- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike and WJ,
WE have to realize that Jesus is THE beginning, the Literal Alpha, he is not presented as being born, or begotten, or even created before day 1.
Genesis 1:1 says in the BEGINNING the heaven and earth was created, we know that Christ created.
Therefore there shouldnt be any more debate.ITs clear, Jesus did have a premature, or pre beginning of a beginning.
He is the literal Beginning if that makes any sense at All.He is the Alpha what else is there more to say?
Hi Shimmer,
You hit the nail bang on the head.
I asked Mike if God sent 'Jesus'…'and the one thou didst send, Jesus Christ'.
So far, to date, I have received no answer…I don't even begin to wonder why.
Ok, here it is. God did not send 'Jesus Christ' because he was not 'Jesus Christ' when he was sent…was he?
He certainly was the servant of God, the most righteous servant of God and God sent His most righteous servant.
Don't anyone stress over Jesus (Hey, didn't I start saying 'preJesus'). Jesus 'serves' his Father, YHVH God. All the heavenly host are 'servants' of God. All servants of God are 'Angels'. What does the word 'Angel' mean?
Ask a question, a question asked before, ask again, or Just ask: What beings are mentioned in Scriptures as existing in the heavenly, spiritual realm?
Strict answer, only two: God and Angels.Mike has found a spurious chapter for his desparate theory in Micah. It doesn't fit into the equation of the theory of 'today' but Mike has 'forcefitted' it in a futile attempt to further his debate from his days of eternity. “Today, I have begotten you”, “THIS DAY, I have begotten you”…sounds like 'Days of Antiquity'?, I think not, what say you?
Mike, don't answer …but you need to learn humility in defeat. Your desire to 'win at all costs' has led you into the pit of selfdeceit. You deceive yourself into clutching at every falling straw to attempt stopping you falling. Mike, it ain't working…could never work…will never work.
Your errors are getting greater in your threads because onr deceit has to be supported by another. Mike, 'the truth will out'.
We are not condemning you, we want you to return to the fold..outside are wolves jackals and lions who are waiting to pounce and eat you up…and they have started when they smelled your fear…your fear of being found out…your fear of failure…your love of 'debate' where 'bull….' is the order of the day, say what you like, just beat the opposition.
Mike, we have not properly clashed … I have no desire to do so neither…your debate methods grate against my principles and I have no time for frivolry if the opponent is not going to be honest.. If you insist though…and I will not spare you, and you may be surprised how little it takes to debate a point when honesty and God's will through his Holy Spirit is involved because I will hold you to Holy Spirited discourse.
Mike,
I just wanted to encourage you to keep searching for truth. You are learning a lot and you try to answer everybody with thoughtful posts. Don't let these guys discourage you. Regarding 'begotten' the creeds decree that it was before the ages and that would mean that those who hold to the creeds would at least agree with you that it happened before the ages and that is a ton of people, not just a 'few' people here…and it is not a begotten which was 'designated' or 'predestined to be.'I believe that the scriptures contain many mysteries, if truth was supposed to be only the simple statements, we wouldn't be told to search for it like a hidden treasure.
During our search for truth we will realize how much we need the Spirit to guide us into all truth because of the variety of men's opinions.
Keep growing,
KathiHi All
The following is an example of the illusive, diversionary and dishonest tactics that Mike engages in and one of the reasons I will not continue this debate with him.
In Mikes post he copy’s a “half quote” of mine and then proceeds to put words in my mouth through false accusations.
Mike quotes me…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 27 2010,22:06) I just realized that the verse is prophetic of the coming Messiah
Notice he doesn’t indicate in anyway that the quote is a running sentence but then says…Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2010,22:48) 
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.”
Yet Mike just berated JA because of his “arrogant posturing”.My actual quote was…
“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.”
My statement is in line with the TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament) which 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
Also the NET states…
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.
But Mike insist that the word “mowtsa'ah” in Micah 5:2 can only mean “origin” as in a beginning even though he cannot present a single OT scripture that uses the word “mowtsa'ah” as in a beginning. The only other time the word is mentioned is in reference to a place called a “Latrine”.
Mike also wants us to believe that “this day (yowm)” in Pss 2:7 is related to Micah 5:2 even though Micah 5:2 have the combined words “yowm owlam” which is why the majority of the Translations render it “days of antiquity”. As JA pointed out “This day” and “days of antiquity” are two different things. Yet mike speaks as if “yowm” in Pss 2:7 should be “yowm owlam”.
Not to mention that the context of the verses in Psalms 2:6, 7 is totally ignored which means that violence is committed against the text IMO.
This kind of tactic in debate is disingenuous.
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 28 2010,06:56)
Regarding 'begotten' the creeds decree that it was before the ages and that would mean that those who hold to the creeds would at least agree with you that it happened before the ages and that is a ton of people, not just a 'few' people here…and it is not a begotten which was 'designated' or 'predestined to be.'
KathiThen please explain to us how many of the church Fathers do not believe Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
You quote early Fathers like St. Chrysostom yet in context it is clear they do not believe “begotten” is a “literal birthing” of a god from God. They do not seperate or divide the substance of God as another being or another god.
You said to Mike “…those who hold to the creeds would at least agree with you…”, yet you and Mike do not agree with the creeds especially in relation to the Holy Spirit.
Please explain to us how the Athanasian Creed (the last and final creed) agrees with your definition of “begotten”.
The Athanasian Creed (Highlights mine)
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, (or two) or three Lords. The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.WJ
Keith,
With comments like this from Athanasius, I see there is the word 'begat' and the word 'offspring.' I see that it was the Father who begat the Son and the Son is not only called the Son but also an offspring. This is not a 'begotten by designation or predestination.'Quote Well, then, the Word of God created all things, not being a creature, but an offspring. For He created none of the created things equal or like unto Himself. But it is the part of a Father to beget, while it is a workman’s part to create. Accordingly, that body is a thing made and created, which the Lord bore for us, which was begotten for us as Paul says, ‘wisdom from God, and sanctification and righteousness, and redemption;’ while yet the Word was before us and before all Creation, and is, the Wisdom of the Father. But the Holy Spirit, being that which proceeds from the Father, is ever in the hands of the Father Who sends and of the Son Who conveys Him, by Whose means He filled all things. The Father, possessing His existence from Himself, begat the Son, as we said, and did not create Him, as a river from a well and as a branch from a root, and as brightness from a light, things which nature knows to be indivisible; through whom to the Father be glory and power and greatness before all ages, and unto all the ages of the ages. Amen. Quote 3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.htmlThe Athanasius creed agrees here;
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.The term God of God or God from God is common among early church fathers and even in the Nicene Creed. I have shown HN many quotes.
It is interesting that you believe in the creeds and think that 'begotten before the worlds' means, and I paraphrase what I believe you to be saying, 'before the worlds He was predestined to be begotten in Mary as to His divinity and humanity.' I honestly do not see where you think they are saying anything like that. Maybe you should be showing us who is saying that of the early church fathers.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 28 2010,13:50) Keith,
With comments like this from Athanasius, I see there is the word 'begat' and the word 'offspring.' I see that it was the Father who begat the Son and the Son is not only called the Son but also an offspring. This is not a 'begotten by designation or predestination.'Quote Well, then, the Word of God created all things, not being a creature, but an offspring. For He created none of the created things equal or like unto Himself. But it is the part of a Father to beget, while it is a workman’s part to create. Accordingly, that body is a thing made and created, which the Lord bore for us, which was begotten for us as Paul says, ‘wisdom from God, and sanctification and righteousness, and redemption;’ while yet the Word was before us and before all Creation, and is, the Wisdom of the Father. But the Holy Spirit, being that which proceeds from the Father, is ever in the hands of the Father Who sends and of the Son Who conveys Him, by Whose means He filled all things. The Father, possessing His existence from Himself, begat the Son, as we said, and did not create Him, as a river from a well and as a branch from a root, and as brightness from a light, things which nature knows to be indivisible; through whom to the Father be glory and power and greatness before all ages, and unto all the ages of the ages. Amen. Quote 3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.htmlThe Athanasius creed agrees here;
For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.The term God of God or God from God is common among early church fathers and even in the Nicene Creed. I have shown HN many quotes.
It is interesting that you believe in the creeds and think that 'begotten before the worlds' means, and I paraphrase what I believe you to be saying, 'before the worlds He was predestined to be begotten in Mary as to His divinity and humanity.' I honestly do not see where you think they are saying anything like that. Maybe you should be showing us who is saying that of the early church fathers.
KathiWhat does “eternally begotten from the Father” Mean?
You didn't highlight that part…
“For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but “the Son alone was ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN from the Father“, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ “unchangeable from unchangeable“.”
Again, you say he had a beginning, but they say he is “eternally begotten” from the Father. Which can only mean one thing, that he had no beginning.
You say that he is a god born from God as a seperate sentient being, yet not once can you find them speak of Jesus as a seperate being from the Father or dividing his substance.
I believe the Son was “eternally begotten” from the Father and that is not by procreation.
But again you insist that they are saying what you say when in fact they are not.
BTW before the world he was “also” predestined to be “begotten” from a virgin as the Son of God and “begotten” at his resurrection as the Son when he sat down at the right hand of the Father.
It is hillarious that you say you accept the creeds when in fact you are not even close especially in regards to the Holy Spirit.
Kathi, can an infinite God bring birth by procreation to an infinite God who is co-equal and co-eternal to himself, if so then God can become greater than “infinite” by reproduction right?
Will you answer that question?
WJ
Hi JA, whatever Jesus was before, whether an Angel or creation or part of God, He came down from heaven, a glimpse of “God in the flesh” the son of God, stronger and more powerfull than anything ever spoken, and what it shows us is what God really is, in a way we can see it, Jesus came humble and meek, a servant, he was like us, he suffered, he cared, and loved, and promised things to others because he loved them, he desired to save people, and offered the gift of eternal life.
Good post JA.Keith,
I have never said that I accept the Athanasian Creed in full, lets get that straight.
I do agree with the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed.
I do agree in part with the Athanasian Creed though.
Eternally begotten generally seems to mean that He was begotten from eternal substance of the Father during eternity and not during a time in the world. This seems to be a phrase to contradict the idea that He was made out of nothing. It involves the truth that the Father was never without His Word and His Wisdom which the Son, is called in order to demonstrate an eternal substance that can come forth (begotten) and continue in another like the one that brought them forth, without 'passion' yet result in an offspring.He is not dividing the substance but an extension of the substance.
That is good that you believe the Son was 'eternally begotten' from the Father. I am not sure why you have a problem with the idea of Him being begotten as an offspring which is procreation.
I don't care if you don't use the term procreation. Use the phrase 'begotten as an offspring' if you would like. I personally don't see a difference. The result is the same.
Quote BTW before the world he was “also” predestined to be “begotten” from a virgin as the Son of God and “begotten” at his resurrection as the Son when he sat down at the right hand of the Father.
So are you still claiming that the Son was not truly begotten before the world but only predestined to be begotten in the world? That is not what the creeds say, nor the early church fathers. BTW.Quote Kathi, can an infinite God bring birth by procreation to an infinite God who is co-equal and co-eternal to himself, if so then God can become greater than “infinite” by reproduction right? Isn't that kinda like asking “Does it make Him greater when He created all things because before that He was without those created things?” Than which was begotten was always within Him to beget. He didn't become wiser or better in nature. He was always self-sufficient and always contained that which He begat (the Son) and that which proceeded forth (the Spiri
Quote You say that he is a god born from God as a seperate sentient being, yet not once can you find them speak of Jesus as a seperate being from the Father or dividing his substance.
Well, more like two distinct beings inseparable from one another, a Father and a Son, as in the ray from the sun are distinct but inseparable.This might help from Athanasius:
Quote t has been shewn above, and must be believed as true, that the Word is from the Father, and the only Offspring proper to Him and natural. For whence may one conceive the Son to be, who is the Wisdom and the Word, in whom all things came to be, but from God Himself? However, the Scriptures also teach us this, since the Father says by David, ‘My heart uttered a good Word,’ and, ‘From the womb before the morning star I begat Thee’ and the Son signifies to the Jews about Himself, ‘If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I proceeded forth from the Father ’ And again; ‘Not that anyone has seen the Father, save He which is from God, He hath seen the Father’ And moreover, ‘I and My Father are one,’ and, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me, and,’ is equivalent to saying, ‘I am from the Father, and inseparable from Him.’ And John in saying, ‘The Only-begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,’ spoke of what He had learned from the Saviour. Besides, what else does ‘in the bosom’ intimate, but the Son’s genuine generation from the Father? This is all so funny yet adjunct to a truth.
LU, you rightly say that ALL was within YHWH God from the from Everlasting. This I have been exposing for so long – how is it it is revealed here as some revelation?
That “All was within God” does not take away the fact that “he who became Jesus – And EVERYTHING ELSE” came FROM God – BECAUSE EVERYTHING was IN GOD. There is No Thing That is Without – or Without – God because God is in EVERYTHING and IS Everything.
But that which comes from He who contains all CANNOT by any means be that Him from whom he came. Jesus is NOT GOD and, and Because, there is ONLY ONE GOD.
Malachi 2:10 says, '”Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”
Does this say that Jesus created us and we are Jesus' children – yet some claim that Jesus created all things and through Jesus all is sustained – does this read right? Why are we then not Jesus' Sons and daughters?Who creates life, who is it that Gives Life – is it not God alone? Even Angels can created flesh bodies – but they cannot create the LIFE that goes into that body.
So how did “he that became Jesus” come to be – just materialise out of no where – we know that cannot happen because all things come from God. So, what can be concluded then, that 'Jesus' came FROM God, and 'Jesus' came from God then 'Jesus' was CREATED by God.
Created…A spirit servant creature did not exist before the Spirit servant creatures (Angels) were CREATED – and no Angel, Spirit servant creature, PROCREATES from itself or among themselves. If any think so then show the forum where?
God Created Mankind (Mankind did not already exist) and gave them the ability to “Created from themself” – yes, PROCREATE another Man.
Mankind does not CREATE another man for he cannot put a life in it – man tries to create LIFE through Robots with electronic and bionic artificial LIFE and hope that those Robots will create other Robots (Procreate) others of it's kind.
What are angels? perhaps some are getting hung up on the notion that Angels are somehow 'God's Robots' and therefore classing 'Jesus' as an Angel is somehow wrong. But what is an Angel?
An Angel is a Spiritual Servant creature [of God]. Some are 'Messengers' conveying God's words to mankind and carrying out his deeds in the physical realm. Others perform all manner of other services to, and for, God in the Spiritual heavenly realm (See book of Revelation).
Mikeboll claims that Angels have bodies (P-L-e-a-s-e Mike…) Only Jesus thus far has a 'Spirit Body' because he is both Spirit AND Man. No other angel (Spirit Servant creature) has a recognisable Flesh body – At God's consent Angels can acquire a Body for temporary use to intercourse (talk) with man but check the Scriptures, they always have to identify themselves (or not) to man because their bodies are non-descript.
Malachi 3:1 says: “Behold, I send My messenger and he will prepare the way before Me” These words are spoken by the Lord of Host – YHVH God, concerning 'Jesus'. Who denies that 'Jesus' is here being called 'Messenger'? Is God a Messenger? Is God his own Messenger?
Did God Send 'Jesus Christ' or did he send “His Messenger” who WOULD BE given many righteous Titles and be called “Jesus” by name and “Christ” by action title – “Jesus Christ”, “Jesus the Christ”, “Christ Jesus”.
Yet, did God SEND his messenger in Malachi? No, certainly, surely, that was a 'prophetic' in the same way that 'Today,…' in Psalms is 'prophetic' – For God foretells that which is to happen before it happens so none [other] can say “I knew it”.
Read carefully the difference between CREATE and ProCreate…
Malachi 4:2 says, “But you who fear My name…” This is YHVH God speaking these words. Where in Scripture are we told to fear Jesus' name? – respect it, honor it, Praise it, bow the knee to it (This is not WORSHIP but honor, obesiance!), yes.
Mike,
I would say that this is supportive of your view of Micah 5:2. It mentions the combination of Hebrew words to cause them to be a superlative:Quote So what are the particulars of these two words that are being piled together? Looking at 'olam first, we see that it is a word which, when used to describe past events, refers to things that are out of the view or recollection of those with whom the 'olam-containing passage is dealing. The meaning of the word can, but does not always, carry with it the idea of “limitless past”, but in either sense always refers to a time long before the immediate knowledge of those living18. This results, perhaps, from the fact that the basic meaning of the 'lm root from which 'olam is derived has the meaning of “being covered, hidden”, and is the same root from which 'almah, describing a virgin, is drawn. Just as a virgin in ancient Semitic societies would be covered and hidden away until the time of her marriage, so is the time in the past described by 'olam hidden away from the view of those living presently. Additionally, 'olam also carries with it the idea of perpetuity, of something continuing in duration. Qedem is a word which also has a general sense of an ancient time or long time past. Additionally, this word denotes an idyllic state for the object being described by it. Coppes informs,
“In poetic passages, qedem describes the created state. So Joseph is blessed with the chief things of the ancient (idyllic) mountains (Deut. 33:15), and God is enthroned (abides) of old (since creation, Ps. 55:19 [H 20]). Our word is used of the Exodus as typifying the intended ideal (Mal. 3:4). The Psalmist recalls the glorious works of God performed then (Ps. 44:1 [H 2]), especially in his times of distress (Ps. 77:5 [H 6]). Surely, these references recall the divine covenant (Ps. 74:2).
“qedem is also used of the Davidic period (Neh 12:46). All three ideas (creation – Exodus – Davidic reign) are joined in Ps. 74:12. So we see that the three form a theological model. This is further emphasized in statements about the Messiah (Micah 5:2 [H 1]; Ezk 36:11), and the eternal covenant (Mic 7:20). Finally, Isaiah applies this model (from creation to perfection) to the Lord's coming (Isa 45:23) according to the counsel of God. All is known and done by Him (Isa 45:21).”19What this all comes down to is that the Hebrew text of Micah 5:2 describes this coming Ruler in an emphatic manner, using a term which describes a state of idyllic origin and perfection. This term when used throughout the Hebrew scriptures builds up a theological model of perfection in God's work, whether it be in creation, in God's deliverance of Israel from Egypt, or in the Davidic reign, which was a prefigurative forerunner of the Messiah's own reign. This emphatic addition of miqqedem in Micah 5:2, piled on with 'olam, does more than just allow the translation of the latter as “everlasting” to be legitimate, it demands it. The emphatic constructions combined with the model being build for qedem throughout the scriptures works to definitely give 'olam a contextual sense of everlastingness, or at least of a time going back to creation.
Further, we note that the miymey 'olam and similar constructions in the six verses given by Singer (including the present one under discussion) all share one more commonality that Singer failed to mention – their contexts are all Messianic and/or describing the days of the Messiah's reign. Isaiah 63:9 and 11 are contained within a confession of dependence upon the LORD, appearing after the description of the Messiah's wrath being poured out upon the enemies of God's people, in this case upon Edom. Amos 9:11 describes the bountiful times that will be enjoyed by Israel under the Messiah's rulership, “in that day”. Likewise also does Micah 7:14. Malachi 3:4 describes the purging and cleansing of Israel in “the day of his coming”. All of these passages, including Micah 5:2, deal with the future coming of the Messiah – they are all in some form or fashion Messianic. Miymey 'olam then is no mere statement describing a time period not long ago. It attains a special significance when we consider the piling up of this descriptor with qedem, which affirms the idyllic origins of this Messianic ruler, from back to the beginning. When we consider this in light of other Messianic passages which indicate an explicitly deitic nature for the Messiah, such as Jeremiah 23:5-6, the translation of miymey 'olam as “everlasting”, and the accuracy of this word in describing the origins of this Ruler coming forth, is certain.
Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 28 2010,19:12) This is all so funny yet adjunct to a truth. LU, you rightly say that ALL was within YHWH God from the from Everlasting. This I have been exposing for so long – how is it it is revealed here as some revelation?
That “All was within God” does not take away the fact that “he who became Jesus – And EVERYTHING ELSE” came FROM God – BECAUSE EVERYTHING was IN GOD. There is No Thing That is Without – or Without – God because God is in EVERYTHING and IS Everything.
But that which comes from He who contains all CANNOT by any means be that Him from whom he came. Jesus is NOT GOD and, and Because, there is ONLY ONE GOD.
Malachi 2:10 says, '”Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?”
Does this say that Jesus created us and we are Jesus' children – yet some claim that Jesus created all things and through Jesus all is sustained – does this read right? Why are we then not Jesus' Sons and daughters?Who creates life, who is it that Gives Life – is it not God alone? Even Angels can created flesh bodies – but they cannot create the LIFE that goes into that body.
So how did “he that became Jesus” come to be – just materialise out of no where – we know that cannot happen because all things come from God. So, what can be concluded then, that 'Jesus' came FROM God, and 'Jesus' came from God then 'Jesus' was CREATED by God.
Created…A spirit servant creature did not exist before the Spirit servant creatures (Angels) were CREATED – and no Angel, Spirit servant creature, PROCREATES from itself or among themselves. If any think so then show the forum where?
God Created Mankind (Mankind did not already exist) and gave them the ability to “Created from themself” – yes, PROCREATE another Man.
Mankind does not CREATE another man for he cannot put a life in it – man tries to create LIFE through Robots with electronic and bionic artificial LIFE and hope that those Robots will create other Robots (Procreate) others of it's kind.
What are angels? perhaps some are getting hung up on the notion that Angels are somehow 'God's Robots' and therefore classing 'Jesus' as an Angel is somehow wrong. But what is an Angel?
An Angel is a Spiritual Servant creature [of God]. Some are 'Messengers' conveying God's words to mankind and carrying out his deeds in the physical realm. Others perform all manner of other services to, and for, God in the Spiritual heavenly realm (See book of Revelation).
Mikeboll claims that Angels have bodies (P-L-e-a-s-e Mike…) Only Jesus thus far has a 'Spirit Body' because he is both Spirit AND Man. No other angel (Spirit Servant creature) has a recognisable Flesh body – At God's consent Angels can acquire a Body for temporary use to intercourse (talk) with man but check the Scriptures, they always have to identify themselves (or not) to man because their bodies are non-descript.
Malachi 3:1 says: “Behold, I send My messenger and he will prepare the way before Me” These words are spoken by the Lord of Host – YHVH God, concerning 'Jesus'. Who denies that 'Jesus' is here being called 'Messenger'? Is God a Messenger? Is God his own Messenger?
Did God Send 'Jesus Christ' or did he send “His Messenger” who WOULD BE given many righteous Titles and be called “Jesus” by name and “Christ” by action title – “Jesus Christ”, “Jesus the Christ”, “Christ Jesus”.
Yet, did God SEND his messenger in Malachi? No, certainly, surely, that was a 'prophetic' in the same way that 'Today,…' in Psalms is 'prophetic' – For God foretells that which is to happen before it happens so none [other] can say “I knew it”.
Read carefully the difference between CREATE and ProCreate…
Malachi 4:2 says, “But you who fear My name…” This is YHVH God speaking these words. Where in Scripture are we told to fear Jesus' name? – respect it, honor it, Praise it, bow the knee to it (This is not WORSHIP but honor, obesiance!), yes.
Hi JA,
Yes all was within YHVH God from everlasting. The eternal substance producing an Offspring before creation was within Him as well as His plan for created beings to be made out of non-eternal substance through that Only Offspring. The angels did not come from eternal substance but came through the Only Offspring as created beings with a different nature than the creator.The Only Offspring came from that God that He was exactly like and that would fit into the procreation definition not the creation definition.
Col 1:16-17
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 28 2010,22:56) Mike,
I just wanted to encourage you to keep searching for truth. You are learning a lot and you try to answer everybody with thoughtful posts. Don't let these guys discourage you. Regarding 'begotten' the creeds decree that it was before the ages and that would mean that those who hold to the creeds would at least agree with you that it happened before the ages and that is a ton of people, not just a 'few' people here…and it is not a begotten which was 'designated' or 'predestined to be.'
Hi Kathi,Thank you so much for that post. I had just read the negative ones before it, and I needed to hear that.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (shimmer @ Sep. 28 2010,23:43) 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 TranslationAnd this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ;
shimmeri agree with you there in nothing wrong with delving in scriptures BUT BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
pierre
That's it?!?! Really guys? Personal attacks of me, but not ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURALLY BACKED REBUTTAL?
We have the brain trust in agreement that if it says “this day” it must be a literal day, but if it says “day of antiquity” then it isn't literal…….but nothing to actually back that up.
I wonder if it says “bad day” it must be a literal day, but if it says “good day”, it can be figurative.
Come on guys, it's the same word “day” in both scriptures. How can you just claim that the adjective can determine that one can be metaphorical and the other MUST be literal? Is it because that grammar rule you just made up helps the scripture to fit into your own preconceived ideas?
And Keith, you think I'm letting you off so easy? No way Jose. You said you have come to realize that Micah 5:2 IS a Messianic prophecy. So please explain how Jesus is God in light of the rest of the passage:
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.The Hebrew for that last bolded part is “YHVH his Elohim”. Don't those three little words distinguish Christ as someone other than YHVH…..AND…..as someone other than Elohim?
What just happened here? Did your plural “Godhead” just lose one of it's three members?
I would really appreciate an answer to this Keith instead of excuses and accusations.
You accuse me of butchering your quote, like maybe 5 or 6 posts after you just butchered my response to JA? HA!
The difference is that I already answered to the last part of your quote……TWICE! I asked 3 specific questions about that last part that you have yet to answer…….TWICE! And then later, I posted just the first part because after already answering to the second part, I wanted to ONLY address the fact that you admitted Micah 5:2 IS IN FACT a Messianic prophecy. I had already refuted the reason WHY you now agree that it is a prophecy about the Christ……..you know, your reason that involves Jesus having some kind of an origin around the time of King David.
That part was already addressed by me, and I'm still waiting for an answer about which particular origin Jesus had around the time of King David.
ASIDE from that, and as a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT line of questioning, I would like to know, now that you've realized Micah 5:2 is about Jesus, how 5:4 fits in with your trinity.
Get it? Unlike what YOU did to my post to JA, I didn't actually “butcher” your post, but instead broke the two points of interest within your one statement into two statements. And I solidly addressed BOTH OF THEM.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (shimmer @ Sep. 28 2010,22:18) 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,
shimmerit is all in scriptures but many can not see it
Paul also stopped to go to the Jews to make them see the scriptures and give up ,saying that the earth is full of the knowledge of God they do not have a excuse.no men as.
Pierre
LU,
Where does it say that 'Jesus' created the Angels?
Angels are ETERNAL – Angels do not die – are immortal Spirits.
Please show me otherwise (Please Don't try because You can't without being deceitful)
Angels are Spirit Sons of GOD – not Spirit Sons of Jesus. You surely must have read Job … and also in Genesis where the “Spirit Sons of God “made bodies for themselves and put themselves into them and procreated with human females.
LU, where does it say that Angels are Spirit Sons of Jesus? Or that 'Jesus Created them'.
What Scriptures says is that All things are sustained through Jesus – Are the Angels SUSTAINED through Jesus? or are they Spirits from God – as you say.
See, already what you say has fallen apart. Where does the Spirit go when a man dies – To Jesus or to God?
To who are the Spirits, Angels beholden Jesus or God? To God of course, else why would God say for them to do obesience to Jesus after he was raised to the heavenly throne and established as King over his fathers's kingdom for a period of time?Lu, please answer with Godly fear – Believe in God's retribution for wrongful fleshly responses – I don't want pointless answers that prolong frivolry…
Shimmer:
Quote But Mike, if a few people here agree with you that doesnt prove it as truth, theres a whole world, millions of people,
It's not ME I'm trying to get people aligned with, but what the scriptures teach. And if one single person out there sees that Micah 5:2 specifically talks about Jesus' beginning, then that's one person out there that won't be so eager to jump on the trinity bandwagon. I know your postion is “trinity or not……who really cares?” That is not my postion. I care very deeply about that particular tool that Satan devised to cause millions of people to break God's very first commandment by worshipping someone other than Him as our God.Shimmmer:
Quote BTW the original word wasnt knowledge,
Young's Literal TranslationAnd this is the life age-during, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and him whom Thou didst send — Jesus Christ;
Shimmer, YLT is NOT the actual Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic that the Bible was written in. It is an English man's best guess at how to translate those Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic words INTO ENGLISH…….just like every other English Bible in publication.
This is what NETNotes says about the word in question:
ginosko
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1a) to become known
2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge ofThe “original” word is neither “know” or “take in knowledge of”. It is the Greek word “ginosko”. And THAT word can be faithfully translated into English either way.
Either way, I will “take in knowledge” and “get to know” my God and His Christ using the best tool God has left for us…….His inspired word.
peace and love,
mikeBut Mike, yet you rely so much on NetNanny…
How many times have I said i used nothing but Scriptures… No WetNanny (or naughtier!) No Compedium, no Strongs Concordance, no First Century Fathers writings – and yet I trounce all of you (Holy Spirited boast – what ever!)
And here you are – at your wits end trying to claim that you only use “His inspired Words”…. Your own mega, many, varied and wildly ranging dissertations throughout this forum proves you are misjudged in your own appraisal of your belief.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
