Born and begotten

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:16)

Mike I 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.

Keith, you are right. That IS the point. Does it sound like the church father Eusebius agreed with YOU? He wouldn't agree to the “one essence” part until he was assured that they meant Jesus was FROM the essence of the Father, but a completely different being that was begotten BY the Father.

Ignatius says the Father is the only unbegotten who was the Begetter of the only begotten Son.

Come on man. How much do you need?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:54)

Mike JA 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 5:1

WJ,

Didn't we just go through this?  From page 75 of this thread:

You said:

Quote

The word for begotten is “gennaō” which means; 1) of men who fathered children   A) to be born   B) to be begotten      1) of women giving birth to children      2) metaph.          a) to engender, cause to arise, excite          b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over  to his way of life, to convert someone          c) of God making Christ his son          d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work Do you see the highlighted bold parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”!

Yes, I see them “loud and clear” Keith.  And you have to know that most lexicons and Greek dictionaries are made by admitted trinitarians……..Strong was one for example.  So when you see certain definitions like 1-B-2-c above, you must take them with a grain of salt.  What does 1-B-2-c really mean anyway?  What way is it actually saying that Jesus became God's Son?  It's rather vague, don't you think?  It gives no clue whatsoever as to the way Christ became begotten by God.

Just as another example of these “trinitarian” lexicons, look up the word Jesus.  One of the definitions will be “the second person in the Trinity Godhead”.  Look up “holy spirit” and it will say “the third person in the Trinity Godhead”.  Should thinking people really take these bogus definitions seriously?  They are defining words from scriptures, yet scripture never mentions anything about a trinity or the “rank” of the persons in it.  By the same token, should we take this bogus 1-B-2-c definition above seriously?  Does scripture ever allude to the fact that the begetting of Jesus was anything other than the begetting of anyone else……in other words, “caused to exist by his Father”?  Is there any reason given that the words “yalad” and “gennao” should be taken metaphorically in reference to Jesus?

So I will dismiss definition 1-B-2-c as readily as I dismiss the other definitions that refer to a trinity.  So that leaves us definition 1, or definition 1-B-2-b, or definition 1-B-2-d.  Notice that these last two are metaphorical uses of the word and neither fits with the begetting of Jesus by his God.  

In fact, 1-B-2-b is exactly what I was just saying above about Paul.  Your source actually confirms that it was a metaphorical “begetting” Paul was speaking of.  Which again, does NOT change the actual definition of the word itself.

So this 1 John verse is most likely definition 1-B-2-d, right?  So it doesn't mean a literal begetting, right?  Now, does 1-B-2-d apply to the begetting of Jesus?  NO.  You can't seriously use 1-B-2-c because it's not even a defintion, so what other choices are there Keith?

Remember, this is YOUR info on “gennao”.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,03:03)

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. Mike When 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

God is not a human, so your “points” are non-points.

And there are many scriptures about it. You know WJ, we have a couple of debates going…….one of them on this exact topic.

Why don't you get back to that one so we can get through this point by point. All I'm doing here is posting scripture and supporting evidence, but you guys don't want to answer to the evidence. You don't want to deal with what the scriptures, Eusebius or Ignatius actually say, you just want to twist them all and assert that I'm misunderstanding.

It's just a big repetition of insults from you guys. When will you answer to what the man who was said to be “the greatest Greek teacher and most learned theologian of his day” had to say?

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,10:11)

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

To All

The above quote was my quote and when I read that post I didn't even recognize it was mine.

I believe it was an honest mistake by Jack and shows that we all can make mistakes.

Surly everyone knows that Jack would have never thought he could get away with such if he knew it was not what Mike said.

Jack has shown a repentant heart and that speaks volumes.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi all

In regards to my post above it seems that the quote that Jack said Mike had made is not far off from the truth. This is a quote of Mikes in another thread…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,18:50)

I personally believe the scriptures speak of three begettings of Jesus.  One before time as we know it, one as a human, and one as a “re-begetting” after he died.

Found Here 3rd post down

Its things like this that keeps everyone confused about what Mike believes.

Now he is admiting that Jesus was “begotten” after his death which there are scriptures for, so does that mean to Mike that Jesus was litterally born from the dead. Did death procreate Jesus? Does death have a womb now? Does death bring ltteral birth to a living being? Foolishness. This is proof that “begotten” is not always procreation or a literral birthing.

Or is it that Jesus is the “firstfruits” of those that are raised from the dead?

The “firstfruits”  is one of the feast that the Israelites celebrated which were types and shadows of the reality that Jesus totally fulfilled. This is why Jesus is called the “firstborn”.

If this meant that Jesus died (ceased to exist) and then was litterally “born” or procreated again, then he would not be the same person that died. Hence there is no “resurrection” but simply the making of a “New creation”. Lies.

But where is the scripture that says Jesus was “Begotten” before time, since that is what mike says he believes?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2010,02:54) Mike JA 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 5:1 WJ, Didn't we just go through this?  From page 75 of this thread: You said: Quote The word for begotten is “gennaō” which means; 1) of men who fathered children   A) to be born   B) to be begotten      1) of women giving birth to children      2) metaph.          a) to engender, cause to arise, excite          b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over  to his way of life, to convert someone          c) of God making Christ his son          d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work Do you see the highlighted bold parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”! Yes, I see them “loud and clear” Keith.  And you have to know that most lexicons and Greek dictionaries are made by admitted trinitarians……..Strong was one for example.

Mike
 
This is so hypocritical and such a lame point. You use Strongs and lexicons all the time and now since it doesn't agree with you, you claim bias with Strongs and the Lexicons because they are Trinitarian.

Whats a matter Mike? You don't like that 1 John 5:1 says we are “begotten” (“gennaō”) of God though we already existed when we were “begotten”.

You were berating JA for not giving you the scripture. You asked JA to show you a scripture where we are begotten didn't you? There are others BTW Mike, but I figured it might be too much for you at one time to swallow.  

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

So when you see certain definitions like 1-B-2-c above, you must take them with a grain of salt.

Oh I see, that is kind of like you accepting certain scriptures with a grain of salt? So this is what it comes down to for you Mike, that you want us to take “Strongs” and the Lexicons with a grain of salt? How about if we take what you say with a grain of salt. Since when does a man who studied the Bible for 2 years know more than they?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

[What does 1-B-2-c really mean anyway?  What way is it actually saying that Jesus became God's Son?  It's rather vague, don't you think?  It gives no clue whatsoever as to the way Christ became begotten by God.

So you deny that Jesus who already existed was begotten (“gennaō”) at his natural birth.

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

Notice the Angel said he “shall be called the Son of God”?  Was he born the “Son of God” or not?

He preexisted his “begetting” here didn't he? Get the point?

Mike with your own lips you confess that Jesus was begotten after he came into this world…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,18:50)

I personally believe the scriptures speak of three begettings of Jesus.  One before time as we know it, one as a human, and one as a “re-begetting” after he died.

Found Here 3rd post down

So once again where is the scripture that says Jesus was “begotten” or literrally born from the Father before the ages or time?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

Just as another example of these “trinitarian” lexicons, look up the word Jesus.  One of the definitions will be “the second person in the Trinity Godhead”.  Look up “holy spirit” and it will say “the third person in the Trinity Godhead”.  Should thinking people really take these bogus definitions seriously?

Yes of course “wha wha” about the Trinitarians, do you need some tissues? That’s what it comes down to since you cannot prove your point by using the resources available.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

They are defining words from scriptures, yet scripture never mentions anything about a trinity or the “rank” of the persons in it.  By the same token, should we take this bogus 1-B-2-c definition above seriously?

No Mike, you can treat it like you do the scriptures like 1 John 5:1 and Pss 2:7 and John 1:1 etc.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

Does scripture ever allude to the fact that the begetting of Jesus was anything other than the begetting of anyone else……in other words, “caused to exist by his Father”?  Is there any reason given that the words “yalad” and “gennao” should be taken metaphorically in reference to Jesus?

Yes there is plenty of reason. Like the fact that the words do not always mean to procreate and there are plenty examples of such.

But the biggest reason is we do not have a scripture that says Jesus was begotten before the ages or time, do we Mike?

Jesus was before all things and by him all things came into being including time.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

So I will dismiss definition 1-B-2-c as readily as I dismiss the other definitions that refer to a trinity.  So that leaves us definition 1, or definition 1-B-2-b, or definition 1-B-2-d.  Notice that these last two are metaphorical uses of the word and neither fits with the begetting of Jesus by his God.   In fact, 1-B-2-b is exactly what I was just saying above about Paul.  Your source actually confirms that it was a metaphorical “begetting” Paul was speaking of.  Which again, does NOT change the actual definition of the word itself.

It doesn’t matter, the point is they were “begotten” after they already existed.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

So this 1 John verse is most likely definition 1-B-2-d, right?  So it doesn't mean a literal begetting, right?

Thanks Mike, this is what we have been trying to tell you all along.

Now can you show us a scripture that says Jesus was begotten (“gennaō”) before the ages or time?

Pss 2:7 doesn’t cut it for it says I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee.?

What is hillarious and ironic is you berate the Trinitarians and “Strong” and yet you try to use “Strongs” to explain away “This day”.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,21:46)

Now, does 1-B-2-d apply to the begetting of Jesus?  NO.  You can't seriously use 1-B-2-c because it's not even a defintion, so what other choices are there Keith?   Remember, this is YOUR info on “gennao”.

And you can’t seriously believe there was a period of time before time can you? What other choice do you have?

Where is the scripture that says Jesus was “Begotten” before the ages or time?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 18 2010,19:09)

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.

But the waters already existed and Jesus was there before the waters.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi Keith,

My you sure have a lot of time to post here…….yet you seem unable to find time to post in our “one point at at time” debate, where btw we are debating this same issue.

I wonder why….   Could it be that you prefer it over here where you can twist my thoughts around and make it seem like I'm flip-flopping?  Come back to the debate Keith.  I spent hours refuting all the crap you said yesterday, and now there's twice as much today.  

Listen closely………………………………….
I believe the Jesus was begotten by God as the firstborn of all creation.  

I believe that Jesus was later begotten/born of God and Mary as a flesh and blood man.

Your main man Ignatius agrees EXACTLY with these two.

I believe that Jesus died, was completely dead in the same way we all are when we die, and was begotten/born for a third time from the dead.  By whom?  You play games and ask if death has a womb and other insulting stuff…..why?  Are those ridicules designed to find out what I believe and discuss it, or only meant to insult and divert?

NO KEITH…….NOT BY DEATH.  He was begotten/born again FROM death BY his God.  

This is the best part: Scripture NEVER implies the begetting of Jesus is a metaphorical begetting, so I do NOT believe that.

So did you get all of that? I did not “flip-flop” or go back on anything I said, and at the same time, I never asserted that Jesus' begetting from death was a metaphorical one.

I have no time to play the “flood and run” game with you.  Answer in our debate.  My last post has been waiting for a response from you for 3 or 4 weeks now. We will eventually hit each one of these points we've posted here over there. And I'd rather do it where you can't flood, divert and run.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 20 2010,02:52)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,10:11) 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 To All The above quote was my quote and when I read that post I didn't even recognize it was mine. I believe it was an honest mistake by Jack and shows that we all can make mistakes. Surly everyone knows that Jack would have never thought he could get away with such if he knew it was not what Mike said. Jack has shown a repentant heart and that speaks volumes. WJ

Keith, you tell me what YOU would do.

Last Sunday, Jack misrepresented something I said.  I warned him.

Yesterday, he took your words and applied them to me.  I warned him.

In the very next post, he misrepresented me for the 3rd time in 4 days.  This was the post:

Quote

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

You and I both know that's not what was said……..this was:

Quote

Hi WJ, You said: Quote   Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? I said: Quote   Not that scripture records.

When he got the warning last night, he pm'd to apologize and I mentioned that I had just read this third infraction.  Well, long story short, we had a pm war.     He said what you did: that everyone makes mistakes.  And so I told him to fix this third one like he fixed the other two, but he refused.  I asked him what the problem was…….”you misspoke, now you go and make it right”.  He still refused.  I told him if I had to research and fix it myself, I'd add another block for his refusal to fix what he knew he broke.

Well, he didn't fix it.  What would YOU as moderator do?  I'm not power tripping or out to get Jack.  While Jack hates me, I like him tremendously.  It is you and Jack that bring me the most entertainment on HN.  AND you two are my impotus to research scripture deeply to refute the unscriptural things you believe.

I don't want Jack gone.  I just want him to realize that he has to take responsibility for what he posts.  One cannot just go around putting words in other people's mouths with no repercussions, right?

So you decide WJ.  Block or no block. What would you do if the person that kept getting words falsely put into his mouth was you? What would you do if you called it to the person's attention and they still refused to fix it?

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2010,19:50)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 20 2010,02:52) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,10:11) 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 To All The above quote was my quote and when I read that post I didn't even recognize it was mine. I believe it was an honest mistake by Jack and shows that we all can make mistakes. Surly everyone knows that Jack would have never thought he could get away with such if he knew it was not what Mike said. Jack has shown a repentant heart and that speaks volumes. WJ Keith, you tell me what YOU would do. Last Sunday, Jack misrepresented something I said.  I warned him. Yesterday, he took your words and applied them to me.  I warned him. In the very next post, he misrepresented me for the 3rd time in 4 days.  This was the post: Quote 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 You and I both know that's not what was said……..this was: Quote Hi WJ, You said: Quote   Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? I said: Quote   Not that scripture records. When he got the warning last night, he pm'd to apologize and I mentioned that I had just read this third infraction.  Well, long story short, we had a pm war.     He said what you did: that everyone makes mistakes.  And so I told him to fix this third one like he fixed the other two, but he refused.  I asked him what the problem was…….”you misspoke, now you go and make it right”.  He still refused.  I told him if I had to research and fix it myself, I'd add another block for his refusal to fix what he knew he broke. Well, he didn't fix it.  What would YOU as moderator do?  I'm not power tripping or out to get Jack.  While Jack hates me, I like him tremendously.  It is you and Jack that bring me the most entertainment on HN.  AND you two are my impotus to research scripture deeply to refute the unscriptural things you believe. I don't want Jack gone.  I just want him to realize that he has to take responsibility for what he posts.  One cannot just go around putting words in other people's mouths with no repercussions, right? So you decide WJ.  Block or no block.  What would you do if the person that kept getting words falsely put into his mouth was you?  What would you do if you called it to the person's attention and they still refused to fix it? peace and love, mike

Mike

I will tell you what I would do. It is obvious that Jack did not purposely misquote you.

Regardless of what he previously did, if you didn't give him a mark then you should not give him one now.

Personally I think a Moderator should not be so active in the post for it becomes to personal and unless you are perfect, human tendencys to bias will always have a part in decision making.

t8 limits his time here and he seems to be far more patient and forgiving than you. t8 and NH has had to put up with me for several years and not once have they given me a mark.

We had a guy on here a couple years ago by the name of Kenrch who was very abusive and t8 was very patient with him for a very long time before he finally wa banned.

I think he is the only believer that I know of that has been banned since I have been here.

WJ

[JustAskin]

Hi Mike,

I see you listed your beliefs on 'Begotten'.

Excellent. So now that episode can be closed.

Did I not suggest that if you simply believe that 'Begotten' (preJesus) was the time when 'preJesus' came into existence, then all is well. I think this is what you are saying, yes?.

But as to the quotes, '…this day…' I see Jack stating that preJesus was 'there before the first day'.

Do you disagree with this?

Map it out please…

PreJesus is 'Begotten' by God before the day.., and … God says to him, 'You are my Son. This day [that doesn't yet exist because we are immortal and time is only for mankind who we will create after we invent time, cause it to exist as a measure of their mortal existence] I have begotten you.'

Then, preJesus creates the
Angels…preJesus begets the Angels.
Why does preJesus not call the Angels, 'his Sons' seeing that he 'begot' them?

And since preJesus created All things, then Adam was also, must also, be created by him. Therefore, Adam is begotten to preJesus, and Adam must call preJesus, 'Father'…

Mike, this is a sketch of your theory.

Does it make sense?

Or else, please sketch your version in your own words, please.

[terraricca]

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 21 2010,13:53)

Hi Mike, I see you listed your beliefs on 'Begotten'. Excellent. So now that episode can be closed. Did I not suggest that if you simply believe that 'Begotten' (preJesus) was the time when 'preJesus' came into existence, then all is well. I think this is what you are saying, yes?. But as to the quotes, '…this day…' I see Jack stating that preJesus was 'there before the first day'. Do you disagree with this? Map it out please… PreJesus is 'Begotten' by God before the day.., and … God says to him, 'You are my Son. This day [that doesn't yet exist because we are immortal and time is only for mankind who we will create after we invent time, cause it to exist as a measure of their mortal existence] I have begotten you.' Then, preJesus creates the Angels…preJesus begets the Angels. Why does preJesus not call the Angels, 'his Sons' seeing that he 'begot' them? And since preJesus created All things, then Adam was also, must also, be created by him. Therefore, Adam is begotten to preJesus, and Adam must call preJesus, 'Father'… Mike, this is a sketch of your theory. Does it make sense? Or else, please sketch your version in your own words, please.

hi JA

your question;But as to the quotes, '…this day…' I see Jack stating that preJesus was 'there before the first day'

what someone may also have to consider is time in Gods view;
like his seventh day what his is rest day for creation;
and that this is the day that is talk about in John,and not a men s day of 24 hours.

again this will be right in consideration that Gods plan will be a new after that seventh day comes to past.

Love you brother

Pierre

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 19 2010,18:51)

Hi Keith, My you sure have a lot of time to post here…….yet you seem unable to find time to post in our “one point at at time” debate, where btw we are debating this same issue.

Mike

No I really don't have a lot of time. Your post is totally off point and just full of ad hominems.

The posts I made above were in response to your one post point by point.

They were simple points and I notice you didn't address them point by point but instead you just created another long post full of a bunch of accusations and junk that is untrue.

This seems to be the way it is with you Mike, I touch on every point you make in a post and then you abandon my points and create a whole new post and then cry about post being to big and addressing things point by point.

That is what you have constantly done in the debates thread.

Come on man. As far as the debate I have already decided I am not going to keep chasing your rabbit trails and making the same points over and over again only for you to complain.

So I will be answering your post but I will make a final post and then I am done with you and you can do what you want with the debate.

I will be at a family reunion Sat and Sun and won't be back until Monday.

Later Keith

[JustAskin]

Hi Terra, bro, where ya been?

Yeah, earthbound ones believe that the infinite God was in such a rush to create earth and all within that he created it all(brought about the creation of it through His Word) in six rotations of the planet….unless, hey, what if…one rotation of the earth took 100,000,000 years??

[Author]

Posts