Does god procreate?

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 30 2010,12:29)

Yes, Poor JA. I was hoping for a Holy spirited answer but LU has posted twaddle – so i say so – should I have said something else? Like “Lets Debate this”?

And you must be a tortured Soul – How long you been debating the same thing – you got LOCKJAW on Scripture or what?

September 30, 2010 at 2:05 am#218163

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 29 2010,19:43)

LU,

You are a pointless poster. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about – I'm done with pointless arguments from you.

You have nothing to say and are posting nonesense just to say you posted something… that is not of any value to anyone – not even to yourself except to say there is no limit you won't go beyond to make a futile point.

JA,
You are right, I have recently been a 'pointless poster' towards YOU. It has been by choice not by lack of scriptural reason.

I am really sorry. I am distracted with other things at home and have to be more careful with my time. I have been wasting too much time lately on here and not getting things done around my house that I would like to get done.

I will be more careful to post as I am led…ok

September 30, 2010 at 4:19 pm#218248

Participant

Hi JA

This post is for you since you are a “moderator” on this board. I would report it to t8 but he has enough on his hands just watching over this forum.

The following post by Mike is a lie and a misrepresentation of the truth. I had already mentioned this to Mike but he just blew it off and now he has posted it again.

First of all he takes a part of a running sentence of mine and then proceeds to lie.

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.”

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.

I am here to learn like others and the above statement is proof that I had been looking at the verse as speaking of Jesus in the past. If you read the previous posts of mine you will see that I “never implied” the verse was not about Jesus. My statement in its context reveals that because of the TWOT and the NET I began to see that this verse is about the future and is speaking of Jesus Ancestry.

Mike knows that I have not once claimed this verse is not about Jesus, yet Mike insinuates that I am saying…

No, it's more like, “I'VE JUST REALIZED THAT I CAN STOP DENYING MICAH 5:2 IS ABOUT JESUS…

Mikes insinuation here is a lie for I have never once claimed that Micah 5:2 is not about Jesus. Mike knows this yet he continues with degrading statements like this.

Mike is supposed to be a “moderator” on this forum. He gave Jack a “block” for a mistake even though Jack admitted it and apologized for it.

It is beneath a “moderator” to take sentences out of their context and then to mislead.

It’s amazing that he posted the half quote again and then put words in my mouth again, even after he was called out for it.

I am not expecting you to do anything but just wanted to make my case.

September 30, 2010 at 4:40 pm#218249

Participant

WJ,
Would you believe that I have no authority to issue 'blocks'. My only authority is to delete posts in certain threads.

However, this does not mesn that JA is toothless nor impotent.

Indeed, the ability to scoff and scorn,
On unscriptural yawn
Means having great insight
And spiritual might.
A scriptural truth to a fellow
Is worth more than a block that's background yellow.
So, i will check this if you like
And end this rap with,'stay on the mike, stay on the Mike!'

September 30, 2010 at 5:12 pm#218250

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 30 2010,11:40)

WJ,
Would you believe that I have no authority to issue 'blocks'. My only authority is to delete posts in certain threads.

However, this does not mesn that JA is toothless nor impotent.

I do not want Mike to get a block. I just want him to understand that as a 'moderator” he should be above false insinuations and diversional tactics.

September 30, 2010 at 5:15 pm#218251

Participant

LU,
If your post is a genuine apology then it is accepted.

My vociferousness is only concern that Scriptural truth is spoken and acknowledged.

That a defence is not made against scriptural truth for this is what is meant by, 'Do not grieve the Holy Spirit', for the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, YHVH God's Holy Truth.

Denying 'Truth' to save face is to call YHVH God a liar. Now, while calling God a liar is forgiveable (Such love by Him allows such faux pas) lying against 'Truth' itself is highy dangerous, misleading to both learners and waywarders in Christ and God, and makes one an Anti-Christ.

So better to 'not answer' than to lie in with an untruthful answer.

Check you knowledge and be prepared to change if the truth of a statement, or scripture, or point, is revealed to you, even from the young ones, because God, YHVH God, is not partial.

See, even JA can learn. Edj told him to write 'YHVH' and not 'YHWH' and JA complied. JA was not wrong, but was 'refined' by the 'truth'.
And this was acknowledged with humbleness…whaddup Edj!

There is only one truth, but it can be approached in many ways…the longitudanal 'circles' of the earth each have their path, but each ends at the poles, metaphorically, one of Truth and life by that Truth, and the other of Lie and death by that lie.

Which way, on which circle, to which polarisation, you choose to go, is your choice, 'You Decide'.
But you will be encouraged, both ways, by various others. Who you decide to believe, and what, is, again, 'down' to you, or even, 'up' to you, 'You Decide' for we were made in the image of God, YHVH God, and that means we have the ability to choose, the gift of Choice, to do good or to do evil, knowing all the time what the final outcome will ultimately be but who can, who will resist the urge to 'test the flesh'?

September 30, 2010 at 5:50 pm#218252

Ed J

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 01 2010,04:15)

LU,

See, even JA can learn. Edj told him to write 'YHVH' and not 'YHWH' and JA complied. JA was not wrong, but was 'refined' by the 'truth'.
And this was acknowledged with humbleness…whaddup Edj!

Hi JustAskin,

This point has not gone unnoticed by me;
but it's not about me, it's about “Our God”
and bringing all our brethren closer to him! (Jer.31:34)

The truth does not fear an investigation, and truth should always
be verified (1Thess.5:21); we should all be as the Bereans! (Acts 17:11)
I'm not one for I told you so's; it's enough for me to see the change Brother!

God bless
Ed J (Psalm 45:17)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

September 30, 2010 at 9:04 pm#218263

Participant

Edj,
I value truth and acknowledge it from, and through, whomever it comes.

September 30, 2010 at 10:06 pm#218264

Participant

WJ,
Ok, i see your point and acknowledge that it certainly appears that Mike has overstepped the mark in his remark.

Mike has been getting an inordinate amount of 'bad press' lately for wayward postings. He is struggling against a growing malaise in this forum brought about by desparate unscriptural postings from a number of unGod-like posters.

Such unscriotural postings can do nothing except dissuade Godly posters who get frustrated by seeing their good posts denigraded and trashed by a stronger, wilder, deceitful, or mislead poster.
Egos have become strong and each poster is vying to be the next scriptural revealer but, in truth, will never attain anything except the labels of 'a Satan', 'a Deceiver', 'an AntiChrist', 'a Devil'.

But who knows the wheat from the tares while their fruit is young?
It is only when their fruit matures can they be distinguished, the true fruit from the false, the truth from the lie.

But even so, there are clues that the discerning and bright eyed, scripturally aware, mature minded gardener can use to weed out some false fruits, and, it's all in “the Good God person's Guide to Glorified Gardening”, 'the Scriptures' for short.

September 30, 2010 at 11:23 pm#218275

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 01 2010,09:06)

WJ,
Ok, i see your point and acknowledge that it certainly appears that Mike has overstepped the mark in his remark.

But who knows the wheat from the tares while their fruit is young?
It is only when their fruit matures can they be distinguished, the true fruit from the false, the truth from the lie.

October 1, 2010 at 12:02 am#218279

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 01 2010,03:19)

My actual quote was…

Keith, I don't even want to hear about it. The last part of your quote is not even legitimate, for Jesus didn't have any particular “beginning” around the time of King David. I addressed that part twice (this is the 3rd time now), and even asked you 3 distinct questions regarding that part of your post. You have neglected to answer.

BUT…………The FIRST part of your post hit me hard and I REALLY wanted to discuss it.

Jack at first tried to deny Micah 5 was about Jesus because it goes on to talk about Assyrians as I remember. Then I pointed out Mattew 2 that confirms it is about Jesus. So then he said in effect, “Well, it is 'applied' to Jesus, but when it was first said by Micah, it wasn't about Jesus.” He claimed this even though he knows full well that we have learned of no other “ruler” who came out of Bethlehem as a “shepherd” of Jehovah's people since the time of Micah…….until Christ.

Why did he make this outlandish claim Keith? It is because if he were to admit Micah 5 was a Messianic prophecy, he would also have to admit that it clearly describes Jesus as someone other than, and lessor to God.

I admit I have never seen you post that you DIDN'T think Micah was about Jesus, but considering that it blows a big whole in the trinity, combined with your words “I JUST realized” it was about Jesus, I made the assumption that prior to your recent “realization”, you had always thought otherwise.

I'm sorry Keith, but you have to admit that your words about “just realizing” it was about Jesus made it sound like you hadn't thought that previously.

Besides, it was clear that I was jokingly “putting words in your mouth”. No one would think by reading my post that YOU actually said those words Keith. And the only reason I posted it a second time is because JA didn't know what my Micah 5:4 referrence was about and asked about it.

Now, would you like to stop making much ado about nothing and actually answer my questions about how your recent realization means you must accept Micah 5:4 also? You know, the verse that makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is NOT God.

Or would you like to continue pushing this issue to the point that I show everyone the way you butchered my response to JA a few days ago?

This complaining is just a diversion Keith. You spoke scriptural truth, and while I pray that this new realization of yours about Micah 5 will shed some new light for you about the trinity – I won't know until you answer me.

peace and love,
mike

October 1, 2010 at 12:28 am#218280

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Oct. 01 2010,09:06)

Such unscriotural postings can do nothing except dissuade Godly posters who get frustrated by seeing their good posts denigraded and trashed by a stronger, wilder, deceitful, or mislead poster.

Hi JA,

When I was younger – growing up – my older brother would always try to make me feel stupid, wrong or inadequate. For some reason, he was not able to teach me from his own experiences without putting me down. His lessons were always accompanied by insults designed to put me in a lowly place, and accolades about himself designed to put him in a high and mighty place.

For example, if he showed me how to change my bicycle chain, he would say things like, “How can anyone be so stupid? I got it right on my very first try. In fact, no one had to teach me how to do it at all.”

It took me years of observing people in the world to come to realize why. He was angry because people didn't hold him in as high a place of respect and honor as he held himself. So he had to reenforce his own high opinion of himself by trying to bring others so far down below his level that he would tower miles above them.

I love my brother, and in fact will be playing dominoes with him Saturday. He has “mellowed” with age, but is still very much a condescending personality who thinks his thoughts and opinions hold much more weight than ANYONE else around him. And if I'm ever “foolish” enough to disagree with something he thinks, he will still try to lower me to the rank of “idiot that nobody likes” with his insults. It is sad really. Not because his comments amount to a hill of beans in my eyes, but because at 50 years of age, he is still a little angry that everyone else hasn't realized he's “God” yet.

JA, can you show me ONE place where I've ever posted something unscriptural? Unlike you, I almost always post the actual scripture I'm making a point about in blue letters just so there's no questions about it. Maybe you could also show me a post in which I was deceitful.

If not, don't make claims you can't back up.

peace and love,
mike

October 1, 2010 at 1:16 am#218292

Ed J

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 01 2010,11:28)

Hi JA,

I love my brother, and in fact will be playing dominoes with him Saturday.

peace and love,
mike

Hi Mike,

How old are you now?

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

October 1, 2010 at 1:48 am#218300

Blocked

Hi Ed,

45 years young. How about you?

mike

October 1, 2010 at 3:18 am#218314

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2010,19:02)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 01 2010,03:19)

My actual quote was…

BUT…………The FIRST part of your post hit me hard and I REALLY wanted to discuss it.

I'm sorry Keith, but you have to admit that your words about “just realizing” it was about Jesus made it sound like you hadn't thought that previously.

Or would you like to continue pushing this issue to the point that I show everyone the way you butchered my response to JA a few days ago?

peace and love,
mike

Mike

I figured there would be no appology from you or any sign of remorse for misrepresenting me and an outright lie.

Even now you continue to do so by implying that I have admitted that Jesus had a beginning in the verse when you know full well I am simply agreeing with the TWOT and the NET and the majority of the translations that do not translate the verse with the word “beginning” but in fact speak of his goings forth or ancestry.

You shouldn't jump to conclusions over what Jack has said, which I find strange since the whole time we have been talking about the verse it has been about Jesus and Psalms 2:6, 7.

And now you say it was jokingly said, okay maybe so the first time but when I called you on it you still continued to misrepresent my view.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2010,19:02)

Keith, I don't even want to hear about it. The last part of your quote is not even legitimate, for Jesus didn't have any particular “beginning” around the time of King David.

Of course you don't want to hear about it, that is because your mind is set. There you go again, misrepresenting me by insinuating I am saying Jesus had a beginning in David’s time. Do you see the word “beginning” in this quote…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 01 2010,03:19)

My actual quote was…

How about this Mike, we all had our “beginnings” from Adam right?

The point the TWOT and the NET is making is Jesus “origins” are of the Davidic or royal line. You do get that reasoning right? That’s what I meant Mike, because I had never seen the verse in relation to him being of the seed of David or the “Root and the Offspring” of David. Offspring implies a beginning doesn't it Mike? But does that mean that Jesus was one of David’s “sons” or his beginning was in David’s time? Do you get that Mike?

The fact is your verse has been found lacking as far as trying to use it to somehow prove that Psalms 2:7 is a figurative day, because the format and the language in the 2 are completely different. Besides what makes you think that the “days of antiquity” are figurative? They were real days, a real time period after Gen 1:5.

Do you want to talk about “qedem, yowm and owlam” some more?

You place yourself above the TWOT, AT Robertson, the NET and the majority of the English translations which involve hundreds of scholars and then you deride me when I learn something from them? What a joke.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2010,19:02)

Or would you like to continue pushing this issue to the point that I show everyone the way you butchered my response to JA a few days ago?

Pushing what issue? That you totally lied and even after the first warning you did it again?

Is this a threat Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2010,19:02)

No Mike, you are wanting to change the subject to verse 4, what happened to “one point at a time”? You are creating the diversion by making sarcastic remarks and ad hominems about my God wanting to direct the conversation to another passage and something off topic
of this thread.

Even now I regret that I am drawn in once again with you. But I do understand why you want to “Change the Subject”.

October 1, 2010 at 4:03 am#218320

Blocked

Keith:

Quote

Even now I regret that I am drawn in once again with you. But I do understand why you want to “Change the Subject”.

If I were you I'd regret it too. Okay Keith, we were actually talking about the word “yowm” in Micah compared to that same word in Psalms. You assert that the other Hebrew words associated with the word “yowm” in Micah somehow have a bearing on what the actual word “yowm” means. I disagree. Whether it says “day of old” or “this day” or “the day the stars were formed” or “the day God created days”, the bottom line is that the word is “yowm”. And “yowm can refer to a literal day OR a “period of time”. And if one usage of it can be figurative, then so can the other.

So, you won't discuss 5:4 until we go through you new revelation about 5:2, huh? Okay. Start by answering the 3 questions I've already asked about the TWOT's viewpoint.

Face it Keith, the early church fathers settled their scriptural disputes by the words of the LXX. And in this case, the word in the LXX means “beginning”. The LXX was what the NT writers considered “scripture” Keith. I posted this and more info on the LXX in SF's “Was Jesus created” thread. The LXX was reportedly written by 70 Greek speaking Jewish experts in the Law and the Prophets. Don't you think they knew the real meaning behind “goings forth”?

Now, all you have to do is come up with some “beginning” that Jesus had around the time of King David.

You can't just ignore the LXX and all the English translations that correctly translate it as “origin”…….or can you?

As a matter of fact Keith, say what you want about 5:2. I'll go along with anything you say for now……just to get to 5:4 brother.

mike

October 1, 2010 at 4:20 am#218324

terraricca

Participant

any one

QUESTION;WHAT IS DAVID AND JESUS HAVE IN COMMON???

Pierre

October 1, 2010 at 4:22 am#218325

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2010,23:03)

Keith:

Quote

Even now I regret that I am drawn in once again with you. But I do understand why you want to “Change the Subject”.

So, you won't discuss 5:4 until we go through you new revelation about 5:2, huh? Okay. Start by answering the 3 questions I've already asked about the TWOT's viewpoint.

Now, all you have to do is come up with some “beginning” that Jesus had around the time of King David.

You can't just ignore the LXX and all the English translations that correctly translate it as “origin”…….or can you?

As a matter of fact Keith, say what you want about 5:2. I'll go along with anything you say for now……just to get to 5:4 brother.

mike

Mike

Is that all you have to say? Fine, because I am moving on.

Don't beat your chest to hard.

But I do pray you find more and more truth in your journey.

October 2, 2010 at 3:08 pm#218420

Blocked

Keith,

Can you blame me for being excited? You have your “stock” answers and scriptures down pat. You have had years of practice twisting all the scriptures that cleary say that Jesus is someone other than God. So when I brought up Micah to discuss the Hebrew word “yowm” being used figuratively, I had no idea it would lead to you accepting that scripture as a Messianic prophecy……..and thereby having to accept Micah 5:4 as part of the same prophecy.

It seems that you have not encounted this situation before, and I thought maybe it would open your eyes. It's clear that 5:4 distinguishes Jesus as someone other than and lessor than his God, and you seem to be at a loss to explain it away.

You can call it “beating my chest” if you want – I'm cool with that because I know how to read between the lines.

For 9 months on HN, I've noticed that when someone has to face a very clear scripture that helps to shoot down their doctrine, they move from discussing the scriptures to throwing insults at the other. Keith, check out some of Martian and Gene's responses to me in any of the threads that discuss the pre-existence of Jesus. You are doing the same thing here.

Our discussion about “yowm” has led us to Micah 5:4……will you discuss it or not?

peace and love,
mike

October 2, 2010 at 8:32 pm#218428