Does god procreate?

[Lightenup]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,23:22)

Hi Dennison, I stated that if anything exists there is time.  So we know that God always existed, therefore time existed.  Time and existence go hand in hand with each other imo.  Because God exists, therefore time exists and in that order.  What happened on day one of creation was a beginning to a specific time period measured in a peculiar way, with a sun and rotation and orbits.  There will be an end to this time period.  This time period exists within an infinite timeline. Here is an illustration of a time period within an infinite timeline: <—————————l——————-l——————————->               A.                           B.                     C. A.Eternity Past                                   During eternity past God has always existed The Word/Son that had always been 'within' God was begotten at some point within eternity past, and then was 'with' God and was God as in God OF God. B. Creation to the destruction of this earth C. Eternity Future That is how I see it.  Does that help?

Here is my timeline for reference to the post to Dennison on previous page.

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:21)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:15) I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.” Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things? Kathi Here is what he believes in context… St. Chrysostom 347-407 “What then do I say? THAT THIS FIRST “WAS,” APPLIED TO “THE WORD,” IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF HIS ETERNAL BEING, (for “In the beginning,” he saith, “was the Word,”) and that the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was “in the beginning,” should assert, that He was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was “with God.” AND HE HAS PREVENTED ANY ONE FROM SUPPOSING, “that this “Word” is simply such a one as is either UTTERED  προφορικὸν. or CONCEIVED,   ἐ νδιάθετον. by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us His eternity as to person.  ὑ πόστασιν. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.” Source 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 Do you see Kathi that he believes that Jesus was not concieved but in fact is an “eternal being” with the Father? Do you see how his interpretation of John 1:1 is in line with mine and the majority of the scholars like AT Robertson? WJ

Hi Keith,

I believe that you missed what was written just before you started the quote.  Read what I have bolded here:

Quote

For many are the words of God which angels execute, but of those words none is God; they all are prophecies or commands, (for in Scripture it is usual to call the laws of God His commands, and prophecies, words; wherefore in speaking of the angels, he says, “Mighty in strength, fulfilling His word”) ( Ps. ciii. 20 ), but this Word is a Being with subsistence, proceeding without affection from the Father Himself. 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 the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a beginning 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.80

This is my main point:
but this Word is a Being with subsistence, proceeding without affection from the Father Himself.
At one point this Being with subsistence proceeded from the Father.  The 'Being with subsistence' was always with the Father as meaning 'in' the Father but to be 'with' the Father as a co-person, this Being proceeded from the Father Himself.

The phrase 'In the beginning was the Word' shows that the Word existed eternally but not yet proceeded from the Father.

The phrase 'and the Word was with God' shows that the Word, after proceeding forth from the Father, was a co-person with the Father, alongside the Father.

The phrase 'and the Word was God' shows that “He was always God with God, yet Each in His proper Person.”

This 'proceeding forth' is the same idea as the word 'begetting' that others use.

If the Word was always the co-person alongside the Father, and not merely 'in' the Father, then why use the term 'proceeding forth' or 'begotten of' during eternity, before the ages?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 27 2010,11:01)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,17:21) Lightenup,Sep. wrote: I am reposting what Chrysostom says about how the Father beget another “of Himself, like Himself, except Him not being the Father.” Quote “And every tongue,” should “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That is, that all should say so; and this is glory to the Father. Seest thou how wherever the Son is glorified, the Father is also glorified? Thus too when the Son is dishonored, the Father is dishonored also. If this be so with us, where the difference is great between fathers and sons, much more in respect of God, where there is no difference, doth honor and insult pass on to Him. If the world be subjected to the Son, this is glory to the Father. And so when we say that He is perfect, wanting nothing, and not inferior to the Father, this is glory to the Father, that he begat such a one. This is a great proof of His power also, and goodness, and wisdom, that He begat one no whit inferior, neither in wisdom nor in goodness. When I say that He is wise as the Father, and no whit inferior, this is a proof of the great wisdom of the Father; when I say that He is powerful as the Father, this is a proof of the Father’s power. When I say that He is good as the Father, this is the greatest evidence of His goodness, that He begat such (a Son), in no whit less or inferior to Himself. When I say that He begat Him not inferior in substance but equal, and not of another substance, in this I again wonder at God, His power, and goodness, and wisdom, that He hath manifested to us another, of Himself, such as Himself, except in His not being the Father. Thus whatsoever great things I say of the Son, pass on to the Father. Now if this small and light matter (for it is but a light thing to God’s glory that the world should worship Him) is to the glory of God, how much more so are all those other things? Kathi Here is what he believes in context… St. Chrysostom 347-407 “What then do I say? THAT THIS FIRST “WAS,” APPLIED TO “THE WORD,” IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF HIS ETERNAL BEING, (for “In the beginning,” he saith, “was the Word,”) and that the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) denotes His relative Being. For since to be eternal and without beginning is most peculiar to God, this he puts first; and then, lest any one hearing that He was “in the beginning,” should assert, that He was “unbegotten” also, he immediately remedies this by saying, before he declares what He was, that He was “with God.” AND HE HAS PREVENTED ANY ONE FROM SUPPOSING, “that this “Word” is simply such a one as is either UTTERED  προφορικὸν. or CONCEIVED,   ἐ νδιάθετον. by the addition, as I beforesaid, of the article, as well as by this second expression. For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us His eternity as to person.  ὑ πόστασιν. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.” Source 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 Do you see Kathi that he believes that Jesus was not concieved but in fact is an “eternal being” with the Father? Do you see how his interpretation of John 1:1 is in line with mine and the majority of the scholars like AT Robertson? WJ

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 27 2010,11:01)

Hi Keith, I believe that you missed what was written just before you started the quote.  Read what I have bolded here: Quote For many are the words of God which angels execute, but of those words none is God; they all are prophecies or commands, (for in Scripture it is usual to call the laws of God His commands, and prophecies, words; wherefore in speaking of the angels, he says, “Mighty in strength, fulfilling His word”) ( Ps. ciii. 20 ), but this Word is a Being with subsistence, proceeding without affection from the Father Himself. 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 the Father to differ from His by some interval and longer duration, and so assign a beginning 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.80

Kathi

And just how does that negate these words…

What then do I say? “THAT THIS FIRST “WAS,” APPLIED TO “THE WORD,” IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF HIS ETERNAL BEING, (for “In the beginning,” he saith, “was the Word,”) and that “the second “was,” (“and the Word was with God,”) DENOTES HIS RELATIVE BEING.

And…

For he does not say, was “in God,” but was “with God”: declaring to us HIS ETERNITY AS TO PERSON.  ὑ πόστασιν. Then, as he advances, he has more clearly revealed it, by adding, that this “Word” also “was God.”

The subject is Jesus the Word, the pronoun “his” followed by “eternal being” completely distroys your theory.

Why do you seem to deny these clear words? “DECLARING TO US HIS ETERNITY AS TO PERSON”

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 27 2010,11:01)

Th is is my main point: but this Word is a Being with subsistence, proceeding without affection from the Father Himself. At one point this Being with subsistence proceeded from the Father.  The 'Being with subsistence' was always with the Father as meaning 'in' the Father but to be 'with' the Father as a co-person, this Being proceeded from the Father Himself.

What does that even mean Kathi? The “Word was a being” but not a person?  Are you saying the Word was the Father? Popycock! The Father didn't bring birth to himself.

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 27 2010,11:01)

The phrase 'In the beginning was the Word' shows that the Word existed eternally but not yet proceeded from the Father.

Pure inference and a lot of reading between the lines.

John says in one breath…

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

Notice that after he says “The Word was God” he again clarifies “The same was in the beginning with God”.

The Father is not the “Word” a being that came into existence as a person called the Son!  

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 27 2010,10:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,23:22) Hi Dennison, I stated that if anything exists there is time.  So we know that God always existed, therefore time existed.  Time and existence go hand in hand with each other imo.  Because God exists, therefore time exists and in that order.  What happened on day one of creation was a beginning to a specific time period measured in a peculiar way, with a sun and rotation and orbits.  There will be an end to this time period.  This time period exists within an infinite timeline. Here is an illustration of a time period within an infinite timeline: <—————————l——————-l——————————->               A.                           B.                     C. A.Eternity Past                                   During eternity past God has always existed The Word/Son that had always been 'within' God was begotten at some point within eternity past, and then was 'with' God and was God as in God OF God. B. Creation to the destruction of this earth C. Eternity Future That is how I see it.  Does that help? Here is my timeline for reference to the post to Dennison on previous page.

Hi All

This denies that Gen 1:1 was “THE Beginning” of all things. It also denies that “Day one” in Gen 1:5 was the “First day”.

If Jesus came into existence before Genesis 1 then that would mean that Genesis one is not the begining of all things but “in the beginning” would be when Jesus came into existence.

But we know that according to John 1:1-3 Jesus was already there in the beginning.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 26 2010,02:28)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 26 2010,02:02) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,14:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 25 2010,23:36) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,13:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 25 2010,19:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:27) Kathi Ok if what yoiu say is true then show me Arius quote. The above says nothing about him having a beginning out of nothing. WJ Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:58) Keith: Quote In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught: That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.[41] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius Kathi Thanks, but do you purposely just close your eyes to the other facts… “THAT GOD WAS NOT ALWAYS THE FATHER, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that “THE WORD OF GOD WAS NOT FROM ETERNITY, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; “wherefore there was a time when he did not exist”, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. The issue Kathi, is Arius believed there was a time that Jesus didn’t exist or that the Father was not ALWAYS the Father. You do see that don’t you? WJ WJ, The Father was not always the Father, just like he is Jehovah Rapha and but he was not always Rapha, He is God our Healer but wasnt always a healer. To be healer their must be pain, to be a Father their must be children, SF That is if you assume that Jesus had a beginning. WJ I dont get it? i think i misunderstood your post SF All I am saying is that Jesus was always the Son to the Father and the Father was always the Father to Jesus. Think of it like this. Jesus was the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world, but he didn't become the Lamb slain until he hung on the tree. We were chosen in him before the foundation of the world but yet we didn't exist as sons until we are born again and baptised into him. What was it that was concieved and born in the virgin and became a man? Wasn't that Holy thing named Jesus the “born Son of God” as the Angel declared? Didnt' the Father Father Jesus (which is one of the definitions of the word “begotten”) as a boy and he grew in the grace and knowledge of the Father. Was Jesus literally born twice, once before time and then once when he was born in the flesh? I don't think so and many of the Forefathers believe that Jesus was always with the Father. So now that the Word that was with God and was God has come through literal birth as the “Only begotten Son of God”, we can look back and say that he is the Only begotten Son of God that was always with the Father. WJ Ok, So what your saying is that in Eternity, that God the Father always was in a relationship within himself with the Son. correct?

SF

The relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was always the same.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,11:07)

There has to be one scripture somewhere Mike that says there were days before the “FIRST DAY” in Genesis 1:5.  Micah 5:2 proves nothing because of the various meanings and translation of the words. Where is the clear scripture that says there are “Days” before the “FIRST DAY” in Gen 1:5?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2010,11:30)

You ask for the exact scripture that you deny when it is showed to you.  You can't just “blow off” Micah because of “various meanings and translations”.  The Hebrew word is “DAYS”.  The LXX renders it “DAYS”.  It says there were “DAYS of antiquity” or “eternity”.

Mike

I am getting close to ending this conversation because it is getting ridiculous.

You said…

It says there were “DAYS of antiquity” or “eternity”.

Exactly either or, it can’t be both. So at best it is ambiguous and has no affect on Psalms 2. I have already shown you the different meaning of the words and the different opinions and translations, so your verse proves nothing but in your own mind. You cannot present one single scripture from the OT that translates the word “mowtsa'ah” as beginning and in fact it is used only two times in the OT and the other time it is used it is referring to “a place” so when the word “origin” is used it is referring to a place from where his goings forth come from. Part of the Strongs definition Is ”places of going out to or from” which confirms what the TWOT says…

Place from which one comes or to which one goes. Used only twice in very different connections. In 2 Kings 10:27 it means “latrine.” The meaning in Mic 5:2 {H 1] the plural is debated. The translation “origin” (RSV) is unsuitable for the Messianic reference. The meaning of the KJV “going forth” is obscure. The NIV “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times” agrees with the Idea that the ancestry of the expected ruler traces way back to David’s time as well as David’s city. The NEB “roots” are similar TWOT

This agrees with the NET on the words “mowtsa'ah” and “yowm owlam”…

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.

In other words Mike if you want to say that this means Jesus  had a beginning then the only beginning it would be speaking of is “the ancestry of the expected ruler that traces way back to David’s time as well as David’s city”. When he came in the flesh as the “offspring of David”. In other words his “origins” are from the “days of antiquity” or the “Davidic era”. For he is the “Root and the Offspring” of David.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2010,11:30)

Keith, if you are being honest with yourself, you must admit that the “days” in Micah is a figurative use of the word.  And therefore, although it doesn't HAVE to be, the use of the same word in Psalm 2:7 COULD also be figurative. Do you agree?

No! What does Micah have to do with the context of Psalm 2?

If you are honest Mike you would admit that there were no days before the “First day” and that Micah 5:2 at best is ambiguous and more likely speaks of Jesus “origins” coming forth from the seed of David when he came in the flesh.

WJ

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 27 2010,23:05)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 26 2010,02:28) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 26 2010,02:02) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,14:20) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 25 2010,23:36) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,13:23) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 25 2010,19:49) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 24 2010,16:27) Kathi Ok if what yoiu say is true then show me Arius quote. The above says nothing about him having a beginning out of nothing. WJ Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 24 2010,17:58) Keith: Quote In explaining his actions against Arius, Alexander of Alexandria wrote a letter to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomedia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which he believed Arius had fallen. According to Alexander, Arius taught: That God was not always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence: for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God had wished to create us.[41] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius Kathi Thanks, but do you purposely just close your eyes to the other facts… “THAT GOD WAS NOT ALWAYS THE FATHER, but that there was a period when he was not the Father; that “THE WORD OF GOD WAS NOT FROM ETERNITY, but was made out of nothing; for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing; “wherefore there was a time when he did not exist”, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. The issue Kathi, is Arius believed there was a time that Jesus didn’t exist or that the Father was not ALWAYS the Father. You do see that don’t you? WJ WJ, The Father was not always the Father, just like he is Jehovah Rapha and but he was not always Rapha, He is God our Healer but wasnt always a healer. To be healer their must be pain, to be a Father their must be children, SF That is if you assume that Jesus had a beginning. WJ I dont get it? i think i misunderstood your post SF All I am saying is that Jesus was always the Son to the Father and the Father was always the Father to Jesus. Think of it like this. Jesus was the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world, but he didn't become the Lamb slain until he hung on the tree. We were chosen in him before the foundation of the world but yet we didn't exist as sons until we are born again and baptised into him. What was it that was concieved and born in the virgin and became a man? Wasn't that Holy thing named Jesus the “born Son of God” as the Angel declared? Didnt' the Father Father Jesus (which is one of the definitions of the word “begotten”) as a boy and he grew in the grace and knowledge of the Father. Was Jesus literally born twice, once before time and then once when he was born in the flesh? I don't think so and many of the Forefathers believe that Jesus was always with the Father. So now that the Word that was with God and was God has come through literal birth as the “Only begotten Son of God”, we can look back and say that he is the Only begotten Son of God that was always with the Father. WJ Ok, So what your saying is that in Eternity, that God the Father always was in a relationship within himself with the Son. correct? SF The relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was always the same. WJ

Ok… so Before Days, within Eternity,
The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit always had a relationship with eachother?

This doesnt make sense to me at all.
Just saying,

To add:
you disagreed with Lu timeline thing,

do you disagree with mine as well?

Quote

Lu, Here is the Definition of Time Time–noun 1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. 2. duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration. 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time. God is like an Ocean which represents eternity, endless dept, and a forever distance, Time is like a bubble within that ocean. The Ocean is Infinite, The Bubble is Finite, Infinite cannto be measured, Finite Can be measured, This is the way i look at time.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 27 2010,23:05)

SF The relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was always the same. WJ

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 27 2010,16:08)

Ok… so Before Days, within Eternity, The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit always had a relationship with eachother? This doesnt make sense to me at all.

SF

Since Gen 1:1 indicates the beginning of all things including time, then if Jesus is\was the Word that was with God and was God in the beginning then he always was with the Father for before time there is only eternity.

The Holy Spirit is a given.

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 27 2010,16:08)

Just saying, To add: you disagreed with Lu timeline thing, do you disagree with mine as well? Quote Lu, Here is the Definition of Time Time–noun 1. the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. 2. duration regarded as belonging to the present life as distinct from the life to come or from eternity; finite duration. 3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a system or method of measuring or reckoning the passage of time: mean time; apparent time; Greenwich Time. 4. a limited period or interval, as between two successive events: a long time. God is like an Ocean which represents eternity, endless dept, and a forever distance, Time is like a bubble within that ocean. The Ocean is Infinite, The Bubble is Finite, Infinite cannto be measured, Finite Can be measured, This is the way i look at time.

I agree. John said Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all things and in fact it is by and through him all things came into being and apart from him nothing (including time) came into being. Therefore the Word/Jesus is God.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 27 2010,19:30)

Day, this day, what day, there was no such thing as 'days' nor any such thing as 'day' before there were days. God would have had to say, 'You are my Son, From Eternity I have begotten you'.

Hi JA,

I won't answer to your arrogant posturing any longer.  I made the mistake of letting you get under my skin once……and afterwards I felt bad about it.  So you can keep those kind of comments to yourself……because I just ignore them anyway.

JA:

Quote

Day, this day, what day, there was no such thing as 'days' nor any such thing as 'day' before there were days.

So what did God mean when He said through Micah, “[Jesus'] origins were from 'DAYS' of antiquity”?  Do you believe scripture that all things came to be through God's Son?  Do you believe that includes “DAYS”?  If so, then how can there be “DAYS” before Jesus' origin, like Micah 5:2 says?

JA:

Quote

God would have had to say, 'You are my Son, From Eternity I have begotten you'.

That's very close.  The Hebrew word “yowm”, which is translated as “day” in Psalm 2:7, can also mean “at this time”, or “during this time period”.

So think man, think.  If we know Jesus WAS around before God created actual “days” through him, then the word “yowm” in Micah 5:2 MUST refer to a “time period”, not a literal “day” as we know them.  And if the word “yowm” can simply refer to a “time period”, instead of a literal “day” in Micah 5:2, THEN WHY CAN'T IT ALSO REFER TO A “TIME PERIOD” INSTEAD OF A “DAY” IN PSALM 2:7?

So just as Micah 5:2 can faithfully be translated, “whose origins are from 'an ancient time period'”, Psalm 2:7 can also be faithfully translated, “You are my Son. 'At this time' (or 'during this time period') I have begotten you.”

Do you see it yet?  You cannot insist that the word “yowm” be taken as a literal “day” in Psalm 2:7 when we KNOW it cannot possibly refer to a literal “day” in Micah 5:2.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

In other words Mike if you want to say that this means Jesus  had a beginning then the only beginning it would be speaking of is “the ancestry of the expected ruler that traces way back to David’s time as well as David’s city”. When he came in the flesh as the “offspring of David”. In other words his “origins” are from the “days of antiquity” or the “Davidic era”. For he is the “Root and the Offspring” of David.

Translation:  Mike, since it DOES seem clear that it speaks of the “ORIGIN” of Jesus, I must now defer to plan “B”, and say it refers to his “origin of flesh” only.

Keith, God said he would send a ruler whose “origin is from the ancient past”.  Did Jesus have his origin around the time of David?  Did he not exist until “around the time of David”? Did he have his “origin of flesh” around the time of David?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2010,11:30)

Keith, if you are being honest with yourself, you must admit that the “days” in Micah is a figurative use of the word.  And therefore, although it doesn't HAVE to be, the use of the same word in Psalm 2:7 COULD also be figurative.

Keith:

Quote

No! What does Micah have to do with the context of Psalm 2?

I'll tell you exactly what Micah has to do the the Psalm.  They both use the same word “yowm”.  I'll repeat what I just posted to JA:

So think man, think.  If we know Jesus WAS around before God created actual “days” through him, then the word “yowm” in Micah 5:2 MUST refer to a “time period”, not a literal “day” as we know them.  And if the word “yowm” can simply refer to a “time period”, instead of a literal “day” in Micah 5:2, THEN WHY CAN'T IT ALSO REFER TO A “TIME PERIOD” INSTEAD OF A “DAY” IN PSALM 2:7?

So just as Micah 5:2 can faithfully be translated, “whose origins are from 'an ancient time period'”, Psalm 2:7 can also be faithfully translated, “You are my Son. 'At this time' (or 'during this time period') I have begotten you.”

Do you see it yet?  You cannot insist that the word “yowm” be taken as a literal “day” in Psalm 2:7 when we KNOW it cannot possibly refer to a literal “day” in Micah 5:2.

Come on Keith…..I KNOW you see it.  But unfortunately, I also know from experience that this is about the time you will refuse to discuss it anymore because you know there is nothing you can do but admit my point…….and I think you would rather die before doing that.

So go ahead and tell everyone how you already answered me but I keep insisting on asking the same thing over and over, so you will now ignore me instead of “chasing me down rabbit trails”.

Say what you will, Micah 5:2 just took away your “literal day” of Psalm 2:7.  Add that loss to “plural Elohim”, “prototokos pasa ktisis” and the translations of John 1:1 and Titus 2:13, and I guess you can see how your “trinity proof texts” are ever so slowly disappearing……even if you won't admit it.  

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2010,21:10)

Keith: Quote In other words Mike if you want to say that this means Jesus  had a beginning then the only beginning it would be speaking of is “the ancestry of the expected ruler that traces way back to David’s time as well as David’s city”. When he came in the flesh as the “offspring of David”. In other words his “origins” are from the “days of antiquity” or the “Davidic era”. For he is the “Root and the Offspring” of David. Translation:  Mike, since it DOES seem clear that it speaks of the “ORIGIN” of Jesus, I must now defer to plan “B”, and say it refers to his “origin of flesh” only. Keith, God said he would send a ruler whose “origin is from the ancient past”.  Did Jesus have his origin around the time of David?  Did he not exist until “around the time of David”?  Did he have his “origin of flesh” around the time of David? Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 25 2010,11:30) Keith, if you are being honest with yourself, you must admit that the “days” in Micah is a figurative use of the word.  And therefore, although it doesn't HAVE to be, the use of the same word in Psalm 2:7 COULD also be figurative. Keith: Quote No! What does Micah have to do with the context of Psalm 2? I'll tell you exactly what Micah has to do the the Psalm.  They both use the same word “yowm”.  I'll repeat what I just posted to JA: So think man, think.  If we know Jesus WAS around before God created actual “days” through him, then the word “yowm” in Micah 5:2 MUST refer to a “time period”, not a literal “day” as we know them.  And if the word “yowm” can simply refer to a “time period”, instead of a literal “day” in Micah 5:2, THEN WHY CAN'T IT ALSO REFER TO A “TIME PERIOD” INSTEAD OF A “DAY” IN PSALM 2:7? So just as Micah 5:2 can faithfully be translated, “whose origins are from 'an ancient time period'”, Psalm 2:7 can also be faithfully translated, “You are my Son. 'At this time' (or 'during this time period') I have begotten you.” Do you see it yet?  You cannot insist that the word “yowm” be taken as a literal “day” in Psalm 2:7 when we KNOW it cannot possibly refer to a literal “day” in Micah 5:2. Come on Keith…..I KNOW you see it.  But unfortunately, I also know from experience that this is about the time you will refuse to discuss it anymore because you know there is nothing you can do but admit my point…….and I think you would rather die before doing that. So go ahead and tell everyone how you already answered me but I keep insisting on asking the same thing over and over, so you will now ignore me instead of “chasing me down rabbit trails”. Say what you will, Micah 5:2 just took away your “literal day” of Psalm 2:7.  Add that loss to “plural Elohim”, “prototokos pasa ktisis” and the translations of John 1:1 and Titus 2:13, and I guess you can see how your “trinity proof texts” are ever so slowly disappearing……even if you won't admit it.

Mike

First of all why didn't you address the TWOT? The TWOT is not just plan “B”, it is just more to prove that what you say cannot be true. For I along with the NET have been saying all along that his goings forth are from the “days of antiquity” or the “Davidic era”. I just realized that the verse is prophetic of the coming Messiah and it relates to his ancestry or his being of the seed of David. He is the root and the offspring of David and this verse speaks of his ancestry as David’s offspring.

Secondly you keep insisting that “origin” can have only one meaning i.e. “Mikes meaning”.

Thirdly it doesn't matter if it is a literal day or not, the fact is it was a day and the “first day” was created in the beginning.

You keep avoiding like the plague the fact that scriptures clearly say that the “first day” was created in Gen 1:5 and we know Jesus was already there before time.

Scriptures do not say “and the evening and the morning were the first day after” days of antiquity or “days of eternity”.

Fourthly you admit that it can mean “days of antiquity” or “days of eternity”.

The conclusion is at best Micah 5:2 is ambiguous and the many translations and differing opinions prove that.

You can't even present a verse that translates “mowtsa'ah” as beginning.

Finally you say Jesus had a “beginning before time” or the beginning in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1, but that is self defeating because if Jesus had a “beginning” then that would mean there was a beginning before Gen 1:1 which teaches us that  the “beginning” of all things happened then. And the scripture is clear….

apart from Him NOTHING CAME INTO BEING that has come into being. John 1:3

So say what you want Mike. Claim victory. But every one can see the truth about Psalms 2, which you will not own up to.

You bring up Micah 5:2 to cast a shadow of doubt on Pss 2:6, 7.

In fact the voting in this poll shows that most disagree with you let alone the many Hebrew scholars and commentators.

You think that if you keep saying something long enough that it becomes truth!

Have fun with yourself Mike for I am done with this. You can believe what you want. At this time I have said all I can say and to continue is vain, though I may have some new insight in the future.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 27 2010,19:30)

Day, this day, what day, there was no such thing as 'days' nor any such thing as 'day' before there were days. God would have had to say, 'You are my Son, From Eternity I have begotten you'.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2010,20:36)

Hi JA, I won't answer to your arrogant posturing any longer.  I made the mistake of letting you get under my skin once……and afterwards I felt bad about it.  So you can keep those kind of comments to yourself……because I just ignore them anyway.

Man isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.  

You won't answer him because he makes a good point.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

First of all why didn't you address the TWOT?

Not only did I address it, I asked these questions about how you understand that info:

Quote

Keith, God said he would send a ruler whose “origin is from the ancient past”.  1.  Did Jesus have his origin around the time of David?  2.  Did he not exist until “around the time of David”?  3.  Did he have his “origin of flesh” around the time of David?

What exact “origin” did Jesus have “around the time of David”?  Was it his ORIGINAL “origin”?  Was it his FLESHLY “origin”?  This is nothing but a lame diversion to make a solid scripture that clearly says your God #2 had a beginning disappear Keith.  Please answer which “origin” Jesus had around the time of King David……because it certainly wasn't his original one, nor his fleshly one.

Keith:

Quote

Secondly you keep insisting that “origin” can have only one meaning i.e. “Mikes meaning”.

Can you give me YOUR definition of “origin” Keith?

Keith:

Quote

For I along with the NET have been saying all along that his goings forth are from the “days of antiquity” or the “Davidic era”.

So in other words, Jesus either wasn't around at all, or had done absolutely nothing until the “Davidic era”?

Keith:

Quote

I just realized that the verse is prophetic of the coming Messiah

      Really Keith?  You JUST realized that even though Matthew clearly says it is?     No, it's more like, “I've just realized that I can stop denying Micah 5:2 is about Jesus like Jack did in the Plural God debate because I've found what I think is a way around the fact that it says my God #2 had a beginning.”

Okay then……good for you brother!  Now that you admit it's a Messianic prophecy, why don't you explain this part that clearly tells us that Jesus is someone other than God?

Micah 5:4 NIV
4 He will stand and shepherd his flock
      in the strength of the LORD,
      in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.

Who's “strength” will Jesus shepherd in?  And in the “majesty” of who's name will he do it?  Oh……it says right there – in the strength and majesty of the name of Jehovah…..HIS GOD!

That sounds remeniscent of another Messianic prophecy Keith.

Ez 34:23-24 NIV
23 I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. 24 I the LORD will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. I the LORD have spoken.

What's that?  Jehovah will be “GOD”, and Jesus will be “prince”?  Hmmmmm…….food for thought WJ.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 28 2010,14:16)

Man isn't that the pot calling the kettle black.   You won't answer him because he makes a good point. WJ

Really Keith?

You of all people should know how JA likes to sling insults – usually involving the word “thrashing”, for some reason – without actually scripturally defending his claims.

You say he makes a good point, and I agree.  He points out that the word “day” in Micah 5:2 cannot be taken literally.  Bravo JA!

The problem is that he won't bother to explain why then the same exact word MUST be taken literally in Psalm 2:7.

It's really simple guys.  Either the word “day” in Micah IS literal, and Jesus either didn't exist, or didn't do anything until after there already were “days”…….or the word “day” in Micah is NOT literal, which therefore sets a solid precedent for the same word in Psalm 2:7 to not be taken literally.

JA makes another “good point” Keith.  He says “no one” supports my theory.  But, forgetting about Ignatius and Eusibius and Kathi and many others here, we have to wonder who supports YOUR theory that Jesus wasn't literally begotten before the ages.

You have yourself, who will stop at nothing (including inventing some “origin” of Jesus that took place “around the time of King David”) to keep your equal God #2 from having a beginning – even though that's the exact word used in the LXX for Micah 5:2.

Then you have JA, who thinks Satan was God's “real” firstborn, but after messing up, God appointed the “just another one of the many angels” Jesus to his firstborn rank.

Then you have Gene and Martian and those other guys who think Jesus didn't even exist until he was born by Mary.

Hmmmm……..yet I'M the “nutjob”?

mike

[shimmer]

When you truely come to know one, what you have starts from then (that day),

What was before was before,

if all of this was meant to be known it would have been clearer,

Did Jesus pre-exist,
What day was he begotten,
Was He procreated,
How,
Why,
When,
What,
Where,
Why all the questions,
Jesus has been risen to something higher,
What about us – today
Do we need to change,

[shimmer]

Plank.

[mikeboll64]

Keith:

Quote

You can't even present a verse that translates “mowtsa'ah” as beginning.

How about the LXX Keith?  Jesus and the apostle's quoted it more than the Hebrew – and it says “beginning”.  Is that “authentic” enough for you?

Keith:

Quote

if Jesus had a “beginning” then that would mean there was a beginning before Gen 1:1 which teaches us that  the “beginning” of all things happened then.

That's not exactly accurate Keith.  Gen 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heavens AND THE EARTH, and Psalm 102:25 says “in the beginning, you laid the foundations of the earth”.  But God also says in Job that the angels shouted for joy when He “laid the foundations of the earth”.  If the creation of the “earth” was “the beginning” of all things, then how were there angels already present?

And Proverbs 8:23 says wisdom was “from the beginning, BEFORE the world began”.  There are two different “beginnings” mentioned in that one verse Keith.  And there are many other “beginnings” mentioned in the Bible, so apparently, all beginnings are not created equal.

Keith:

Quote

In fact the voting in this poll shows that most disagree with you let alone the many Hebrew scholars and commentators.

Would you like to make a bet that the results would be alot different had you not used the word “procreate” and confused some of us?  Do you dare me to start a new poll that simply asks whether God caused Jesus to exist or not?  

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 28 2010,15:18)

Did Jesus pre-exist, What day was he begotten, Was He procreated, How, Why, When, What, Where, Why all the questions,

Hi Shimmer,

John 17:3 NWT
3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

I'm taking in knowledge Shimmer.  And lovin' every minute of it!

If delving this deeply into scripture is not for you, that's just fine.  But you often seem to “knock” those of us who enjoy it.  Your comments sometimes seem “judgemental” of us. IMO

mike

[shimmer]

Mike, theres nothing at all wrong with delving into scripture,

But Mike, if a few people here agree with you that doesnt prove it as truth,  theres a whole world, millions of people,

If it was a conversation where others could join in, fine, isn't that what forums are for ? Why do you think theres people reading here but only speaking now and then ? Theres a reason for that, and you should ask – why ?

BTW the original word wasnt knowledge,
Young's Literal Translation

And this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ;

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (shimmer @ Sep. 28 2010,10:43)

Mike, theres nothing at all wrong with delving into scripture, But Mike, if a few people here agree with you that doesnt prove it as truth,  theres a whole world, millions of people, If it was a conversation where others could join in, fine, isn't that what forums are for ? Why do you think theres people reading here but only speaking now and then ? Theres a reason for that, and you should ask – why ? BTW the original word wasnt knowledge, Young's Literal Translation And this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ;

Bravo, Bravo! Shimmer Bravo!
now get Mike to believe that!

lol, i just told him the same thing in my debate with him.

[Author]

Posts