- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
DBF,
You see…now you speak with solid food in your mouth. JA can speak to you as an adult now..
Yes, as Jesus was “Adopted” from his Fleshly state… This is the same as “This Day I have begotten you”.
Just as Paul Begot Onesimus. Paul “Adopted” Onesimus as his “Spiritual Son” (Philemon 1)Carry on this way, DBF, and you will have a friend.
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,11:14) A, DBF, how old are you. 12, eleven, what? younger… The angels were NOT in Spirit form as angels when they procreated – they took on bodies of FLESH…. and then procreated with Fleshkind women.
DBF, what hallucinary drug do you take before posting in this forum – please tell me so I can request it be banned….
JA,Are all the insults and agressive behavior necessary? I think David has you here brother. They were angels after all. And they DID procreate.
Remember the definition doesn't necessarily mean “a man and a woman having sex”. It just means “generated”. Were people generated by these spirit beings? Yes.
Does it even say the “sons of God” who had relations with all the woman they chose “took on bodies of flesh”? Could not a spirit have sex with a human? It doesn't say any of them stuck around to be a daddy.
One angel of God wiped out 185,000 Assyrians in one night. It doesn't say he became flesh before he fought and killed them all. Remember the army of angels surrounding Elijah and Elisha? Would they have had to become flesh to be able to protect the two humans?
Remember the donkey who was able to see the angel and kept Balaam from dying at the hands of the angel he couldn't even see? So if spirit beings can kill a man without making themselves visible or flesh, then why couldn't they also have sex the same way?
I think they were just coming down and raping whatever woman they wanted without even being visible to the women. And 9 months later, baby Nephilims were born.
mike
Mike, step out…
DBF is coming round to the truth – don't confuse him with your nonesense.
And his name is DavidBFun, DBF or the professor. David is some one else.
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,12:13) What is (are) the difference(s) between God and Jesus – and as Jesus becomes Begotten of God as Mankind that overcomes will also be begotten of God – will mankind then become as God as Jesus is as God?
I'm still waiting for the scripture you think says men will be begotten by God.mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,12:13) Mike, And what is your ferver for wanting Jesus to be Firstborn even though Spirits are not “Born” but created.
Is this even a real question you're asking? Scripture says so……that's my “fervor”.mike
Mike,
are you for real these days… you don't know these base Scriptures – yet you parade around the forum like a peacock on heat..?
You got your head to much up Eusebius. Pull it out and read the scriptures instead.
everything you need to know is in there. then you won't need to ask base questions about Scripture.
I haven't even opened my bible for three days now yet everythng I need to know is right here with me – no concordance, no Internet research, no textbooks on early achadian theoligical fraternisation,,…
Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 18 2010,12:45) But since we are talking, let's look at this one about male/female….that everyone refuses to acknowledge: Is God's image male and female as the Scripture says? Gen 1:27
Or am I taking something out of context?
If I am, then why did God follow up and create Man in His image, male and female?
No, let's not look at this one. I told you in the pm's that when I got time, I would look into it and either agree or refute.So…….just this one time:
God created “MANKIND” in his image. What does “image” mean? Does God have two legs? One nose? Hair on His body?
I don't think that is the “image” being spoken of. I think it means as compared to “dumb” animals. He created us in His image in that we can think intelligently and reason and hope and feel anger and remorse and joy and sadness, etc. I don't think it has anything at all to do with how we physically look or our sexual organs distinguishing us as man or woman.
Jesus is the spitting image of his Father. He wasn't a she/male. He was a male as far as I know.
So I think you go WAY overboard in linking God created man male and female with “God is both sexes”.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,13:00) 1. Mike, step out… 2. DBF is coming round to the truth – don't confuse him with your nonesense.
3. And his name is DavidBFun, DBF or the professor. David is some one else.
1. No thanks.2. David has truth because he believes scripture JA. I couldn't possibly confuse him. (I don't think his “truth” will ever line up with your “truth” though. Time will tell.)
3. If David asks me to, then I will abide. The other David isn't a part of this conversation, so there is no confusion.
ps…Your not the boss of me!
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,13:03) Mike, are you for real these days… you don't know these base Scriptures – yet you parade around the forum like a peacock on heat..?
You must have looked in the mirror when you said that! If anyone ever asks me for scriptures to support what I'm saying, I gladly give them.
I don't do a song and dance about how I know all the scriptures and the other person doesn't……ha ha ha.
Why can't you just offer them when asked? Is it because there isn't one? Don't even go to 1 Peter, because it's a whole different word.
mike
Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,13:04) You got your head to much up Eusebius. Pull it out and read the scriptures instead. everything you need to know is in there. then you won't need to ask base questions about Scripture.
I haven't even opened my bible for three days now yet everythng I need to know is right here with me – no concordance, no Internet research, no textbooks on early achadian theoligical fraternisation,,…
Yeah, and I haven't seen your explanation on Alpha and Omega about how Jesus isn't God in 1:11 yet.Good thing I did the research for you.
You keep saying you only need scripture, but you never want to produce the one you think supports your view.
And have you found anything unscriptural that Eusebius has ever written yet?
mike
Mike,
ha ha … I wrote something while at work, this day, but forgot to bring it home.
Anyway, it was something like: Image of God… Man is in the image of God: Hands, feet, ears, Eyes, Nose, heart, liver, hair, head, fingers, toes, a mind, speach, hearing, sight, fear, love.
…you get the picture …the image…
and yet…ANIMAL ALSO HAVE THESE FEATURES – THIS IMAGE…. hands (of a sort), head, heart, feet (of a sort) toes (of a sort) legs ,speach, hearing, sight, fear, love.
….you get the picture…
My my my, maybe not you – but how the mighty struggle to force fit unsustainable doctrine and ideas… Image: God is ALWAYS speaking Spiritual, Jesus is always Speaking Spiritual – image is a Spiritual Image – not physical it pertains to Righteousness, Godliness, Having the ability to design, create, develop within itself – think [broader], self awareness, love, joy, desire, pleasure, much more than the animals, wisdom, power and authority between and within his own kind and above the animal kind.
So whenit is said that jesus is the image of teh father – what does this mean: It means he was Righteous like the father, he was loving like the father, he was powerful like the father, he was mighty like the father he was patient, intelligent, wise and orderly. Like the father.
But he wasn't THE FATHER.
So then, how is it said that Jesus was more BELOVED by the Father because he was more righteous than the others and hated iniquity, if he wasn't like the others (Who are the others)?
How can Jesus be MORE Righteous if he was already LIKE GOD – just as, how can Jesus be raised ABOVE his Brethren (Who are his Brethren?) if he were Already LIKE GOD.
And if he were already LIKE GOD then what advantage did he gain from giving himself as a Sacrifice – what did he gain from dying.
Think about it. An undiable, DIVINE Spirit – DYING – aarrghh… being away from the father – no wonder Jesus sweated blood thinking and agonising about it – wondering whether his father could indeed raise him back up (Father – if this cup could be taken from me – not by my will but by yours)What did he go back to if all that he got back was only what was his from the beginning – how was he RAISED to Glory above his brethren and given the seat of power to sit on next to his father – if he were ALREADY the BEGOTTEN ONE APPOINTED FROM “BIRTH” to claim the inheritance?? A bit risky, eh?
But, If he were just AMONGST His Brethren – was MORE Righteous than they, was appointed the commission, overcame and then was raised up again and shown to be better than they and sat down next to his father above his brethren – to gain the inheritance…
now – does that flow better. Are there any hiccups in that latter flow? any questions in that latter flow – ask away…Mike,
How does Revelation show God in his throne room.
There is ONLY GOD being worshipped. Surrounded by all sorts singing and praising and worshipping him. doing service, coming and going to and from his presence.
Where is Jesus: Amongst those AROUND and In the midst of the Throne – Please do not picture an earthly scene -God is Spirit and does not SIT on a LITERAL Throne – here is a call for Spiritual Wisdom and insight: THRONE IS the SEAT of POWER. God is in the Seat of Power – so others can be in the Midst of that Seat of Power – not like a physical chair – They can be IN GOD's POWER – IN HIS THRONE!!
Only the wholly righteous can look upon God directly – Even in human terms – a nave type person could to look on the king (certain kings ) directly because their lowly filthy ragged state (sin!) was an abomination to the lordly king – ha, fractal again…'Jesus' as the Lamb' is chosen from amongst them to perform the commission (open the Scroll) – hmmm … anything sound familiar? Fractal even?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:38) Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,13:04) You got your head to much up Eusebius. Pull it out and read the scriptures instead. everything you need to know is in there. then you won't need to ask base questions about Scripture.
I haven't even opened my bible for three days now yet everythng I need to know is right here with me – no concordance, no Internet research, no textbooks on early achadian theoligical fraternisation,,…
Yeah, and I haven't seen your explanation on Alpha and Omega about how Jesus isn't God in 1:11 yet.Good thing I did the research for you.
You keep saying you only need scripture, but you never want to produce the one you think supports your view.
And have you found anything unscriptural that Eusebius has ever written yet?
mike
Good morning Mike,Mike, do me a favor and look at the verses Rev 1:7-9.
Do you notice at the end of v7 is Amen. Then all of a sudden v8 appears and seems to have nothing to do with the conversation? v9 John starts off with his vision….
It seemed to me how v8 popped up and said, “Wow, this sure looks like it is inserted because it has no relevance to what was written or what was written after.
NASB doesn't even have Alpha and Omega in 1:11
Thanks for looking.
Back to the topic look at:
Rev 3:14 “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, “the Beginning of the creation of God”, says this:
Again, Jesus is being labeled as the BEGINNING, God calls him His only begotten son and Col 1:15 says he is the firstborn of all creation as is Rev 3:14, so why the debate of born or begotten which refer to the same outcome,,,,production of an offspring which Jesus fits into, no?
The Professor
dbf said:
Quote Again, Jesus is being labeled as the BEGINNING, God calls him His only begotten son and Col 1:15 says he is the firstborn of all creation as is Rev 3:14, so why the debate of born or begotten which refer to the same outcome,,,,production of an offspring which Jesus fits into, no? 1. Again, the Greek “arche” means “ruler.” It says that Christ is the “RULER” of the creation of God. God is also called the “arche” in Revelation 22. So by dbf's logic we should conclude that God had a beginning.
2. The Greek “monogenes” does not mean begotten.” It means simply “only.” It means that Jesus was God's “only” Son. The ancient translations correctly translated “monogenes” as “only” up until the King James Version.
3. Jesus was the “firstborn” by appointment just as His father David.
Quote 20 I have found David my servant;
with my sacred oil I have anointed him.21 My hand will sustain him;
surely my arm will strengthen him.22 No enemy will subject him to tribute;
no wicked man will oppress him.23 I will crush his foes before him
and strike down his adversaries.24 My faithful love will be with him,
and through my name his horn [a] will be exalted.25 I will set his hand over the sea,
his right hand over the rivers.26 He will call out to me, 'You are my Father,
my God, the Rock my Savior.'27 I will also APPOINT him my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth. Psalm 89:20-27)
David was “appointed” firstborn and all his sons after him were “appointed.” Therefore, Jesus was not literally firstborn.dbf,
You call yourself “the Professor.” What are your credentials in the Biblical languages?
the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,19:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,16:55) 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.
Well, if your assertion that the apostles knew is correct, then that means ALL of the church fathers I've seen writings of missed that part of the scriptures. Is that what you think happened Keith?And the polls show exactly 3 voting for after he was raised. How many J's are there again?
mike
MikeAll I know is what the scritpures say Mike. But you have chosen ambiguous language from Forefathers who had disagreements among themselves.
Jack is right, you have to run to the Forefathers for support (Though there is very little there for you) to back up your theorys rather than sticking to scriptures.
As far as the poll it is even for those who say Jesus was not begotten before the ages or time but after he came in the flesh.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,19:24) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,17:16) 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
I don't remember you ever showing a scripture that explained that “yalad”, “monogenes” and “gennao” were only metaphorical when applied to Jesus.There isn't one……so what scriptures are you claiming support your theory? Heb 1? Please.
mike
MikeWhat scripture do you have that says Jesus was literrally born from the Father by procreation?
THATS RIGHT THERE ARE NONE, except when he was born of the virgin Mary.
Oh thats right John 1:1 doesnt have “Monogenes” but strangely enough John calls Jesus the “Monogenes” Son of God after he came in the flesh.
So stick your head in the sand and continue to make your false claims about “yalad”, “monogenes” and “gennao” as having a singular meaning.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,19:29) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,17:25) 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.
He sees it “loud and clear” Kathi. But to admit it would be to say Jesus had a beginning, like scriptures actually teach. (Micah, Proverbs, Colossians, Revelation, and many others)And that won't fit into his doctrine, so he has to play “blind”.
It's wearing a little thin, huh? You have done a great job in this thread Kathi. You can only lead the horse to water……you can't make him drink.
mike
MikeNobody wants to drink your muddy water.
You and Kathi pretend like your claims are unambigouos and that is being disengenuous.
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
