- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
If The Word of God is YHVH's self realization.
The minute he knew he existed was the minute The Word of God came into being.
——
When do you think God first realized he existed?
Always
lol
So The Word of God was definately begotten of The Father.
because it came from The Father.
but don't liken spiritual begetting with human begetting,
The Word of God, always eternally existed and was always already begotten.
——-
I'm just dying for someone to not believe me, and to ask me to prove it.
Quote (RokkaMan @ Aug. 12 2010,14:31) I'm just dying for someone to not believe me, and to ask me to prove it.
Hi RM,I don't believe you. Can you prove it?
It might be hard since you're working off of nothing but your own conjecture. peace and love,
mikeTheophilus to Autolycus Book II
You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? “Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason. And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.
Hi Shimmer,
2Tm.2:9 …”The Word” of God is not bound (by opinions).
Heb.4:12 …”The Word” of God is [alive]… (Click here)My goal is to show that what you believe to be true
and what I believe is true is one and the same.So you need to write 'your own' words.
I do NOT conform to the writings of people
I CANNOT inner act with in an active discourse!
It is a waste of my time to read such Posted opinions!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd, Shivers, I shouldnt be posting on this thread as I said, my LAST word here though,
What is God ?
God is Love
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,17:22) Ed, Shivers, I shouldnt be posting on this thread as I said, my LAST word here though, What is God ?
God is Love
Hi Shimmer,YHVH is GOD=117
GOD The Father=117
YHVH(63) + Love(54) = 117Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (JustAskin @ Aug. 12 2010,08:33) 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.
JA,You have really been right on the money lately. Good post! We just want Kathi to prove her theories from the scriptures!
KJ
To All,
Seems me JustAskin and Jack are all in agreement on this one! A pretty sight; isn't it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 12 2010,19:25) To All, Seems me JustAskin and Jack are all in agreement on this one! A pretty sight; isn't it?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
ED J,Yes indeed. Our faith is not to be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. I concur whole heartedly with JA.
KJ
You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed,
Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.
I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away
Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,
I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.
So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong
And I felt the love on me,
And I wrote what I did….
Listen carefully to What I know,
Perverting the words of The LORD,
Give heed.
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,21:26) You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed, Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.
I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away
Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,
I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.
So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong
And I felt the love on me,
And I wrote what I did….
Listen carefully to What I know,
Perverting the words of The LORD,
Give heed.
Hi Shimmer,Your Posting the thoughts of others as well.
If you agree with something someone else says,
instead of importing their writing, absorb the points
you agree with and re-word those points through 'your'
filters; OK? Then we have something to discuss! Importing
someone else's words is NOT helpful; I won't bother to read it!
So you are wasting our time and the space of valued Posts here!
I didn't include you, because I want your words; not those of others!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,21:26) You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed, Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.
I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away
Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,
I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.
So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong
And I felt the love on me,
And I wrote what I did….
Listen carefully to What I know,
Perverting the words of The LORD,
Give heed.
Shimmer,I too have been disturbed by what has been said regarding the church fathers. But I did not handle it in the spiritual manner that you did.
You have been an example to me.
Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 12 2010,10:23) Hi All, Now for part 2 of “Secular Information”.
Here's what it all comes down to for me. The Bible says Jesus was begotten before all things. It says he is the only begotten Son of God. The trinitarians do not want that to mean LITERALLY begotten, for that would bring their empire crashing down with one punch. So they must invent new meanings for “yalad” and “monogenes”.
JA does not want Jesus to be LITERALLY begotten, for that would bring his “Satan is God's REAL firstborn” theory crashing down as well.
But what to do? The actual words of the scriptures are getting in the way of your “WANTS”.
Here come the early church fathers to the rescue. I don't know how to say this any clearer than I've said it a hundred times:
I don't personally care WHAT the early church fathers believed and don't expect any of you to.
But when you start adding up these ancient biblical scholars, NONE OF WHOM seemed to think the scriptures implied that Jesus was raised from the dead to the “postion” or “title” of only begotten Son of God, then you gotta ask yourself this:
How do I KNOW that those words that actually MEAN begotten were used in a more abstract way and don't really mean begotten when applied to Jesus?
And this is what I've been asking for………PROOF. If nothing else, at least some kind of inkling as to how you can just “imagine” these words didn't really mean what their definitions clearly are.
So for KJ and WJ, could you maybe find a chuch father that actually thought that Jesus was begotten at any other time except “before the world” or “before all the ages”? Could you find one that thought the “Today” Paul quoted should be taken as “the day Jesus was raised is the day he was “begotten”?
And for JA, could you SCRIPTURALLY show me why these words don't mean what their definitions and usage throughout the Bible clearly indicate that they DO mean? (JA, you can take some extra time because I know you still have to figure out why Jesus said he was the Almighty in Rev 1:11. What?…….you can't use the fruits of my secular research, can you? That would be sort of like you admitting that sometimes secular info can help you to understand scripture. So, I'll watch the Alpha and Omega thread, and see how you explain “Jesus the Almighty”.)
You guys have your missions……..this post will self-destruct in 60 seconds.
peace and love,
mike
To Mike and all,It totally amazes me how 'most' here will cling to one of these and
ignore the others in this (seven fold) “Fractal” account of Jesus sonship!Jesus=74 was the “Son of God”=74 at…
1) His Pre-existence. (Job 38:7)
2) His Conception. (Luke 1:35)
3) His Birth (Mathew 1:18, 20)
4) His Baptism (John 1:33-34)
5) His Ministry (Mathew 14:33)
6) His Crucifixion. (Mark 15:39)
7) His Resurrection. (Rom. 1:4)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Aug. 13 2010,02:59) To Mike and all, It totally amazes me how 'most' here will cling to one of these and
ignore the others in this (seven fold) “Fractal” account of Jesus sonship!Jesus=74 was the “Son of God”=74 at…
1) His Pre-existence. (Job 38:7)
2) His Conception. (Luke 1:35)
3) His Birth (Mathew 1:18, 20)
4) His Baptism (John 1:33-34)
5) His Ministry (Mathew 14:33)
6) His Crucifixion. (Mark 15:39)
7) His Resurrection. (Rom. 1:4)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Neither The “Hebrew Masoretic Texts” nor the “Greek language” have a word for “OF”!
That is why I have italicize the word OF; because it's necessary to the English reader!
ITALICIZED WORDS are always “ADDED WORDS” and MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH!
.Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,05:26) You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed, Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.
I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away
Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,
I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.
So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong
And I felt the love on me,
And I wrote what I did….
Listen carefully to What I know,
Perverting the words of The LORD,
Give heed.
Shimmer,
Please answer this:Can God reproduce from within Himself?
yes or no
If you think that I have been understanding that God had sex to reproduce you are entirely WRONG. Is that clear Shimmer?
Have I been perverting God's word in your opinion? Then show me what word that I have been perverting and defend your view-with scripture so we can discuss it, otherwise stop with the false inuendos for they are destructive.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 12 2010,09:19) Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 12 2010,21:26) You forgot to mention me in your list too Ed, Lightenup, I said I had respect for the Church Fathers but was put off by the way they were used here on this thread.
I became so disturbed by this thread that I asked in prayer and I was shown to stay away
Then tonight after making some random post of some early writing, I felt disturbed again,
I have had a real spiritual day today God has shown me many things in the course of just one day.
So I prayed the Lord speak through me to end what felt so wrong
And I felt the love on me,
And I wrote what I did….
Listen carefully to What I know,
Perverting the words of The LORD,
Give heed.
Shimmer,I too have been disturbed by what has been said regarding the church fathers. But I did not handle it in the spiritual manner that you did.
You have been an example to me.
Roo
Roo,
It is no wonder that you have been disturbed. They disagree with you in the meaning of monogenes and firstborn. They have been demonstrating that monogenes does mean 'only begotten' and firstborn does mean that He was the first to be begotten before all creation and thus is the firstborn of all creation. He is not firstborn by name only which is what you have been teaching.This confusion has caused great confusion. Also your teaching that God cannot reproduce, and that God cannot reproduce alone, has obviously caused great confusion. It is no surprise that you don't want to discuss the early church fathers anymore.
Continuing this idea that firstborn is by name only in regards to the Son and the idea that God cannot reproduce has caused a big mess here, also the switching of what monogenes truly means in the book of John regarding the Son of God has been such an upset to this forum. imo
Monogenes truly means 'only begotten' and not 'only, unique one' in regards to the Son of God, our Savior.
Those have been the perversions of the word around here, as I see it and have been demonstrating all along, first from scripture, from reason and then by early Christian writings.
Kathi said:
Quote Monogenes truly means 'only begotten' and not 'only, unique one' in regards to the Son of God, our Savior. Quote Tragically, many folks have been ensnared in grievous error by insisting that our Lord Jesus, since He was begotten of God, must be given a subservient place to God. This has long been used as an argument against the Deity of Jesus Christ and His equality with the Father. Around 330 A.D. some men of the “church” insisted that God was separate from every created being, and that Jesus Christ was created as a secondary God and should be worshipped as such. Therefore, our Lord Jesus, as a created being, could not be God in the fullest sense. In view of this erroneous conclusion, we need to understand what is the meaning of the word; monogenes. Monogenes is a compound word. Mono is a prefix meaning sole, single, without another, alone, or only. Genos (from ginomai) which means, become or kind. Applying the prefix to ginomai, you get the word MONOGENES. Moulton and Milligan, the etymologists, have pointed out: “Monogenes is literally ‘one of a kind,’ ‘only,’ ‘unique:’ not ‘only begotten’ which would be monogennetos.” They go on to state that where monogenes applies to Christ, “the emphasis is on the thought that, as the ‘only’ Son of God, He has no equal and is able to fully reveal the Father.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?….k&gl=us“Genes” may mean “become” or “kind.”
Example: homogenous means humankind.
the Roo
Roo,
your quote says:Quote Therefore, our Lord Jesus, as a created being, could not be God in the fullest sense. This author does not understand that God would not beget a foreign god (a created being) and therefore his conculsion is skewed. imo
Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,19:16) You need to check with Paul and the Apostles Mike. Paul was a Hebrew of the Hebrews and spoke Hebrew and was closer to Jesus and the LXX than any of the early Fathers, and he gives examples of the word Begotten “Yalad” or “gennao” a different meaning than you say.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,19:35)
Show me.
See Mike, this is the kind of ignoramus games that you play to keep us running in circles or chasing your rabbit trails. I have already posted the scriptures which you full well know of, but I will humor you and do it again…For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have “begotten (gennaō) in my bonds“: PHM 1:10
Did Paul literally bring birth to them Mike? No. He became a spiritual Father to them by fathering them, not to mention they “Preexisted” being begotten by him.
The word for begotten is “gennaō” which means;
1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born
b) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workDo you see the highlighted bold parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”! You have no unambiguous scripture that say Jesus was “Begotten” literally born as in a beginning before the ages. As Jack has stated, you have no scriptural proof so you have to revert to writings of the Forefathers and misrepresent their words knowing that they believed Jesus was co-eternal and co-equal with the Father and has always been with the Father as “One being”, one substance or essence.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,19:16) Not to mention the Apostles quoted Pss 2:7 in light of his resurrection. I would rather believe them than your false claims. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,19:35) Then why do none of the early church fathers seem to think that Jesus was “begotten” when he was raised? It's only the three J's that think this on HN, and I've just recently posted your ulterior motives.
How do you know? Have you read all of the writings of the early church fathers?
Its not only the three Js because as we have shown you many scholars and commentators believe as we do.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,19:16) You are accusing them of reinventing the word when it is you that is doing that because yours and Kathi’s definition of “Beget” or begotten is not at all like a literal begetting as a Father and a Mother having sex and bringing birth to another being by procreation is it? Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,19:35) In fact, instead of me listing the 499 mentions of “yalad”, most of which mean childbirth, why don't you start with the first mention of it you can find that DOESN'T mean childbirth, and we'll go from there.
No let’s look at the 499 mentions of the word “Yalad” and see if they agree with yours and Kathi’s definition of the word as you apply it to the Father and Jesus.1. Now can you show me an example of “Yalad” where a “Father” brought birth to a son from his own body?
2. Or how about showing me an example of the word “Yalad” used where a Son was born without a Father and a Mother?
3. Better yet can you show us an example of a Father and a Mother bringing birth to a son that was not of their own kind, meaning human, or in Gods case meaning God?
4. Maybe there is an example of “Yalad” where a man and a woman brought birth to a sheep or something like that?
Since you say Mike that God begets something other than God by procreation, then what sort of creature did the Father bring birth to from his own body? See how you and Kathi have reinvented the word “Begotten” Mike? You would have been better off to stick with your original understanding that Jesus was created by God as the first of his works.
And you call Jack and I clowns? Who looks like the clown now?
What the scriptures do show us as Jack and I have pointed out is when referring to the Father begetting Jesus it has nothing to do with “Procreation”. Here are a couple examples of “Yalad” where that is the case…
And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh “WERE BROUGHT UP (yalad)” upon Joseph's knees. Gen 50:23
Joseph did not bring birth to the Sons of Ephraim but had begotten them by “bringing them up” upon his knees. The language “Were brought up” is in line with one of the definitions of ‘Gennao” which is of men who fathered children. They also “Preexisted” their “Begetting” by Joseph on his knees.
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, “whom she brought (Yalad) up” for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 2 Sam 21:8
Here we see Michal “Begetting (Yalad)” Adriel’s Sons whose wife is the sister of Michal. There is no procreation here right Mike?
Here’s one for you Mike and hopefully it isn’t a reality in your life. JA said he had “Begotten” you and you never said to JA that was a misuse of that word did you?
He that “begetteth (Yalad) ” a fool doeth it to his sorrow: and the father of a fool hath no joy. Prv 17:21
There is no Procreation here is there Mike?
I could go through more of the 499 times you say but I think that makes my point that “Begotten” in relation to Fathering Ch
ildren does not always mean procreation.Does “Yalad” always mean procreation Mike?
If not, what unambiguous scripture do you have that says Jesus was born from the Fathers body?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,19:16) The Trinitarian Forefathers didn't believe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were “Three beings”, did they? One God from another God. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,19:35) I don't know and don't really care.
Really, then why do you keep on reciting their writings out of context of how they percieved whom and what Jesus was/is? Don’t you think that is pertinent information to have to understand how they percieved whom and what Jesus is when they said Jesus was begotten before the ages? But then maybe you are not interested in the truth.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,19:16) But they all seem to think the Son proceeded FROM the Father after the Father was already existent. Why do you think that is considering the Son wasn't “begotten” until he was raised from the dead?
Again, they also believed like Ignatius that Jesus was “BORN AND UNBORN, GOD IN MAN. And all the Trinitarian Fathers believed Jesus was always with the Father.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2010,19:16) Heck if God can reproduce himself than that would mean that he is not infinite wouldn't it? Because he can become greater the more Sons that he brings birth to. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 11 2010,19:35) And therein lies the truth. God didn't reproduce “Himself” did He? He begat a Son before the world was created.
What are you saying Mike? Are you now saying “Begetting” is not procreation or reproduction? You are reinventing the word again aren’t you? What kind of Son did God beget? What kind of creature did the Father bring birth to, a demigod of some sort? Because if God did not beget God then as one of the early Fathers said he must have been some kind of monster.Come on Mike you are smarter than that.
You should really stop looking to the Fathers and stick to the scriptures for they do not help you. Even your buddy Eusibius signed off on the Nicene Creed which states…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
And you really should stop with the name calling like “clowns” for it makes you look small and immature.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
