Born and begotten

Blocked

Hi Keith,

You said:

Quote

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

Maybe I'll try misrepresenting what YOU said and see if you're as forgiving. What about his refusal to fix what I let him know he broke?

You said:

Quote

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.

When t8 asked, I didn't even answer the pm for a couple of days. And when I finally did, my only concern was that I could keep posting as I had been previously……including dishing out to Jack in the same manner he dishes it out to me.

You said:

Quote

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.

If you only knew the truth. I've been a moderator for months now, and I've given only two warnings – both in the last week, and both to Jack. I can't just let him keep posting what he must know to be lies. Think about it……why would I say the same words I've been arguing against for so long?

As far as you go, I haven't ever seen you say anything that merited a block since I've been on HN. Do you think you and Jack are the same?

I'm not going to give the third warning, although I should just because he flat out refused to fix it after I brought it to his attention. But I will not hold back anymore. If you post lies about what someone else said, you will get a block……..it's that simple.

peace and love,
mike

August 21, 2010 at 3:23 pm#213221

Blocked

Hi JA,

You said:

Quote

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?.

Yes that is what I'm saying. And you seem to always point out “pre” Jesus……why? While scripture doesn't say that was God's Son's name before flesh, it doesn't rule out that possibility either. Think about it. God has a personal name – Jehovah. The arch angel is not just called “the arch-angel”…..he has a personal name – Michael. And then there's Gabriel. So why do you think Jesus couldn't have been named Jesus from his very beginning? Do you think the angels just addressed him as, “Hey Word! What's happening?” or “How's it going Son of God?”

You said:

Quote

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

Do you disagree with this?

Jesus must have been there before “all things” because “all things” came into being through him. Do you disagree with THIS?

You said:

Quote

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.'

By your logic, the scriptures are wrong and “all things” did NOT come into being through God's Son. The 3 J's hinge their whole theory on the word “Today”, which I've showed could also mean “at this time” or “during this period”, etc. And on top of it, you assume without any scriptural backing that “time is only for mankind”. Where did you learn this?

You said:

Quote

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

Do you not know scripture JA? God caused all things to exist, and He did it THROUGH Jesus. How do you leap from that to insinuating Jesus must have “begotten the angels”? God created the angels THROUGH Jesus, who must have then already been in existence. Do you agree with this?

The same follows about Adam. God created man THROUGH Jesus. God is the Father, Jesus is the “means” by which He created. At least that's what the scriptures say. Who do you think God was talking to when He said, “Let US make man in OUR image”?

So no, YOUR rendering of MY “theory” doesn't make sense at all. But my actual “theory” is simply what the scriptures teach.

God begot an only Son. God created everything, including all of the angels, THROUGH that only begotten Son. That only begotten Son later was made in the likeness of a human being and was killed. God raised him from the dead and he is again God's only begotten Son. Any questions?

peace and love,
mike

August 21, 2010 at 3:56 pm#213227

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 21 2010,09:58)

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.

Yeah Keith,

You, Jack, Dennison and JA have all said that about my posts. You can put whatever spin you want on it, but the bottom line is that when I finally nail one of your “proofs” down and back you into a corner with it, you cry “rabbit trail”.

You just know that flooding is the only way to advance your flawed man-made doctrine. And to prove it, here is just one of your posts where you “addressed my point” for an example:

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”.

So is it your contention Keith, that the defintion “of God making Christ his Son” is a real defintion? Can you tell me what those words actually define? When I look up “Jesus”, and it says “the second person in the trinity”, should I take that as a REAL definition? Please actually address these questions this time, Mr. Flood and Run.

You said:

Quote

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”.

I have no problem with it at all. It is listed under the “metaphorical begettings” from you source. JA and I have discussed the metaphrical use of Paul begetting Onesimus long before this thread was even started…….I completely understand that is was on a few rare occasions used metaphrically. My question is what scripture alludes to the fact that the begetting of Jesus was a metaphorical one? Could you answer this question?

Do you see how you “address my points” in a public thread? I asked about a “non-definition” that your source gave, and you say I'm whining about Strong.

I ask how you know Jesus' begetting is metaphorical, and you rail about 1 John, which I have no problem at all with.

That's why I like getting you in a debate thread. You cannot flood and run. I posted to “Shimmer and All” about the word “yalad” a while back, and for one post, you tried to come up with uses of yalad that didn't mean “born”. I showed you where all three of you examples DID mean “born”, and heard nothing back from you. I researched Eusebius and Ignatius a little and showed where they understood as I do, and you won't touch that discussion with a 10 foot pole. I've asked questions like, “Why is it the Father with the Word in John 1:1, not the holy spirit?”, and you just flood and run.

If you're afraid to defend your claims in a debate where I refuse to let you flood and run, I understand. But just don't try to use “rabbit trails” as an excuse Keith. It is a lie and beneath you.

mike

August 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm#213233

Participant

Mike,

Do you mean that all this time, these days, over this period, you simply meant that 'Begotten' means when 'Jesus' came into being?

Can you explain why you did not explain this in the beginning?

Do you mean this was all a pointless exercise. A waste of energy. Falling apart of relationships and unity. Exposure of lack of begotten brothership?

Well, well… So it was for a purpose, then.

Did I read wrong somewhere you wrote that 'Jesus' created the Angels?

Mike, what does it feel like when you twist and turn, wriggle and writhe, slip and slide creep and crawl, flip and flap when posting?
You learnt this from your true brothers, WJ and Roo.

No wonder you love debating with them so much. Like meets like.

You dismiss Scripture just to save your own argument?

Nothing is written for no reason. Yet, Mikeboll says, 'Today' means nothing.
Can we all dismiss what we like, when we like, how we like and redefine meaning of words that are clear and unambiguous? Then Scriptures is pointless. Everything is pointless, for everyone can then find a new definition for anything they want to prove or disprove.

Gospel, Scriptures, the Testament of Christ, is made null and void through Mikeboll64.

There is no point in asking me about Jesus' preExistence because there is no difference, as such, from what you believe. Why did you ask? My point was that if Jesus created all things, included man, then he is the father of that creation and therefore sentient man is his son.
But, as you say, 'created by God' through 'Jesus', so you make a warrantable recovery, phew…!

And the Angels….this part puzzles me? Jesus 'creates the Spirits', how? They are pure Spirit from God. Why the intermediatory of Jesus? God takes His Spirit and creates Sons, Spirit—>Spirit…?
Mankind, yes, because we know that Angels can create flesh and bone bodies…they are 'dust' of the earth (Atomic elements) but they cannot put a seperate spirit in them for these come 'directly' from God (they placed themselves, their own Spirit into them).

Mike, when you find yourself 'making things up'…stop and ask why?? Who is feeding you this thought?? Who is giving you the pleasure sensation when you say,' yeah, this will get me out of that hole'. This is what your 'brothers' WJ and Roo, do, and well you know that.

This is what comes of 'Debate'. The point of 'debate' is to have fun with argument, and you sure know how to do that, to your discredit.
'Never give ground, just move the goal posts' seems to be the motto of 'Mikeboll64' debate.

I only just realised that you only been reading Scriptures for 2 years…or so, i think i read, and man, it shows…. Man, you sure full of yourself….
I particularly like the part where you dispute something I wrote with a surety…then…admit that you never knew that part of Scripture.
Mike, how do you do that without a conscience….: JA: 'i saw a Mazzarratti car this morning'…Mikeboll64: 'There's no such thing, and anyway, it's green….what is a Mazzarratti, anyway?I know you are a car expert and I've only just started learning about them but I never heard of it before'. Eh?

August 21, 2010 at 5:42 pm#213243

Ed J

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,02:23)

Hi JA,

You said:

Quote

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?.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,

HA Ha ha, Ha ha ha ha.
Hey word, let me ask you something?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

August 21, 2010 at 6:26 pm#213250

Participant

Strain at a gnat…

Mike, the emphasis on 'preJesus' which could be ignored , was simply to state the difference between Jesus as Man and Jesus before he was man, as Angel.

This then goes along with my question of 'did God send JESUS' into the world…as stated by Jesus himself or did he send his Servant who became known as Jesus by God's command.

You yourself say to WJ that resurrected Jesus is even now 'a Servant of God'. (Sorry, Servant = Angel, was that to someone else?)

Scriptures does not state Jesus' name before he came to eath and it matters not. There is nothing relevant about it, lest we come to worship Jesus for it and SIN.
Therefore, I say, preJesus. “Which is easier to say”,'preJesus', or 'He who became known as Jesus through birth as man from Mary who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit of God'?
I think, 'preJesus' is easier!
And by this it is understood the contextual difference between Jesus before he was man, and Jesus as man without having to state it. A kind of 'shorthand'mif you like.

Your comment, whymsical,yes. At least you still got that going for you.

August 21, 2010 at 6:28 pm#213251

Participant

Mike,
Did you ever answer that question? Third time of asking?

August 21, 2010 at 6:56 pm#213254

Blocked

JA:

Quote

Do you mean that all this time, these days, over this period, you simply meant that 'Begotten' means when 'Jesus' came into being?

I don't know where you had any other idea from me. Jesus was begotten by God as his beginning, that's all. When he is called “the only begotten Son of God”, it is because he was literally begotten by God. The word has the same meaning of “caused to exist” as it does when used of a whole slew of people in Genesis 5.

JA:

Quote

Did I read wrong somewhere you wrote that 'Jesus' created the Angels?

I know the angels came into creation THROUGH Jesus. God is the One who actually caused anything we know to be, but He did it through Jesus. I might have said “co-creator”, in which case I always add the quote marks to indicate he is NOT an equal partner with God.

JA:

Quote

Nothing is written for no reason. Yet, Mikeboll says, 'Today' means nothing.

I'm showed you that:
1. The Hebrew word used for the “today” of Psalm 2:7 was “yowm”, and that word means:
yowm 1) day, time, year
It could be translated as “today”, or “at this time”, or even “this year”.

2. The first mission Paul took upon himself after regaining his sight was to tell people that Jesus was in fact the Son of God Himself:
Acts 9:20
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.

3. No other early Christian scholar seems to have understood the “today” in Hebrews and Acts as meaning that's when Jesus somehow mystically “begotten” as God's Son, so why do you? You can't even tell me which “today” it means. Was it the “today” he came out of the tomb, or the “today” that he was taken up to heaven? There were 39 “todays” in between these two events, so which “today” was it that Paul spoke of?

4. Paul speaks of a promise being fulfilled by Jesus being raised. What was the promise? Did God somewhere in scripture promise that someday he would apply the title of begotten to someone who was already his Son?

Do you get any of my points at all? While you jump on the Keith and Jack bandwagon of personally ridiculing me for saying the word “today” isn't important, you neglect to see the point I was making by that statement. The point is “Why is the word “today” in Psalm 2:7 so important to the 3 J's? It didn't seem to have any major bearing on what the disciples and early Christians believed. Paul only says the word because it was in the Hebrew that he was quoting.

And the bottom line is that there is absolutely NOTHING in scripture to indicate Jesus' begetting by his Father and God was anything but literal, so you guys have nothing else BUT the “today” word that Paul quotes to try and make your case.

JA:

Quote

But, as you say, 'created by God' through 'Jesus', so you make a warrantable recovery, phew…!

I've never implied anything different, because I only believe what scripture says. And I don't think you ever answered how knowing that scripture says all things came to be FROM God THROUGH Jesus fits in with your “Satan was the real firstborn” theory.

JA:

Quote

Again with the “Jesus creates” stuff. And then you add to your “firstborn Satan” theory your imagined belief that angels can create flesh and bone bodies which I have never read in scripture. And you imagine that the spirit body of an angel cannot be separate from the God who created that angel. Well God's spirit is the only thing that keeps man alive as well, does that mean we are not seperate entities from God? Why would you think angels aren't?

You see the stuff which is only your conjecture that you post as scriptural fact? And then you tell me,

Quote

Gospel, Scriptures, the Testament of Christ, is made null and void through Mikeboll64.

Hmmmmm……..

August 21, 2010 at 7:04 pm#213255

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,05:26)

Hi JA,

That is my point……why not just say “Jesus”? We know from the context of what you say whether you are talking about before or after flesh “Jesus”, so why make a point of it at all?

Do what you want, I just think it is unecessary to even add the “pre”, as if it could be someone else you're talking about.

To each their own.

mike

August 21, 2010 at 7:06 pm#213257

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,05:28)

Mike,
Did you ever answer that question? Third time of asking?

And once again, since you don't list quotes or scriptures, I have no idea what question you're talking about. Just like when you make claims that angels “produced” men's bodies, you list no scripture to back your claim, so why would anyone take you seriously?

mike

August 21, 2010 at 7:24 pm#213263

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,14:06)

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,05:28)

Mike,
Did you ever answer that question? Third time of asking?

mike

Mike,

Can you explain why the people don't want to say that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation or that he is the only begotten son of God?

Begotten has two definitions:
1-Being born thru pro-creation
2-The act of fathering a child

The end result is the same: A child is being born.

The Professor

August 21, 2010 at 8:06 pm#213281

Participant

dbf,
You only list the meanings you want to side with.

It also means, 'being raised up' and 'adopted'.

Mike, you know full well what question I am referring to.

But just for the hardheaded: the one I asked you in the previous post.
Was Jesus called 'Jesus' before he came to earth such that he says,'…that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.'

This in a point of semantics, in the same way that the meaning behind 'This day..' is semantic.

Just to answer you, in case it was too hard for you. No, Jesus was not called 'Jesus' before he came to earth as man. Therefore Jesus is referring to himself in the present even though he was referencing the past.
In the same semantic sense, '..this day…' referring to David, is used in the present for Jesus even though spoken of in the past.

All the references surrounding the 'begotten' quotes – all three times – are 'present' times, present meaning 'his resurrection', being made king…nothing in any of the text is past concerning before his manship. So why suddenly drop into the past, preMan.

August 21, 2010 at 9:56 pm#213293

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,15:06)

dbf,
You only list the meanings you want to side with.

It also means, 'being raised up' and 'adopted'.

Mike, you know full well what question I am referring to.

This in a point of semantics, in the same way that the meaning behind 'This day..' is semantic.

Hi JA,

But when you tie it into the firstborn of all creation, it is obvious that it is not referring to an adoption.

Nor when God says He sent His only begotten son, is it talking about His only adopted son because, we, too, are adopted sons of His.

The Professor

August 22, 2010 at 12:55 am#213341

Blocked

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 22 2010,06:24)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,14:06)

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,05:28)

Mike,
Did you ever answer that question? Third time of asking?

mike

Mike,

Can you explain why the people don't want to say that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation or that he is the only begotten son of God?

Begotten has two definitions:
1-Being born thru pro-creation
2-The act of fathering a child

The end result is the same: A child is being born.

The Professor

Hi David,

The people who don't think Jesus was begotten before all ages and the firstborn of creation and the beginning of the creation of God seem to come from two camps, plus JA.

Camp 1 – Trinitarians:
They can't possibly have the word “begotten” really mean begotten or else it would mean Jesus had a beginning, and therefore shoot down their flawed man-made co-eternal trinity plan.

Camp 2 – Non-preexisters:
These guys DO think Jesus had a beginning, but must move the begetting to a later date than “before all ages” because they long so badly for Jesus to have been “exactly like us” which makes them feel like they can do anything he did and overcome anything he did.

Camp 3 – JA:
He can't have the “begotten” mean a literal begetting because his fractal mind has him convinced that Satan was God's REAL firstborn, and Jesus was the replacement after Satan messed up, and therefore Jesus was “appointed” the “title” or “postition” of “only begotten Son of God”.

And in a strange twist of “fate”, they can all three gang up and dismantle the “firstborn of all creation” by saying it really meant “preeminent over mankind”. And they can refute the “beginning of the creation of God” by saying “RULER of the creation of God”, since the Greek word “arche” can mean either.

So there you have it David. Paul and John used the word “begotten” metaphorically, so they want to apply that metaphoric use to Jesus, even though there's no scriptural reason for it. And they want to pretend “firstborn of every creature” doesn't really mean what it says, even though there's no scriptural reason for it.

Any questions?

mike

August 22, 2010 at 1:09 am#213342

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,07:06)

Mike, you know full well what question I am referring to.

Hi JA,

First, I had no idea this was the question to which you referred because I thought you considered it sort of a “non-issue”, as I do. So don't call me hardheaded just because you're too lazy to cut and paste.

JA:

Quote

'…that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.'

I think that makes a good point for him being known as Jesus even before we knew him as Jesus. And was he the Christ, or “anointed one” from the time God decided He would send him into the world? How about when he was born in the flesh? Was it from the time the Holy Spirit descended on him? Or was it when he actually died for us? Or maybe when he was raised? Peter says God made him the Christ be raising him, but he had to have been “anointed” before this, right? What did Peter mean?

What do you think?

mike

August 22, 2010 at 4:42 pm#213399

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,19:55)

Quote (davidbfun @ Aug. 22 2010,06:24)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,14:06)

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 22 2010,05:28)

Mike,
Did you ever answer that question? Third time of asking?

mike

Mike,

Can you explain why the people don't want to say that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation or that he is the only begotten son of God?

Begotten has two definitions:
1-Being born thru pro-creation
2-The act of fathering a child

The end result is the same: A child is being born.

The Professor

Hi David,

The people who don't think Jesus was begotten before all ages and the firstborn of creation and the beginning of the creation of God seem to come from two camps, plus JA.

Any questions?

mike

Mike,

Actually this is very informative, thanks.

Now what do they really gain by changing the Scriptures from literal to metaphorical?

The ones (Camp 1) who make Jesus = God in reality have created a “false god” and could be condemned.

Would they not be in risk of “destruction”?

Camp 2- All they get to do is ignore Scripture but still believe in Jesus as the son of God, right? Jesus was just like us in every way as the Bible says….EXCEPT that he is also the son of God. Or do they deny that Jesus is the son of God?

It does get tiresome to see people changing what the verse means without any Scriptural basis and then add IMO as if their opinions negate what the Bible says.

Especially born or begotten: The bottom line is that Jesus is not God whom he either came from (pro-created) or God created.

The Professor

August 22, 2010 at 8:26 pm#213424

Lightenup

Participant

David,
I'm wondering why you can't say that the Son is the begotten God? What is holding you back? Would God beget less than Himself. Does man beget less than man, or any does any example in creation beget an offspring of a different kind?

August 22, 2010 at 9:43 pm#213429

Blocked

Hi David and Kathi,

David, you are spot on with all you said in your last post. You and I and Kathi would make a very formiddible scriptural team against the non-preexisters and the trinitarians if we could stay on the topic and avoid the “holy spirit is a chick” and “Jesus is God in every sense that God is God” issues.

If we all just stuck to scripture, we could do some gaining up of our own, instead of always being divided and overwhelmed by the trinitarians and non-preexisters.

You two are both very scripturally and logically sharp, and I consider it an honor to learn from and with you both.

peace and love,
mike

August 23, 2010 at 3:36 pm#213508

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2010,15:26)

Hi Kathi,

It is basically the same that I don't say that Jesus is the begotten Man. Would you say this?

I've also tried to explain the ambiguity of the word “God” in English and Greek compared to various words for God in Hebrew. Replace “God” with His specific name.

Try replacing YHWH with “God” since you believe that YHWH is God, no? The son is the begotten YHWH. Amost sounds like re-incarnation, no?

Kathi, the daughter is the begotten “Robert” (place your father's name here). Does this make sense to you?
If it doesn't here, why would you say “Jesus, the son is the begotten God”? Ambiguous and confusing.

Unless you are trying to cause confusion, which I don't believe you are, why wouldn't you say, “the begotten son OF YHWH”? This way it is clear, to the point,causes no confusion and is easily understood without any explanations.

The (begotten) son of God is clear. The begotten (son) God, is not.

Also, when you eliminate the word “of” after begotten you are saying that Jesus = God.

Why doesn't the Bible put it in the order and way that you want to tell it? And why wouldn't you want to quote the Bible?

What is the purpose for not using the Bible and quoting “others”? Or what is gained by eliminating the word “of”? Only YOU can tell WHY you are doing this.

Me, I prefer using the Bible and then the people can dispute the written word and argue with “God”.

The Professor

August 23, 2010 at 3:44 pm#213510