Does god procreate?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:06)

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

Mike

There is no end with you Mike. We give you answers and you insist that we give them over and over again.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,07:41)

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”.

You better check again Keith.  Both the Hebrew AND the LXX use the word “day”, just like Psalm 2:7.  Here's the catch:

You say the word “day” in Psalm 2:7 eliminates any possibility that Jesus was literally begotten because all things, including “days” came into being through him.  Therefore it must be the “figurative” begetting that happened when he was raised from the dead, right?

Well then, what about Micah?  The word “days” is there.  So if Jesus' “arche/BEGINNING” was from “days of eternity” (LXX), then how could ALL THINGS INCLUDING “DAYS” have been created through someone who wasn't even around until there were already “days”?  And were there “days” in “eternity”?

Or, if Jesus' “goings forth” were from “days of antiquity” (Hebrew), God couldn't have created “days” themselves through Jesus, because the actual creation of “days” would have been considered a “going forth/activity” (NET) of Jesus.  So it would have to say his “goings forth” were from BEFORE days of antiquity, right?

What we have here IMO is a case proving what I said long ago about Psalm 2:7.  I pointed out to you and JA that the Hebrew word “yowm” could have meant a literal “day”, or it just as easily could have meant a particular “time period”.

In other words, Psalm 2:7  could mean, “At this time I have begotten you.”, or “During this time period, I have begotten you.”  

What will you do Keith?  If you insist “day” in the Psalm must be literal, then your God #2 didn't have a part in creating “days” at all – according to Micah.  OR……eternity did have “days”, and therefore your assertion that the Psalm couldn't mean a literal begetting is debunked.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,15:37)

Mike There is no end with you Mike. We give you answers and you insist that we give them over and over again.

This is getting old Keith.  Why are there 4 debates we now have going and in each one of them……I'M WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER?

And yet you keep yelling “We already answered you!”.  Do I need to pull up the conversation between you and I and Jack and Is 1:18 in the “bf/cif debate” thread?  The one where all three of you lambasted me saying the same thing about already answering my questions.  The one where, to prove you hadn't, I posted three of the questions you had all been avoiding – one to each of you.

Not ONE of you responded…..but at least it shut you up about it for a while.

mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 17 2010,16:10)

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

Hi Keith,
So how do you like your new pad? Are boxes everywhere? We're doing some re-doing around here with taking ceilings down, putting new ceilings up and painting and painting and painting. It will be nice to have everything in place again. I have my two oldest that just graduated from college living back at home and we are trying to adjust to all their stuff they brought back. It is nice to have them around, now as adults.

Anyway, as I read the early church father's stuff, when they say that the Father was always with the Son, I think they are meaning that without the Son, God would not be called a Father. So when He is called 'Father' that implies a Son. For instance, when my husband became a father, my son became a son at the same moment, yet my husband was not always a father but my son was always a son. Do you see this?

Augustine:

Quote

or 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.

From what I can tell, they generally consider the common nature of God from which the Son was begotten was always existent within God, then at some point before the ages, the Word/Son was begotten and at that time He became 'with' God but before that, the Son's nature was within God. Augustine says something about the Father giving the Son life and that the Father got life from no one. I am going to look for it.

Quote

Behold, sayest thou, thyself confessest that the Father hath given life to the Son, that He may have life in Himself, even as the Father hath life in Himself; that the Father not lacking, the Son may not lack; that as the Father is life, so the Son may be life; and both united one life, not two lives; because God is one, not two Gods; and this same is to be life. How, then, is the Father said to have given life to the Son? Not so as if the Son had been without life before, and received life from the Father that He might live; for if it were so, He would not have life in Himself. Behold, I was speaking of the soul. The soul exists; though it be not wise, though it 127 be not righteous, though it be not godly, it is soul. It is one thing for it to be soul, but another thing to be wise, to be righteous, to be godly. Something there is, then, in which it is not yet wise, not yet righteous, not yet godly. Nevertheless it is not therefore nothing, it is not therefore non-life; for it shows itself to be alive by certain of its own actions, although it does not show itself to be wise, godly, or righteous. For if it were not living it would not move the body, would not command the feet to walk, t he hands to work, the eyes to look, the ears to hear; would not open the mouth for speaking, nor move the tongue to distinction of speech. So, then, by these operations it shows itself to have life, and to be something which is better than the body. But does it in any wise show itself by these operations to be wise, godly, or righteous? Do not the foolish, the wicked, the unrighteous walk, work, see, hear, speak? But when the soul rises to something which itself is not, which is above itself, and from which its being is, then it gets wisdom, righteousness, holiness, which so long as it was without, it was dead, and did not have the life by which itself should live, but only that by which the body was quickened. For that in the soul by which the body is quickened is one thing, that by which the soul itself is quickened is another. Better, certainly, than the body is the soul, but better than the soul itself is God. The soul, even if it be foolish, ungodly, unrighteous, is the life of the body. But since its own life is God, just as it supplies vigor, comeliness, activity, the functions of the limbs to the body, while it exists in the body; so, in like manner, while God, its life, is in the soul, He supplies to it wisdom, godliness, righteousness, charity. Accordingly, what the soul supplies to the body, and what God supplies to the soul, are of a different kind: the soul quickens and is quickened. It quickens while dead, even if itself is not quickened.

Quote

13. Not, then, in like manner as the soul is one thing before it is enlightened, and becomes a better thing when it is enlightened, by participation of a better; not so, I say, was the Word of God, the Son of God, something else before He received life, that He should have life by participation; but He has life in Himself, and is consequently Himself the very life. What is it, then, that He saith, “hath given to the Son to have life in Himself”? I would say it briefly, He begot the Son. For it is not that He existed without life, and received life, but He is life by being begotten. The Father is life not by being begotten; the Son is life by being begotten. The Father is of no father; the Son is of God the Father. The Father in His being is of none, but in that He is Father, ’tis because of the Son. But the Son also, in that He is Son, ’tis because of the Father: in His being, He is of the Father. This He said, therefore: “hath given life to the Son, that He might have it in Himself.” Just as if He were to say, “The Father, who is life in Himself, begot the Son, who should be life in Himself.”

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

This has been a lot to chew on to try to figure out what Augustine is talking about. It is interesting though.

I would say, at this point, that Augustine is saying that there is one life, one wisdom, etc. within the one God and that one God wanted to create and manifest Himself to His creation and in order to remain invisible yet manifest visibly, He begat another person/soul to continue God's very life, wisdom, etc. in. before the ages. This is when the word came to be 'with' God and was God in that the Son was also owning the life that has life in itself, wisdom, light, etc.

I will be processing this for a while, I'm sure.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:02)

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

Mike,
I think you are worshiping according to the small picture instead of what is seen in the bigger picture. Also, you exalt the NWT which is biased towards Jesus being a created angel. You will never see them choose the definition for divine homage/worship for their 'created angel Jesus' since scripture says not to worship the angels.

So, as you have warned me not to put the church father's understanding above scripture, which is good advice…I warn you to not put the NWT above a translation that believes the Son to be divine and not an angel.

One more thought about the tree idea…the second tree could have come from the same roots of the first tree, sometimes that happens. Then it would be a second tree or an offshoot, yet connected to the first tree and thus a part of the first tree. If the offshoot wasn't there when you were told to eat only from that one tree and then later the offshoot grew, would you eat off of the fruit of the offshoot? It gives more of a picture of what I understand.

Look at this picture of a tree with offshoots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bluemed/328472075/

[JustAskin]

Mike, WJ,

It is quite clear and obvious that 'days of Eternity' cannot possibly mean 'literal days'. It is phrasiology only for the understanding of 'lifespanned man'
Eternity Cannot count…there is no number big enough, divisisable, multiplyable, portionable, fractionisable, measurable…that can contain 'Eternity'.
Correct, or near correct translation, would be 'time'. 'Time' is linear period… 'Day' is singular object. A peroid of time constitutes the object day.
So, unless there were events that span a period of time which could then be called 'A day'…ha! See Genesis 1…, the word 'day' in Micah is wrongly translated.

[mikeboll64]

Hi JA,

It would seem so, but the word “day” is not translated at all.  It is actually written in the original Hebrew.  It is the same word “yowm” that is used in Psalm 2:7 when God says “This DAY I have begotten you”.

I think it is used by God and Jesus figuratively in the Psalm meaning “at some point in (or before) time, God begot His Son”.  And I think in Micah, it is used similarly to say “at some point in (or before) time, Jesus had his beginning.”

At any rate, you and WJ can no longer reasonably use the word “Today” in Psalm 2:7 as any kind of proof that Jesus' begetting was only figurative, right?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Kathi:

Quote

Also, you exalt the NWT which is biased towards Jesus being a created angel.  You will never see them choose the definition for divine homage/worship for their 'created angel Jesus' since scripture says not to worship the angels.  So, as you have warned me not to put the church father's understanding above scripture, which is good advice…I warn you to not put the NWT above a translation that believes the Son to be divine and not an angel.

I don't exalt the NWT “above” the NIV, which is my favorite so far.  But I think the NWT is a fine translation that does an even better job of translating some scriptures than the more “mainstream” ones do.  BUT…..I am not on board with every single JW INTERPRETATION OF those scriptures.  They do, however, believe that Jesus IS divine and has the nature of his God.  

You are the one who taught me to revise my understanding of scripture and realize that Jesus was the ANGEL that God sent before the Israelites in the desert in Ex 23:20, so apparently Jesus is a messenger/angel of his God, right?  But I don't agree (at least not yet, but I haven't delved into it too deeply) that Jesus is also Michael.  I believe that Michael is one of the creations that came into existence THROUGH Jesus.

Did you know that out of the 8 times the KJV translated the proskuneo of Jesus as “worship” in Matthew, the NET and NIV and many other translations only use “worship” for 4 of them now?  The other 4 they translate as “knelt down before” or “bowed down to”.  They are halfway home Kathi!  It's just that the NWT beat them to the punch!

Kathi:

Quote

One more thought about the tree idea…the second tree could have come from the same roots of the first tree, sometimes that happens.

If that was the case, there would not be TWO trees, but still ONE.  No, the second tree is a completely separate being from the first, although the second sprang forth FROM the first.  The command doesn't change until God (not man) says so.

By the way, I enjoyed your picture of the ONE palm tree with 5 trunks.  I'll bet this picture was taken at an Arizona golf course or park.  Despite what the caption says about it being unique, they grow like that all over down here……but it's still ONE tree.

peace and love,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 18 2010,00:29)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 17 2010,16:10) 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 Hi Keith, So how do you like your new pad?  Are boxes everywhere?  We're doing some re-doing around here with taking ceilings down, putting new ceilings up and painting and painting and painting.  It will be nice to have everything in place again.  I have my two oldest that just graduated from college living back at home and we are trying to adjust to all their stuff they brought back.  It is nice to have them around, now as adults. Anyway, as I read the early church father's stuff, when they say that the Father was always with the Son, I think they are meaning that without the Son, God would not be called a Father.  So when He is called 'Father' that implies a Son.  For instance, when my husband became a father, my son became a son at the same moment, yet my husband was not always a father but my son was always a son.  Do you see this? Augustine: Quote or 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. From what I can tell, they generally consider the common nature of God from which the Son was begotten was always existent within God, then at some point before the ages, the Word/Son was begotten and at that time He became 'with' God but before that, the Son's nature was within God.  Augustine says something about the Father giving the Son life and that the Father got life from no one.  I am going to look for it. Quote Behold, sayest thou, thyself confessest that the Father hath given life to the Son, that He may have life in Himself, even as the Father hath life in Himself; that the Father not lacking, the Son may not lack; that as the Father is life, so the Son may be life; and both united one life, not two lives; because God is one, not two Gods; and this same is to be life. How, then, is the Father said to have given life to the Son? Not so as if the Son had been without life before, and received life from the Father that He might live; for if it were so, He would not have life in Himself. Behold, I was speaking of the soul. The soul exists; though it be not wise, though it 127 be not righteous, though it be not godly, it is soul. It is one thing for it to be soul, but another thing to be wise, to be righteous, to be godly. Something there is, then, in which it is not yet wise, not yet righteous, not yet godly. Nevertheless it is not therefore nothing, it is not therefore non-life; for it shows it self to be alive by certain of its own actions, although it does not show itself to be wise, godly, or righteous. For if it were not living it would not move the body, would not command the feet to walk, the hands to work, the eyes to look, the ears to hear; would not open the mouth for speaking, nor move the tongue to distinction of speech. So, then, by these operations it shows itself to have life, and to be something which is better than the body. But does it in any wise show itself by these operations to be wise, godly, or righteous? Do not the foolish, the wicked, the unrighteous walk, work, see, hear, speak? But when the soul rises to something which itself is not, which is above itself, and from which its being is, then it gets wisdom, righteousness, holiness, which so long as it was without, it was dead, and did not have the life by which itself should live, but only that by which the body was quickened. For that in the soul by which the body is quickened is one thing, that by which the soul itself is quickened is another. Better, certainly, than the body is the soul, but better than the soul itself is God. The soul, even if it be foolish, ungodly, unrighteous, is the life of the body. But since its own life is God, just as it supplies vigor, comeliness, activity, the functions of the limbs to the body, while it exists in the body; so, in like manner, while God, its life, is in the soul, He supplies to it wisdom, godliness, righteousness, charity. Accordingly, what the soul supplies to the body, and what God supplies to the soul, are of a different kind: the soul quickens and is quickened. It quickens while dead, even if itself is not quickened.   Quote 13. Not, then, in like manner as the soul is one thing before it is enlightened, and becomes a better thing when it is enlightened, by participation of a better; not so, I say, was the Word of God, the Son of God, something else before He received life, that He should have life by participation; but He has life in Himself, and is consequently Himself the very life. What is it, then, that He saith, “hath given to the Son to have life in Himself”? I would say it briefly, He begot the Son. For it is not that He existed without life, and received life, but He is life by being begotten. The Father is life not by being begotten; the Son is life by being begotten. The Father is of no father; the Son is of God the Father. The Father in His being is of none, but in that He is Father, ’tis because of the Son. But the Son also, in that He is Son, ’tis because of the Father: in His being, He is of the Father. This He said, therefore: “hath given life to the Son, that He might have it in Himself.” Just as if He were to say, “The Father, who is life in Himself, begot the Son, who should be life in Himself.”   http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xx.html This has been a lot to chew on to try to figure out what Augustine is talking about.  It is interesting though. I would say, at this point, that Augustine is saying that there is one life, one wisdom, etc. within the one God and that one God wanted to create and manifest Himself to His creation and in order to remain invisible yet manifest visibly, He begat another person/soul to continue God's very life, wisdom, etc. in. before the ages.  This is when the word came to be 'with' God and was God in that the Son was also owning the life that has life in itself, wisdom, light, etc. I will be processing this for a while, I'm sure.

Hi Kathi

I like my new pad and yes boxes are everywhere, thanks for asking. It has been exhausting moving and it seems it never ends. You don't realize how much “stuff” you gather until you move.

Early this morning around 5:00 AM my wife and I loaded my trailor with stuff to take to our daughters house for a garage sale.

Anyways to your points…

Kathi  that is not what he believes at all.

“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.”

This contradicts what you believe. He clearly says the Word was not made or born or begotten.

Here is another of his quotes that proves this…

St. Chrysostom 347-407

For this, as I before said, he has shown by the term “Word.” As therefore the expression, ““In the beginning was the Word,” shows His Eternity, so “was in the beginning with God,” has declared to us His Co-eternity. For that you may not, when you hear “In the beginning was the Word,” suppose Him to be Eternal, and “yet imagine the life of 17 the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a BEGINING to the Only-Begotten, he adds, “was in the beginning with God”; so eternally even as the Father Himself, for the Father was never without the Word, but He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person. Source

This also is further proof that the Fathers that believed Jesus was begotten before time did not believe that his begetting meant he had a beginning.

Have a good chew.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,10:22)

Kathi: Quote Also, you exalt the NWT which is biased towards Jesus being a created angel.  You will never see them choose the definition for divine homage/worship for their 'created angel Jesus' since scripture says not to worship the angels.  So, as you have warned me not to put the church father's understanding above scripture, which is good advice…I warn you to not put the NWT above a translation that believes the Son to be divine and not an angel. I don't exalt the NWT “above” the NIV, which is my favorite so far.  But I think the NWT is a fine translation that does an even better job of translating some scriptures than the more “mainstream” ones do.  BUT…..I am not on board with every single JW INTERPRETATION OF those scriptures.  They do, however, believe that Jesus IS divine and has the nature of his God.   You are the one who taught me to revise my understanding of scripture and realize that Jesus was the ANGEL that God sent before the Israelites in the desert in Ex 23:20, so apparently Jesus is a messenger/angel of his God, right?  But I don't agree (at least not yet, but I haven't delved into it too deeply) that Jesus is also Michael.  I believe that Michael is one of the creations that came into existence THROUGH Jesus. Did you know that out of the 8 times the KJV translated the proskuneo of Jesus as “worship” in Matthew, the NET and NIV and many other translations only use “worship” for 4 of them now?  The other 4 they translate as “knelt down before” or “bowed down to”.  They are halfway home Kathi!  It's just that the NWT beat them to the punch! Kathi: Quote One more thought about the tree idea…the second tree could have come from the same roots of the first tree, sometimes that happens. If that was the case, there would not be TWO trees, but still ONE.  No, the second tree is a completely separate being from the first, although the second sprang forth FROM the first.  The command doesn't change until God (not man) says so. By the way, I enjoyed your picture of the ONE palm tree with 5 trunks.  I'll bet this picture was taken at an Arizona golf course or park.  Despite what the caption says about it being unique, they grow like that all over down here……but it's still ONE tree. peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,
Are angels divine according to the JW's and do the angels have the nature of God according to them? Still they think the Son was created and an angel so I don't know how they can think he has something other than an angelic nature. Anyway, if they believe that Jesus is Michael, they have a bias that no other translation carries and a rather significantly different bias at that, wouldn't you say?

The more I think of the tree with the offshoot, the more I like the representation of the Father and the Son. If I can find a good picture of one main tree with one offshoot tree, that would be best. I do not think of the Son as a completely separate 'tree' than the Father but a part of the Father like the offshoot is part of the main tree and has the same nature, bears the same fruit, from the same source yet began at a different time although his nature, light, etc., didn't begin at a different time since it always was in existence as long as the 'father tree' had been in existence. I really like that picture. I think that JA might also like that picture to represent what he means by the totality of God and the Son being a part of that totallity. Notice, the offshoot isn't a mere branch or a mere trunk but it is the offshoot trunk, with branches and leaves and fruit just like the father tree.

So, I don't see the Son as a separate God but more like the 'offshoot' God (the begotten God) which contains all that the parent tree contains but isn't the parent tree yet is still inseparable from the parent tree. Thanks for bring up the tree idea because it has 'branched' off into a picture that I can put in my mind and can use to explain the relationship of the Father and the Son in a way that I didn't have before. Brilliant Mike! God used you

Maybe if you realize that is more of what I understand then you will better understand that I can worship the parent tree and the offshoot as one 'tree' yet two.

Now, I invite the readers to find me a great picture of one parent tree with one offshoot that best resembles the parent tree.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,10:47)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 18 2010,00:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 17 2010,16:10) 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 Hi Keith, So how do you like your new pad?  Are boxes everywhere?  We're doing some re-doing around here with taking ceilings down, putting new ceilings up and painting and painting and painting.  It will be nice to have everything in place again.  I have my two oldest that just graduated from college living back at home and we are trying to adjust to all their stuff they brought back.  It is nice to have them around, now as adults. Anyway, as I read the early church father's stuff, when they say that the Father was always with the Son, I think they are meaning that without the Son, God would not be called a Father.  So when He is called 'Father' that implies a Son.  For instance, when my husband became a father, my son became a son at the same moment, yet my husband was not always a father but my son was always a son.  Do you see this? Augustine: Quote or 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. From what I can tell, they generally consider the common nature of God from which the Son was begotten was always existent within God, then at some point before the ages, the Word/Son was begotten and at that time He became 'with' God but before that, the Son's nature was within God.  Augustine says something about the Father giving the Son life and that the Father got life from no one.  I am going to look for it. Quote Behold, sayest thou, thyself confessest that the Father hath given life to the Son, that He may have life in Himself, even as the Father hath life in Himself; that the Father not lacking, the Son may not lack; that as the Father is life, so the Son may be life; and both united one life, not two lives; because God is one, not two Gods; and this same is to be life. How, then, is the Father said to have given life to the Son? Not so as if the Son had been without life before, and received life from the Father that He might live; for if it were so, He would not have life in Himself. Behold, I was speaking of the soul. The soul exists; though it be not wise, though it 127 be not righteous, though it be not godly, it is soul. It is one thing for it to be soul , but another thing to be wise, to be righteous, to be godly. Something there is, then, in which it is not yet wise, not yet righteous, not yet godly. Nevertheless it is not therefore nothing, it is not therefore non-life; for it shows itself to be alive by certain of its own actions, although it does not show itself to be wise, godly, or righteous. For if it were not living it would not move the body, would not command the feet to walk, the hands to work, the eyes to look, the ears to hear; would not open the mouth for speaking, nor move the tongue to distinction of speech. So, then, by these operations it shows itself to have life, and to be something which is better than the body. But does it in any wise show itself by these operations to be wise, godly, or righteous? Do not the foolish, the wicked, the unrighteous walk, work, see, hear, speak? But when the soul rises to something which itself is not, which is above itself, and from which its being is, then it gets wisdom, righteousness, holiness, which so long as it was without, it was dead, and did not have the life by which itself should live, but only that by which the body was quickened. For that in the soul by which the body is quickened is one thing, that by which the soul itself is quickened is another. Better, certainly, than the body is the soul, but better than the soul itself is God. The soul, even if it be foolish, ungodly, unrighteous, is the life of the body. But since its own life is God, just as it supplies vigor, comeliness, activity, the functions of the limbs to the body, while it exists in the body; so, in like manner, while God, its life, is in the soul, He supplies to it wisdom, godliness, righteousness, charity. Accordingly, what the soul supplies to the body, and what God supplies to the soul, are of a different kind: the soul quickens and is quickened. It quickens while dead, even if itself is not quickened.   Quote 13. Not, then, in like manner as the soul is one thing before it is enlightened, and becomes a better thing when it is enlightened, by participation of a better; not so, I say, was the Word of God, the Son of God, something else before He received life, that He should have life by participation; but He has life in Himself, and is consequently Himself the very life. What is it, then, that He saith, “hath given to the Son to have life in Himself”? I would say it briefly, He begot the Son. For it is not that He existed without life, and received life, but He is life by being begotten. The Father is life not by being begotten; the Son is life by being begotten. The Father is of no father; the Son is of God the Father. The Father in His being is of none, but in that He is Father, ’tis because of the Son. But the Son also, in that He is Son, ’tis because of the Father: in His being, He is of the Father. This He said, therefore: “hath given life to the Son, that He might have it in Himself.” Just as if He were to say, “The Father, who is life in Himself, begot the Son, who should be life in Himself.”   http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.xx.html This has been a lot to chew on to try to figure out what Augustine is talking about.  It is interesting though. I would say, at this point, that Augustine is saying that there is one life, one wisdom, etc. within the one God and that one God wanted to create and manifest Himself to His creation and in order to remain invisible yet manifest visibly, He begat another person/soul to continue God's very life, wisdom, etc. in. before the ages.  This is when the word came to be 'with' God and was God in that the Son was also owning the life that has life in itself, wisdom, light, etc. I will be processing this for a while, I'm sure. Hi Kathi I like my new pad and yes boxes are everywhere, thanks for asking. It has been exhausting moving and it seems it never ends. You don't realize how much “stuff” you gather until you move. Early this morning around 5:00 AM my wife and I loaded my trailor with stuff to take to our daughters house for a garage sale. Anyways to your points… Kathi  that is not what he believes at all. “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.” This contradicts what you believe. He clearly says the Word was not made or born or begotten. Here is another of his quotes that proves this… St. Chrysostom 347-407 For this, as I before said, he has shown by the term “Word.” As therefore the expression, ““In the beginning was the Word,” shows His Eternity, so “was in the beginning with God,” has declared to us His Co-eternity. For that you may not, when you hear “In the beginning was the Word,” suppose Him to be Eternal, and “yet imagine the life of 17 the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a BEGINING to the Only-Begotten, he adds, “was in the beginning with God”; so eternally even as the Father Himself, for the Father was never without the Word, but He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person. Source This also is further proof that the Fathers that believed Jesus was begotten before time did not believe that his begetting meant he had a beginning. Have a good chew. WJ

Keith,
I think that what they are saying is that the word didn't get begotten in time, in the beginning…but begotten instead during eternity before the ages. I have found too much from Chrysostom and Augustine and other early christian fathers to think they thought that there was no difference from the one unbegotten and the one begotten before the ages.

Look at the parent tree with the offshoot tree word picture that I am talking to Mike about. The parent tree existed before the offshoot, yet the nature and all that the offshoot contains existed as long as the parent tree's nature etc. existed. You can see one tree, yet two. The offshoot is not merely a branch but another tree with its own branches, leaves, and fruit but not different types of branches, leaves or fruit from the parent tree. I really like this picture. Just think about it for a while.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 19 2010,03:16)

Hi Mike, Are angels divine according to the JW's and do the angels have the nature of God according to them?  Still they think the Son was created and an angel so I don't know how they can think he has something other than an angelic nature.

Hi Kathi,

Isn't that exactly what scripture tells us…..the he was created and a messenger/angel?  It is YOU, not the JW's who are believing something other than what scripture says on this subject.  As far as having an “angelic nature”, you kind of sound like the non-preexisters here.  They think just because Jesus had the nature of a man, that's the ONLY nature he ever had.  Just because Jesus has the nature of his God doesn't mean he couldn't also have the nature of a messenger/angel or that he couldn't have had the nature of a man at some point, right?

Kathi:

Quote

So, I don't see the Son as a separate God but more like the 'offshoot' God (the begotten God) which contains all that the parent tree contains but isn't the parent tree yet is still inseparable from the parent tree.

You are only one step away from being welcomed with open arms into WJ's church!  You need only add the Holy Spirit into that ONE tree that consists of two persons, and you too will enjoy all the joys of believing in a trinity God.

Jesus is a totally separate individual entity than his God.  He is not a “branch” or part of the “tree of God”.  Boditharta made a great point about Jesus and God being “one”.  If Jesus, although being a separtate “person” than Jehovah was still always part of the same “substance” of Jehovah, then when he became full of all of our sin, the “substance” he shared with Jehovah would have also become tainted with sin, right?  If it is ONE substance only, then that WHOLE substance would become tainted no matter which “person” of that substance became tainted.

Chew on that one WJ!

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Hi Mike,
The first offshoot of the first tree is not a part of the group of the offshoots of the bushes. All offshoots are not equal See the Son would be the first offshoot of all offshoots but He would be an offshoot of something that always existed, the rest would be the offshoots of a different kind…bushes. Get the picture?

Also, do you remember the story of Abraham and the conversation we had about one of the three 'men' was the Son as YHVH? Well, the Bible called them MEN yet we know that they did not have the nature of men, right? So, they appeared as men but did not have the nature of men. In a similar way, the Son could 'appear' as an angel but not be an angel and act similarly to an angel. Get it? He was not a man with Abraham, nor were the two angels with Him. They were not men but appeared as men and acted similarly as men…they walked, wore clothes, they ate, etc.

AND I told you so long ago now, that I thought the Son was the 'arm' of the Lord that lead the people out of Egypt, not the angel of the Lord but I am not opposed to Him being referred to as the angel of the Lord in some contexts with the understanding that He really isn't an angel but may appear as an angel and act as an angel at times.

you said:

Quote

Jesus is a totally separate individual entity than his God. He is not a “branch” or part of the “tree of God”. Boditharta made a great point about Jesus and God being “one”. If Jesus, although being a separtate “person” than Jehovah was still always part of the same “substance” of Jehovah, then when he became full of all of our sin, the “substance” he shared with Jehovah would have also become tainted with sin, right? If it is ONE substance only, then that WHOLE substance would become tainted no matter which “person” of that substance became tainted.

The sin was put on the son of man as pertaining to the 'flesh.' The Father did not share a man nature with the Son. In the picture of the parent tree and the offshoots, that does not represent the Son after He became flesh. The Father and Son (as per divinity) are unchangeable and cannot sin, they will always be true and perfect.

Also, in regards to me being one step away from being welcomed into WJ's church…I am welcomed in my church because I am a follower of Christ as the Son of God. I would not see the HS as another offshoot but more like the part of the tree that brings forth the fruit. Your turn to chew…

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,12:18)

Jesus is a totally separate individual entity than his God.  He is not a “branch” or part of the “tree of God”.  Boditharta made a great point about Jesus and God being “one”.  If Jesus, although being a separtate “person” than Jehovah was still always part of the same “substance” of Jehovah, then when he became full of all of our sin, the “substance” he shared with Jehovah would have also become tainted with sin, right?  If it is ONE substance only, then that WHOLE substance would become tainted no matter which “person” of that substance became tainted. Chew on that one WJ!

Mike

Chew on this…

The sin did not corrupt Jesus. You have got it backwards. The substance of God washed away the sin. What you are saying is if Jesus had the substance of God the Father then God the Fathers substance could also be corrupted by sin.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool“. Isa 1:18

The blood of God never looses its power Mike. I am not surprised that you would take advise from the words of a Muslim who doesn't believe that Jesus died for our sins and that his perfect, untainted and sinless holy blood washes us clean.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,12:18)

You are only one step away from being welcomed with open arms into WJ's church!

Mike

Kathis church is Trinitarian and she would also be welcome in our church. You and BD would be welcome in our church.

You might not be able to teach a sunday school class though.

I bet the JWs would love to have you teach sunday school.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 18 2010,12:18)

Jesus is a totally separate individual entity than his God.  He is not a “branch” or part of the “tree of God”.  Boditharta made a great point about Jesus and God being “one”.  If Jesus, although being a separtate “person” than Jehovah was still always part of the same “substance” of Jehovah, then when he became full of all of our sin, the “substance” he shared with Jehovah would have also become tainted with sin, right?  If it is ONE substance only, then that WHOLE substance would become tainted no matter which “person” of that substance became tainted. Chew on that one WJ!

Mike

BTW if Jesus substance became tainted with sin then whose blood washed his sin away?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,07:41) 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”. You better check again Keith.  Both the Hebrew AND the LXX use the word “day”, just like Psalm 2:7.

Mike I did check and the English translation of the LXX and the Masoretic text have it the same.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51)

Here's the catch: You say the word “day” in Psalm 2:7 eliminates any possibility that Jesus was literally begotten because all things, including “days” came into being through him.  Therefore it must be the “figurative” begetting that happened when he was raised from the dead, right?

Yep, you got it. Why, don’t you think that “all things” came into being by or through Jesus including the days?

If there were days then that would mean that there was a beginning right?

And “GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY”, and the darkness he called Night. And “the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY. Gen 1:5

Was there a day before the “first day” Mike? This is so elementary Mike. The “first day” happened after the beginning. Gen 1:1-4

John said Jesus was there with the Father in the beginning. John 1:1, 2 and to put the nail in the coffin that nothing existed including days or time before Jesus, John writes…

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3

Not only did John say “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING (BY OR) THROUGH HIM, but in case someone misunderstood him he says…
APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING. and that includes the light and the waters which proceeded the days.

You see this is what I was talking about earlier when you claim that word definitions by the experts are hog wash. The net knows this fact about “days” and you should too and that’s one reason why they translated the scripture that way and why they said…

Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities.
10tn 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.

Questions:

[terraricca]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 19 2010,14:28)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51) WorshippingJesus,Sep. wrote: 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”. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,07:41) You better check again Keith.  Both the Hebrew AND the LXX use the word “day”, just like Psalm 2:7. Mike I did check and the English translation of the LXX and the Masoretic text have it the same. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51) Here's the catch: You say the word “day” in Psalm 2:7 eliminates any possibility that Jesus was literally begotten because all things, including “days” came into being through him.  Therefore it must be the “figurative” begetting that happened when he was raised from the dead, right? Yep, you got it. Why, don’t you think that “all things” came into being by or through Jesus including the days? If there were days then that would mean that there was a beginning right? And “GOD CALLED THE LIGHT DAY”, and the darkness he called Night. And “the evening and the morning were the FIRST DAY. Gen 1:5 Was there a day before the “first day” Mike? This is so elementary Mike. The “first day” happened after the beginning. Gen 1:1-4 John said Jesus was there with the Father in the beginning. John 1:1, 2 and to put the nail in the coffin that nothing existed including days or time before Jesus, John writes… All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:3 Not only did John say “ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING (BY OR) THROUGH HIM, but in case someone misunderstood him he says… APART FROM HIM NOTHING CAME INTO BEING THAT HAS COME INTO BEING. and that includes the light and the waters which proceeded the days. You see this is what I was talking about earlier when you claim that word definitions by the experts are hog wash. The net knows this fact about “days” and you should too and that’s one reason why they translated the scripture that way and why they said… Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities. 10tn 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. Questions: Did days come after the beginning or before? Was Jesus there with the Father at the beginning of all things or not? Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51) Well then, what about Micah?  The word “days” is there.  So if Jesus' “arche/BEGINNING” was from “days of eternity” (LXX), then how could ALL THINGS INCLUDING “DAYS” have been created through someone who wasn't even around until there were already “days”?  And were there “days” in “eternity”? Sorry Mike, the word “arche” also means “origin”. Jesus is the “origin” of the creation of God since without him nothing came into being that came into being. The Hebrew equivalent for “arche” is “mowtsa'ah” which also means… “place of going out from” or “places of going out to or from” which is why the Net says… Heb “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins (cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) or to his activities. None of the Translations including the NWT translate the word mowtsa'ah as beginning. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51) Or, if Jesus' “goings forth” were from “days of antiquity” (Hebrew), God couldn't have created “days” themselves through Jesus, because the actual creation of “days” would have been considered a “going forth/activity” (NET) of Jesus.  So it would have to say his “goings forth” were from BEFORE days of antiquity, right? No because you are assuming this scripture is speaking of Jesus “begetting” or “his beginning”. But the word “Yalad” is not here is it? And if it was it wouldn't change anything. Jesus said “he came forth from God” so what is wrong with this scripture saying that his “goings forth” or “acts” was in the days of antiquity. Jesus was the Rock that followed the children of Israel in the wilderness. We see Jesus “acts” or his “goings forth” all through the OT scriptures. Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 17 2010,23:51) What we have here IMO is a case proving what I said long ago about Psalm 2:7.  I pointed out to you and JA that the Hebrew word “yowm” could have meant a literal “day”, or it just as easily could have meant a particular “time period”. In other words, Psalm 2:7  could mean, “At this time I have begotten you.”, or “During this time period, I have begotten you.” Mike it is still within “time” and if there was “time” or “days” there was already a beginning and we know that Jesus was there in the beginning. Not to mention you are again ignoring the context in Psalms 2:6, 7 where the Father declared “This day I have begotten you” after he was set on his Holy Hill. And again the Apostles called on this scripture in referring to his resurrection when he sat down at the right hand of the Father. Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 – Heb 5:5 Give it up man. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 18 2010,07:41) What will you do Keith?  If you insist “day” in the Psalm must be literal, then your God #2 didn't have a part in creating “days” at all – according to Micah.  OR……etern ity did have “days”, and therefore your assertion that the Psalm couldn't mean a literal begetting is debunked. Jesus was there before the “first day”! You haven't debunked anything! WJ

WJ

[QUOWas there a day before the “first day” Mike? This is so elementary Mike. The “first day” happened after the beginning. Gen 1:1-4
TE][/QUOTE]

Gene;1;1 says;Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

this is before God start to transform the earth into a living place for men.

like i have said many times before ,WJ you only see what you want to see and it is not the truth of God.

Pierre

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 18 2010,16:53)

Gene;1;1 says;Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. this is before God start to transform the earth into a living place for men. like i have said many times before ,WJ you only see what you want to see and it is not the truth of God. Pierre

Pierre

And you never have anything good to say do you?

But since you want to nose in, then tell me how my statement does not match Gen 1:1?

Did “day one” come after the beginning or not?

“IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH

No mention of days there, ah but we do find days after the beginning in Gen 1:5.

If all you can do is critisize then don't say anything.

There is no fruit coming out of your mouth. I asked you this once before, do you have the Spirit of God in you? Because the Spirit of God does not run around accusing the brethren and it seems that is all you do.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Hi Keith and Mike,
I see that you are discussing 'today' again. I would like to mention that somewhere outside of our realm there is no night, just day as far as I can tell.

Rev 21:23-25
23 And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.
24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.
25 In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed;
NASU

During eternity there was God's illumination and no darkness…always daytime. In the beginning, darkness covered the earth and that was in a different realm. The beginning of the first day in Genesis was in relation to the realm of our earth and doesn't necessarily imply there was no daytime in any other realm unless you think that God did not have glory which illuminated before the ages of the earth. imo

[Author]

Posts