- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 14 2010,13:38) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 13 2010,13:45) Kathy Hi Pierre,
I am seeing unity among the early church fathers;;;WITCH ONE
???FROM THE APOSTASY?Pierre
Pierre,
God is very big and can lead you to truth as He has done for the early church. Trust God.
Kathyyou do not want to answer that question,,,right?
after John died in late nineties there was not much left of real truth,it when on with some for another one hundred years or so,then it plunged in division so deep that torture and killing was ok.well later Constantine make some order in his own way.
so i do not know witch fathers you talking about ,and you keep silent ,so bla,bla,bla
Pierre
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 14 2010,06:32) Shimmer, did you write what you wrote? It was wonderful.
I thought the same exact thing. I started off just “skimming” through it quickly, but then was compelled to start over, reading every word slowly.My first thought was, “The Spirit must be talking to her again!” because she says it comes and goes.
Beautifully put Shimmer!
mike
Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 13 2010,10:07) The truth of God is evident in the person, many can come and claim they have higher knowledge but only true knowledge comes not only from above but also from within the person, have you seen a person who walks in peace is greatfull at all the Father has given wonders at the beauty of life, wakes to the sound of birdsong and the warmth of the sun despite all that is going on around them, filled with sadness at all that is lacking wishing for things to change wishing to clear it up for the love of God, grieving in their heart but burning with desire, What you believe no matter how hard and long you search is meaningless if you do not have the spirit which is from above, search all that you will, gather all the information you can find, He who tries to save his own life will lose it, he who loses his life for the sake of the kingdom will gain it,
Seperate yourselves from life, not life which was created, not life which is the spirit found in all, but from the confusions and pains which come not from above but from what is of the world.
What comes from heaven has great power, what comes from earth is empty and meaningless unless the prayers of those who call out to God who watches out for those he loves and keeps them.
Trust in God all of you who hear, seek the true light.
Find peace with the Lord and rest in it,
Deny ourselves,Perfectly said
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 13 2010,15:13) Mike,
Whether or not the Psalms verse implies what Eusebius implies, we know from the NT that the Son was used by the Father to create for it says in Col 1 that all things were created by Him both in heaven and on earth so this is not a concern.
The concern is that God Almighty said He alone created the heavens, earth and everything in them. We later find out that He did this THROUGH or BY MEANS of His Son. This does not mean there are CreatorS, but ONE Creator who chose to create through anotherThe word “BY” that many translations favor today is misleading IMO. Paul sums it up nicely when he says all things are FROM God THROUGH Jesus.
I don't believe Jesus is given any credit of being the Creator, although I believe he was the master craftsman at his God's side during the creation. If we give Jesus co-credit, then what did God mean when He said He created everything alone?
mike
Hi Mike,
We talked about this when we were discussing the 'arm of the Lord' and I saw the Son as the 'outstretched Arm of the Lord.' Since then, many early church father's mention the Son as the 'Arm.' So, in that way, I do believe that the Father was giving credit to His Son without revealing Him as His Son which was to come much later. Also, in the culture of that day, there were many gods who were given credit for many things in regards to creation, there was the sun god, and the moon god, etc. The Father is distinguishing Himself among the false gods that were being worshiped in that day. The NT makes it clear that the Son took part in creation.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 13 2010,15:40) Mike,
Your words sound like words coming from a guy that isn't finding support for his theory and so makes a judgement towards all that don't support his theory as being full of malarkey instead of the Holy Spirit.
Really Kathi? I have more support here on HN for my “theory” than you'll ever have for yours. But that's not even important. My “theory” is the actual scriptures Kathi. Did you not read the differences between what the scriptures say and what you and Chrysosdom say? You guys say worship two, scriptures say worship One. You guys say “equal”, scriptures say, “Who is my equal?” But don't worry about me, I'm finding all the support I need for my “theory” in the Good Book.Speaking of which, both the Hebrew and Greek word for “worship” can mean either “homage paid to God” OR “reverrence paid to others”, so it's been an uphill battle for me to show you the “worship” given to Jesus was NOT the “homage to God” kind…..even after I showed you how the Pharisees ignored the man who “worshipped” Jesus right in front of them. But I was lead to Daniel a few minutes ago, so let me know what you think of this:
Most of Daniel was written in Aramaic, not Hebrew, and as it turns out, the Aramaic language DOES have two completely different words to distinguish between the “homage paid to God” and the “reverrence paid to others”.
Daniel 3:28 NIV
Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God.The Aramaic word for this instance referring to the “worship” of Jehovah is:
c@gid (Aramaic P'al form)
1) to do homageThe LXX authors translate this Aramaic word as “proskuneo”.
Daniel 7:14 NIV
He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.The Aramaic word for this instance referring to Christ being “worshipped” is:
p@lach (Aramaic P'al form)
1) to pay reverence to
2) to serveAnd the LXX authors, knowing that this is the “lessor” kind of “worship” described in Aramaic, render this word not as “proskuneo”, but:
douleuo
1) to be a slave, serve, do service
1a) of a nation in subjection to other nations
2) metaph. to obey, submit toI think this clearly shows the difference between the “worship” to be given God Almighty and the “reverrence” to be given His anointed one.
peace and love,
mikeHi Mike,
Well congratulations, you have the support for your theory about not worshiping the Father AND the Son from those (maybe 10 or so) who don't believe the Son is divine or uncreated. That would actually cause me some concern. I would much rather have agreement with those that were disciples of John and the early Christians that died for their faith, not to mention the apostles themselves that worshiped the Son throughout the NT.About your aramaic word for 'worship' (#6399) which is correctly translated as 'serve' here is used towards God also:
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve (#6399) is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve (#6399) thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
KJVNotice that you used this verse in your post but you missed the word “serve” (#6399) that is given to God.
Daniel 3:28 NIV
Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve (#6399) or worship any god except their own God.So your comparison failed because the word #6399 is used for God AND for the 'him' in Dan 7:14. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 14 2010,18:33) Pierre,
I don't know what you are asking me? Can you restate your question?
Kathyla sagesse est a l' humble ce la folie est aux orgueilleux.
Pierre
Hi JA, and Mike and SimplyForgiven,
I have felt God with me, the Spirit, all day today,
And Iv also seen that all I was thinking on things like pre-existance arent important, the answer to all of it is — It doesnt matter, it's what we do; not what we know, and who we do it through and who is leading us and who we go to, that's what matters ! So I take anything back that I said because I DONT KNOW ! I just thank God for all that there is, through the Lord Jesus, with the Holy Spirit,
Shimmer,
a point of order; It doesn't matter to YOU at this time. Keep things in context.
To those in, or destined for refinement – it does matter.
There are those who are “the leaders” and there are those who are “the led”. Know which thou art and act accordingly – to dissaude, to attempt to dissaude another from their righteous path or order is not a good thing.
JA, Yeah, I see your point, that was for me personally what I was shown, the stage that I'm at and where I was going, not for other's. OK.
Kathi:
Quote Hi Mike,
Well congratulations, you have the support for your theory about not worshiping the Father AND the Son from those (maybe 10 or so) who don't believe the Son is divine or uncreated. That would actually cause me some concern.
Didn't I mention that THAT part wasn't really important? The part that IS important is that I'm supported by scripture, where you are not. And THAT should actually cause YOU some concern.Kathi:
Quote I would much rather have agreement with those that were disciples of John
Did Ignatius say to worship Jesus as God? If you posted that, I missed it. Who else did you quote that was a disciple of John?Kathi:
Quote not to mention the apostles themselves that worshiped the Son throughout the NT.
Yeah, let's NOT mention them. They did obeisance to Jesus……they did not “worship” him with the same worship they give to God. I've showed you this from the blind man. I've showed you this from the same Greek word being used for the man bowing down before David. And now I've showed you this using Aramaic.Kathi:
Quote About your aramaic word for 'worship' (#6399) which is correctly translated as 'serve' here is used towards God also:
Yeah…..what of it? Aren't we told to both worship AND serve our God?Kathi:
Quote So your comparison failed because the word #6399 is used for God AND for the 'him' in Dan 7:14. Sorry to burst your bubble.
I think you missed the point Kathi. It's not a big deal that the word for serve AND the word for worship are BOTH used in referrence to God. The big deal is that ONLY the word for serve is used of the Christ. The word for worship is NOT used for the Christ.We are to both worship AND serve God, but this prophesied about Christ will be served………NOT WORSHIPPED.
Now what do you have to say for yourself, young lady?
peace and love,
mikeOh Mike…Mike, Mike!
I have shown you so much about so many that worshiped the Father and the Son in the NT and the early christians. Polycarp was a disciple of John and his buddies were commenting at his martyrdom about worshiping Jesus. I suppose this is something that you need to ask the Father about for you to have the same peace about it as I have. There has been nothing said in the NT warning us against worshiping the Son specifically but it does warn us against worship of angels and creatures and images made with hands.-the not so young lady
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 14 2010,04:54) Hi Irene,
Do you remember the great commission that Christ gave to the disciples…to go into the world teaching them and baptizing them? Well, would you agree that they obeyed that commission? It was very important for the teaching of Christ to continue on and I have found it very interesting as to their perspective on things like the Son being the 'firstborn of all creation' and when He was begotten, before the ages, etc. I am finding that most believe that the Son and the Spirit were within the Father before they were 'begotten' (the Son) or proceeded forth (the Spirit). I am discovering that the early 'trinity' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different than the contemporary 'trinity' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I am finding a lot of unity with the earlier trinity where the Father is the one true unbegotten God and the Son and Holy Spirit were 'of' Him. The Son is considered the begotten God and the Spirit is considered well, the Spirit of God.
I never heard of the way the trinity was explained that way. Was that before Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian or after…. I do know that St. Anthony believed like Tetullian did. I don't know about any other Forefathers…. I guess I need to look into it….Thank you …..Hi Irene,
This site is full of the early Christian's writings. It may interest you to see their viewpoints:Kathi:
Quote I have shown you so much about so many that worshiped the Father and the Son in the NT and the early christians.
There is not one scripture that shows anyone worshipping Jesus in the NT. There is doing obeisance to Jesus, not paying homage to Jesus. I led you to David, the blind man, and the Aramaic. If you don't want to learn from those, that's up to you. And if you showed either Ignatius or Polycarp himself saying it's okay to worship Jesus, AND they made it clear that it was the “homage” type, not the “doing obeisance” type, I might take another look. And it would ONLY be because they were direct disciples of John himself that I would even entertain the idea for a moment. Even then though, I'm SURE that I would obey God's command over mere men saying something that contradicts God's command is “okay”. As for the rest of these guys you quote, they wouldn't sway me against scripture any more than I would be swayed against scripture by Keith or Jack.Kathi:
Quote I suppose this is something that you need to ask the Father about for you to have the same peace about it as I have.
Who do you think it was that pointed me to Daniel out of the blue in the first place? I asked, He answered. You researched it and read it with your own two eyes, yet still you are not convinced to discontinue breaking God's command. Not only am I at peace about worshipping ONLY One, but unlike your peace, mine comes from following the words of God, not the words of mere men.Matt 15:3, 7-8 NIV
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 ” 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”Kathi:
Quote There has been nothing said in the NT warning us against worshiping the Son specifically Matthew 4:10 NIV
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' “Kathi, you gave me an idea with your “giraffe” comment a few days back. Let's take the story about the tree in the Garden of Eden and “reverse” it. Let's say God said there is only one tree in the entire Garden you ARE allowed to eat from. He made it explicitely CLEAR you were to eat from no other tree…..no matter what. But then you noticed a seed fell from that tree, and after a while, a new tree grew up beside the first tree. What would you do? Here are the two choices:
1. Obey God's explicite command to eat from ONLY the ONE tree.
2. Figure it out in your own flawed human mind that since the second tree is a direct offshoot of the first one, then God will be okay with you eating from the second tree also……even though He never said it was okay.
What if you were undecided at first, so you just waited? But after some time, you noticed other men eating from the second tree. Would you then follow the rules of the other men who said it was okay to eat from it? Or would you stay true to the EXPLICITE COMMAND you had originally received from your God?
peace and love,
mikeMike,
If you think that worshiping the Father and the Son is not part of loving the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and strength then by all means, don't do it. I happen to think that it is. So we agree to disagree here.Quote Matt 15:3, 7-8 NIV
3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8 ” 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”Here is a fuller context…
Quote Then R561 some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from R562 Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do R563 not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 “For God said, `HONOR R564 YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, `HE R565 WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE F343 PUT TO DEATH.' 5 “But you say, `Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given F344 to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.' F345 And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 `THIS R566 PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
9 `BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES R567 THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' “Where specifically in this context does it address the worship of the Son? If it doesn't then why do you include it?
Quote Matthew 4:10 NIV
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' “In this context is satan asking Jesus to worship Himself (Jesus) or satan? Jesus isn't responding to satan as if he was tempting Him to worship Himself (Jesus) was He?
Where specifically do you find in the NT to say that you cannot worship the Son as the Son of God? You have not shown me one place.
You show me that in Daniel we are to proskeno God and in the NT we are shown several times the disciples, those closest to Jesus as proskeno-ing Jesus, so don't tell me that the word proskeno isn't used within the context of Jesus.
As far as Ignatius and Polycarp, I suppose DYING for your love for Christ isn't an obvious enough sign for you that they weren't just thinking highly of Him. I think that if they were doing that for Zeus, that would be a form of idolatry wouldn't you? Much less was done for the pagan gods at that time and it was considered idolatry. Never once does the Bible tell us that worshiping the Son as the Son of God is idolatry. You make it sound like it is without specific scripture.
Kathi:
Quote Mike,
If you think that worshiping the Father and the Son is not part of loving the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and strength then by all means, don't do it. I happen to think that it is.
What does worshipping one person have to do with our love for another? I love Jehovah with all my heart. I love Jesus with all my heart. How could worshipping Jesus against God's command to worship Him ONLY show MORE love for God? It's not about what you THINK is okay Kathi….it's about following the command of your God.Kathi:
Quote Where specifically in this context does it address the worship of the Son? If it doesn't then why do you include it?
I'm sorry, I thought the point I was making was evident from the context of what we were discussing. You keep touting these mere men who say it's okay to worship Jesus, and that scripture from Matthew dealt with whether or not it is okay to put the rules of men over the commands of God.Kathi:
Quote In this context is satan asking Jesus to worship Himself (Jesus) or satan? Jesus isn't responding to satan as if he was tempting Him to worship Himself (Jesus) was He?
What's important about this passage is that it shows in the NT who we are suppose to worship ONLY. You said it wasn't made clear in the NT. And who is asking whom to worship who is not the important part. The important part is that one person was discussing the possibility of Jesus worshipping someone, and Jesus' answer made it crystal clear that we (even in NT times) are to worship Jehovah our God and serve Him ONLY. Jesus said “ONLY” Kathi……did you miss that part?Kathi:
Quote Where specifically do you find in the NT to say that you cannot worship the Son as the Son of God?
If the OT says to worship ONLY God, and the NT says to worship ONLY God, then do you really need a scripture that explicitely says, “Don't worship Jesus”? Do you also need one that says, “Don't worship Paul”?Kathi:
Quote You show me that in Daniel we are to proskeno God and in the NT we are shown several times the disciples, those closest to Jesus as proskeno-ing Jesus, so don't tell me that the word proskeno isn't used within the context of Jesus.
No, what I showed you is that because the word “proskuneo” could mean “homage worship” or just “showing reverrence”, it was wonderful to find out that there are two completely different words for it in Aramaic. The “paying homage” one is NOT used for God's anointed one…..only the “showing reverrence” one. I've also showed you that proskuneo was used for David. I've also showed you that the blind man proskuneo'd Jesus right in front of the Pharisees. So if we know that those two occasions of proskuneo were clearly NOT the “homage” type, then what makes you think other proskuneos in referrence to someone other than God were?Kathi:
Quote As far as Ignatius and Polycarp, I suppose DYING for your love for Christ isn't an obvious enough sign for you that they weren't just thinking highly of Him.
I would die for him right now without ever worshipping him. Do you suppose other Christians who never worshipped him have died for him to the glory of his God?Kathi, the OT says to worship God ONLY. The NT says the same thing. You have no reason to believe that any of the proskuneo given Jesus was ever the “homage” kind, while I have showed at least two instances that proskuneo clearly WASN'T the “homage” kind. I have showed you from Daniel that “all peoples, nations and men of every language were SERVING him”, not “WORSHIPPING” him.
You are going down a bad road with all these early Christian writers IMO. Some of these guys you are holding higher than scripture itself are the guys who planted the trinity seed. It was a slow process – it didn't happen overnight. But the worship of someone other than God led to the worship of God's Holy Spirit as a separate entity eventually. From there, it wasn't too far of a reach to worship Mary, saying “Holy Mary, Mother of God”. From there it wasn't too far of a reach to start praying to “Saints” such as Christopher – who wasn't even mentioned in the Bible. That's the road the Catholics took ever so slowly because they forsook the word of God for the traditions of men. The more you read these eloquently written pieces, the more you become enamored with these men……to the point you are willing to take their word over the actual scriptures.
I saw where Pierre warned you about what happened to him because of his love of the early father's writings. Please take heed. Please stick to scripture. Oh….and please answer my “tree in the Garden” question.
mike
Hi all
Well we have almost finished moving. It’s been a slow process because we have been trying to fix the house as we go. Anyway I have my internet back and it looks like I have some catching up to do.
Please Mike, don’t start accusing me and complaining about what I have or have not responded to! I seek God before I respond and I respond to what I feel led to respond to WHEN I feel led to.
It looks like this thread has gotten off topic so I will bring it back on topic by responding to one of Mikes post to me.
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. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56)
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”.
Ha Ha. You should listen to those who were studying the scriptures while you were still sucking on the worldly ways of Atheism and walking in darkness. It should tell you something, even Kathi disagrees with you on Jesus being the first created and worshipping him. Yet you being a 2 year student post here as if every one else is wrong and only you have the truth. Funny indeed.It’s obvious to many Mike that you have proven nothing, but in your own mind you have.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 21 2010,09:58) You just know that flooding is the only way to advance your flawed man-made doctrine.
I am now convinced that all of you’re whining about big post or so-called flooding is because you are not capable of focusing on more than one point at a time. Maybe it comes with age, I don’t know.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) And to prove it, here is just one of your posts where you “addressed my point” for an example Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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 workDo 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.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 21 2010,09:58) 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”.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56)
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?
Of course, what does the following scripture mean Mike?For unto which of the angels said he at any time,”THOU ART MY SON, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE?”And again, “I WILL BE TO HIM A FATHER, AND HE SHALL BE TO ME A SON?” Heb 1:5
Notice the scripture implies that the Angels were in existence when the statement was made. Not to mention that it was on a particular day that it was said which means that Jesus already existed. You refuse to accept the clear meaning of the scripture.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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 can take it the way you want since you seem to know more than the Apostles, the Forefathers and the experts in Hebrew and Greek. Sorry Mike, the majority of the credible translations, the Commentators, and the experts in Hebrew and Greek are Trinitarian. The Forefathers eventually signed off on the Athanasian creed which was the final death blow to the Arian controversy. It’s too bad that the Arians do not have any works besides the NWT. I wonder why? Could it be because of what the Truth is?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 21 2010,09:58) Whats a matte
r 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”.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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?
See this is the rabbit trails I and others talk about. You stick your head in a hole and refuse to see what others have shown you. How many times have the scriptures been pointed out to you where Jesus is begotten where it is not speaking of “Procreation” or his literally being born from the Father? Psalms 2:6, 7 – Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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.
You call it a “non-definition” when it doesn’t agree with you. You don’t hear us whining about any definitions of “Strongs” you use to support you. We never accuse you of using a “non-definition” when you use Strongs or any Greek LXX. Again to bad for you there are no legitimate resources for the Arian.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 21 2010,09:58) I ask how you know Jesus' begetting is metaphorical, and you rail about 1 John, which I have no problem at all with.
No you asked JA…Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,21:01) I'm still waiting for the scripture you think says men will be begotten by God. So I gave you the following scripture…
YNG
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 5:1ASV
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 5:1DBY
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 5:1And pointed out to you that men preexisted being “begotten (gennaō)” by the Father just as Jesus preexisted being “begotten (gennaō)” of the Father in Psalms 2:6, 7 – Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) That's why I like getting you in a debate thread. You cannot flood and run.
Wha Wha! No you like getting in a debate thread because you do not have to deal with the others who disagree with you.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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.
No you didn’t, you put on blind folds and did not deal with them. Here they are again…And Joseph saw Ephraim's children of the third generation: the children also of Machir the son of Manasseh “WERE BROUGHT UP (yalad)
” upon Joseph's knees. Gen 50:23Joseph did not bring birth to the Sons of Ephraim but had begotten them by “bringing them up” upon his knees. The language “Were brought up” is in line with one if the definitions of ‘Gennao” which is of men who fathered children. They also “Preexisted” their “Begetting” by Joseph on his knees.
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, “whom she brought (Yalad) up” for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: 2 Sam 21:8
Here we see Michal “Begetting (Yalad)” Adriel’s Sons whose wife is the sister of Michal. There is no procreation here right Mike?
Did any of those who beget (yalad) bring birth to the ones they beget (yalad)? No. But you insist that you know more than the Apostle Paul a Hebrew of the Hebrews who uses the same word in the following examples…
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have “begotten (gennaō) in my bonds“: PHM 1:10. So continue to stick your head in the sand Mike!
DO THE WORDS “YALAD” AND “GENNAō” ALWAYS MEAN PROCREATION MIKE?
It’s a yes or no question.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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.
Ha Ha. How about that Mike, I am impressed, you think that the Fathers who signed off on the Trinity agrees with you in one point.
But what about their understanding of the Holy Spirit as a third person, and their worship of Jesus and the fact that they call Jesus their God? Do you want to go there?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 21 2010,10:56) 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.
Ha Ha again Mike. I am not afraid of the so
-called mighty god as you give credit to satan as being a “mighty god” in the same sense as Jesus, why would I be afraid of you.Let me say it one more time Mike, there have been people who have come and gone from this sight that were far more challenging than you so stop with the beating of your chest and don’t flatter yourself by thinking that anyone here is “afraid of you”!
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
