186

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,04:54)

Who came first, 'the Son' or 'the begotten Son'?

Hi JA,

Which came first: YOUR son or YOUR begotten son? Are they not the same person who became both those “people” at the same time? Why is it necessary for you to think it would mean anything different when referring to God's Son?

mike

June 27, 2010 at 3:15 am#200187

Blocked

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,07:38)

peace and love……………….gene

I hate to kick a man when he's down, but I agree with Gene on this one. JA seems to think he is the only one who understands it all. I know from pm's that he doesn't really think this – he can actually be quite humble. But on the public threads, he gives the impression that only his understanding is valid, and everyone else's is cause for ridicule and anger.

JA, we already have one Roo on this site – we don't need another.

peace and love,
mike

June 27, 2010 at 8:49 am#200238

Participant

Gene,

My post to you was to 'Butt out'.

Me and Mike were agreeing on terms for the discussion that was taking place.
We agree that Jesus was preexistent. That is not in dispute. Therefore [Moderator], there is no place for an alternative term of reference.
This is exactly the sort of distracting input that muddies a discussion.

Who would enter a discussion about the merits of an Ipad over a Laptop, with the input of 'well i use pen and paper', and then keep repeating the same, virtual copy several times. The discussion terms are agreed, ipad/laptop. The 'distraction input'of 'penandpaper' distracts from the discussion in progress and is not helpful.

Gene, i ask you not to post what you post as above. but you seem to agree but then continue to post. Why?

Something that is being attempted, you may not realise, is that there is an attempt to make threads more cohesive to the thread topic.

With more moderators in the forum this is now possible. And i have started 'asking', sometimes guidingly, sometimes forcibly, to put this to posters.

Please learn to comply.

If you feel strongly about a topic, create a thread…

I also advise that the thread creature also try to 'moderate' their own threads.
Only need to say, 'hi, that post is offtopic' and if the poster does not relent, pm a moderator. Edj has done so and it was quite effective so we have proof that it works.

Mike,

I have not withheld knowledge of my personality.

Have i not said that 'i'm RAW' (Raw, yet fair with it, and also considerate when need be)

So no surprise to anyone, i hope.

Tell me, who in this forum doesn't believe every word they post is sacrosanct.

What do you notice here…who attacks me, more than others…and why?

Even 'Might God' WJ only attacks my 'Ad Hominems' not my Scriptural exposition. He does so just to say he posted a response…i take it then that he had nothing to dispute in what I said.

Mike,

I see the post where you admit now that 'you cannot prove..begotten…'
Mike, WJ is walking all over you, very embarassing…yet Mike, did I not WaRn YoU over and over?

You could have avoided all the hours and hours of pointless 'Strongs' research and massive effort between the two of you AND with KJ AND with me, if you had only believed when i told you to drop the debate because You Were Wrong, but you wouldn't listen because (Thomas), you had to touch the truth before you would believe.

June 27, 2010 at 2:27 pm#200283

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,14:05)

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,03:31)

JA………..I am sorry Mike see me as a fly in the anointment, But if the ointment is polluted already then what difference does it make.

Hi Gene,

What are you talking about? I never implied you were a fly in the ointment – that was JA.
I said:

Quote

I think you misread something, brother.

peace and love,
mike

Mike……….Sorry brother.

peace and love………………….gene

June 27, 2010 at 2:41 pm#200284

Participant

JA…………I see your point brother. I will try to stick to topics more , i was under the impression you were using the topic of born or begotten to prove or disprove Preexistence of Christ. So i offered my butt in opinion. Sorry

peace and love to you and yours………………gene

June 27, 2010 at 2:51 pm#200286

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,03:12)

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,02:46)

Gene,

If we were discussing purely earthly matters then possibly so.

But it appears this is nothing to do with any opinion you have because this is 'prexstnts vs prexstnts'

Mike is arguing pre-Jesus. Therefore you arguing what you argue is moot. It does not help in the discussion.
If we, Mike and me (or whomever) has already agreed terms, that is, Prexstnt,yes, then who is to reterm the basis of the discussion?

I guess there are just some threads that one is desired to not participate in.
Like entering a debate between two desperarians telling them that Jesus isn't God? An annoying fly, is the anology…!

Hi JA,

You have made some good points today. I will look into them. I'm distracted in a house with 10 people, most of them kids. But Gene and Nick and Oxy's points are just as valid as yours. And I can't come up with anything solid yet to refute their points that he was begotten when he was born of Mary or at the Jordan, because scripture can fit into both of those scenarios along with mine that he was begotten before all ages.

In fact, the only one that doesn't seem to fit into scripture is your and Roo's view – simply because God never GAVE Jesus AFTER he was raised.

I'll do some more research.

mike

JA……..Wait a minute What about this Post, Mike seem to think we have a point here about Begotten and Born. This topic does some what entail Preexistence it seems. Right? But i still will try to be more specific to the threads though. That i do agree can muddy the waters,

peace and love……………gene

June 27, 2010 at 5:21 pm#200298

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,19:49)

Mike,

I see the post where you admit now that 'you cannot prove..begotten…'
Mike, WJ is walking all over you, very embarassing…yet Mike, did I not WaRn YoU over and over?

Hi JA,

Boy you sure are full of yourself. :laugh:

First, I have not yet to begin to debate begotten with WJ because he is as yet not willing to admit that his assumption that just because we we're not told of something until later, it means that certain “something” didn't happen until that time. His assertion is flawed, and I've scripturally shown him so by the fact that just because we didn't KNOW God as YHWH until Moses does not in any way imply that YHWH wasnt' already His name.

Yet, you in all of your spirit inspired knowledge says WJ is walking all over me – when the debate hasn't even really started! :laugh: And now, I am supposed to feel all “ashamed and pathetic” because the great JA says I was wrong all along! :laugh: Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. It is ONLY you, KJ and WJ who seem to think Jesus was begotten when he was raised. You have found yourself in the midst of some good company there, my friend.

And speaking of addressing points so the topic can move forward, remember this?

You said previously:

Quote

I already agree that if this is the case then 'Satan' was that 'firstborn' who sinned and 'Jesus' was declared 'firstborn' by Spiritual bringing up in rank.

If this is the answer you seek, then how many times have a I said it…if not then please accept my 'noneAnswer' as my final answer.

You also bailed after MANY repeated attempts by me for you to DIRECTLY answer my points. Instead of answering them, you just kept quoting your manifestos of your view on how the world works. For example, you think that Jesus was just one of many of the sons of God, and then received the title of “only begotten” – just like WJ and KJ. (Except you weird it out when you start saying that Satan was the original firstborn of God, and after he messed up, Jesus got the title – which goes so much against scripture that I don't even know where to start. So much for “spirit guidance”. ) Okay, but John called Jesus the “only begotten GOD”. So was Jesus just one of the many “gods of God” before he received the title of “only begotten god”?

There is much more to this begotten thing that I can't even get to because you, WJ and KJ run from the direct questions. All three of you spew long posts of your beliefs when most of it is conjecture, and then when I try to break it down one point at a time, you avoid the very first point.

Just keep paying attention to the debate with WJ – you are about to learn some things, brother.

peace and love,
mike

June 27, 2010 at 6:09 pm#200306

Participant

Oops, Mike, sorry.

I wasn't supposed to reveal that prophecy!

Please forget the post. Yeah, i was full of it (Holy Spirit) and couldn't contain it within myself.

June 27, 2010 at 8:10 pm#200336

Blocked

Okay……it's forgotten. I never really took it to heart, so it wasn't hard to forget.

peace and love,
mike

July 3, 2010 at 1:55 am#201411

Oxy

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ June 27 2010,03:45)

Mike,

You are genius.

I knew there was a reason I begot you as brother.

Yes, simple, eh?

To get to the other side.

Do you know how many wise scholars have struggled with that puzzle and the answer is right in front of them?

Not to overlabour a point but what does it mean when John quotes Jesus in John 17:3, saying, 'And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent'
Small point, but in line..was Jesus 'Jesus Christ' Before he was 'Sent'?

Remember that God is eternal, can see the future as well as the past. If something is certain, then it can be referred to 'in the present' even though it has not yet occurred.
Jesus says in John 17:24, '…i desire that those you gave me may be with Me where I am…'
Jesus asks his Father for the disciples to be 'where he is'… And where was he when he said that?

Also, Jesus called Judas, 'the Son of Perdition' even though he had not yet been betrayed…no quibble but, 'what if' Judas had changed his mind and wimped out of wimping out on Jesus?

Jesus WAS indeed a 'Son of God' before, and, when he was sent into the World.

ALL sentient creation of God that walk in the way of God, that is, has the Holy Spirit, are 'Sons Of God'.

Adam was the 'First [Human] Son of God' until he sinned. Jesus is the 'Second Son of God' and did notsin, so he becomes the 'First Son of God by adoption in Rank and not by birth'. This is the meaning that 'Begotten Son' is applied to.

Otherwise, what purpose is there in stating that Jesus was 'God's ONLY BEGOTTEN SON'. It's a bit of a mouthful just mean, 'Son of God'.
What's the point? Who was God talking to, Announcing it to before anyone was there to hear it, that 'this is my son, today i have begotten you'? 'Hey,dad, who am I, who are you, where's everyone else?'

Jesus was the Word of God until such time as He was made flesh. As Jesus He was sent.. simple really.

July 3, 2010 at 1:24 pm#201467

Ed J

Participant

Quote (Oxy @ July 03 2010,12:55)

Jesus was the Word of God until such time as He was made flesh. As Jesus He was sent.. simple really.

Hi Oxy,

The Scripture does not say Jesus (as you say) is “The Word” of God?

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and
“The Word”([ο λογος] Hō Lōgôs) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.

Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

July 3, 2010 at 2:33 pm#201477

Participant

Edj,

So what/who is the 'Word' of God?

July 3, 2010 at 4:26 pm#201491

Blocked

Hi Ed,

If we know that Jesus is the Lord of lords and King of kings, and we know that the Lord of lords in Rev is the Word of God, then why can't we add 1+1+1 and come up with 3?

peace and love,
mike

July 3, 2010 at 9:09 pm#201556

Oxy

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ July 04 2010,02:24)

Quote (Oxy @ July 03 2010,12:55)

Jesus was the Word of God until such time as He was made flesh. As Jesus He was sent.. simple really.

Hi Oxy,

The Scripture does not say Jesus (as you say) is “The Word” of God?

John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and
“The Word”([ο λογος] Hō Lōgôs) which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

The systems of religion and traditions of men communicate…
distortions of truth, confusion of mind, and distractions of spirit.

Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Scripture does indeed say that Jesus was and is the Word of God.

Now let's have a closer look at the Scripture you quoted.

John 14:24 He who does not love Me does not keep My Words, and the Word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.

If you understand that Jesus was both the message and the messenger then this verse makes a lot of sense. Jesus spoke the words of the Father. If you look at the Greek, the verse can be interpreted like this:

…. and the Word which you hear (referring to Himself) is the Fathers, and He sent me.

Think about it.

July 3, 2010 at 9:17 pm#201561