- This topic has 1,500 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Mikeboll said to WorshippingJesus:
Quote 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 YET ANOTHER CONCESSION FROM MIKE!
the Roo
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote 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.
And when asked if there is a statement that indicates that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation Mike himself replied saying, “Not that scripture records.”the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,19:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,17:42) 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.
I'll second Eusebius' thought here WJ:Where are any of those phrases used in scripture?
mike
MikeI figured you would side with the man who caves into pressure.
The point is not were those phrases in scriptures, but the point is the ForeFathers understanding of Jesus being begotten is not by procreation from the Father by having a beginning as some sort of demi-god like you and Kathi claim.
Anyway where is your definition of God Beget a god literally from his own body in scriptures? Oh thats right that definition is found in Greek Mythology.
Gods begetting gods.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,21:01) 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
MikeJA was hoping that he didn't have to do your homework for you. So I thought I would give him a hand.
ASV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is “begotten (gennaō)” of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. 1 John 5:1YNG
Every one who is believing that Jesus is the Christ, of God he hath “been begotten (gennaō)“, and every one who is loving Him who did beget, doth love also him who is begotten of Him: 1 John 5:1DBY
Every one that believes that Jesus is the Christ is “begotten (gennaō)” of God; and every one that loves him that has begotten loves also him that is begotten of him. 1 John 5:1I used the Young’s since you seem to quote from it.
So tell us Mike, did those who are “begotten (gennaō)” above already exist when they were begotten? Ring a bell yet.
Jesus already existed when he was “begotten (gennaō)” didn't he?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which “shall be BORN (gennaō) of thee shall be called **the Son of God**“. Luke 1:35
And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where “Christ should be BORN (gennaō)“. Matt 2:4
Now please show us scripture where he was born before the ages or time?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,19:32) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2010,17:42) 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.
I'll second Eusebius' thought here WJ:Where are any of those phrases used in scripture?
mike
MikeI figured you would side with the man who caves into pressure.
The point is not were those phrases in scriptures, but the point is the ForeFathers understanding of Jesus being begotten is not by procreation from the Father by having a beginning as some sort of demi-god like you and Kathi claim.
Anyway where is your definition of God Beget a god literally from his own body in scriptures? Oh thats right that definition is found in Greek Mythology.
Gods begetting gods.
WJ
Hey Keith,Eusebius begrudgingly signed the creed and then wrote a letter of apology to those he anathematized. I have not talked about this too much until now because I have tried to present Eusebius in the best light. But Mike won't stop with his stuff and engage with us from the scriptures. Of course we know why.
The thing that gets me with Eusebius is that he initiated the whole thing by submitting his own creed to Nicea. They drastically revised it and Eusebius begrudgingly signed on to it. Would you sign a document that you presented and that you felt was “butchered up.”
Mike does not realize that in argumentation it is not the personal beliefs of a man that counts but his character:
Quote An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “to the man”), is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemMike wants to talk about the personal beliefs which are not relevant. But let's invite him to discuss Eusebius' character and motives which are relevant.
And if Mike insists on talking only about personal beliefs, then let him accept my invitation to talk about Eusebius the Preterist. I have presented documented evidence to Mike that Eusebius was a Preterist. Mike insists that Eusebius was a “good teacher” and hangs his hat on his teachings. Yet Mike rejects Preterism. I am not holding out much hope that Mike will engage me on this one.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,20:29) I think Jack and Keith have led people to think “procreate” means to have intercourse with someone of the other sex. It actually just means: Procreate
–verb (used with object)
1. to beget or generate (offspring).
2. to produce; bring into being.
MikeWhen it comes to humanity, what does the above mean? It means man and woman have sex and beget. Unless you are implying that God had sex with the Holy Spirit like DBF infers.
Does a human Father bring birth to a man from his own body?
Where is a scripture that says “God” precreated Jesus other than Jesus at his birth through the incarnation?
WJ
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Where is a scripture that says “God” precreated Jesus other than Jesus at his birth through the incarnation?
Keith,Mike has already answered you. He said, “Not that scripture records.” This means that he spends a lot of his time arguing what HE KNOWS is just conjecture on his part.
The man was have a whole lot of energy. I get worn out arguing my convictions. Yet Mike has a never ending supply of energy to argue what he knows is conjecture.
I think he just like to argue period.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,11:09) WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote Where is a scripture that says “God” precreated Jesus other than Jesus at his birth through the incarnation?
Keith,Mike has already answered you. He said, “Not that scripture records.” This means that he spends a lot of his time arguing what HE KNOWS is just conjecture on his part.
The man was have a whole lot of energy. I get worn out arguing my convictions. Yet Mike has a never ending supply of energy to argue what he knows is conjecture.
I think he just like to argue period.
Jack
True JackAnd this is his exact words…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 14 2010,21:53)
Could it be that Jesus was caused to exist at the crack of that very first day that they then both created? Maybe……why not?And yes, this is conjecture, but what about your theory?
He also admitted the word “monogenes” is not found in reference to Jesus before he came in the flesh.But after all this he says he is gonna prove by scripture that “monogenes” does apply to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
This guy actually believes that he is gonna disprove the Trinity which has been taught from the first century by using scriptures and make the Trinity go away.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,03:24) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,11:09) WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote Where is a scripture that says “God” precreated Jesus other than Jesus at his birth through the incarnation?
Keith,Mike has already answered you. He said, “Not that scripture records.” This means that he spends a lot of his time arguing what HE KNOWS is just conjecture on his part.
The man was have a whole lot of energy. I get worn out arguing my convictions. Yet Mike has a never ending supply of energy to argue what he knows is conjecture.
I think he just like to argue period.
Jack
True JackAnd this is his exact words…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 14 2010,21:53)
Could it be that Jesus was caused to exist at the crack of that very first day that they then both created? Maybe……why not?And yes, this is conjecture, but what about your theory?
He also admitted the word “monogenes” is not found in reference to Jesus before he came in the flesh.But after all this he says he is gonna prove by scripture that “monogenes” does apply to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
This guy actually believes that he is gonna disprove the Trinity which has been taught from the first century by using scriptures and make the Trinity go away.
WJ
Keith,Then there is the matter of Mike's double standards. For instance, in our debate I argued that the Greek “pais” means “child” and that it had reference to Christ before He was exalted to the status of full Son. Mike argued that all the new translations render “pais” as “servant” and that the King James reading “child” is wrong.
Now the double standard. Mike rejects the veracity of the new translations that render “monogenes” simply as “only” insisting that the KJV's “onlybegotten” reading is right. He wants to bind us to the new translations in reference to “pais” and to trash the KJV. But in reference to “monogenes” he wants to bind us to the KJV and trash the new translations even though the new translations have the historical evidence. But we have to make judgments in each situation. The historical evidence indicates that the Greek “monogenes” was used as the equivalent of the Hebrew “yachid” which simply means “only.” In some extra-biblical literature “monogenes” was used to express the idea of one of a kind.
Jack
Mikeboll said:
Quote Could it be that Jesus was caused to exist at the crack of that very first day that they then both created
The Father himself said that Jesus laid the FOUNDATIONS of the earth with His own hands (Heb. 1:8-10). The foundations of the earh were created before days were created. So Jesus existed BEFORE the first day.Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 19 2010,05:11) Mikeboll said: Quote Could it be that Jesus was caused to exist at the crack of that very first day that they then both created
The Father himself said that Jesus laid the FOUNDATIONS of the earth with His own hands (Heb. 1:8-10). The foundations of the earh were created before days were created. So Jesus existed BEFORE the first day.Roo
The Word of God is God revealed.—–
There was never a time when God was unknown.
God has always been known.
Therefore, The Word of of God has always existed.
—–
This is why Jesus can claim he is The Alpha and Omega, as YHVH The Father has…
because that statement holds true for both of them.
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,13:11) Mikeboll said: Quote Could it be that Jesus was caused to exist at the crack of that very first day that they then both created
The Father himself said that Jesus laid the FOUNDATIONS of the earth with His own hands (Heb. 1:8-10). The foundations of the earh were created before days were created. So Jesus existed BEFORE the first day.Roo
The foundations were being laid on day three when the seas were put in their place and the dry land appeared.Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 19 2010,00:35) 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
Good afternoon David,You can read about the missing Alpha and Omega here:
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….3;st=30 Starting with the 8th post down.Jesus is never called just “the beginning” in scripture. He is the beginning OF this or that, but not simply “The Beginning”. That is a title only Jesus' God has.
And this whole thread was JA's idea. Then for some reason, t8 thought it was a good enough idea to start a thread about.
I agree, there is no difference. Begotten generally refers to the male parent, while born is more often used of the female parent. You are right that they both mean “caused to exist”.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:00) Mike All 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
Hi Keith,All you know is what scripture says? Please. You butcher the scriptures to fit your needs. You have to in order to hang on to the trinity doctrine.
The scriptures are very clear from the minute we know God (one being) has a Son (obviously a different being). That's how all father and sons work in the nature God created Keith.
But you have to come out of nowhere and assert that a Father and Son are the same exact being. This is only the first of many crazy thoughts you have to agree to in order to believe the trinity.
How about the thought that Jesus WAS God, then emptied himself to become man, then was raised back to an even higher position than the one he left, but is lower than God now. He is the SERVANT who sits at the right hand of the One he calls “my God”. Does that make sense Keith? The being of God calls the being of God “my God”? 4 separate scriptures tell us that even after being raised, he is still a SERVANT of God.
These are just a couple of the scriptural FACTS that you guys try to overcome with nonsensical notions.
You say “only begotten” didn't really mean “only begotten”, although it was used 3 times in Luke to signify an only begotten child.
You say “firstborn of all creation” really meant “preeminent over mankind”. You offer no proof of this though. Throughout the Bible, firstborn either means the one who was born first, or another who inherited the rights away from the one who was born first. If Jesus didn't inherit those rights away from the REAL firstborn, then it means he was the one born first. Yet you stick with your assertions for which you have no proof.
And then you slam me for using Eusebius and Ignatius? Have you forgotten that I didn't even know either of their names until YOU brought both of them up here?
And now you want them to disappear because they reenforce the fact that only begotten meant what it said and firstborn of all creation meant what it said? Well too bad. Whine all you want. You entered them into the field of play, not me.
And as of right now, your poll is 6 for before the ages, 2 for of Mary, 0 for baptism, and 3 for raised. The people who believe like me are more than all the others put together.
And if Ignatius and Eusebius could vote, we'd have 8 on our side right now.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:09) What scripture do you have that says Jesus was literrally born from the Father by procreation?
How about the one that says you are my Son, I have begotten you?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:09) 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.
Actually, John calls him the only begotten god.It is Jesus who later tells Nicodemus that God SENT His only begotten Son INTO THE WORLD.
mike
By the way, good diversion…..it almost worked.
I'm still waiting for a DIRECT answer to my DIRECT question.
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
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:11) Mike Nobody wants to drink your muddy water.
Keith, the water I spoke of was scripture. And you are correct that you, for one, do not want to drink.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 19 2010,02:11) Mikeboll said to WorshippingJesus: Quote 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 YET ANOTHER CONCESSION FROM MIKE!
the Roo
Jack, it is clear to see from the quote box that it was WJ who made that statement, not me.We have been debating this for months. You KNOW I don't believe this and wouldn't say it.
This is the same thing that happened last week in WJ's poll. You need to stop attributing things you guys say to me.
You have been warned again.
Moderator
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2010,12:56) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 19 2010,02:11) Mikeboll said to WorshippingJesus: Quote 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 YET ANOTHER CONCESSION FROM MIKE!
the Roo
Jack, it is clear to see from the quote box that it was WJ who made that statement, not me.We have been debating this for months. You KNOW I don't believe this and wouldn't say it.
This is the same thing that happened last week in WJ's poll. You need to stop attributing things you guys say to me.
You have been warned again.
Moderator
Mike,You're right man and I apologize. Please forgive me. This is another indication that I need to take a break for a couple of weeks. I have been making too many mistakes and I have become more impatient lately so I will take a break.
Again I apologize.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
