Born and begotten

[mikeboll64]

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 17 2010,00:09)

JA, You are right, I should have said, “If God is ONLY spirit as you proposed. However, I put a lot of other information that you chose to bypass which seems to be typical of the rebuttals here and it is getting old. I notice that you are in the Mods group but you don't believe in the Bible….and seldom respond to the rebuttals that do.   I thought that this was supposed to be a “Christian” site promoting the Bible not tearing it down as many of the posters are doing. This response rambled on without any references to Scripture.  Just because you SAY SO doesn't make anything said, “true”. This is getting sickening to hear the crap and lies that come out of here and nothing at all pertaining to the Bible.  And apparently no one to monitor what is being promoted.

Hi David,

I just posted the exact same thoughts about JA in Psalms 2 thread not even 15 minutes ago.

Scripture Scripture Scripture!  Come on people!

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 17 2010,00:31)

I have posted hundreds of posts with numerous Scriptures but no one rebutts them, they attack me or in this case Kathi.  And never addressing what she is talking about.

I hear you David, but like I mentioned before, make your posts shorter for starters.

I'm learning a trick from t8.  I keep forgetting to use it though.  I notice if he is going to answer 3 or 4 points from another poster, he will quote only one of those points and answer it in one post.  Then he'll go back and cut and paste one of the other points, and answer it in a different post.

That way his posts are shorter and not drawn out dealing with 10 different things.

I used it with Marty on the John 6:62 (I think) thread last night.  But then I forgot about it again today until now.

Let's try that, maybe we'll get some scriptural answers.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,03:45)

David, Mike and Kathi have been corrected on these matters. They just don't want to hear it. See the opening post to a thread I started a while back:

Yes David,

Check out Jack's post, not anyone's rebuttals of that post!

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 17 2010,08:09)

Dbf and Mikebolle, You have both been mislead by the spirit of dillusion.

This is the kind of stuff David and I are talking about JA.  What does that even mean?  Is it something you can scripturally prove?  And since you don't paste other people's quotes, we never really know which post of ours your even responding to.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 17 2010,08:09)

Spirits do not procreate. What is the problem? Why would a spirit procreate?

How do you know this?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 17 2010,08:09)

Dbf, no scripture verses? Do you need to see them? You still toying with reading hence you can't see where where they are written. Still struggling to understand basic concepts like a child just learning Euclidean theory…what your teacher says to you seems like gibberish to your immature mind.

JA,

This is the kind of stuff you say to anyone who doesn't just automatically believe that you are the “GREAT JA” and go along with whatever you say.  It is condescending and arrogant and agressive behavior.  It is not Christ-like in the least, and given enough occasions of it, it causes some of us to finally blow…….like I did last week.

You are basically telling a man who is simply asking you for scriptures to back up what you say that he must be an idiot to not know what scriptures you refer to.  And then you belittle him?

I don't get it.  

Speak through scriptures JA.  Quote them.  Use them to help us understand what you are saying.  And then at least we have the chance to say, “Oh, I never knew scripture said that, thanks JA”.  You're treating David like you did me in the case of the scripture that says “Satan was created perfect” that I had never heard of before.  You implied I was an idiot for not knowing about it, but then I come to find out it doesn't even say that.  It might be a referrence to that, but it sure doesn't say it outright.

I am working on my bad habits here……won't you do the same?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,08:30)

And you don’t have an ulterior motive? You are so desperate you have to explain away a simple text stating he was begotten on a certain day.

Hi WJ,

I don't put so much weight on the “today” – that could just as easliy (LIKE I SHOWED YOU) mean “at this time” or “during this period” – that it negates the word “begotten”.

Apparently neither do any of the church fathers or anyone else here on HN except the three J's. Jack says no god was begotten after God. Is Jesus “god”? Was he according to you guys begotten after God……like when he was raised?

Hmmmm……..

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,08:52)

Jesus became the Son of God in the same way as His father David. Hebrews 1 says that He was “appointed” heir (firstborn) of all things.

No Jack,

That's not what Heb 1 says,

2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things……

No scripture EVER says Jesus was “appointed” to the “title” or “position” of God's Son.  And when exactly did you say he became God's “Son”?  I've heard you say it was when it was necessary for him to become a “Son” to be our savior………is this what you believe? At what point exactly do you think that happened?

mike

[Lightenup]

Interesting quote from Ignatius, the disciple of John who wrote the phrase “only begotten Son:'

Quote

For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, [611] and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For says [the Scripture], “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” [612] He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet.

The disciple that was taught by John clearly says that the Son was begotten BEFORE time began. There is no mention of having been begotten in Mary but instead that the Son was conceived in Mary by the APPOINTMENT of God. Isn't that interesting?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 17 2010,09:53)

I'm coming at it from the Scriptural fractals where the firstborn by birth always sins and another, often ….the last….becomes …the first…born by rank.

JA,

There are two kinds of “firstborns” in the Bible.  The default is the “one born first”.  The other kind happens when someone other than the “one born first” is appointed to that REAL firstborn's position or rank.  Agreed?

If scripture doesn't tell us that a “firstborn” received that postition over the real firstborn, then we must assume the one called firstborn has the default of the “one born first”.  Agreed?

Is there any scripture that alludes to Jesus receiving the firstborn rights of the REAL firstborn of God?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,10:12)

Jesus was begotten AT HIS RESURRECTION (Ps. 2:6-7; Acts 13:13; Hebrews 1 & 5 and Colossians 1:18).

But you said that “no god was begotten before or AFTER God”.

Is Jesus not a god? Was he begotten at his resurrection AFTER God existed?

Hmmm…….

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 17 2010,10:03)

Change the word “God” back to YHWH and say that YHWH begat a son “Jesus” and that way you can't get confused over using the word “God”.  YHWH begat Jesus and Jesus isn't YHWH as your sentence indicates.

Bravo David,

Now, add the fact that only one of those two is God Almighty……and you'll be following scripture.  And then add the fact that it is ONLY the Almighty One we are to worship, and you'll be well on your way.

David, you are becoming one of the brightest spots on HN lately.  Keep it up brother.

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,19:49)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,17:23) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,16:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,15:12) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,11:40) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2010,18:49) Keith, In another thread, you said that you totally agree with the Athanasian Creed that states this: Quote Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. you said: Quote I believe everything in the creed to be scriptual. from here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….1;st=10 I'm wondering what scripture/scriptures you use to support the part that I have bolded. Bump for Keith Kathi Why don't you show me what scriptures they used to support your interpretation of your quote? In context they believed… So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. **AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD**. So please tell me how they believed what you believe that “begotten” here has the meaning that God beget another God from himself, co-equal and co-eternal as a different being or another God? Again, they believed that the begetting was from eternity for he always existed with the Father, and that could not mean a begetting by procreation could it? WJ WJ, I asked you first. Kathi There are none, and thats my point. WJ Keith, So, are you going to agree with the Athanasian Creed even though you don't see that phrase as supported in scripture?

Kathi

Isn't that what you are doing, is supporting something that is not in scripture?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,23:46)

Interesting quote from Ignatius, the disciple of John who wrote the phrase “only begotten Son:' Quote For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, [611] and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For says [the Scripture], “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” [612] He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet. The disciple that was taught by John clearly says that the Son was begotten BEFORE time began.  There is no mention of having been begotten in Mary but instead that the Son was conceived in Mary by the APPOINTMENT of God.  Isn't that interesting?

Kathi

Yes, it is interesting that he mentions “begotten” (which you say means litterally born from the Father) in reference to Jesus before Mary but then doesn't say he was begotten by Mary where he was “literally born” by Mary and the Father as the Son of God.

Doesn't that tell you something about his use of the word begotten as opposed to being born before time began, meaning eternity?

Notice he says…

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, and He shall be called Immanuel. which we now know means “God with us”.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,00:24)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,19:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,17:23) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,16:45) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,15:12) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,11:40) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2010,18:49) Keith, In another thread, you said that you totally agree with the Athanasian Creed that states this: Quote Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. you said: Quote I believe everything in the creed to be scriptual. from here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….1;st=10 I'm wondering what scripture/scriptures you use to support the part that I have bolded. Bump for Keith Kathi Why don't you show me what scriptures they used to support your interpretation of your quote? In context they believed… So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. **AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD**. So please tell me how they believed what you believe that “begotten” here has the meaning that God beget another God from himself, co-equal and co-eternal as a different being or another God? Again, they believed that the begetting was from eternity for he always existed with the Father, and that could not mean a begetting by procreation could it? WJ WJ, I asked you first. Kathi There are none, and thats my point. WJ Keith, So, are you going to agree with the Athanasian Creed even though you don't see that phrase as supported in scripture? Kathi Isn't that what you are doing, is supporting something that is not in scripture? WJ

Keith,
Ah, but I do believe it IS the scriptures that teach that the only begotten Son was begotten before all worlds. You are the one that doesn't think the phrase is scriptural and at the same time claim to believe the Anathasian Creed.

Nicene Creed has the same thing in it:

Quote

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds

Anathasians Creed:

Quote

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world.

So there are two main creeds of the church that you believe are including something that is not scriptural. How can you claim that you believe these creeds if that is what you believe?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,15:46)

Interesting quote from Ignatius, the disciple of John who wrote the phrase “only begotten Son:' Quote For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, [611] and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For says [the Scripture], “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” [612] He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet. The disciple that was taught by John clearly says that the Son was begotten BEFORE time began.  There is no mention of having been begotten in Mary but instead that the Son was conceived in Mary by the APPOINTMENT of God.  Isn't that interesting?

Kathi!  This is Jack.  When will you start using scriptures?  I'm getting mad that none of the church fathers agree with me and all of them agree with you.  Go back to scriptures so then we can just assert that this meant that and that meant this.  We don't actually have to back our assertions up with scripture or historical accounts……..just some trinitarian fluff spewed by our “expert scholars”.  

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,16:42)

Doesn't that tell you something about his use of the word begotten as opposed to being born before time began, meaning eternity?

Sorry to butt in, but I think it reaffirms that begotten is a term applied to men, and born is a term applied to women.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,23:33)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,08:30) And you don’t have an ulterior motive?   You are so desperate you have to explain away a simple text stating he was begotten on a certain day. I don't put so much weight on the “today” – that could just as easliy (LIKE I SHOWED YOU) mean “at this time” or “during this period” – that it negates the word “begotten”. Apparently neither do any of the church fathers or anyone else here on HN except the three J's.  Jack says no god was begotten after God.  Is Jesus “god”?  Was he according to you guys begotten after God……like when he was raised? Hmmmm…….. mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,23:33)

I don't put so much weight on the “today” – that could just as easliy (LIKE I SHOWED YOU) mean “at this time” or “during this period” – that it negates the word “begotten”.

Yes I notice you don't put so much weight on a lot of scriptures. What word or words in scripture is needed less than others Mike?

The definition of “at this time” or “during this period” is still in relation to “TIME”, which began in the beginning and Jesus was already there.

BTW, it doesn't negate the word Begotten, but only in your mind. The Apostles by revelation of the Spirit knew it spoke of Jesus after the resurrection when he sat down in his throne. Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5

You keep saying only the three Js, but last I looked it is about even in the polls thread concerning Jesus “begetting” before the ages.  

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,00:42)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,23:46) Interesting quote from Ignatius, the disciple of John who wrote the phrase “only begotten Son:' Quote For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, [611] and established all things according to the will of the Father, He was conceived in the womb of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the seed of David, and by the Holy Ghost. For says [the Scripture], “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and He shall be called Immanuel.” [612] He was born and was baptized by John, that He might ratify the institution committed to that prophet. The disciple that was taught by John clearly says that the Son was begotten BEFORE time began.  There is no mention of having been begotten in Mary but instead that the Son was conceived in Mary by the APPOINTMENT of God.  Isn't that interesting? Kathi Yes, it is interesting that he mentions “begotten” (which you say means litterally born from the Father) in reference to Jesus before Mary but then doesn't say he was begotten by Mary where he was “literally born” by Mary and the Father as the Son of God. Doesn't that tell you something about his use of the word begotten as opposed to being born before time began, meaning eternity? Notice he says… Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and SHALL BRING FORTH A SON, and He shall be called Immanuel. which we now know means “God with us”. WJ

Keith,
This was emphasizing the Father's role and how it was different, before the world the Son was begotten by the Father, in the world He was conceived by appointment of the Father.

Good night!

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,16:24)

Kathi Isn't that what you are doing, is supporting something that is not in scripture? WJ

Sorry to butt in again, but what Kathi and I have done is show you the scripture, show you the definitons of the words, show you how they were used elsewhere in scripture, and show other scriptures that support the meaning of those words.

You guys would have none of it. So now we are showing you that the church fathers, who btw were brought in by you, Keith, agree with those scriptures.

So now you are not only trying to rewrite the scriptures, but the church fathers who agree with them.

mike

[Author]

Posts