- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,08:52) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) I believe that Beginnings is a poetitic way of saying that he has been around sinced the beginning just like the “word” was in the beginnning in John 1:1, the same way you believe that “eternity” is poetitic.
I don't believe “eternity” is “poetic”. I believe that “eternity” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “aion”.SF:
Quote However, there are notable exceptions to this in all major translations, such as Matthew 28:20….
so the question arises whether it should ever be so.
I would like to see the rest of the Article to understand that.
And “the path of truth” give simliar explanations of that.
But the point is that there are execptions, not that it literally means every single greek/hebrew Olam/Aion means only a partial of time.
I don't remember where Shimmer first posted it………you can ask her. She posted the link as I remember.And you are misreading what Young wrote. He said that one of the “exceptions” was Matt 28:20. It was an EXCEPTION because all major translations DON'T render the word “aion” as “eternity” in this verse. And he was saying that if they all make the “exception” of translating it as “end of the age” in Matt 28:20, then he wonders if it should EVER be translated as “eternity”.
mike
4. Actually mike The very first claims you made that eternity was “peotitcs” for antiquity or a real long time ago.
than later when shimmer made her post, you changed your mind.So you are basing your arugement over what another poster posted, with an article that we both have not read?
Thats like me continueing with the whole “activties” arguement blindly.
I would like to read the Article to make a correct assement on that.
Until than thats purely conjecture, even though I do Agree that at times “olam” and “aion” can be overexagerated terms used many times unfairly in the KJV, BUT that doesnt mean thats whats going on in Micah 5:2.
Because no matter how if it only means antiquity, or a really long time ago, it doesnt mean he was “caused to exist”http://www.thepathoftruth.com/cgi-bin….ver.htm
Check this site out, for the reasons why i agree with the terms.
Even though i dont believe this is nessarily true in all circumstances, I would need the proof to see that.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,09:00) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) Because your implying its says “Jesus was caused to exist” but it doesnt say that. It says his beginnigs/origins are from old/antiquity/eternity,
Your two sentences don't even make sense together D-Linquent.You say I imply “caused to exist”, but it only speaks of his “beginning”.
Wasn't your “beginning” at the exact point in time you were “caused to exist”? Was the earth's “beginning” refer to the time it was “caused to exist”?
I don't get you. You are being honest with yourself that it means “beginning”, yet in light of this knowledge, you are struggling to make the word “beginning” mean something other than “a point when something was caused to exist”.
SF:
Quote if your implication is correct that it could imply that Jesus was born around my grandmas time which is OLD for me.
Not unless your grandma's time was before Micah's.
Jesus beginning was “from days of antiquity” from the standpoint of Micah………not us. And Micah 5:2 doesn't imply Jesus was created……..only that he had a beginning.mike
5. Actually Mike,
There is only one beginning that started everything else.
And that happen in Genesis 1:1
Your focused on only one word Mike to imply that he had a beginning.
Yet its from the Distant past/antiquity/eternity
Actualy Scritpures say in “THE BEGINNING” the earth and heavens were created. It doesnt suggest (as you do) that Jesus was created before the “beginning of all things”
But thats what you assert.
Actually im not struggling with the word, the verse is very clear that he will be “born” “cause to exist” in Bethelehem but in reference that he is not from this plain.So your theory implies that Jesus was created from anytime between micah 5:2 and “before” the beginning of all things?
You Said:
Quote And Micah 5:2 doesn't imply Jesus was created……..only that he had a beginning.
EXPLAIN THIS TO ME….Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,09:08) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) So was God BORN or caused to exist because of his first acts?
Scripture never says God's “beginning” was from a certain point in time, does it?SF:
Quote No because you want to imply that Eternity is just a poetitics, so the same can be done for beginnings.
even the Context of the Word “arche” represents that fact.
arche 1) beginning, origin
ek 1) out of, from, by, away from
so it wouldnt matter if it did only say beginning,
The very next word represents everything that i have been telling you.
and I bet the LXX writers never meant for that verse to mean that Jesus had a beginning.
Try again in English please. And if the LXX writers didn't mean “beginning”, they wouldn't have wrote “beginning”.SF:
Quote Actualy it has nothing to do with that, becauese the word also goes hand and hand with Origins, and the Hebrew translations also means the same thing, that “he came out from”.
And once again, I must ask: Do you think the scripture was saying that the “place Jesus went out from” was “from days of antiquity”?mike
6.
Mike, Scripture says he is the Beginning.
And Micah 5:2 never presents that Jesus had a “beginning” at a “certain” point in time.Even the Context of the Word “arche” represents the Fact that beginnings is not meant to present that Jesus was “caused to exist” but instead that he is “from” distant passed, or “came out of”
arche 1) beginning, origin
ek 1) out of, from, by, away from
The greek work “ek” is exactly what i been talking about.And the LXX wrote “arche” but not to suggest that Jesus was “caused to exist” or was “Created”
The Scriptures state that the Ruler who will be born in bethlehem, came out of distant past.
not born in distant past, nor created in distant past.
not born in antiquity, nor created in antiquity.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,09:15) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) What the heck Mike, You want to focus so much that God created things “through” Jesus. Whether Through or by, the fact is that Jesus created and period.
IF you want to believe that Jesus is the Tool and God is the builder, no matter how much you want to say that the builider created, the truth is he couldnt do it without his tools. Even though I believe they are one and the same, and since you believe them to be seperate persons, you cannot say that Jesus did not create.
Just stick with scripture D. I can't explain the “through”. But I know for a fact that Jehovah is the ONLY one EVER given credit for the creation. Read the prayer in Acts 4. Peter and John make very clear that God made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. Then the last line of the prayer makes it clear that Jesus is the “servant” of God they prayed THROUGH……..not the God they were praying TO.It's in the scriptures D. Just follow them and believe them and all will be okay for you.
mike
7.Its not I who gives credit to Jesus as the creator
but scritpures that state he created.
I mean i dont know what else you want me to say?Whether you believe Jesus is God or not, its evident to know that Jesus did in fact participated in the creation of all things, and he is the tool(according to you) that was used to create everything.
Collossians 1:15 presents these ideas, not I
John 1 also presents these ideas, Not I
Hebrews 1 also presents these ideas, Not I
The whole old testament does not reveal this, but the NEW does, so i dont understand you.
So what is WRONG with what im saying?
i dont understand with what you disagree with?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 24 2010,09:31) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 22 2010,17:02) No, This is my way of saying stick to the subject in hand. You always deviate to a new topic. in other words untopical. 
Well, you've brought up the “Jesus is God” thing in this thread already. And Micah 5:4 nips it in the bud like a big dog. When will we discuss this scripture? Should I start a thread? Yes………..I believe I will. Will I see you there? I hope so. SF:
Quote Look Mike before you start beating your chest and getting all puffed up, you need leave the Ad hominens aside and stick to the arguements.
Did you really just use two ad hominems in your sentence designed to scold me about using them? SF:
Quote Here is what the Netwanny says,
Listen D. You have to realize that NETNotes, along with almost every other theological publication in existence, is from a trinitarian point of view. So while they have some great information, you have to judge which things are “real”, from which things are just slung together to eliminate any possibility that their “God #2” had a beginning. If you look up “holy spirit” in NETNotes, they list “the third person in the trinity Godhead” as one of their definitions. It is up to us to decide if that's a reasonable definition based on scriptural and cultural knowledge, or if it's just a way to sneak an unsubstantiated “trinity proof” in.SF:
Quote Let me just plainly say, that to say this verse means anything else than what it says is conjecture and twisting of scripture.
It means what it says.I can understand what and why you think what it means but it doesnt, Mike no matter how you want to put it, it just Doesnt.
This is not proof that Jesus was created.
You are right. It does say what it says. And it is NOT proof that Jesus was created. It IS, however, proof that Jesus had a beginning.Now, are you ready to move on to the scripture that actually fits into your thread?
mike
8
See you there soon.Yes. I thought you would find it funny.
Did you laugh?Netnote: Agreed, but than again im not crazy.
Now the thing that i dont understand.
You state that I am right, about that Micah 5:2 doesnt suggest that Jesus was created, yet in the same breathe you say that he had a beginning.
Whats the difference?Sure?
9
bump:
I Said:Quote Yet the phrase before says that he will be BORN in betheleham. It doesnt folllow with the context, so The Ruler will be born from bethelham who's true beginnigns are from a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
This isnt starwars.
God is called the Ancient of Days, The King since Ancient times, yet It doesnt mean he was “caused to exist” a long time ago.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2010,08:48) The spin on scripture comes from yourself, and your conjecture that this verse implies that “Jesus the Ruler who will be BORN IN THE small bethlahem, whose beginnings/origins comes out from antiquity/Eternity/long time ago”
None of this suggest he had a beginning nor that he was created.
The Scripture is clear that he is not of this plain of existence, that he is not from this time, nor truely from bethelaham, but from another world.
Hi D,You are correct that Micah 5:2 makes it clear Jesus was from another time before he was born in Bethlehem. So why aren't you pointing this out to Gene in the “Pre-existent” thread?
But you are wrong to read the word “beginning” in this context and think it means “Jesus IS the beginning”. For that is NOT what is said at all. It says his BEGINNING is FROM days of antiquity. If his beginning is “from” any time at all, it is still clear that he HAD a beginning. And to try to rearrange it any other way is to try to rewrite the message of scripture.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2010,08:52) 2.The only reason why dont like when you cut up my posts because you ignore other valid points i made.
It seems like you “dropped” “yalad” from your last rampage of posts??/ Sounds like a diversion to me, since you didnt answer my question. Actualy what scripture is saying is that “this Ruler will be born in bethlehem, and he is not from this world”
That's the reason I don't like the long posts. It takes much time and effort to compare what I posted to what you answered, and you have also neglected to answer some of my points.So, listen up Cheese-Doodle, do you or do you NOT think “mowtsa'ah” refers to the “place Jesus went out from” being from “days of antiquity”?
If not, then drop that diversion altogether. If so, then let's discuss how silly that would make the scripture.
mike
SF:
Quote 4. Actually mike The very first claims you made that eternity was “peotitcs” for antiquity or a real long time ago.
than later when shimmer made her post, you changed your mind.
And what's wrong with that? Shimmer showed scholarly thought that fits in with the circumstances, and I happened to think it makes perfect sense. Why? Because of the LXX. First, these experts in Hebrew rendered “mowtsa'ah” as “beginning”, which fits nicely with the “origin” rendering almost every translation gives it. Second, these experts in Hebrew translated “days of antiquity” into “days of 'aion'”. So, if the Hebrew words didn't mean “eternity”, then why would they use a Greek word that did? Doesn't that at least make what Young said “feasible”? So I didn't base my new understanding JUST on what Shimmer posted, but a combination of things.SF:
Quote Because no matter how if it only means antiquity, or a really long time ago, it doesnt mean he was “caused to exist”
Look here Monkey-Puff, there is only ONE being in existence that wasn't “caused to exist”, and that is God Almighty. So, Jesus either IS God Almighty, or he was “caused to exist”. And since there is NO argument that Micah 5:2 IS about Jesus, and since it says his BEGINNING was from a certain time period, then it stands to reason that he was “caused to exist” during this particular time period.And to further add to your dilemma, two verses later, it is made VERY clear that this same Jesus is NOT God Almighty.
So……………there ya have it – as Kathi would say.
mike
SF:
Quote 5. Actually Mike,
There is only one beginning that started everything else.
And that happen in Genesis 1:1
Are you sure? Because Job 38 says different:Job 38:4-7 NIV
4 “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?This seems to imply that the angels were already present when God created the earth. Like I've told you before, there are many different “beginnings” mentioned in the Bible. And since we know the angels came into being through Jesus, his “beginning” must have been even earlier than theirs, which was earlier than the earth's.
SF:
Quote Your focused on only one word Mike to imply that he had a beginning.
Two words D: “WHOSE BEGINNING”. The word “whose” refers to Jesus and makes it clear that he HAD a beginning, not that he “IS the beginning”.SF:
Quote Actually im not struggling with the word, the verse is very clear that he will be “born” “cause to exist” in Bethelehem but in reference that he is not from this plain.
No, it says a ruler will come out of Bethlehem……..WHOSE BEGINNING WAS FROM DAYS OF OLD. So it indicates that he will be “caused to exist” in the future, but he was already “caused to exist” at a previous time also.SF:
Quote So your theory implies that Jesus was created from anytime between micah 5:2 and “before” the beginning of all things?
My UNDERSTANDING is that Jesus was caused to exist prior to his being caused to exist in Bethlehem. And his original BEGINNING had to have been at a time before God created anything else, for everything else was created through him.mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2010,09:28) 6.
Mike, Scripture says he is the Beginning.
And Micah 5:2 never presents that Jesus had a “beginning” at a “certain” point in time.Even the Context of the Word “arche” represents the Fact that beginnings is not meant to present that Jesus was “caused to exist” but instead that he is “from” distant passed, or “came out of”
arche 1) beginning, origin
ek 1) out of, from, by, away from
The greek work “ek” is exactly what i been talking about.And the LXX wrote “arche” but not to suggest that Jesus was “caused to exist” or was “Created”
The Scriptures state that the Ruler who will be born in bethlehem, came out of distant past.
not born in distant past, nor created in distant past.
not born in antiquity, nor created in antiquity.
The word “arche” means “beginning”, and the word “ek” means “from”. Therefore, his “beginning” was “from”…….And try as you might to make it not so, the scripture says that Jesus had a “beginning”, and it was “from days long ago”.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2010,09:34) 7.Its not I who gives credit to Jesus as the creator
but scritpures that state he created.
I mean i dont know what else you want me to say?
I want you to show me one scripture that says Jesus “CREATED” anything. And then show me how scripture lied when it says God created everything. And use the prayer in Acts 4 for your example, please. Because that one, while making it clear that God created, also makes it clear that Jesus is NOT that God who created, but one of the “things” in heaven that God created.mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2010,09:38) Now the thing that i dont understand.
You state that I am right, about that Micah 5:2 doesnt suggest that Jesus was created, yet in the same breathe you say that he had a beginning.
Whats the difference?
Nevermind for now.Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2010,09:41) 9
bump:
I Said:Quote Yet the phrase before says that he will be BORN in betheleham. It doesnt folllow with the context, so The Ruler will be born from bethelham who's true beginnigns are from a long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.
This isnt starwars.
God is called the Ancient of Days, The King since Ancient times, yet It doesnt mean he was “caused to exist” a long time ago.
I already answered that. I said:“Was God ever said to have had a “beginning”?
mike
You said “Sure?” about moving to the next phase………so here goes.
Acts 4:24 NIV
24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.This is how Peter and John started a prayer to their ONLY TRUE GOD. They immediately give Him ALONE the credit for creating, among other things, “EVERYTHING IN THE HEAVENS”.
Now we know Jesus is “IN THE HEAVENS”, but is he one of those “things” in the heavens that THE ONLY TRUE GOD created………..or is he in fact THE ONLY TRUE GOD?
Fastforward to the closing of the same prayer:
Acts 4:30 NIV
30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”They ended up praying TO the ONLY TRUE GOD, but they prayed TO HIM…………THROUGH the name of…………HIS HOLY SERVANT, JESUS.
So that answers the question about whether Jesus IS the ONLY TRUE GOD they were praying to. He is NOT, but instead a SERVANT of that God they were praying to. And if he is NOT the God they were praying to, then he is obviously one of the “things” in heaven that was CREATED BY THE GOD THEY WERE PRAYING TO.
Pretty simple, huh?
peace and love,
mikeMike,
Beginnings happen all the time to the same person, Mike. Have you ever considered that the beginning that the Son had was not a beginning of existence but a beginning of being a distinct person?Yes Kathi,
When you first brought it up, I considered it. And then I remembered that our God is not a God of confusion.
mike
Mike,
He isn't confused
He is mysterious though and timely. We need to trust Him with what we don't understand and know that He does understand and has everything under control.Mikemyster…would it help if you were to lay out what you do believe.
All this 'not what i'm saying' and 'you said, i didn't' is causing confusion to those trying to understand what it is you are actually trying to say.SF is right that one minute you say God created Jesus but the next…oh, i don't know what you sayin'
Just re- lay it succintly, summarily.
SF, you said you were a debate Judge…'a God' overseeing debates, why haven't you asked for revision of beliefs to help sort out the mess that's been created here.
“oh boy, Mike!”…hmmm… Does this mean 'Mike is a boy'?
“Oh God, Mike, the exact point of your debates are everlasting!”…hmmm…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
