Does god procreate?

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

Please Mike, don’t start accusing me and complaining about what I have or have not responded to!

Where did that come from?

Keith:

Quote

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.

I do.  I listen……and then I check the scriptures to find out what God thinks about what they are saying.

Keith:

Quote

It should tell you something, even Kathi disagrees with you on Jesus being the first created and worshipping him.

When did what Kathi thinks become a substitute for scripture Keith?

Keith:

Quote

Yet you being a 2 year student post here as if every one else is wrong and only you have the truth. Funny indeed.

Not at all.  I agree with many things that many people on HN say.  And I agree with virtually everything I've ever seen t8, Irene, Georg, and Pierre post.  And I've learned tons of stuff about scripture from you and Jack.  I disagree with your interpretation of it in many cases, but you guys definitely cause me to learn…..so thanks!  Besides, I'm in Luke on my third time thru the Bible right now……..how many times would you say a man of average intelligence has to read the Bible cover to cover before he has a basic understanding of scripture?  You make unscriptural claims, and all I do is point you to the scriptures that say your claim is unscriptural.  They you try to make your view right by using lexicons and such, so I just use the same lexicons to show you that you're still wrong.  Hey, if you want me to stop posting stuff that says you're always wrong, then start posting scriptural truths Keith.

Keith:

Quote

It’s obvious to many Mike that you have proven nothing, but in your own mind you have.

I've led you and others to certain scriptures Keith…..as I have been led to certain scriptures by all of you.  Whether or not we heed what those scriptures say is up to all of us individually.

Keith:

Quote

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.

Undoubtedly age is a factor.  But it's not that I'm NOT capable, but more the fact that it is stressful and very time consuming.  Like I told you in the pm, you have had years to “perfect” your game…….I've been discussing scripture for only 8 months and have to research alot more to refute your unscriptural claims.  But I'm getting better at it, so just wait.

By the way, why IS it that you have to flood every one of your posts? Could it be that point by point, the illusions you claim fade away before the truth when closely examined?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

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.

This is what NETNotes says about the Holy Spirit:

pneuma
1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son

Would you have any thinking person just BELIEVE this definition because a trinitarian website says so?  This is a hogwash “definition” which isn't even a real Biblical definition of the word “pneuma” at all.  So when the same source lists the following definition for “gennao”, it amounts to the same thing – just hogwash because it isn't really a Biblical definition at all.

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

What does “c” even mean Keith?  It is nothing more than a trinitarian site trying to avoid the possibility that Jesus was literally begotten by his Father.  And when you eliminate this false, made-up definition for “gennao”, it only leaves “literally begotten” or your choice of metaphoric use “a”, “b”, or “d”.  So which defines what God did to Jesus?

Will you address the fact that “c” is not really a defintion at all Keith……or will you just claim that both it and the Holy Spirit definitions are “real”, and run?

mike

[mikeboll64]

I had asked:

Quote

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?

Keith:

Quote

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.

No, it implies no such thing.  It clearly says that at one point, God told Jesus “You are my Son.  Today I have begotten you.”  And it further says that God hasn't said those words to any angel at any time.

Keith:

Quote

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.

I'm glad you brought this up again.  

Micah 5:2 NET
As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past.

What do YOU think those underlined words SHOULD be?  I'm sure you like “goings forth” better than “origins”, right?  But did you know that “distant past” is really in Hebrew “days of antiquity”?  And I'm sure you prefer “days of everlasting” or “days of eternity”, right?  But did you know it is the same  Hebrew word for “day” as it is in Psalm 2:7?  It is the Hebrew word “yowm”.

So if Jesus' “goings forth” were from “DAYS of eternity”, does that say there were “DAYS” before all the ages?  Or does it say that Jesus' “goings forth” only began after God had created “DAYS”?  

mike

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

Sorry Mike, the majority of the credible translations, the Commentators, and the experts in Hebrew and Greek are Trinitarian.

So true.  So you acknowledge then that for us who are not trinitarians, and aren't willing to just accept “prototokos pasa ktisis” means “preeminent over mankind” because some trinitarian “scholar” says so, it is harder to find the correct info.  So on top of refuting stupid stuff like “Jesus only said the Father was greater because he was limited by the flesh at that time” and “even though he was limited by the flesh at that time, the disciples still worshipped him as God Almighty”, we also have to refute the “definitions” that your trinitarian “scholars” print.  Every time we try to find some expert information on scripture, we have to sort thru the obvious trinitarian slanted info to get to the truth.  Many times, I have to resort to reading the Hebrew or Greek word by word to undo the tint of the trinitarian translations and get to the real meaning of what was written.  This takes a lot more time than you just punching in a scripture and getting your “made to order” trinitarian response and explanation……so you'll just have to be patient with me.  I will NOT be answering any more flood posts after this one.  The only reason I'm even taking all of this one on is because you were gone for a while and I missed you, Sunshine.

Keith:

Quote

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'm not an Arian.  I know Jesus is divine and has the nature of God.  Arius did NOT believe that Jesus was divine at all, just one of many of the creations of God.  Btw, the JW's are not Arians either.  And as far as the Creed, why don't you take this point up in my thread about how Eusebius, who actually penned the Creed itself, immediately distanced himself from the anathema at the end?  I've told you over and over that the Creed itself is scriptural – it's only the anathema that was added at the end that is unscriptural.  Eusebius wrote that since Constantine said to only use scriptural truths in support of the Creed, he would not ever discuss the anathema with anyone, because none of it was scriptural.

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

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”.

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?

Keith:

Quote

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 5:5

Don't you see how you answered?  You touted 1 John 5:1 as proof of using “gennao” metaphorically, and your own source AND scripture shows that it WAS used metaphorically as d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work.  I then told you about a discussion JA and I had where Paul used it metaphorically about Onesimus.  Paul used b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over  to his way of life, to convert someone.

Yet you blow this off as if you're still making a point about it being used metaphorically…..I KNOW it was.  Then when I say “I know it was on occasion used metaphorically, but what proof do you have that it was used metaphorically in referrence to Jesus?”, you list scriptures that say nothing of the sort.  I'll wait to see what you have to say about the “DAYS” in Micah 5:2 before moving forward with this one.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

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.

Really?  How about NETNotes?  Like when Jack complained about them agreeing that Ez 34:24 was a prophecy about Jesus?  And do you agree with this from Strong?

3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

Keith:

Quote

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 50:23 Joseph 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!

Why didn't you post my response to those scriptures as well Keith?  Like the first one……from NETNotes:

Gen 50:232tn Heb “they were born on the knees of Joseph.” This expression implies their adoption by Joseph, which meant that they received an inheritance from him.

Or the second one…..also from NETNotes:

2Sa 21:81tc The MT reads “Michal” here, but two Hebrew manuscripts read “Merab,” along with some LXX manuscripts. Cf. 1 Sam 18:19.

You see Keith, this is a perfect example of “flooding”.  You already listed these exact scriptures in another thread, and I already refuted your views by proving each one of them really DOES mean “born”.  Why don't you go answer my response in the other thread?  I've already given an accurate and complete response to these……why would you bring them up here when you were too scared……oops, I mean too BUSY to answer my post over there?

Keith:

Quote

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?

Yes I do.  Why don't you start with answering my last post in any of the three or four threads we were discussing Eusebius in?  I have unanswered posts all over HN.  You start off all sure of yourself and full of hot air, but when cornered, you run to a thread like this and start posting the same crap I already refuted in the other threads.  Why don't you stand and fight for your beliefs?  Why must you always bail….just to post the same drivel somewhere else?  Why is it that you have time to post 2000 words here of the same stuff I'm waiting for your reply to on at least 5 or 6 other threads, but you don't have the time to answer the one simple question I've left you with in each of those threads?

Keith:

Quote

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”!

Put your money where you mouth is Keith.  If I'm not challenging, then you should easily be able to school me in any of the debates we have going.  But instead of dealing with these issues one point at a time in our debates, you are here spouting the same tired stuff I've already refuted.  Can you see why I think you're “scared”?  Scripture doesn't lie Keith, and unlike you, I've got scripture on MY side.

I won't answer any more floods Keith……just so you know. I will pick ONE point, and respond to it until we actually have somewhat of a “closure” on that point.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 15 2010,20:05)

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, mike

Quote

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?

Answer: I would recall God's word where it said to honor the second tree as you honor the first tree.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 17 2010,14:02)

Answer: I would recall God's word where it said to honor the second tree as you honor the first tree.

Fair enough. But since God didn't say “Eat of the other tree as you eat of the first one”, would you?

mike

[Lightenup]

Mike,
He didn't reveal the second tree when He told us to eat from the first tree only. He wasn't including the second tree with all the other trees since it hadn't been revealed yet. Besides, I would have already eaten what the second tree would have been by eating the seed within the fruit from the first tree. He didn't say to eat from the first tree except the seeds. Sometimes I do that…eat the seeds I mean Can we move on?

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 17 2010,21:28)

Mike, He didn't reveal the second tree when He told us to eat from the first tree only.  He wasn't including the second tree with all the other trees since it hadn't been revealed yet.  Besides, I would have already eaten what the second tree would have been by eating the seed within the fruit from the first tree.  He didn't say to eat from the first tree except the seeds.  Sometimes I do that…eat the seeds I mean  Can we move on?

Kathy

you really should read the story again,you are lost in this story.

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 17 2010,14:28)

Mike, He didn't reveal the second tree when He told us to eat from the first tree only. He wasn't including the second tree with all the other trees since it hadn't been revealed yet.

On the contrary, the second tree actually reminded you that it was ONLY the first tree that must be eaten from.

Now what's your answer? Would you STILL eat from the second one against both God's command AND a reminder from the second tree itself?

mike

[Lightenup]

Only if God exalted it to be a requirement to get to Him through the second tree. I hope we haven't started a new religion here

disclaimer…Mike is making this stuff up, he took a break from the literal. Consider this a commercial break

[Lightenup]

pssst…this is from Augustine. He thinks the Father beget a Son equal to Himself and to think of the Son as lesser to the Father is a reproach to the Father.

Quote

6. “Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him.” This is a truth, and is plain. Since, then, “all judgment hath He given to the Son,” as He said above, “that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” what if there be those who honor the Father and honor not the Son? It cannot be, saith He: “Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him.” One cannot therefore say, I honored the Father, because I knew not the Son. If thou didst not yet honor the Son, neither didst thou honor the Father. For what is honoring the Father, unless it be in that He hath a Son? It is one thing when thou art taught to honor God in that He is God; but another thing when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father. When thou art taught to honor Him in that He is God, it is as the Creator, as the Almighty, as the Spirit supreme, eternal, invisible, unchangeable, that thou art led to think of Him; but when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father, it is the same thing as to honor the Son; because Father cannot be said if there be not a Son, as neither can Son if there be not a Father. But lest, it may be, thou honorest the Father indeed as greater, but the Son as less,—as thou mayest say to me, “I do honor the Father, for I know that He has a Son; nor do I err in the name Father, for I do not understand Father without Son, and yet the Son also I honor as the less,”—the Son Himself sets thee right, and recalls thee, saying, “that all may honor the Son,” not in a lower degree, but “as they honor the Father.” Therefore, “whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him.” “I,” sayest thou, “wish to give greater honor to the Father, less to the Son.” Therein thou takest away honor from the Father, wherein thou givest less to the Son. For, being thus minded, it must really seem to thee that the Father either would not or could not beget a Son equal to Himself: if He would not, He lacked the will; if He could not, He lacked the ability. Dost thou not therefore see that, being thus minded, wherein thou wouldst give greater honor to the Father, therein thou art reproachful to the Father? Wherefore, so honor the Son as thou honorest the Father, if thou wouldest honor both the Father and the Son.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xx.html

Don't tell anyone on here about this or they will get mad…grrr!

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 16 2010,22:55)

Only if God exalted it to be a requirement to get to Him through the second tree.  I hope we haven't started a new religion here disclaimer…Mike is making this stuff up, he took a break from the literal.  Consider this a commercial break

Hi

Jesus is the life and the light of men. Jesus said if anyman eat his flesh and drink his blood he has “Eternal Life”.

So the “Tree of Life” is representive of Jesus. Therefore to honor and worship Jesus as one does the Father is to partake of the Tree of Life.

To reject the tree as one with the Father would be to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which leads to the death of the spirit and the driving out that one from the presence of God.  

Back later, good night all.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 16 2010,14:02)

Please Mike, don’t start accusing me and complaining about what I have or have not responded to!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,19:59)

Where did that come from?

Hi Mike

It comes from statements like this…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,21:52)

Yes I do. Why don't you start with answering my last post in any of the three or four threads we were discussing Eusebius in?

This is not the only time you make these kinds of remarks. Not everyone has as much time as you Mike. Besides I have already told you that I will answer you if and when I get ready. There are no rules that anyone has to answer you or cannot make the same points in another thread, especially since what you call flooding is in response to your points all over again.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 16 2010,14:02)

It should tell you something, even Kathi disagrees with you on Jesus being the first created and worshipping him.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,19:59)

When did what Kathi thinks become a substitute for scripture Keith?

It doesn’t but I was just making the point that others who are not “Trinitarian” and have been around a lot longer than you also disagree with you on major points like “worshipping Jesus” and “Jesus being Created”. The point is for you to say that only you are right and that you only believe what God says in the scriptures is your opinion since the rest of us says the same thing. The difference is Mike that you are always beating your chest like you know so much more.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 16 2010,14:02)

Yet you being a 2 year student post here as if every one else is wrong and only you have the truth. Funny indeed.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,19:59)

Hey, if you want me to stop posting stuff that says you're always wrong, then start posting scriptural truths Keith.

See what I mean? I am always wrong Mike? Is that a true statement or is it a lie?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,19:59)

By the way, why IS it that you have to flood every one of your posts? Could it be that point by point, the illusions you claim fade away before the truth when closely examined?

This is laughable because I dealt with your post “point by point” and didn’t slice any of your post out like you did mine, but you call that flooding.

But I think I will try your method of chopping up someones post by leaving points out and see if that saves time.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 16 2010,14:02)

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.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,20:08)

This is what NETNotes says about the Holy Spirit: pneuma 1) the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son Would you have any thinking person just BELIEVE this definition because a trinitarian website says so?  This is a hogwash “definition” which isn't even a real Biblical definition of the word “pneuma” at all.

Hello Mike, where do you think the definitions comes from or how do they come up with them? The definitions are made by comparing the contextual use of the words in the scriptures along with the many grammatical rules and Hermeneutics that come into play. Who made you the expert to say that the Holy Spirit is not a third person in the Trinity even though experts like “James Strong” and “AT Robertson” as well as many of the Forefathers and possibly 1000s of commentators and apologist agree on the definition based on their scriptural knowledge?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,20:08)

So when the same source lists the following definition for “gennao”, it amounts to the same thing – just hogwash because it isn't really a Biblical definition at all. 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 What does “c” even mean Keith?

Why do you keep asking the same question that has already been answered?  Why do you not accept my answer to this question and the scriptures I gave you? Why do you avoid like a plague scriptures that I and others have given you like Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – and Heb 5:5 which clearly show that the Father begets Jesus after the resurrection?  If you can’t accept that then how about the literal “begetting “gennao” of Jesus?…

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 “gennao” of thee” SHALL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD. Luke 1:35

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,20:44)

I had asked: Quote 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? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 16 2010,14:02) 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. No, it implies no such thing.  It clearly says that at one point, God told Jesus “You are my Son.  Today I have begotten you.”  And it further says that God hasn't said those words to any angel at any time.

There are 2 points that you refuse to accept about this scripture.

1. “TODAY I have begotten you” in context bears out that the begetting happened on a particular day in time. Jesus already existed before time; he was there with the Father in the beginning of days or time.

2. The Apostles quoted the scripture in reference to his resurrection. Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5 and Psalm 2:6, 7 in context shows that the “decree” was made “ Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.” when the King was set upon the Holy hill of Zion.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,20:44)

I'm glad you brought this up again.   Micah 5:2 NET As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah – from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose origins are in the distant past. What do YOU think those underlined words SHOULD be?  I'm sure you like “goings forth” better than “origins”, right?  But did you know that “distant past” is really in Hebrew “days of antiquity”?  And I'm sure you prefer “days of everlasting” or “days of eternity”, right?  But did you know it is the same  Hebrew word for “day” as it is in Psalm 2:7?  It is the Hebrew word “yowm”. So if Jesus' “goings forth” were from “DAYS of eternity”, does that say there were “DAYS” before all the ages?  Or does it say that Jesus' “goings forth” only began after God had created “DAYS”?

So tell me how you think this helps you Mike? You said…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 16 2010,20:44)

But did you know that “distant past” is really in Hebrew “days of antiquity”?

So are you saying that Jesus was begotten in the “days of antiquity”? Isn’t that AFTER the beginning in Genesis 1:1?

Antiquity

1. the early period of history, esp. before the Middle Ages
2. the quality of being ancient or old; great age: a statue of great antiquity
3. the people of ancient times

The NET says…
Heb “from the past, from the days of antiquity.” Elsewhere both phrases refer to the early periods in the history of the world or of the nation of Israel. For מִקֶּדֶם (miqqedem, “from the past”) see Neh 12:46; Pss 74:12; 77:11; Isa 45:21; 46:10. For מִימֵי עוֹלָם (mimey ’olam, “from the days of antiquity”) see Isa 63:9, 11; Amos 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4. In Neh 12:46 and Amos 9:11 the Davidic era is in view.

So obviously this cannot mean what you imply can it Mike? Does this mean Jesus origins was in the “days of antiquity”?

The LXX reads…
5:2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be [reckoned] among the thousands of Juda; [yet] out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; “and his goings forth were from the beginning, even from eternity“.

The Masoretic text has it…
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

So yea Mike, I think it should be “going forth” from everlasting or distant past since Jesus origin did not happen in “the days of antiquity”.

The NET also says concerning the word “Origin”…
9tn Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.

Either way this verse does not support your view that Jesus origins was from “days of eternity” which seems to be an oxymoron. But even so “days of eternity” would still be in the scope of “time” and we know Jesus was already there in the beginning.

“Was Jesus begotten (yalad) in the “days of antiquity?”

Thats all for today. I don't want to get accused of flooding.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 16 2010,23:16)

pssst…this is from Augustine.  He thinks the Father beget a Son equal to Himself and to think of the Son as lesser to the Father is a reproach to the Father. Quote 6. “Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him.” This is a truth, and is plain. Since, then, “all judgment hath He given to the Son,” as He said above, “that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father,” what if there be those who honor the Father and honor not the Son? It cannot be, saith He: “Whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him.” One cannot therefore say, I honored the Father, because I knew not the Son. If thou didst not yet honor the Son, neither didst thou honor the Father. For what is honoring the Father, unless it be in that He hath a Son? It is one thing when thou art taught to honor God in that He is God; but another thing when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father. When thou art taught to honor Him in that He is God, it is as the Creator, as the Almighty, as the Spirit supreme, eternal, invisible, unchangeable, that thou art led to think of Him; but when thou art taught to honor Him in that He is Father, it is the same thing as to honor the Son; because Father cannot be said if there be not a Son, as neither can Son if there be not a Father. But lest, it may be, thou honorest the Father indeed as greater, but the Son as less,—as thou mayest say to me, “I do honor the Father, for I know that He has a Son; nor do I err in the name Father, for I do not understand Father without Son, and yet the Son also I honor as the less,”—the Son Himself sets thee right, and recalls thee, saying, “that all may honor the Son,” not in a lower degree, but “as they honor the Father.” Therefore, “whoso honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father that sent Him.” “I,” sayest thou, “wish to give greater honor to the Father, less to the Son.” Therein thou takest away honor from the Father, wherein thou givest less to the Son. For, being thus minded, it must really seem to thee that the Father either would not or could not beget a Son equal to Himself: if He would not, He lacked the will; if He could not, He lacked the ability. Dost thou not therefore see that, being thus minded, wherein thou wouldst give greater honor to the Father, therein thou art reproachful to the Father? Wherefore, so honor the Son as thou honorest the Father, if thou wouldest honor both the Father and the Son. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xx.html Don't tell anyone on here about this or they will get mad…grrr!

Kathi

True, but lets not forget that he believed that the Son was always with the Father…

“For the Gospel does not say, “In the beginning God made the Word;” as it is said, “In the beginning God made the Heaven and the earth;”9 or, “In the beginning was the Word born;” or, “In the beginning God begat the Word.” But what says it? “He was, He was, He was.” You hear, “He was;” believe. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”10 So often do ye hear, “Was:” seek not for thee, for that He always “was.” He then who always was, and was always with the Son, for that God is able to beget without thee;

He was He was He was always with the Son!

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 17 2010,14:55)

Only if God exalted it to be a requirement to get to Him through the second tree.  I hope we haven't started a new religion here disclaimer…Mike is making this stuff up, he took a break from the literal.  Consider this a commercial break

Okay Kathi,

I guess I got my answer. If God said to ONLY eat of one tree, and other tree that sprouted up out of that first tree reminded you to ONLY eat of the first tree, you would still eat of the second tree anyway.

Like I said days ago, worship who you want to. Just please don't try to support that unscriptural decision with the quotes of mere men as if them doing something unscriptural makes it okay for us to.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,07:39)

But I think I will try your method of chopping up someones post by leaving points out and see if that saves time.

Good Keith,

Then maybe we can really debate at least one point down to the bitter end and get some closure on it instead of going thru the same motions over and over and really getting nowhere.

I'm ready for wherever it takes me…….are you?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,07:40)

Was Jesus “born gennao” the Son of God by conception of the Holy Spirit or not? If so did he pre-exist his being “born gennao” in the flesh or not?

Hi Keith,

Jesus was born/begotten 3 times.  

Once before all the ages since we know the universe came to be through God's Son.

Once “according to the flesh” as Ignatius puts it.  He says,

He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary;

And a third time from the dead.

What do you think Paul meant when he said “When He AGAIN brings His firstborn into the world….”?  To me it says that God once before brought His already firstborn Son INTO THE WORLD.

You slam my “2 year understanding” of scripture, yet when I read the Bible for the first time, the understanding I gained on my own is the same understanding Ignatius and Eusebius had.  My question is why you too didn't come to that same understanding.  Oh, you learned your beliefs sitting in a trinitarian church being handfed what to believe, right?

mike

[Author]

Posts