Born and begotten

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,07:56)

As far as Mike, I don't see how you can say he has shown fruit unless you mean that fruit is the same as truth and because his “truth” lines up with yours then he has shown much truth.

Calling people idiots and jerks is not fruit at all.

Hi WJ,

I believe you are mistaken, sir. It most definitely showed “fruits”……..just not the kind I would like to be associated with.

I apologize to JA, Shimmer and anyone who read that angry post. I apologized and asked forgiveness from God last night.

I am very ashamed of what I posted, but even more ashamed that I let someone else take control of my emotions like that.

To date, this is the angriest thing I've posted on HN. But those who knew me two years ago would have considered that post some of the nicest things I've ever said.

God is most definitely changing me for the better from the inside out, but I'm a work in progress.

To all of you, I'm sincerely sorry for my words of anger and hate.

And to you Keith, I say, “Let those without sin cast the first stone.”

peace and love,
mike

August 11, 2010 at 12:49 am#208408

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:06)

Mike has only had two years to develop good fruit and I think that he has produced better fruit than some who have been claiming Christ for decades. IMO.

August 11, 2010 at 1:04 am#208411

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,18:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,11:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36)

TO ALL:

Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God:

Quote

In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example

He begetteth not, nor is he begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
Sura 112:3-4

Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting:

My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …
… and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!)
I reject it totally!
Where does the Bible even say so? I have not found one passage where God is connected with a sexual act.

It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself.

There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God.

There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible.

There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language.

The verses that do speak about “begotten” are:

Acts 13:33
Hebrews 1:5
Hebrews 5:5
In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament.

What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter:

32
And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers,
33
this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.'
34
And as for the fact that he raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, he spoke in this way, 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David.'
35
Therefore he says also in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not let thy Holy One see corruption.' …
In Hebrews 1:

1
In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
3
He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4
having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.
5
For to what angel did God ever say, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6
And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”
Hebrews 5:

1
For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
2
He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.
3
Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people.
4
And one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God, just as Aaron was.
5
So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”;
6
as he says also in another place, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek.”
7
In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.
8
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered;
9
and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
10
being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek.
All of these passages speak about the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. It refers to his taking office as king and priest. This took place about 33 years after the birth of Jesus. Clearly, in Biblical usage, the term “begotten” when used for Jesus in those passages is not at all connected with anything sexual but has a metaphorical meaning. The expression “the begotten son” of God is never mentioned in respect to his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit or his birth by the Virgin Mary.

It might well be that the Muslim understanding is correct in regard to the Qur'an, but it is better to carefully read the Bible or ask knowledgable Christians before just assuming that the Bible does speak about the same thing that is condemned in the Qur'an. There is no duty on the part of the Christian to actually believe in the false notions that the Qur'an has about the Christians. The problem in not in the Bible, it is in the Qur'an whose author has not understood the clear meaning of the Biblical language….

Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception.

And this meaning caries over into the New Testament use for Jesus just as well, that the resurrection is the public announcement by God about the true identity and authority of Jesus, Messiah, true king of Israel, representative of God among mankind.

A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!”

The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this.

the Roo

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Mike and I do not say that the Son was begotten by a sexual act. You know this. You need to apologize for this because you have been told over and over that I do not teach that. If there is no apology, you will be reported! I am not putting up with your shenanigans anymore.

Still waiting Roo, patiently for your apology.

Kathi,
I have already posted the JW source Mike gave in our first debate which says that that God begets in the SAME WAY that men like Abraham beget. Last year you argued that metaphors of God as a female show that He may be bisexual. You would not acknowledge that the language was mataphorical.

But now you seem to be shying away from this which is a step in the right direction.

the Roo

I have never claimed that God was bisexual Roo, never. Prove it or apologize or this will also be reported. Do you even know what 'bisexual' means? I'm giving you a chance to prove that I said that God was bisexual,
that God performed an act of sex to have a Son,
and that I worship a pagan god.
I will give you 24 hours to confess these as lies and apologize or provide proof with sources for any quotes.

Starting now!

August 11, 2010 at 1:11 am#208412

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2010,19:42)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,07:56)

As far as Mike, I don't see how you can say he has shown fruit unless you mean that fruit is the same as truth and because his “truth” lines up with yours then he has shown much truth.

Calling people idiots and jerks is not fruit at all.

Hi WJ,

I believe you are mistaken, sir. It most definitely showed “fruits”……..just not the kind I would like to be associated with.

I apologize to JA, Shimmer and anyone who read that angry post. I apologized and asked forgiveness from God last night.

I am very ashamed of what I posted, but even more ashamed that I let someone else take control of my emotions like that.

To date, this is the angriest thing I've posted on HN. But those who knew me two years ago would have considered that post some of the nicest things I've ever said.

God is most definitely changing me for the better from the inside out, but I'm a work in progress.

To all of you, I'm sincerely sorry for my words of anger and hate.

And to you Keith, I say, “Let those without sin cast the first stone.”

peace and love,
mike

Mike,
Way to go…! Good show of what humility looks like and repentance.
Blessings,
Kathi

August 11, 2010 at 1:50 am#208419

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,12:04)

Starting now!

Tick tock….tick tock

Seriously folks. This misrepresentation is getting real old. Why do people have this need to slant what another said to render a bias against that person or to try to make others think that person is unintelligent, or said something “wacky”?

Please stop. I have blocks, and I'm not afraid to use them!

(actually I think I have blocks…….I really never tried)

mike

Jack, could you show a post where Kathi actually said what you imply she did? If not, don't you think an apology is in order?

Moderator

August 11, 2010 at 2:12 am#208420

Participant

Mike,

I just read that post on page 65…

Talk about extreme – but you know what – maybe you are right. YOU ARE NONE of my Business…

First up – I don't need to read what Ignatious, Tertullian, Erasmus, or Prosmetus said. They aren't in the Scriptures – so all that they said is pointless – might as well believe Stephen Hawkin or that one who claimed he found the secret of life and it's evolution – Darwin, or someone like that was it?

Second up -The scriptures speaks for itself – all the proof is there… Too mush Debating has made turn to desperation methods to try to prove your case – which you can never do and thereby force even more desperate measures – yeah, you on a role…downwards… and I only warning ya'

Third up – What ever… How did you come to believe ANYTHING if EVERYTHING has to be PROVED beyond doubt to you – Tell me what is PROVEABLE in the Scriptures. I'll tell you : NOTHING… and that is why so many can derive their own theory and doctrine.
– the True Believe takes in on FAITH.

Sketch out the “From the beginning Scenario”
Sketch out the “Fall Scenario”
Sketch out the “Israel Scenario”
Sketch out the …. all the “Fractal” Scriptures – they all Repeat – greater or lesser – by this way Scripture provides ERROR CORRECTION – Did God not know that man would try to corrupt the Scriptures? Of course He did.

So in what way has He secured Error Recovery? By repeating the major themes – hey isn't that how Man developed Error correction for his Data systems….. are we wiser than God? (Who did I just hear say “Yes!”)

Have you sketched out anything yet? Does Scripture fit into your sketch or did you find yourself FORCE FITTING some ideas or that little TWINGE of guilt as you surreptitiously IGNORE a Truth. Hey listen – I can't see you – it's your own conscience that is looking back atcha and accusing you!!!

How many times did WJ come up against me and NEVER prevailed – Mike, why do you think that was – My Arrogance – Nah, come on! And why do you fail to Checkmate him… I was willing to help you – I tried in peace to aid and guide but YOUR ARROGANCE denied the offer.

Mike, have I come up against you in this forum in a debate? – Why is that; because I held you as brother – now you say you NEVER WANTED IT. Well ok, have it your own way. You can't see that you are being eaten out and everyone is against you.

Pray tell, Show me an UNSCRIPTURAL post of mine – not a mere error -an UNSCRIPTURAL POST made by JustAskin – show me where it is UNSCRIPTURAL – and I have not been lax in expressing my view so there is plenty to select from.

How many time have I asked you explain what Jesus means by “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and JESUS CHRIST whom You have sent” (John 17:3)

Did God send “JESUS CHRIST” – Was 'He who became known as Jesus – and then Christ' known as “Jesus Christ” when God sent him?
Was Jesus “Begotten” of the father when he was Sent?
he who 'became “Jesus” had EMPTIED himself and became MAN, so God Begot Him as FIRST SON when he had PROVED Himself and overcome SIn and Death – What an honour to be called “Begotten of God” – a Spiritual Begetting and at the time, yes, The ONLY BEGOTTEN.

Why then would those of MANKIND (As Jesus was MAN) that ALSO OVERCOME, ( as Jesus FIRST OVERCAME)
become “Begotten of God – as Spirit Sons of God” as Jesus became “Begotten of God – As Spirit Son of God”

And Jesus is serving as the [Perfect] example to what will be to Man also.
So, if he was begotten as Spirit (in the sense you state: before time) then how does that serve as an example to MANKIND?

How do you award praise, honor and glory to one who has just been 'begotten' – even if you apply “b” to when pre-Jesus CAME INTO EXISTENCE which “DAY” was that seeing that there was no such things as DAYS?

The problem (IMO) is that you are hung up on “Procreation” – What a farcicle notion to attribute to ALMIGHTY GOD.

A Spirit does not PROCREATE as a Fleshly body needs to.

And where did the Angels come from – Who said “Jesus created them”? Why? Are the angels “Sons of Jesus” – no, Scriptures
says that the angels are Spirit “SONS of God” – God 'Created them'.

What does Scriptures tell us about Jesus (pre-man) We know he was the most beloved of of God – is there anything in Scriptures that alludes to one who is spoken of more lovingly that others – Yes: “I will send My Angel before you [in the desert], Do not Provoke Him because my name is in Him”.

Pre-Jesus is here described as an Angel – Mike what name do you give Jesus – You can't say “God” else you turn yourself Polytheist – What was pre-Jesus in heaven? ArchAngel (Angel???) Cherub??? Seraph???

In fact, aren't ALL Heavenly creature called ANGELS (please excuse me if I have to state that God Almighty is exempt from that description!)

Think of God's heavenly order: If there are Cherubs, Seraphs, ArchAngels, [messaging] Angels, (other unnamed categories) Which group is Jesus in – else what is that category name?

no one wants to say what the angels did in heaven – sit idly by while pre-Jesus did all the work? for what purpose where they then created? to serve man (someone said!!- really?)

So then, refinement. What is the structure of human society – we are gods; made in the image of God – so our society heirachy will reflect to a degree that of God's – for we are gods…

Hey, heirachy… One ruling, (one or a number of) highly rated subordinates, and, sub subordinates below them (…repeat to taste)

Is there anything in Scriptures that appears to reflect this heirachy in Gods' kingdom – how about in revelation (The Throne Room of God)

Where is pre-Jesus in the throng around and 'in front of' the throne of God – is he not AMONG THEM, they who are Before God.
What is the significance of being “Before [the face] of God”?

And then pre-Jesus is called out from among them as being the ONLY Righteous one able to open the Scroll.
And then He (now described as “the [slaughtered] Lamb”) is praised, Glorified and Honored by the Elders (When he again brings his firstborn into the world He [who sit on the throne] says…”let all the angels of heaven do obeisence to him”)

August 11, 2010 at 2:32 am#208422

Blocked

Hey JA,

Just show me your PROOF that begotten in Psalm 2:7 and monogenes everywhere in the NT doesn't refer to a literal begetting. Where is your proof………not assumptions?

The word “yalad” means begotten. The word “monogenes” means “only begotten”. Just show me where it doesn't.

mike

August 11, 2010 at 8:01 am#208466

KangarooJack

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,12:04)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,18:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,11:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36)

TO ALL:

Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God:

Quote

In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example

He begetteth not, nor is he begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
Sura 112:3-4

Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting:

It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself.

There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God.

There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible.

There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language.

The verses that do speak about “begotten” are:

Acts 13:33
Hebrews 1:5
Hebrews 5:5
In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament.

What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter:

Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception.

A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!”

The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this.

the Roo

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Mike and I do not say that the Son was begotten by a sexual act. You know this. You need to apologize for this because you have been told over and over that I do not teach that. If there is no apology, you will be report
ed! I am not putting up with your shenanigans anymore.

Still waiting Roo, patiently for your apology.

Kathi,

I have already posted the JW source Mike gave in our first debate which says that that God begets in the SAME WAY that men like Abraham beget. Last year you argued that metaphors of God as a female show that He may be bisexual. You would not acknowledge that the language was mataphorical.

But now you seem to be shying away from this which is a step in the right direction.

the Roo

Starting now!

Kathi,

You have said more than once that God has a body and a womb. To me this implies that He is bisexual. I don't even know where to begin to find it. I know you said it and YOU know you said it. So go ahead and report me.

You have falsely accused Keith and I of being dishonest by “pretending” to be trinitarians and we don't threaten to report you.

Jack

August 11, 2010 at 8:08 am#208467

KangarooJack

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,13:32)

Hey JA,

Just show me your PROOF that begotten in Psalm 2:7 and monogenes everywhere in the NT doesn't refer to a literal begetting. Where is your proof………not assumptions?

The word “yalad” means begotten. The word “monogenes” means “only begotten”. Just show me where it doesn't.

mike

The new testament repeartedly says that Jesus was begotten AT HIS RESURRRECTION. Was He literally begotten then ? No!

This should be enough for any honest person.

the Roo

August 11, 2010 at 9:06 am#208471

shimmer

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,12:42)

I apologize to JA, Shimmer and anyone who read that angry post. I apologized and asked forgiveness from God last night.

I am very ashamed of what I posted, but even more ashamed that I let someone else take control of my emotions like that.

To date, this is the angriest thing I've posted on HN. But those who knew me two years ago would have considered that post some of the nicest things I've ever said.

God is most definitely changing me for the better from the inside out, but I'm a work in progress.

To all of you, I'm sincerely sorry for my words of anger and hate.

And to you Keith, I say, “Let those without sin cast the first stone.”

peace and love,
mike

Mike, you really have nothing to apologise to me for, I understand, we are only human, we have moments of anger, [you should see me in real life, though I have improved alot – ha – I still have moments]

The thing with here is that many do not understand us “young ones”, they imagine that we should be as knowledgeable as them with scripture – when we are not. We are just learning, Mike. You have shown better manner's, kindness, 'Peace and Love' on this forum than many other's,

And Brother's fight

I notice JustAskin has not given up on you/walked away/lashed back/ He is still speaking to you – that is good.

August 11, 2010 at 9:18 am#208472

shimmer

Participant

Kangaroo Jack I agree, JustAskin good post.

August 11, 2010 at 10:28 am#208479

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 11 2010,03:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,12:04)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,18:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,11:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36)

TO ALL:

Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God:

Quote

In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example

He begetteth not, nor is he begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
Sura 112:3-4

Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting:

It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself.

There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God.

There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible.

There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language.

The verses that do speak about “begotten” are:

Acts 13:33
Hebrews 1:5
Hebrews 5:5
In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament.

What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter:

Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception.

A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!”

The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act. Only some who claim to be Christian do this.

the Roo

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.
Mike and I do not say that the Son was begotten by a sexual act. You know this. You need to apologize for this because you have been told over and over that I do not teach that. If there is no apology, you will be reported! I am not putting up with your shenanigans anymore.

Still waiting Roo, patiently for your apology.

Kathi,

But now you seem to be shying away from this which is a step in the right direction.

the Roo

Starting now!

Kathi,

You have falsely accused Keith and I of being dishonest by “pretending” to be trinitarians and we don't threaten to report you.

Jack

Roo,
You do not know what bisexual is? Look it up and you can then admit that you falsely accused me and apologize.

August 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm#208484

Participant

Hi JA,
you say:

Quote

If what John's disciple, Ignatius, said is pointless, why are you asking Mike for his thoughts? Why are you reading post after post of those of us who try to explain John's words yet we never even met him in passing? Doesn't that sound like a double minded remark? No one that you read of on here is in scriptures. We read what Christ's disciples write, and Christ gave commission to them to make disciples. But you think we should disregard the disciple's disciple because they would not be written about in the scriptures. Wrong, they are written about in scriptures when Christ mentioned them when He commanded the disciples to make them. I wouldn't dismiss the words of the early true disciples of Christ because they can explain the culture of the times and reflect general understandings of the words of their mentors with far more accuracy than we can.

The multitude of pages of HN posts regarding the proper translation of monogenes and firstborn are great examples of that very thing. The early disciples of the disciples should be the obvious place to look for the intent of those words when we aren't sure as to what the disciples meant by them. And let me tell ya, the word monogenes means 'only begotten' and firstborn as in 'firstborn of all creation' means the first and only begotten of a God nature of all creatures before time. When you read the early disciples, this becomes clear.

As far as procreation, prove that God couldn't have a true offspring, one of His same nature with their own mind and will. He doesn't have to go about it the way man does, that wouldn't make it impossible for Him to go about it in His unique way. He is unique and self sufficient (not needing a mate), you know and He did design the whole reproduction thing. If He couldn't reproduce then he would be insufficient yet the Bible says that He can do all things.

I think that many get hung up on the idea that if He were perfect, and was God (as 'of' God), that He couldn't be an example for us. But wouldn't perfect be the best example as opposed to imperfect? Are you confusing being perfect to not able to be tempted? That is one reason why He had to come in the flesh, so that He could feel tired, hungry, cold, uncomfortable, pain, torture, alone etc. He had to be a perfect God to be able to die for ALL of mankind. A man cannot die for ALL mankind. So He was 100% God by nature who took on the 100% flesh body of a man. That way He could meet the requirements of not being a created being who could not sacrifice Himself for all mankind and also meet the requirements of being tempted yet overcoming and obeying faithfully. All was accomplished in the Son of God. His righteousness becomes our righteousness as opposed to His righteousness merely being an example for us to work out our own righteousness. We aren't saved because we achieved our own righteousness. It is by grace that we are saved. We are children of grace and not because of our measuring up to it but because we trust in Christ and His worthiness. When we trust Christ, really put our trust in Him, we receive the Comforter that renews our mind, equip and strengthen us and we gain a desire to please Him and therefore good works come as a result. The good works are not the reason we are saved, the good works are the result of being truly saved. Imagine how different it would have been if the Son of God took on the flesh of an animal, say a lion. That would be hard to relate to, so He became like we are…a man and felt the comforts and discomforts, and the emotions of one with the limits of a flesh body.

So, I study Ignatius, and others of the early church and I am thankful that we have access to what they said.

Thanks for your time in reading this!

August 11, 2010 at 2:26 pm#208488

KangarooJack

Participant

TO ALL:

I have received a couple of threatening private messages from Kathi demanding that I apologize for saying that her view of God's “reproductive strength” implies that God is bisexual. I replied reminding her that she has indeed said that God has a body and that He also has a womb. She then said that I do not know what “bisexual” means and demanded again that I apologize.

But Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary defines a bisexual as a hermaphrodite:

Bisexual: Having the organs of both sexes; a hermaphrodite

Hermaphrodite: An individual having both male and female reproductive organs

I will retract the use of the term “bisexual” because it may also be defined as an individual who has the sexual desire for both sexes though Kathi knows that I did not mean it in this way. I am going to substitute the word “hermaphrodite” instead because Kathi has clearly inferred that God has the capacities of both the male and the female and that this is how He “begat” Jesus.

I will not outright apologize until she first clarifies the many statements she has made about God having a body, having a womb and having reproductive strength. The God she believes in looks like a hermaphrodite to me. I feel that if I apologize without her first giving us some clarification, then she will not hold herself accountable to explain.

TO KATHI:

My heart is now ready to apologize to you for my harsh words I spoke in “Defining and setting the Terms” two weeks ago. I was upset about the way you painted Calvin but I should not have replied by calling you and Mike married. I apologize for that statement and the harsh words which I said after that statement. This is an unconditional apology.

the Roo

August 11, 2010 at 9:33 pm#208512

Participant

Hi Lu,

And what have you learnt from Ignatius that you could not have learnt from Scriptures?
And what have you learnt from Ignatius that another has not disputed?

The teachings of these others is for the ones at that time – that is why there is so much controversy over what they said or didn't say, did or didn't do and therefore each can pick from their teaching what they like – hence – everything is at loggerheads with everything … everything one person says about Ignatius can be refuted by another, even another who thinks that that is not what Ignatius MEANT when he wrote “x” or “y”.

For this reason, I put no faith nor trust in such writings. It is for 'personal' use only (IMO) to develop one's Personal idea but not to expouse as Gospel to another.

say Ignatius said he believed that Jesus was an Angel. Well, believe or refute as you like. Then say, “I believe Jesus was/was not an Angel”, but not “I believe …because Ignatius said this or that”

This latter is like hiding behind a stone wall and claiming to be showing yourself – no, you are behind a wall.

You would be hiding behind Ignatius – I don't want to hear what Ignatius said – I want to hear what YOU say – What You believe.

August 11, 2010 at 9:48 pm#208519

Participant

Mike,

I accept your apology.

August 11, 2010 at 9:49 pm#208520

shimmer

Participant

All,

This is all I have to say – on this thread.

I used to be a big supporter of the Early Church Father's, Nick would say “The Apostasy started early” I would say “No that's not true Nick'.

Reading here has completly put me off, there is so much anger, words have completly lost their meaning,

Now I know how other's felt when I would give them the Early Church Father's and say [demand] “read this”, I would say their beliefs are wrong and I would hold what I had given them higher than scripture. I hadn't even read the Epistles of Paul at the time. They would respond with all they need to know is in scripture, I wasn't satisfied with that, like a drug, they're always had to be more, better, the first is always the best, then you are continuously chasing but never get it again because everything starts disagreeing with the first, and nothing makes sense. So I believe Nick was right. And my Family. The earliest writing is scripture, Weren't the Authors John, James and Peter, all Disciples of Christ.

Believing is faith, we don't need to know everything. I also have faith that what God put together for us, the scriptures, are protected by Him, the witness of the coming Kingdom taken throughout the world before the end. As Jesus said.

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, prophecy has to do with what is happening, what will happen, not what has been. The Holy Spirit is what leads people to truth, and in it's own time, We can never comprehend God or the pre-existent word because we are only Human. That is why the word came in the flesh, so we could understand. And that is the simple truth which scripture says.

Mike, wasn't it you who's first post on the forum said – KISS [keep it simple stupid], to accept thing's as a child, I told you that was the best thing Id ever read here.

August 11, 2010 at 10:00 pm#208523

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:27)

I wouldn't dismiss the words of the early true disciples of Christ because they can explain the culture of the times and reflect general understandings of the words of their mentors with far more accuracy than we can.

Kathi

You say all this but yet you dismiss most of what the Trinitarian Fathers teach. You deny that they believe as you do when you reject their teaching that there is “One Divine Being” consisting of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Even Ignatius believed in the three and preached that the Holy Spirit is a seperate person of the Godhead.

You pick and choose what you want and then distort what they really meant.

Your claim that they believed like you as far as Jesus being begotten is ambiguous at best because to be begotten does not always mean “Procreate”, and in fact not once do I know of did they ever use the word “Procreate” in reference to the Father and Jesus.

And even if they believed he is begotten before the ages or time it still does not interpret to God bringing birth to another being called God, does it?

August 11, 2010 at 10:05 pm#208525

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,05:28)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 11 2010,03:01)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,12:04)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,18:17)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,07:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 10 2010,11:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 10 2010,10:36)

TO ALL:

Even the Muslims reject Kathi's and Mike's assertion that Christ was begotten by a sexual cat of God:

Quote

In the Qur'an we find various passages protesting against a notion of “begetting” for God, for example

He begetteth not, nor is he begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.
Sura 112:3-4

Many Muslims make statements like the following, taken from a newsgroup posting:

It is understandable that Muslims might believe this to be so since the Qur'an speaks out against it so forcefully, but it is actually nowhere to be found in the Bible itself.

There are a number of passages the word “begotten” is used, but it is usually metaphorically, and never literal when associated with God.

There are exactly three passages where Jesus is called “begotten” in the Bible.

There are a few more in the King James Version, but in those other places it is a mistranslation of monogenes according to the unanimous opinion among the scholars of the Greek language.

The verses that do speak about “begotten” are:

Acts 13:33
Hebrews 1:5
Hebrews 5:5
In the above three cases it is not an “original statement” but each time it is quoting Psalm 2:7 from the Old Testament.

What are all of these three passages talking about? Let us read them in context. In Acts 13 we find this expression a sermon preached by Peter:

Psalm 2 is an inauguration psalm for the Israelite kings — the public declaration of kingship. And most of the Kings became kings as grown men. None became king at his conception.

A Muslim says: “My reasons to reject christianity are too numerous to count but …and you associate God with an animal act! (begetting!) I reject it totally!”

The Roo replies: Perish the pagan thought! We Christians do not associate God with an animal act.
Only some who claim to be Christian do this.

the Roo

Would someone like to fill the roo in on the fact that asexual reproduction means without sex.

Still waiting Roo, patiently for your apology.

Kathi,

But now you seem to be shying away from this which is a step in the right direction.

the Roo

Starting now!

Kathi,

You have falsely accused Keith and I of being dishonest by “pretending” to be trinitarians and we don't threaten to report you.

Jack

Roo,
You do not know what bisexual is? Look it up and you can then admit that you falsely accused me and apologize.

Quote

Roo,

That which I asked you for an apology were these things:
I have never claimed that God was bisexual Roo, never. Prove it or apologize or this will also be reported. Do you even know what 'bisexual' means? I'm giving you a chance to prove that I said that God was bisexual,
that God performed an act of sex to have a Son,
and that I worship a pagan god.
I will give you 24 hours to confess these as lies and apologize or provide proof with sources for any quotes.

Starting now!

You have made an apology for this post:

Quote

Yours and Mike's views are thoroughy pagan and if I were your real husband I would take an ax to your computer. I feel my comment was restrained because Jesus used harsher terms to speak about those who denied Him. Jesus said that your father is the devil. I said that you and Mike are spiritual husband and wife.

The truth is staring you and Mike in the face and yet your so against it that you even belittle the Father as you do the Son by making the Father out as some god like in Greek mythology. It has been shown you repeatedly that the word “begotten” in Psalm 2:7 is a reference to the reusrrection and exaltation of Jesus. You have spit on the truth. Mike has been shown repeatedly that “yalad” is used figuratively in scripture and he mocks it so he can cling to his pagan view of God.

The “Jesus” you say you believe in is not the Jesus of scripture. The “Father” you confess is also not the Father of scripture!

I will re-word what I said. You and Mike are two of a kind. Is that better? That's the best I can do.

from here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….D=12736

I will accept that apology if it includes an apology for claiming that I worship a pagan god and belittle the Father and the Son. Does it? If it does, then I will accept it and if you make that outlandish accusation hereafter, then I will report you without a courtesy warning that you claim was a threat demanding an apology. Actually I will include the PM's here since roo has chosen to add a bias to what I said:

Quote

Posted: Aug. 11 2010,08:58
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,21:26)
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 11 2010,02:49)
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 11 2010,12:06)
Your warning:
I have never claimed that God was bisexual Roo, never. Prove it or apologize or this will also be reported. Do you even know what 'bisexual' means? I'm giving you a chance to prove that I said that God was bisexual,
that God performed an act of sex to have a Son,
and that I worship a pagan god.
I will give you 24 hours to confess these as lies and apologize or provide proof with sources for any quotes.

Starting now!

From the Born and Begotten thread.

Kathi,

So you deny ever saying that God has a “body” and a “womb?” Does this not imply that God is bisexual?

It would take me more than 24 hours to find it so go ahead and report me. You have accused Keith and I of “pretending” to be Trinitarians. Yet we don't whine about it.

Jack

You don't know what bisexual means. Look it up, then admit that you accused me out of ignorance and apologize.
You say you have not whined about me inferring that you are pretending to be Trinitarians. Read the Christian behavior topic and you will see whiney post after whiney post.

Kathi,

You have said that God has “reptroductive strength.” You have also said that he has a womb.

Funk and Wagnall's: Bisexual: Having the organs of both sexes; a hermaphrodite

Funk and Wagnall's: Hermaphrodite: An individual having both male and female reproductive organs

Anyway, I will retract the use of the term “bisexual” because of its usus loquendi in our culture. From there we will negotiate an apology after you clarify some statements you have made in the past. See “Born and Begotten” thread in about 20 minutes.

Jack

I still haven't gotten an apology for the claims that I say the Father made the Son by an act of sex. Nor have I gotten proof, however I can prove that I made sure he understood that I didn't mean that here:

Quote

Roo,
You are the volcano of love. The fruit of the spirit just leaks from your pores…hmmm

My Jesus is the true Son of God. God of God. I have never spoken about God having sex with a goddess like Greek mythology, nor has Mike.

You condem not only me but many of the early Christians that place the begetting of the Son before the ages.

The Heavenly Father does not need a counterpart to reproduce an offspring…He is complete and can do all things. He is not male, he is not female…He is complete.

from here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=3296;st=140

The above quote I clarify that I believe the
Heavenly Father does not need a counterpart to reproduce an offspring…He is complete and can do all things. He is not male, he is not female…He is complete.

No where do I describe God as both male and female. If He has a womb figuratively or if literally (whatever that may mean in God biology terms), I do not know. When I say 'womb' I refer to:

a. A place where something is generated.
b. An encompassing, protective hollow or space.

from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/womb

When I refer to body, I understand God to have a form as opposed to being formless.

Tertullian also speaks of a womb where the Word was generated and the Son was begotten from. He also speaks of a type of body.

A Hebrew word for womb is exr, notice it is a masculine noun and one of the definitions is womb-man:

Strong's Number: 07358exr
Original WordWord Origin
exr from (07355)
Transliterated WordPhonetic Spelling
Rechem rekh'-em
Parts of SpeechTWOT
Noun Masculine 2146a
Definition

1.womb
a.womb
b.womb-man, woman-slave, woman, two women

Therefore, I would like an apology for roo's claim that I speak of a hermaphrodite. If he still maintains this, then he is claiming the same for Tertullian who mentions God's womb and body here:

Quote

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb,78237823 Ornatum. His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.”78247824 Gen. i. 3. This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed78257825 Conditus. [See Theophilus To Autolycus, cap. x. note 1, p. 98, Vol. II. of this series. Also Ibid. p. 103, note 5. On the whole subject, Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicænæ. Vol. V. pp. 585–592.] by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—“The Lord created or formed78267826 Condidit. me as the beginning of His ways;”78277827 Prov. viii. 22. then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect—“When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.”78287828 Ver. 27. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things;78297829 Col. i. 15. and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart—even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “hath emitted my most excellent Word.”78307830 Ps. xlv. 1. See this reading, and its application, fully discussed in our note 5, p. 66, of the Anti-Marcion, Edin. The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee;”78317831 Ps. ii. 7. even before the morning star did I
602
beget Thee. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.”78327832 Prov. viii. 22, 25. For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;”78337833 John i. 3. as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit”78347834 Ps. xxxiii. 6.—that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God78357835 Prov. viii. 22. which “strengthened the heavens;”78367836 Ver. 28. “by which all things were made,”78377837 John i. 3. “and without which nothing was made.”78387838 John i. 3. Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against,78397839 Offensus. intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”78407840 John i. 1. It is written, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.”78417841 Ex. xx. 7. This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”78427842 Phil. ii. 6. In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit?”78437843 John iv. 24. For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.78447844 This doctrine of the soul’s corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his De Resurr. Carn. xvii., and De Anima v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical. See our Anti-Marcion, p. 451, note 4, Edin. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.7845

So, I still want an apology for these claims:

1. I have never claimed that God was bisexual Roo, never. Prove it or apologize or this will also be reported. Do you even know what 'bisexual' (hermaphrodite) means? I'm giving you a chance to prove that I said that God was bisexual, (hermaphrodite)
2. that God performed an act of sex to have a Son

Roo, you want an explanation of God having a body, a womb, and reproductive strength. I have addressed a body and a womb above. Reproductive strength means the ability to reproduce…the outcome is a true offspring of like kind, the exact representation of the nature of the one who begat.

Since roo has demonstrated a willingness to work this out, I will extend a period of 24 hours from this post to him. This time I will not give him the grace of a PM as a courtesy warning since he spoke of it in such a negative way.

August 11, 2010 at 10:08 pm#208526