- This topic is empty.
- Posts
To All,
Does God procreate? …What does “born again” mean?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd, being born again is of the spirit. What do you believe it means ?
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
God is spirit.
Quote (shimmer @ Oct. 09 2010,22:38) Ed, being born again is of the spirit. What do you believe it means ? “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
God is spirit.
Hi Shimmer,John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Rom.8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi Keith,
I said:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 06 2010,20:38) This is made clear by the comment about Jesus considering equality with God. You quoted:
Quote who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, NKJV Who did Jesus not consider it robbery to be equal with? Was it the “being of God”, or was he considering equality with the “species or office of God”? In other words, was it equality with any “god” at all that was being contemplated by Jesus, or equality with the One who is called our God? Did Jesus not consider it robbery to be equal to Dagon, Molech, Satan, angels, human judges, etc? They were all called “god”, but you know that's not what Paul was saying. You know that when Paul said “god”, he meant God Almighty in this case.
Can you not see that this scripture doesn't talk about “god-kind” in general, but the one single being “God”?
The Hebrews called that being “Elohim”. And Micah 5:4 clearly shows Jesus as someone other than and lessor to “Elohim”. So do similar scriptures in Ezekiel and Jeremiah.
So the KJV translation, while implying Jesus could have claimed equality with God Himself, also makes clear that he DIDN'T, right?
So now what do we have? We have a case where ONE, is considering equality to ANOTHER, so there are TWO mentioned – and only ONE of those two is “God”. And that brings us to what I was saying about “in the form of”. For ONE to be in the form of ANOTHER, again there are TWO mentioned – and again, only ONE of those two mentioned is “God”.
Keith, although you think He consists of three persons, you do agree that “God” is a singular BEING, right? So do you think when Paul used the word “god” in Phil 2:6, he was speaking of “gods” in general, or the singular BEING of “God”?
Jesus was either in the form of “the general group of those who were called 'god'”, or he was in the form of the singular being of “God Almighty”. Which was it?
Please answer this bolded question, so we can move forward.
If you like, I will point by point answer your last post. But everything we are both saying hindges on whether Paul spoke of “THE God” or “gods in general” in Phil 2:6.
Btw, the points in your last post that you bolded were already DIRECTLY answered by me a couple of posts ago, but I have no problem answering them again if you like.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (t8 @ Oct. 08 2010,12:53) Hi Mike. Keith cannot grasp the difference between identity and nature.
If he understood that Eve was in nature adam, and she wasn't in identity Adam, then he wouldn't be fooled by the Trinity Doctrine.
Until then, he will skirt around this issue as he has done for years.
Maybe I should call him on a debate regarding this.
Hi t8,I hear you and agree. That's why I bought up Adam and Cain. At a time when there were only two men in existence, if someone said, “Cain was in the form of Adam”, we would know that they were talking about “nature” and not “identity”.
Keith just can't bring himself to come to that same understanding in Phil 2:6 – for obvious reasons.
peace and love,
mikeRegarding monogenes and how it is translated, Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. from the Institute for Creation Research has this to say:
Quote The Only Begotten Son
But why was it important for the Holy Spirit who inspired these five great verses to stress that the Lord Jesus was the incarnate only begotten Son of God? Many modern English translations of the New Testament apparently do not consider it important, for they render the phrase merely as “only son.” It is so rendered in the Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, the God's Word translation, the Twentieth Century New Testament, the New Living Translation, the Moffatt, Goodspeed, and Williams translations, and many others. The New International Version renders it “one and only son.” There are still a few, however–the best-known being the New American Standard and the New King James–that render it correctly (as in the King James Version) as “only begotten Son.”
The Greek word for “only begotten” is monogenes, the very form of which clearly denotes “only generated.” As monotheism connotes only one God and monosyllable means a word of only one syllable, so monogenes means only one genesis or only one generated–or, more simply, only begotten. It does not mean “one,” or even “one and only.” It is worth noting that, although Christ is called the Son, or Son of God, frequently in the New Testament, He is never (in the Greek original) called the “only” son of God.
The fact is, that to call Him the only Son of God would make the Bible contradict itself, for He is not the only Son of God, and certainly not the “one and only” Son of God. Angels are several times called the sons of God (e.g., Job 38:7) since they had no fathers, being directly created by God. Likewise, Adam was called the son of God (Luke 3:38), because he was directly created. The same applies even to fallen angels (Genesis 6:2), and even to Satan (Job 1:6), because they also were created beings. The term is also used in a spiritual sense, of course, for those who have become “new creations” in Christ Jesus by faith (II Corinthians 5:17; Ephesians 2:10; etc.). In this sense, we also are “sons of God” (e.g., I John 3:2) by special creation?not physically but spiritually.
But it is never applied in this sense to Christ, for He is not a created son of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists teach), but a begotten Son of God–in fact, the only begotten Son of God. He never had a beginning, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of “the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
In that wonderful Old Testament Christmas prophecy about His coming human birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), we are told that His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” His human body was, indeed, “brought forth” from “she which travaileth” (Micah 5:3). But long before that, He had been everlastingly going forth from “the bosom of the Father.” As noted in John 1:18, He was still “in the bosom of the Father,” even while He was on Earth manifesting the Father.
http://www.icr.org/home….ttensonHe is saying that monogenes is correctly translated as only begotten and compares it to the word monotheism and monosyllable.
Mono-theism=only one God
Mono-syllable=a word made up of only one syllable
Mono-genes=only one generated or begotten
The monogenes adjective is applied to the Son as to His divinity, for He is not the only Son as to His humanity according to the author of this quote.I am not in agreement on the idea of an ongoing begotten process as some claim. I believe that the action was done and completed as we see in Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?The verb 'begotten' here is in the perfect tense in Greek and that means this:
The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.
Good post Kathi.
Now we have someone with credentials confirming what you and I have been saying all along.
peace and love,
mikeKathi and Mike,
Seeing that you both agree with each other please can you explain in expansion.
'Today'…'I have begotten you'
'At this time'…'I took you up, became your Father, some time in the past', something like that?
Quote (Lightenup @ Oct. 09 2010,11:43) I am not in agreement on the idea of an ongoing begotten process as some claim. I believe that the action was done and completed as we see in Hebrews 1:5
For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?
KathiFrom the other thread I posted the source that you quoted, and it disagrees with you…
But it is never applied in this sense to Christ, for He is not a created son of God (as the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultists teach), but a begotten Son of God–in fact, the only begotten Son of God. “HE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). In His prayer to the Father in the upper room, He spoke of “the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (John 17:5).
In that wonderful Old Testament Christmas prophecy about His coming human birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), we are told that His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” His human body was, indeed, “brought forth” from “she which travaileth” (Micah 5:3). “BUT LONG BEFORE THAT, HE HAD BEEN EVERLASTINGLY GOING FORTH FROM “THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER.” As noted in John 1:18, He was still “in the bosom of the Father,” even while He was on Earth manifesting the Father. Source
Hebrews 1:5 says…
“YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”
“TODAY I have begotten you”
Where is the scripture that says there were days before “Day One” in Gen 1:5?
Your commentary on the “tense” for “begotten” is true but the context of the verse is speaking of his resurrection as Acts 13:33 and Heb 5:5 also show.
So “TODAY I have begotten you” means that day he was begotten. So what day was it? We know it couldn't have been before “Day One”.
The writer of Hebrews also quotes “I WILL BE to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
The term “Will be” is in the “future tense”. The future tense corresponds to the English future, and indicates the contemplated or certain occurrence “of an event which has not yet occurred“.
So the Father will be to him a Father when?
Which is further proof that the writer is putting forth the Idea that Psalms 2:7 was a prophesy of a “future” event that would take place at his resurrection. But when the writer was inspired to write it, it had already happened in the past.
WJ
Or does it mean, 'This day, I …became… (is this present perfect?) your father'
How can there be so much struggling to understand simple sentences?
'Today, I got married'
'Today, I became a father'
'At this time and in this place, I wrote this message': I just this, just now.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,12:46) Good post Kathi. Now we have someone with credentials confirming what you and I have been saying all along.
peace and love,
mike
MikeYou should check the source before you jump on the bandwagon. The source does not agree with you guys and once again they are Trinitarian.
The cream of Hebrew and Greek scholarship is found in the Trinitarian camp, unfortunately for all the “ATs”.
WJ
Once again, WJ does not answer the critical question but swishes to frivilous banter.
There must be a good reason why WJ does not answer questions, the answer to which would defeat his arguments.
What is the point in discussing anything with such a person.
A truth is to them like a lie and the ie is like truth.
Keith:
Quote Where is the scripture that says there were days before “Day One” in Gen 1:5?
Yet he answers his own question with his own quoted source:Quote In that wonderful Old Testament Christmas prophecy about His coming human birth in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), we are told that His “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” His human body was, indeed, “brought forth” from “she which travaileth” (Micah 5:3). “BUT LONG BEFORE THAT, HE HAD BEEN EVERLASTINGLY GOING FORTH FROM “THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER.“ Keith, do you read this as I do? I read it to say Micah 5:3 refers to Christ's “human birth” while 5:2 refers to his “goings forth” long before his “human birth”.
Are we in agreement on this?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ Oct. 10 2010,05:56) Kathi and Mike, Seeing that you both agree with each other please can you explain in expansion.
'Today'…'I have begotten you'
'At this time'…'I took you up, became your Father, some time in the past', something like that?
Hi JA,yowm
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day's journey
1c) days, lifetime (pl.)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrowThese are the definitions for the Hebrew word for “day” JA. Take notice of definition 1d. I have shown you this before, but instead of dealing with my point, you have avoided it. The word “yowm” can most definitely refer to a “general period of time”. So when that word was used in Psalm 2:7, it did not necessarily have to mean a literal human day. It could have meant God said, “At this time, I have begotten you.”
At the very least, the use of the word “yowm” is NOT concrete evidence that days as we humans understand them were already in existence when Jesus was begotten.
Do you see, agree with, and understand these other meanings of the Hebrew word for “day”?
P.S. I will always answer you to the best of my ability when there is respect shown. Not necessarily “agreement”, but respect. And since this last post of yours contained no belittling, insulting comments, I was happy to answer.
peace and love,
mikeMike,
I refer to the issue of 'some time in the past' for the definition of 'begotten' or did you agree with Kathi without realising what you were agreeing.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,06:15) Mike You should check the source before you jump on the bandwagon. The source does not agree with you guys and once again they are Trinitarian.
Hi Keith,It's okay with me that he is a trinitarian. So was Strong, and so are the NETBible scholars. Just because they are trinitarian is not to say they can speak no scriptural truth at all, is it? After all, even YOU speak scriptural truth on rare occasions!
So instead of diverting the point, why don't you answer to the fact that he is saying what I've been saying all along…….that there is no evidence at all that “monogenes” all of a sudden means “one of a kind” or any of those other fake definitions your trinitarian brethren have concocted?
The trinitarian Kathi posted agrees that it is ludicrous to think it means anything other than what it says – “only generated”. Just like I've been saying here for months.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (JustAskin @ Oct. 10 2010,07:57) Mike, I refer to the issue of 'some time in the past' for the definition of 'begotten' or did you agree with Kathi without realising what you were agreeing.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Do you agree with the definitions of “yowm” that I posted?mike
Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 14 2010,13:50) Isaiah 43:10; “Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me.”
shimmerso would this mean what???
Pierre
Terrarica, I just read here now to see if there would be any hint of christianity, but there isnt, so I wont carry on reading in this thread, they just all like to debate and they dont care only about their own selves, so they can all stick in their little group, I wont be any part of it. I was going to leave the forum but there are people I really like here so I wont leave yet.
This verse to me means God is one. One father of all. YHVH.
Mike,
I think you get too hung up on definition of words from WetNanny.Just use common sense.
Knowing that 'yowm' means this or means that doesn't add anything of worthwhile value to the search for truth. All it does do is add to your desparation to prove your own belief. It is certain that the Scripture verse was never meant to take 900+ pages of HeavenNet to arrive at the position of a never ending debate.
The scripture is very simple. God said to Jesus, 'You are my Son. Today, I have begotten you'.
Why would God say that to him? Because he was faithful in all ways, walked in the way of his God and fulfilled the promise made to his genealogical father, David.
So, therefore God, his God, anointed him with the oil of gladness and placed him above his brethren, begot him as firstborn, raised him up above his brethren, and, Fractally, told them to worship…do obesiance, to him, just as Joseph was raised up above his brethren and was anointed in God's Spirit and his brethren worshiped…did obesisance to him.Mik look to thd fractal in scriptures. They are there as guides. God knew that man would need a guide to understand the scriptures, his written word. He also knew that nan would try to corrupt the scriptures, why would God not put 'error correction' into the scriptures so discerning readers would not be mislead.
Are we wiser than God.What are all the fractal scriptures for? Are they there by accident? Are they not for our edification, for clarification, for revelation.
Mike, it seems you just like arguing…you love debating..you not really trying to find truth.
Mike, is not found in wetNanny because every 'truth' you use from wetNanny someone can use that same wetNanny 'truth' to induce, dispute, and refute, your argument.
Every external reference you use, has equally been used against you. You are just going round in circles with the same arguments with the likes of WJ and SF.
You seem tireless in your pursuit of tiresome arguments.Use the Scriptures to prove the Scriptures.
Nothing in 'Today…' alludes to the preExistent. This all stems from a purposeless need to prove preExistent Jesus.
I believe that Jesus was preExistent and I believe Scriptures that say that in his preExistent form he was God's most beloved…God's MOST beloved….
What does that mean? Most beloved? Does that mean there were others who were LESS beloved?
And, compare Apples with Apples and Oranges with Oranges, who 'Jesus' is more beloved than…must be of the SAME kind… Sure as Apples are Apples and Oranges are Oranges.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
