Born and begotten

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48)

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

Oh Mike,
I hope you never sound like that for real!
You do a good imitation!

[Worshipping Jesus]

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

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48)

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.

Yes I know that is what you believe but where is your scripture that is unambiguous to support your claim?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48)

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

That is if you assume that “begotten” like you see it is what they believed. The anathema says that the Son always existed with the Father, so it can't mean what you mean can it?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48)

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?

First of all there is nothing to say that it is not scriptural just because it is not in the scriptures.

You accuse me of not believing the Creeds but then you do not believe in them and then twist the words to your own interpretation.

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.

So as you can see they did not perceive “Begotten” like you do Kathi.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:57)

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!

Thats the way you see it.

I see that the term “begotten” doesn't mean born as a Son like he was in Mary by procreation and was called the “Son of God”.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,00:58)

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

Yes Mike

We know that you are reverting to the ambiguous language of the Fathers who did not all agree BTW, to support your ambiguous claims and theorys.

We have shown you scriptures to support our claims.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,01:10)

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 Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48) 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. Yes I know that is what you believe but where is your scripture that is unambiguous to support your claim? Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48) 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 That is if you assume that “begotten” like you see it is what they believed. The anathema says that the Son always existed with the Father, so it can't mean what you mean can it? Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48) 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? First of all there is nothing to say that it is not scriptural just because it is not in the scriptures. You accuse me of not believing the Creeds but then you do not believe in them and then twist the words to your own interpretation. 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. So as you can see they did not perceive “Begotten” like you do Kathi. WJ

Keith,
You do not understand what they are saying here. They are not talking about what I am understanding. They are talking about the Son having a foreign nature different than the Father's…a nature that didn't pre
-exist Him. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the nature the Son has did pre-exist Him and thus He was not made out of something that was not but something (deity nature) that existed from eternity.

This is what I am referring to that is not talking about what Mike and I are saying.

Quote

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.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,01:16)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,00:58) 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 Yes Mike We know that you are reverting to the ambiguous language of the Fathers who did not all agree BTW, to support your ambiguous claims and theorys. We have shown you scriptures to support our claims. WJ

Keith,
Just maybe those verses are ambiguious to you and not to us and the early church fathers. That seems obvious. Many see what you cannot, in other words.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,01:14)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:57) 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! Thats the way you see it. I see that the term “begotten” doesn't mean born as a Son like he was in Mary by procreation and was called the “Son of God”. WJ

Keith,
He was called the Son of God because God supernaturally caused the birth of the man which contained the pre-existent only begotten Son of God who was begotten before the worlds. It was before the worlds where He received the Father's essence and in the world where He received Mary's essence.

Both times, before the worlds, and in the world, He was from God as His Son.

Really now I'm going to sleep…sweet dreams.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,01:30)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,01:14) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:57) 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! Thats the way you see it. I see that the term “begotten” doesn't mean born as a Son like he was in Mary by procreation and was called the “Son of God”. WJ Keith, He was called the Son of God because God supernaturally caused the birth of the man which contained the pre-existent only begotten Son of God who was begotten before the worlds.  It was before the worlds where He received the Father's essence and in the world where He received Mary's essence. Both times, before the worlds, and in the world, He was from God as His Son. Really now I'm going to sleep…sweet dreams.

That is all your opinion and not backed by scriptures.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,01:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,01:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,00:58) 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 Yes Mike We know that you are reverting to the ambiguous language of the Fathers who did not all agree BTW, to support your ambiguous claims and theorys. We have shown you scriptures to support our claims. WJ Keith, Just maybe those verses are ambiguious to you and not to us and the early church fathers.  That seems obvious.  Many see what you cannot, in other words.

Kathi

More see what we believe than you. Your own church disagrees with you.

But your statement is circular anyway, the pot calling the kettle black.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,01:22)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,01:10) 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 Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48) 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. Yes I know that is what you believe but where is your scripture that is unambiguous to support your claim? Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48) 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 That is if you assume that “begotten” like you see it is what they believed. The anathema says that the Son always existed with the Father, so it can't mean what you mean can it? Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,00:48) 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? First of all there is nothing to say that it is not scriptural just because it is not in the scriptures. You accuse me of not believing the Creeds but then you do not believe in them and then twist the words to your own interpretation. 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. So as you can see they did not perceive “Begotten” like you do Kathi. WJ Keith, You do not understand wha t they are saying here.  They are not talking about what I am understanding.  They are talking about the Son having a foreign nature different than the Father's…a nature that didn't pre-exist Him.  That is not what I am saying.  I am saying that the nature the Son has did pre-exist Him and thus He was not made out of something that was not but something (deity nature) that existed from eternity. This is what I am referring to that is not talking about what Mike and I are saying. Quote 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.

No you are not understanding.

They do not mention the word “Nature”.

Look again…

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.

WJ

[JustAskin]

Mike,

You crying like a child who can't get his own way.

You want the world to change to your mind by persistence on a theme.

You are mostly right but lack the ability to punch your points home.

Thus, another steps in and scatters your arguments like blown leaves in the wind…and you run around like annoyed child who has just lost his pocket money for clearing them up…you didn't 'bag them' while scooping them together.

What did I just say: Keep your arguments tight and don't let others get inside and blow them apart. Bag them, tie them, shelve them.

So far in this forum you have not tied and bagged a single argument.

Ever wonder why?

I see you found a supporter…or one to support. Dbf….eh? This is the 'non guy' who says that God is a female, or some such, male AND female, the Holy Spirit is female… And God created Adam as man and Eve as female…
Look again, God created Adam and then took Eve 'OUT OF' Adam, formed her from one Adam's 'RIBS'.

What does 'ribs' mean. Well, look at what Women are. Look at their characteristics. Now look at man and his characteristics.

Then ask why God says we are to join together, one man with one woman and become ONE Flesh.

The characteristics of the Man and the Woman are, one together, the characteristics that God placed into Adam when God first created him.

“for woman [first] came from man, not man from woman. But nonetheless, man is [hence] born from woman'.

Hey JA nearly quoted something from Scriptures. Thanks for the heads up, Mike.

[JustAskin]

Oh, yeah, and your new friend says that The Holy Spirit is Jesus' mother.

Mike! And this one is whom you beget.

At least you were holding the line when I begot you, Before you wavered through desperate arguing with Roo.

Remember, i tried to help you. I offered my support, gave you might support, but gently suggested that you were wrong in your dispute.
I told you that, nonetheless, it served a purpose in that by doing what you did, you got Roo to speak the truth AGAINST his trinitarian belief…that was brilliant…..
I loved it….i saw it, Roo speaking the truth…but….Mike going wayward…So i said, Mike stop now, let Roo 'win'. Give grace, give way. BAG it now and then analyse the posts….never again can Roo post his trinity stuff with veracity because now, and check WJ, too, they say Jesus was 'begotten'…
Mike, don't you see it.

Yet, you despise me, depose me, despoil me in favour of another who is simply copying what another has written and posting it as his own. Yes Mike, plagerism…
Have I not exhorted that we, euphamistically, 'rewrite the Scriptures and replace God with YHVH', yet you congratulate dbf for it and glorify yourself….who are you, what have you become…your own God? You empower yourself, Mike, Mikeboll, Mikeboll64, beware!

This is not the first time JA has warned you.

[davidbfun]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,19:53)

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 16 2010,18:03) Hi Keith (and maybe Kathi) YOU said: 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 Where is any Scripture that says Jesus is “Almighty”?  Or that he is co-equal and co-eternal? How about Jesus claiming to be God?   Part of your statement is true: Father always existed…Begetting couldn't have alwasy been occurring. lol What staying power! Since God begat His son, the son exists in a point in time AFTER the Father.  Why is this hard to see or understand? 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. Because you misuse the identity of YHWH you say that God (YHWH) begat God.  YHWH begat a son, the firstborn of all creation, His only begotten son. Sorry that this confusion keeps getting brought up. If you can get the foundation straight it'll help to see the other Scripture. In the case of “Jesus” calling himself God, I haven't seen one verse, yet. The Professor David, When someone begats a son, that son is no less than the one that begat him.  Just younger.  Perfect doesn't begat less perfect.  See?

Kathi,

Yes, you could say that Jesus was “God-natured” but does that make him  GOD?  No.  It makes him the “only begotten” “son OF God”, and the FIRSTBORN of all creation as the Bible declares.

The “perfection” (not to get side tracked) doesn't make him any less than the son of God.  Which would be another thread.  

The Professor

[Lightenup]

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 17 2010,07:51)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,19:53) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 16 2010,18:03) Hi Keith (and maybe Kathi) YOU said: 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 Where is any Scripture that says Jesus is “Almighty”?  Or that he is co-equal and co-eternal? How about Jesus claiming to be God?   Part of your statement is true: Father always existed…Begetting couldn't have alwasy been occurring. lol What staying power! Since God begat His son, the son exists in a point in time AFTER the Father.  Why is this hard to see or understand? 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. Because you misuse the identity of YHWH you say that God (YHWH) begat God.  YHWH begat a son, the firstborn of all creation, His only begotten son. Sorry that this confusion keeps getting brought up. If you can get the foundation straight it'll help to see the other Scripture. In the case of “Jesus” calling himself God, I haven't seen one verse, yet. The Professor David, When someone begats a son, that son is no less than the one that begat him.  Just younger.  Perfect doesn't begat less perfect.  See? Kathi, Yes, you could say that Jesus was “God-natured” but does that make him  GOD?  No.  It makes him the “only begotten” “son OF God”, and the FIRSTBORN of all creation as the Bible declares. The “perfection” (not to get side tracked) doesn't make him any less than the son of God.  Which would be another thread.   The Professor

David,
Like begats like.  God designed it that way.  God begats God.  The first unbegotten, the second begotten.  One subordinate to the other yet God nonetheless.  God is not a name here, God is a type of being.

[davidbfun]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2010,08:06)

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 17 2010,07:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,19:53) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 16 2010,18:03) Hi Keith (and maybe Kathi) YOU said: 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 Where is any Scripture that says Jesus is “Almighty”?  Or that he is co-equal and co-eternal? How about Jesus claiming to be God?   Part of your statement is true: Father always existed…Begetting couldn't have alwasy been occurring. lol What staying power! Since God begat His son, the son exists in a point in time AFTER the Father.  Why is this hard to see or understand? 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. Because you misuse the identity of YHWH you say that God (YHWH) begat God.  YHWH begat a son, the firstborn of all creation, His only begotten son. Sorry that this confusion keeps getting brought up. If you can get the foundation straight it'll help to see the other Scripture. In the case of “Jesus” calling himself God, I haven't seen one verse, yet. The Professor David, When someone begats a son, that son is no less than the one that begat him.  Just younger.  Perfect doesn't begat less perfect.  See? Kathi, Yes, you could say that Jesus was “God-natured” but does that make him  GOD?  No.  It makes him the “only begotten” “son OF God”, and the FIRSTBORN of all creation as the Bible declares. The “perfection” (not to get side tracked) doesn't make him any less than the son of God.  Which would be another thread.   The Professor David, Like begats like.  God designed it that way.  God begats God.  The first unbegotten, the second begotten.  One subordinate to the other yet God nonetheless.  God is not a name here, God is a type of being.

Good morning Kathi,

This is true. Like begets like but the begotten is not the same as the one that begets.

Often times people extrapolate that because God begat His son, His son is God.  And people here want to forget that Jesus is the “son of God” and want to call him God, the son, which is a big difference.

Or that they might want to say that God begat God…which is an untruth.  That is why I prefer to use names than titles or concepts.

YHWH begat Yahshua or Elohim begat Yahshua….can't get confused and can't confuse anyone.

The Professor

[Lightenup]

God begat God is not an untruth David. Obviously they are not the same person. There is only one unbegotten God and only one begotten God. In the beginning the word was with God (the unbegotten God) and the word was God (the begotten God)

[davidbfun]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2010,08:07)

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 17 2010,07:51) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,19:53) Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 16 2010,18:03) Hi Keith (and maybe Kathi) YOU said: 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 Where is any Scripture that says Jesus is “Almighty”?  Or that he is co-equal and co-eternal? How about Jesus claiming to be God?   Part of your statement is true: Father always existed…Begetting couldn't have alwasy been occurring. lol What staying power! Since God begat His son, the son exists in a point in time AFTER the Father.  Why is this hard to see or understand? 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. Because you misuse the identity of YHWH you say that God (YHWH) begat God.  YHWH begat a son, the firstborn of all creation, His only begotten son. Sorry that this confusion keeps getting brought up. If you can get the foundation straight it'll help to see the other Scripture. In the case of “Jesus” calling himself God, I haven't seen one verse, yet. The Professor David, When someone begats a son, that son is no less than the one that begat him.  Just younger.  Perfect doesn't begat less perfect.  See? Kathi, Yes, you could say that Jesus was “God-natured” but does that make him  GOD?  No.  It makes him the “only begotten” “son OF God”, and the FIRSTBORN of all creation as the Bible declares. The “perfection” (not to get side tracked) doesn't make him any less than the son of God.  Which would be another thread.   The Professor David, Like begats like.  God designed it that way.  God begats God.  The first unbegotten, the second begotten.  One subordinate to the other yet God nonetheless.  God is not a name here, God is a type of being.

Hello Kathi,

I've noticed now that you have posted this twice with me:

God begat God.

It appears that you don't like “God begat His son.” or “God begat the son of God.” or even “God's son is God-natured”; with a statement as such you want to “TRY” to make the son to be GOD, and thereby trying to deceive???

Notice the fallacy: God begets God (Himself)

Are you saying that God is now “pro-created”?  And has a beginning? Or are you saying that there are TWO Gods?  

And who begat the first God? And so on and so on.

Or how about a Scripture that says this so I can analyze it better or put it into context?

The Professor

[davidbfun]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2010,08:36)

God begat God is not an untruth David.  Obviously they are not the same person.  There is only one unbegotten God and only one begotten God.  In the beginning the word was with God (the unbegotten God) and the word was God (the begotten God)

Hi Kathi,

It appears that you don't understand the word “God” as it applies to ONE and only ONE “person”.

I don't know who is trying to twist your leg but like I said, “Go back to using “Names” and you can't get confused.

Elohim did not beget Elohim.  YHWH did not beget YHWH.

Your statement:  God begat God IS an untruth.  There is no such thing as a “Begotten God”.  Call it what it is….SON OF GOD.

Where are you getting this lie?  It is not from the Bible.

Son = male offspring from parents  

God (Elohim) exists! Has no beginning!

Son is born!  Has a beginning.  

The son (Yahshua or whatever name) is not God (Elohim).

Stop using the ambiguous word “God” and be specific.  

No need to say unbegotten because that is used to throw you off track and confuse you or worse yet, deceive you into believing a man-made doctrine.

That is why I like:  God EXISTS!

Begotten is an ACT OF GOD to produce His offspring; not a characteristic of His nature.

Another way people say that God is unbegotten is God is non-causal (meaning no one caused God to exist and takes into account the act of being created as well as pro-created (begotten)).

Adam was created and was not begotten.
Jesus was begotten and not created.

Neither one of them are GOD; they are sons of God….and only one of them is God's only begotten son.

The Professor

[Baker]

Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,14:38)

Yeah, I did quite a bit of rearranging and didn't carefully read what I typed before posting. Yes, Hebrews 1.5 seems to be talking about his birth too. So you think the difference is being born as a kind, as opposed to being transformed or conforming to something?

How funny is that, t8 you need to get a edit botton, it would help don't you think?

[GeneBalthrop]

To All……….God the Father is Spirit, Jesus said Jesus also He was not a Spirit because you can not see Spirit, and they could see Jesus because even after he was resurected he was flesh and bone. But GOD who it says noone has seen is pure Spirit. He can live (IN) a persons Body as Jesus plainly said the Father was (IN) HIM, God Considers our bodies as temples places he can dwell (IN), He spoke through Jesus and said “DESTROY THIS TEMPLE AND IN THREE DAYS (I) (GOD) SHALL RAISE IT UP”, that was God speaking first person (through) Jesus, He was (IN) Him, but because GOD was (IN) Jesus does not make Jesus GOD, Nor the WORDS HE SPOKE (HIS) WORDS.
GOD the Father and His Words are one and the same, Jesus is the spokesmen who GOD Spoke to Us through , Just as He spoke to Us through the Prophets of OLD. That did not make the Prophets a GOD nor does it make Jesus the First to be Born from Creation as a Son of GOD, a GOD Either. IMO

peace and love to you all………………………………..gene

[Author]

Posts