Does god procreate?

[mikeboll64]

……….continued.

We all agree (I think) that Jesus was the Son of God in a way that distiguished him from all of the other “sons of God” – of which we are all a part.  But how did he come to be “THE Son of God”?

Scripture says he was “the only begotten Son of God”.  But scripture also says he was “the firstborn of all creation” and “the beginning of the creation of God”.  Scripture also says he was “born” of God.  And because of the trinitarians, most of us have lost sight of the fact that he is God's SON, and God is his FATHER.  What does that mean in every instance known to man, who happened to be created in God's image?  When does a father/son relationship in nature as we know it ever refer to the two being the same exact entity?  Are any of us his own father or son?  The very fact that Jesus is the SON of God should be enough to say he “came forth” from his Father.  The idea that he is a co-equal “partner” in the “godhead” that just happened to take the title “Son” to his partner's “Father” is absurd.  Why would the “godhead” choose these two titles, knowing how the very mankind they were trying to instruct would take them?  Why wouldn't the “godhead” just say “partner”, or “the second person of the godhead was made flesh to save mankind”?

Both “begotten” and “created” basically mean “caused to exist”.  So Georg and Kathi, I don't know what to make of these distinctions.  The only thing I can grasp mentally is that while everything else in creation came FROM God THROUGH Jesus, the Son is the only thing that was ever “brought forth” DIRECTLY from the Father Himself, and therefore “begotten” is applied to him.

When all is said and done, we have to remember that it was God's words spoken through the psalmist in 2:7.  And God Himself decided to use the word “yalad” in the qal form, which means to the Hebrews He was speaking to,

yalad
1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
  1a) (Qal Form)
      1a1) to bear, bring forth
         1a1a) of child birth
         1a1b) of distress (simile)
         1a1c) of wicked (behaviour)
      1a2) to beget

So if God says He “beget” a Son, who are we to argue?  It is the same word used of Eve “bringing forth” Cain, and the same word used to describe almost every mention of children being begotten or born in the OT.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 14 2010,18:54)

David, You do greatly err. There are THREE ways to become a “son” in scripture: 1. by procreation 2. by adoption 3. by appointment David became the son of God by appointment:

David, don't buy into Jack's trinity biased assertion for a second.

He is right about the three ways to become a son.  But we must remember that the default definition of “firstborn” is ALWAYS “the one who was born first”.

While there are instances in the scriptures where this firstborn rank was stripped away from the “one who was born first” and given to another, these instances are always clear in stating that is what happened.  Without a context about the firstborn rights being given to another who wasn't “the one who was born first”, we have to take it to mean the default definition.

Who was the REAL “firstborn of every creature” that Jesus replaced?  Where can I read about that one in scripture?

Jesus wasn't “appointed” as “the firstborn of all creation”, but instead, Col 1:15-16 says he must have been the firstborn of every creature, because through him all other creatures came to be.

And since we know Jesus is never said to the the “adopted” Son of God, we only have the one choice left – “brought forth” in terms of childbirth – just like the word “yalad” that God chose to use in Psalm 2:7 implies.

ps, David was appointed to the firstborn rank of God's kings of the earth because Saul had failed God.  Saul was never God's “firstborn son”, so David didn't replace him as “firstborn son”, only “firstborn rank of God's kings of the earth”. It never says “son”.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,13:54)

……….continued. We all agree (I think) that Jesus was the Son of God in a way that distiguished him from all of the other “sons of God” – of which we are all a part.  But how did he come to be “THE Son of God”? Scripture says he was “the only begotten Son of God”.  But scripture also says he was “the firstborn of all creation” and “the beginning of the creation of God”.  Scripture also says he was “born” of God.  And because of the trinitarians, most of us have lost sight of the fact that he is God's SON, and God is his FATHER.  What does that mean in every instance known to man, who happened to be created in God's image?  When does a father/son relationship in nature as we know it ever refer to the two being the same exact entity?  Are any of us his own father or son?  The very fact that Jesus is the SON of God should be enough to say he “came forth” from his Father.  The idea that he is a co-equal “partner” in the “godhead” that just happened to take the title “Son” to his partner's “Father” is absurd.  Why would the “godhead” choose these two titles, knowing how the very mankind they were trying to instruct would take them?  Why wouldn't the “godhead” just say “partner”, or “the second person of the godhead was made flesh to save mankind”? Both “begotten” and “created” basically mean “caused to exist”.  So Georg and Kathi, I don't know what to make of these distinctions.  The only thing I can grasp mentally is that while everything else in creation came FROM God THROUGH Jesus, the Son is the only thing that was ever “brought forth” DIRECTLY from the Father Himself, and therefore “begotten” is applied to him. When all is said and done, we have to remember that it was God's words spoken through the psalmist in 2:7.  And God Himself decided to use the word “yalad” in the qal form, which means to the Hebrews He was speaking to, yalad 1) to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail   1a) (Qal Form)       1a1) to bear, bring forth          1a1a) of child birth          1a1b) of distress (simile)          1a1c) of wicked (behaviour)       1a2) to beget So if God says He “beget” a Son, who are we to argue?  It is the same word used of Eve “bringing forth” Cain, and the same word used to describe almost every mention of children being begotten or born in the OT. peace and love, mike

Hi Mike,
Good posts, part 1 and part 2. I suppose we could say that the Son was created in a pro-created sense, but not in the sense of being the first of a kind. He was created in a pro-created sense because He IS the exact representation of the nature of His Father, not of a new nature. Therefore He is not the first of His kind as a creation would be, but He instead is a pro-creation as an offspring would be and thus THE only begotten Son, firstborn of/over all creation.

Also, the word womb can simply mean:

womb (wm)
n.
1. See uterus.
2.
a. A place where something is generated.
b. An encompassing, protective hollow or space.
3. Obsolete The belly.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/womb

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kathi,

Thanks for the support.     You know that we agree on most things scriptural……in fact I believe we agree on everything except you wanting to worship the Son of God along with God.  I know you are sharp, and I learn alot from you.

I believe that Jesus, while sharing a nature with the One who begot him, is the “firstborn of all creation”.  That statement means that Jesus is the “thing” that was “caused to exist” before all other things, and therefore a part of the group of “things that were caused to exist”.  By being the first and only “thing” to come directly from God Himself, his nature is closer to God's than any of God's other creations, but he is not the same being as God, nor is he as strong or smart or experienced, etc……and never will be.  

Just as when Adam begot Cain, Cain shared the nature of Adam, but wasn't as strong, smart or experienced.  In mankind, things eventually get reversed as one grows older and the other grows stronger, but not with God.  Jesus will never catch up with his Father, and will never be exactly the same as Him.

So just as Cain will NEVER share Adam's “glory” of being the first man ever, Jesus will NEVER share God's glory, and therefore, no matter how much he is like his God, he should NEVER be worshipped as God.

So while I agree that scripture says Jesus was begotten by God, on the other hand he is also the “first of his kind” in that he is the first one of the “group of things caused to exist by God”.

This post might seem out of the blue, but it seems that no matter what the topic is, you try to sneak in your “Jesus is God also” thoughts.    And maybe I'm reading your post wrong, but my “spidey senses” were tingling, and so I thought I would nip it in the bud.  

ps, the word “pas” is in the genetive form in Col 1:15, so it says “firstborn OF all creation”, not “firstborn OVER all creation”.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

should i add another fallacy?
stating what is not said in scriptures,
or stating an idea that is not said in scriptures as an refutation to what is said in scriptures.

for example: Shimmer qouted:Is 43:10
Mike said it doesnt say beget, or pro create and somehow thats proof to refute what shimmer said.
REallly?

is this not a fallacy?
I find this humoreus.

here let me copy mike,
Jesus is God because the bible doesnt say he isnt God. hmmmm

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 23 2010,07:36)

should i add another fallacy? stating what is not said in scriptures, or stating an idea that is not said in scriptures as an refutation to what is said in scriptures. for example: Shimmer qouted:Is 43:10 Mike said it doesnt say beget, or pro create and somehow thats proof to refute what shimmer said.   REallly? is this not a fallacy?   I find this humoreus. here let me copy mike, Jesus is God because the bible doesnt say he isnt God. hmmmm

Hi Dennison,

What are you on about?  Are you implying that Is 43:10 says, “and no gods will BE BEGOTTEN after me?”

You had better check your facts before you start spouting off about me speaking unscriptually.  

And don't you believe like the 3 J's that Jesus was “begotten” after he was raised?  Don't you believe like two of the 3 J's that Jesus is God?  

Then how is this “god” BEGOTTEN after God when you assert that Is 43:10 says none will be?

From your point of view:
1.  Is 43:10 says no god will be begotten after God
2.  Jesus is God
3.  Jesus was begotten when he was raised
4.  So God WAS begotten AFTER God said no Gods would be begotten

Therefore, your own argument refutes your own argument.  

Deal with scriptures Dennison.  Don't join the 3-J bandwagon of putting words in my mouth that I did not speak and mistaking personal slams against me for some sort of rebuttal to what I said.

peace and love,
mike

[Lightenup]

Hi Mike,
Thanks for the compliment.  You are pretty sharp yourself for only studying the Bible for two years now.  We do agree on many things but you say that the Son's nature is closer to God's nature and I say that it is the EXACT representation of God's nature.  According to Hebrews 1:3 we see this supported:

NIV ©
biblegateway Heb 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
NASB ©
biblegateway Heb 1:3
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
NLT ©
biblegateway Heb 1:3
The Son reflects God’s own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly. He sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command. After he died to cleanse us from the stain of sin, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God of heaven.
MSG ©
biblegateway Heb 1:3
This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature. He holds everything together by what he says–powerful words! After he finished the sacrifice for sins, the Son took his honored place high in the heavens right alongside God,
BBE ©
SABDAweb Heb 1:3
Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;
NRSV ©
bibleoremusHeb 1:3
He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Now, did He become the image of God or has He always been the image of God even as the Firstborn of all creation.

Regarding the 'pas' being in the genitive form, the NET Bible note says this:

The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation”

I don't know about the genitive of subordination in Greek so, I have to think they know  what they are talking about.  Although I do believe that the Son was the first to be born of another of all creation as well as over all creation.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 23 2010,07:54)

Regarding the 'pas' being in the genitive form, the NET Bible note says this: The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation” I don't know about the genitive of subordination in Greek so, I have to think they know  what they are talking about.  Although I do believe that the Son was the first to be born of another of all creation as well as over all creation.

Yeah, I read that too in the NETNotes.  My conclusion is that the genetive form means that in English, we have to add the “of”.  I think that while NET usually does a good job, this is one of those occasions like when they define Jesus as “the 2nd person in the Godhead”.  It is just made up stuff, and I don't give it another thought.

The genetive form means “of”, and that's all there really is to it IMO.  At the very least, it could be and was almost always translated as “of” in older Bibles. I think it is along the same lines of claiming “only begotten” means “the one and only” without any scriptural or secular historical data to support that it doesn't actually mean “only begotten”.

I notice it more and more now that I'm on HN and looking up more and more Greek and Hebrew words.  If they find a scripture that says Jesus has a beginning, they will just shamelessly make up new defintions to disable that scripture.
I personally think this is just another case of that happening.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2010,01:53)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 23 2010,07:36) should i add another fallacy? stating what is not said in scriptures, or stating an idea that is not said in scriptures as an refutation to what is said in scriptures. for example: Shimmer qouted:Is 43:10 Mike said it doesnt say beget, or pro create and somehow thats proof to refute what shimmer said.   REallly? is this not a fallacy?   I find this humoreus. here let me copy mike, Jesus is God because the bible doesnt say he isnt God. hmmmm Hi Dennison, What are you on about?  Are you implying that Is 43:10 says, “and no gods will BE BEGOTTEN after me?” You had better check your facts before you start spouting off about me speaking unscriptually.   And don't you believe like the 3 J's that Jesus was “begotten” after he was raised?  Don't you believe like two of the 3 J's that Jesus is God?   Then how is this “god” BEGOTTEN after God when you assert that Is 43:10 says none will be? From your point of view: 1.  Is 43:10 says no god will be begotten after God 2.  Jesus is God 3.  Jesus was begotten when he was raised 4.  So God WAS begotten AFTER God said no Gods would be begotten Therefore, your own argument refutes your own argument.   Deal with scriptures Dennison.  Don't join the 3-J bandwagon of putting words in my mouth that I did not speak and mistaking personal slams against me for some sort of rebuttal to what I said. peace and love, mike

no mike what you typically do is make a claim that God can do anything so there for cannot be limited.

what bothers me is that you use what scriptures does not say as evidence to prove your point.
thats a fallacy.
there is nothing to imply, its simple what it says, stick to that.
oh and its not personal im just pointing out a fallacy in your logic.
bc dont cry when someone else does the same.
scriptures doesnt say when the devil fell even though the point is we know he fell, but heck ill assume he fell in the beggining.

[shimmer]

All,

Mormonism – God was a Man who became a God, one of many God's, God and His procreated son – have tangible bodies like us, Jesus is equal 100% God because in Mormonism, God begat God as man begets man.

Of course, scripture say's God is Spirit, Scripture says no God's were formed before of after our God, but, hey, here, anything goes,

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 23 2010,09:43)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2010,01:53) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 23 2010,07:36) should i add another fallacy? stating what is not said in scriptures, or stating an idea that is not said in scriptures as an refutation to what is said in scriptures. for example: Shimmer qouted:Is 43:10 Mike said it doesnt say beget, or pro create and somehow thats proof to refute what shimmer said.   REallly? is this not a fallacy?   I find this humoreus. here let me copy mike, Jesus is God because the bible doesnt say he isnt God. hmmmm Hi Dennison, What are you on about?  Are you implying that Is 43:10 says, “and no gods will BE BEGOTTEN after me?” You had better check your facts before you start spouting off about me speaking unscriptually.   And don't you believe like the 3 J's that Jesus was “begotten” after he was raised?  Don't you believe like two of the 3 J's that Jesus is God?   Then how is this “god” BEGOTTEN after God when you assert that Is 43:10 says none will be? From your point of view: 1.  Is 43:10 says no god will be begotten after God 2.  Jesus is God 3.  Jesus was begotten when he was raised 4.  So God WAS begotten AFTER God said no Gods would be begotten Therefore, your own argument refutes your own argument.   Deal with scriptures Dennison.  Don't join the 3-J bandwagon of putting words in my mouth that I did not speak and mistaking personal slams against me for some sort of rebuttal to what I said. peace and love, mike no mike what you typically do is make a claim that God can do anything so there for cannot be limited. what bothers me is that you use what scriptures does not say as evidence to prove your point. thats a fallacy. there is nothing to imply, its simple what it says, stick to that. oh and its not personal im just pointing out a fallacy in your logic. bc dont cry when someone else does the same. scriptures doesnt say when the devil fell even though the point is we know he fell, but heck ill assume he fell in the beggining.

Can anyone else here tell me what Dennison is talking about? I honestly don't have the foggiest idea.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 23 2010,11:52)

Of course, scripture say's God is Spirit, Scripture says no God's were formed before of after our God, but, hey, here, anything goes,

No Ma'am,

Scripture does NOT say that.  Is 43:10 says that no gods were formed before God, and none shall exist after Him.

It does NOT, NOT, NOT, say no gods shall “be formed” after Him.

So you do actually prove your own point that here anything goes. Some of us on HN just apparently make up scripture as we go.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

In fact Shimmer,

This is exactly what the Greek from the LXX says:

emprosyen……………………….before

mou…………………………………me

ouk………………………………….never

egeneto……………………………begotten

allov…………………………………another

yeov…………………………………god

kai……………………………………and

met………………………………….after

eme………………………………….me

ouk…………………………………..never

estai…………………………………exist

Can you now clearly see that it says none will EXIST after Him, not none will BE FORMED after Him?

mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2010,06:14)

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 23 2010,11:52) Of course, scripture say's God is Spirit, Scripture says no God's were formed before of after our God, but, hey, here, anything goes, No Ma'am, Scripture does NOT say that.  Is 43:10 says that no gods were formed before God, and none shall exist after Him. It does NOT, NOT, NOT, say no gods shall “be formed” after Him. So you do actually prove your own point that here anything goes.  Some of us on HN just apparently make up scripture as we go. peace and love, mike

Mike,
no offense,

but what are you trying to say? are you saying that 43:10 eludes that God can apprently “be formed” or “beget” another God?

Or in other words, are you stating that just because it does not say that he cannot create anything after him, thats “proof” that God can procreate another being like himself? im honestly asking, because i dont know if im misunderstanding you or what.

And also Is 43:10
We know that God is eternal and is without a beggining, he was always just there. (in simple terms)
So there isnt anything that can possible exist before him, unles there was a time taht God didnt exist.
And nothing is After God, becuase he is above all time and space.

IF anything God is not affected by time, because he is like super powerful being that can do anything.

So with that said, It is possible that the scripture refers that no other God except The real God, never existed other than himself?

im honestly asking.

[shimmer]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2010,13:40)

In fact Shimmer, This is exactly what the Greek from the LXX says: emprosyen……………………….before mou…………………………………me ouk………………………………….never egeneto……………………………begotten allov…………………………………another yeov…………………………………god kai……………………………………and met………………………………….after eme………………………………….me ouk…………………………………..never estai…………………………………exist Can you now clearly see that it says none will EXIST after Him, not none will BE FORMED after Him? mike

Mike, Greek ?

Youngs literal,

“Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none”.

Hebrew word study…

YHWH is the only God.  There is no other god.  There never has been any other god.  There never will be any other god.  All creation witnesses to this fact – and so do we.  YHWH is God.

http://skipmoen.com/tag/isaiah-4310/

[Ed J]

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 23 2010,11:52)

All, Mormonism – God was a Man who became a God, one of many God's, God and His procreated son – have tangible bodies like us, Jesus is equal 100% God because in Mormonism, God begat God as man begets man. Of course, scripture say's God is Spirit, Scripture says no God's were formed before of after our God, but, hey, here, anything goes,

Hi Shimmer,

Jesus lineage is clearly written in “The Bible. (1Thess.5:21)
It's only a matter of lining up all the pieces correctly. (2Tm.2:15)

50% “Son of Man” = “Son of Mary” (Matt.1:18 / Matt:1:20 / Mark 6:3 / Luke 1:35)

25% Judah: Mary’s Father Heli was the “son of David” (seed: according to the flesh) through Nathan. (Luke 3:23-31)
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
25% Levi: Mary’s Mother was from the tribe of Levi (which was the tribe of the priesthood). (Luke 1:5 / Luke 1:36)
Heb.5:6: As he saith also in another place, Thou(Jesus Christ) art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

50% “Son of God” = “Son of The HolySpirit” (Matt. 1:18 / Matt. 1:20 / Luke 1:35)

Matt.1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused
to Joseph, before they came (consummated) together, she was found with child of the HolySpirit.
Matt.1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto
him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived in her is of the HolySpirit. (Son of the HolySpirit = Son of God)
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The HolySpirit shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that
holy thing(Jesus) which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 20:41-44 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son? And David
himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD(יהוה האלהים) said unto my Lord(יהשוע המשיח),
Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.  (Psalm 110:1-2)
David therefore calleth him(Jesus Christ) Lord, how how is he(Jesus Christ) then his(David's) son?

Can you reconcile these two Scriptures together, I can!
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Jn.8:14 …Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true…
John 5:37 is therefore fulfilled today in your reading of this Post! (Rev.21:2-3)

Luke 10:30-37 will help you understand who יהשוע המשיח YÄ-shü-ă hä-Mäh-shē-äkh was! (John 8:14) This is
an exegetical parable about [יהשוע המשיח (Jesus Christ) and “His neighbor” יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD)! (John 5:37)

Luke 10:30-37 And Jesus answering said, A certain man (Jesus) went down from Jerusalem to Jericho,
and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite(a Priest), when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him
to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to
the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will
repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness,
by the resurrection from the dead: (Gal.1:1) (John 6:39-40 / John 6:54)

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים (JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 23 2010,15:40)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 23 2010,13:40) In fact Shimmer, This is exactly what the Greek from the LXX says: emprosyen……………………….before mou…………………………………me ouk………………………………….never egeneto……………………………begotten allov…………………………………another yeov…………………………………god kai……………………………………and met………………………………….after eme………………………………….me ouk…………………………………..never estai…………………………………exist Can you now clearly see that it says none will EXIST after Him, not none will BE FORMED after Him? mike Mike, Greek ? Youngs literal, “Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none”. Hebrew word study… YHWH is the only God.  There is no other god.  There never has been any other god.  There never will be any other god.  All creation witnesses to this fact – and so do we.  YHWH is God. http://skipmoen.com/tag/isaiah-4310/

Shimmer:

Quote

Mike, Greek ?

Not just any old Greek words, Shimmer, but the Greek words from the Septuagint.  According to KJ, the LXX was quoted more often in the NT than the Hebrew text.  

Shimmer:

Quote

Youngs literal, “Before Me there was no God formed, And after Me there is none”.

Sounds about right.  I would change the “is” to “will be” if it was up to me, but other than that YLT puts it just like the LXX puts it…….what your point?

Shimmer:

Quote

Hebrew word study… YHWH is the only God.  There is no other god.  There never has been any other god.  There never will be any other god.  All creation witnesses to this fact – and so do we.  YHWH is God.

Your “word study” might want to actually read the Bible, where it is made clear that “god” means “mighty one”, and although there is only one “ALMIGHTY ONE”, there are many,many “mighty ones” listed.  One of them is even said by John to be the “only begotten god”.  Hmmmmm……..who to believe, scripture or your “word study”.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 22 2010,20:40)

In fact Shimmer, This is exactly what the Greek from the LXX says: emprosyen……………………….before mou…………………………………me ouk………………………………….never egeneto……………………………begotten allov…………………………………another yeov…………………………………god kai……………………………………and met………………………………….after eme………………………………….me ouk…………………………………..never estai…………………………………exist Can you now clearly see that it says none will EXIST after Him, not none will BE FORMED after Him? mike

Mike

Whats the difference?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Aug. 23 2010,15:24)

Mike, no offense, but what are you trying to say? are you saying that 43:10 eludes that God can  apprently “be formed” or “beget” another God?

Dennison,
No offense,

But if you want me to answer your posts, post them so they make sense.  Use punctuation correctly, and maybe take a second to proof read them to make sure they are comprehendable to others.

And to answer the only part I could understand without taking a lot of time to decypher, Yes.  Yes Dennison and Shimmer and All.  Is 43:10 says nothing about there being no other gods at all.  Even Jehovah the Almighty God foretells that Jesus will be called mighty god.  And Jesus says the Father beget him.  Hmmm……what's 1+1?

Jesus is begotten by God Himself.  God Himself says Jesus is a mighty god.  Then John goes and calls Jesus the “only begotten god”.

So, where again does Is 43:10 actually say no other gods, or mighty ones will exist?  

It only says that none existed before the Almighty One, because He is the only One said to be “from everlasting” by Moses.

And it says that none shall exist after, or “longer than” He exists. Let's not add more to it than what's there.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 25 2010,06:02)

Mike Whats the difference? “Before me never never begotten another God” and after me none exist Can you now see clearly that none exist before and after him? WJ

Hi Keith,

I can see clearly that none WERE BEFORE Him, and none WILL BE AFTER Him.

He is the first and the last, the beginning and the end…….get it?

It doesn't actually imply that there would absolutely be NO other “mighty ones” ever, or it would be a lie.  There are many “mighty ones” mentioned in scripture……..and even one who is said to be the “only begotten god”.

mike

[Author]

Posts