- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (shimmer @ Oct. 10 2010,15:52) 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.
shimmerwhat it really means is ;that there is only one true God,
that there never was any other one and that there never be any other one,so all the so called gods are impersonators,
but God can if he wants to call gods anyone he likes ,it never would change his status,just like he did with Moses at the burning bush,
if Christ is called god it would be in the same manner,even men are called gods in relation to the earthly creation,did not God give to Adam the powers over all living creatures? did he not became god like Moses to the rest of the world he would have if he would not have sinned,but he was for a moment he instructed Eve about the will of God ,
god is only a power position;and because of corruption we have now copy cats type of gods.
today we call them elites,presidents,kings,emperors ect.but they are no gods, they are only men in a dream.
Pierre
JA:
Quote Mike,
I think you get too hung up on definition of words from WetNanny.Just use common sense.
It's called NETNotes JA.
It is the culmination of knowledge from many scholars who know more about the Hebrew and Greek language than either one of us do. It is a very arrogant person indeed who claims to not need any outside help because he knows it all already. But what you seem to miss is that the scriptures were not originally written in English. So when you see translations of Rev 3:14 and one says “RULER of the creation of God” and another says “BEGINNING of the creation by God”, what do you do? When you see “monogenes theos” described as “God, the One and Only” in John 1:18, like it is in the NIV translation – how do you know it doesn't really mean “the only begotten god”? I know the latter is what the Greek words say and mean because of researching sites like NETBible and Blue Letter Bible and Online Bible Study Tools.So to me, it makes more “common sense” to do a little research in an effort to acheive a more solid understanding of the scriptures than it does to just pick any old English translation of those scriptures and accept it as “written in stone”.
JA:
Quote 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.
How in the world can it NOT add something worthwhile? Knowledge is the key to truth JA. Why would any sensible person ever even make a claim like that?Besides, you are welcome to “research” scriptures any way you want to. And if that involves looking up a scripture in the KJV and calling it fact, then that is your choice. And I won't knock you for it, so why must you constantly knock those of us on this site who wish to dig deeper than any old English translation?
And since you cannot accept the plain scriptures that make it very clear that Jesus was already the only begotten Son of God way before he was raised from the dead, I am forced to dig deeper in an effort to bring you to truth. And since you and WJ's main support for a figurative begetting after Jesus was raised is Paul quoting Psalm 2:7, I thought it might be helpful for you guys to know that the word “day” (for it doesn't literally say “this day” or “today”) could also just refer to a “general period of time” – and doesn't always mean a literal “day” as humans understand them. This is also supported by Micah 5:2 and Daniel 7:9.
You mentioned “common sense” JA. John 3:16 says that God “GAVE” His only begotten Son. We know from the rest of scripture that the way God “GAVE” Jesus was as a sacrificial Lamb who was to be a “once for all time” sacrifice to atone for all of our sins.
So use your “common sense” JA. How did God “GIVE” His only begotten Son as a sacrifice if he wasn't His only begotten Son until AFTER he was raised?
Jesus said that God “SENT His only begotten Son INTO THE WORLD” and that whoever believes in him will be saved. When has God “SENT His only begotten Son INTO THE WORLD” after he was raised from the dead?
You further say Jesus became God's “firstborn” when he was raised. But Paul says “when God AGAIN brings His firstborn INTO THE WORLD the angels will do obeisance to him”. Doesn't that make it pretty clear that Jesus was already God's “firstborn” the first time God brought him into the world?
These are just a couple of the many examples of “common sense” that you must ignore in order to believe Jesus was “metaphorically begotten” after he was raised.
And I don't deny that scriptures are sometimes fractal. But that doesn't mean we must overlook what is plainly stated in order to search out a hidden “fractal meaning”. Not everything in scripture is fractal, and if you'd like to discuss the many things that are one of a kind occurances in the scriptures, we could start a thread about it.
JA:
Quote Use the Scriptures to prove the Scriptures.
To which translation do you refer? Which English translation is the “absolute true word of God”?Let me give you a “NannyNotes” quiz. Which one of the following is the “correct” translation of Hebrews 1:8 and Titus 2:13?
Hebrews 1:8 NIV
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the sceptre of your kingdom.Hebrews 1:8 NWT
8 But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.Titus 2:13 NIV
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,Titus 2:13 NWT
13 while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,But more importantly than your OPINION as to which one is a more accurate translation is HOW you came to that opinion. What research did you do? What do the actual Greek words say in those scriptures? How do you come to your conclusion of what is “scripture”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) Hi 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”?
Yes MikePhil 2:6 is talking about the “One singular being” God the Father and the Father and Jesus share the same “form of God”.
Is there any other being that shares the “Form of God”?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) 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.
Yes Phil 2:6-8 says Jesus who is in the “Form of God” emptied himself and took on the “Form of a servant” for a time. So if Paul meant that Jesus was a servant because he was in “the form of a servant”, then to Paul, Jesus being in the “Form of God” also means that Jesus is God. The Word that was with God and was God came in the “likeness” of sinful flesh. John 1:1, 14.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) So the KJV translation, while implying Jesus could have claimed equality with God Himself, also makes clear that he DIDN'T, right?
No he didn't have to, as AT Robertson and the Net has shown, his was not a prize to be won but rather something that he did not have to hold on too. That is why Paul says he made himself of no reputation by humbling himself and took on the likeness of a human being. He was rich and yet he became poor for us. (2 Cor 8:9) He is God in the flesh. John 1:1, 14Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) 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”.
Are you saying Jesus was considering that he was equal to God but not God? If so then how could he be in the “Form of God”, since there is only ONE “form of God” and no other, right? Was Jesus deceived?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) 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”.
Once again, this is “flawed logic”. The Father is in the “Form of God”, so does that mean he is not God? What other is the Father in the “Form of”?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) 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”?
Mike once again, this is getting ridiculous. Why do you ask me this when you know full well I do not believe Phil 2:6 is talking about gods. I do not believe in “other gods” Mike, you do. I believe in “Only One True God”, and if those words mean anything then that means there is no other god’s period, and if there are then they are false gods, or gods made by men’s imaginations or idols, and they sure are not in the “form of God”, remember YHWH says there is “NONE LIKE HIM”. (Pss 89:6 – Ex 9:14 – Isa 46:9)Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) 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.
I just did but once again we are going in circles and I am repeating myself.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:31) 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.
MikeI am not going to keep repeating myself. We can agree to disagree. I have quoted the NET, AT Robertson, and I am quite sure I can dig up many well known Biblical scholars and Commentators that agree with my view on Phil 2:6.
You haven't posted any solid proof of what you believe but only given your interpretation and opinion based on your anti-trinitarian views of the verse.
So once again, have at it, there is nothing more for me to say.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,20:49) It's called NETNotes JA. It is the culmination of knowledge from many scholars who know more about the Hebrew and Greek language than either one of us do. It is a very arrogant person indeed who claims to not need any outside help because he knows it all already.
MikeThats funny since you reject the views of a world renowned Greek Grammarian and the NET on Phil 2:6 and the NET and TWOT on Micah 5:2 and Psalms 2:7.
Does that mean that you are arrogant?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,20:49) When you see “monogenes theos” described as “God, the One and Only” in John 1:18, like it is in the NIV translation – how do you know it doesn't really mean “the only begotten god”? I know the latter is what the Greek words say and mean because of researching sites like NETBible and Blue Letter Bible and Online Bible Study Tools.
MikeWrong, the NET disagrees with your definition of “Monogenes”.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,20:49)
Titus 2:13 NIV
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,Titus 2:13 NWT
13 while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,[/color]But more importantly than your OPINION as to which one is a more accurate translation is HOW you came to that opinion. What research did you do? What do the actual Greek words say in those scriptures? How do you come to your conclusion of what is “scripture”?
MikeCheck AT Robertson and the Net on Titus 2 :13 and see if they agree with you. You should stop picking and choosing Trinitarian works and claiming that they agree with you on one point and demanding that be fact while rejecting them on other points and declariing that as “foolishness”.
That seems rather biased don't you think?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,11:43) Quote (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,
mike
MikeAnd this is how I answered him.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 07 2010,20:53) 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.
T8Adam and Eve were “One flesh”, humanity!
The Father and Jesus are “One Spirit”, God!
Real simple.
Tell us t8…
Is the Father in the “form of God”? Is the Fathers nature God?
Then why would you say that Jesus being in the “form of God” is not God? In what way is Jesus “Nature” in Spirit different than the Fathers?
Real simple! I don't expect you to answer BTW.
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,15:28) 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,
mike
Yea I sure am. But you must quote the source in context…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).
You see “…HE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). Right?
So as the Forefathers have been saying loud and clear his goings forth is from everlasting, because he was “eternally begotten” and was always with the Father having no beginning.
WJ
Hi Keith,
I made ONE post in which I stated my point about “one being of God” versus “the species of gods” in many different ways to ensure we were on the same page. But then you answer the same point 4 different times and say “I just did but once again we are going in circles and I am repeating myself.”
It was ONE post, and you are making it sound like you already answered and I kept asking anyway. That is just wrong, man. If I ask the question 4 different ways to make sure we understand each other, you only need answer it once. That's why I usually ask you to ONLY refer to the bolded part. The rest is just for clarification of what the bolded part is asking.
Anyway, it is clear that we agree Jesus was in the form of the singular being of God in Phil 2:6. So will you address my point that if one is said to be “in the form” of another, then two are mentioned. And if one of those two is the singular being of God, then the other is NOT the singular being of God.
Can you understand this logic? If Jesus WAS the singular being of God, one could not logically say that he was “in the form” of God. And if Jesus was “considering equality” with that singular being of God, then again it speaks of two. And again one is the singular being of God and the other is someone other than the singular being of God who is considering the POSSIBILITY of being equal to that singular being of God. And that's using YOUR translation. If you use the more understandable NIV translation, it is even more clear that the one who was NOT God did not consider equality with the one who WAS God something to be grasped.
And that answers your question about the Father, too. The Father will never be said to be “in the form” of God, for He actually IS God. Just like you will never be said to be “in the form” of Keith because you actually ARE Keith.
You said:
Quote remember YHWH says there is “NONE LIKE HIM”. (Pss 89:6 – Ex 9:14 – Isa 46:9)
Yes Keith……exactly! So YOU remember that He doesn't say there is none like US, but HIM!peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,21:38) And that answers your question about the Father, too. The Father will never be said to be “in the form” of God, for He actually IS God. Just like you will never be said to be “in the form” of Keith because you actually ARE Keith.
MikeSo your answer to the question…
“Is the Father in the “Form of God”? is no?
So your answer to the question…
“Does the Father have a form? is no?
Please explain how that the Father exist without form?
Remember that there is scripture that says he does.
In fact Phil 2:6 says there is a “form of God”.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,20:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,15:28) 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,
mike
Yea I sure am. But you must quote the source in context…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).
You see “…HE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). Right?
So as the Forefathers have been saying loud and clear his goings forth is from everlasting, because he was “eternally begotten” and was always with the Father having no beginning.
WJ
WJthe beginning does refert to God ,he has no beginning,
so it most be refering to the WORD(Jesus,the HARM,the Spirit,the Lamd of God,almighty,the son of God,and King of Kings,and the last one an NEW NAME ?that onle he knows)he was before Abraham was, he was made the first of all creation,and was with the father,
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME SPIRIT SINCE JESUS ALWAYS DOES WHAT THE FATHER TELLS HIM.
Pierre
JA,
I think this guy has something of interest to say about “today I have begotten you…”Quote Matthew Henry's commentary on Psalm 2:7 is here, in part: Psalms 2:7-9
II. There is a declaration of that decree as far as is necessary for the satisfaction of all those who are called and commanded to yield themselves subjects to this king, and to leave those inexcusable who will not have him to reign over them. The decree was secret; it was what the Father said to the Son, when he possessed him in the beginning of his way, before his works of old; but it is declared by a faithful witness, who had lain in the bosom of the Father from eternity, and came into the world as the prophet of the church, to declare him, John 1:18. The fountain of all being is, without doubt, the fountain of all power; and it is by, from, and under him, that the Messiah claims. He has his right to rule from what Jehovah said to him, by whose word all things were made and are governed. Christ here makes a tow-fold title to his kingdom:—1. A title by inheritance (v. 7): Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. This scripture the apostle quotes (Heb 1:5) to prove that Christ has a more excellent name than the angels, but that he obtained it by inheritance, v. 4. He is the Son of God, not by adoption, but his begotten Son, the only begotten of the Father, John 1:14. And the Father owns him, and will have this declared to the world as the reason why he is constituted King upon the holy hill of Zion; he is therefore unquestionably entitled to, and perfectly qualified for, that great trust. He is the Son of God, and therefore of the same nature with the Father, has in him all the fulness of the godhead, infinite wisdom, power, and holiness. The supreme government of the church is too high an honour and too hard an undertaking for any mere creature; none can be fit for it but he who is one with the Father and was from eternity by him as one brought up with him, thoroughly apprized of all his counsels, Prov 8:30. He is the Son of God, and therefore dear to him, his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased; and upon this account we are to receive him as a King; for because the Father loveth the Son he hath given all things into his hand, John 3:35; 5:20. Being a Son, he is heir of all things, and, the Father having made the worlds by him, it is easy to infer thence that by him also he governs them; for he is the eternal Wisdom and the eternal Word. If God hath said unto him, “Thou art my Son,” it becomes each of us to say to him, “Thou art my Lord, my sovereign.” Further, to satisfy us that his kingdom is well-grounded upon his sonship, we are here told what his sonship is grounded on: This day have I begotten thee, which refers both to his eternal generation itself, for it is quoted (Heb 1:5) to prove that he is the brightness of his Father's glory and the express image of his person (v. 3), and to the evidence and demonstration given of it by his resurrection from the dead, for to that also it is expressly applied by the apostle, Acts 13:33. He hath raised up Jesus again, as it is written, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. It was by the resurrection from the dead, that sign of the prophet Jonas, which was to be the most convincing of all, that he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom 1:4.
(from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, PC Study Bible Formatted Electronic Database Copyright © 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All Rights reserved.)Please note that he said:
“The decree was secret; it was what the Father said to the Son, when he possessed him in the beginning of his way, before his works of old;”
So Matthew Henry believes that “today I have begotten you” was said before creation. With that I do agree. He goes on to say that the actual sonship was given evidence and demonstration by the resurrection and that is why we see it relating to the resurrection as well.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,20:49) It's called NETNotes JA. It is the culmination of knowledge from many scholars who know more about the Hebrew and Greek language than either one of us do. It is a very arrogant person indeed who claims to not need any outside help because he knows it all already.
MikeThats funny since you reject the views of a world renowned Greek Grammarian and the NET on Phil 2:6 and the NET and TWOT on Micah 5:2 and Psalms 2:7.
Does that mean that you are arrogant?
WJ
Let's do a little experiment Keith. Here are two listings from NETNotes:theos
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God's representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judgesI agree with all but definition #2. And you'll notice that #4 clearly explains how Jesus, who “resembles” the separate being of his God, can therefore also be given the title “god”.
Jesus is also God's “representative”, and as such can be given the title “god”.
Ezekiel 34:24 NET
I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David will be prince (1) among them; I, the Lord, have spoken!Footnote #1: Eze 34:241sn
The messianic king (“David”) is called both “king” and “prince” in 37:24-25. The use of the term “prince” for this king facilitates the contrast between this ideal ruler and the Davidic “princes” denounced in earlier prophecies (see 7:27; 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:25; 22:6, 25).Do you agree with NETNotes on this one? Do you agree that 34:24 is a Messianic prophecy that clearly lists God's SERVANT Jesus as merely a “prince” in contrast to “God Himself”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,20:49) When you see “monogenes theos” described as “God, the One and Only” in John 1:18, like it is in the NIV translation – how do you know it doesn't really mean “the only begotten god”? I know the latter is what the Greek words say and mean because of researching sites like NETBible and Blue Letter Bible and Online Bible Study Tools.
MikeWrong, the NET disagrees with your definition of “Monogenes”.
WJ
Ah, but Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. from the Institute for Creation Research DOES agree with me.And what's more, the actual Greek words agree with me. You either missed or ignored my post last week in which I showed you all the uses of “monogenes” in the Bible and showed that all of them refer to an “only begotten” child.
Where is your evidence that a word that means “only” linked with a word that means “generated” means anything other than “only generated”?
I have seen the numerous claims of “only one of a kind” and “one and only”, but I have been able to find NO ancient Greek evidence whatsoever to support those claims. In fact, the trinitarians who made up those false claims in an effort to keep Jesus from having a beginning never show any Greek evidence for those claims. They just make the claim that it means “one and only” and expect us to just believe it. It's similar to the #2 definition of “theos” I just showed you. There is no basis for it except their biased desire to push the trinity doctrine.
By the way, Mr. Strong also agrees with ME!
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:13) Mike Check AT Robertson and the Net on Titus 2 :13 and see if they agree with you.
I don't have to Keith. I already checked the actual Greek text. And it shows the word “kai” directly preceding the genetive form of “savior”.So it means “of the great God…….AND………of the Savior of us…….”
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,22:12) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:02)
MikeThats funny since you reject the views of a world renowned Greek Grammarian and the NET on Phil 2:6 and the NET and TWOT on Micah 5:2 and Psalms 2:7.
Does that mean that you are arrogant?
WJ
Ezekiel 34:24 NET
I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David will be prince (1) among them; I, the Lord, have spoken!Footnote #1: Eze 34:241sn
The messianic king (“David”) is called both “king” and “prince” in 37:24-25. The use of the term “prince” for this king facilitates the contrast between this ideal ruler and the Davidic “princes” denounced in earlier prophecies (see 7:27; 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:25; 22:6, 25).Do you agree with NETNotes on this one? Do you agree that 34:24 is a Messianic prophecy that clearly lists God's SERVANT Jesus as merely a “prince” in contrast to “God Himself”?
peace and love,
mike
Yes mike!But why do you say “Merely a Prince”, thats misleading isn't it?
The use of the term “prince” for this king facilitates the contrast between this ideal ruler and the Davidic “princes” denounced in earlier prophecies (see 7:27; 12:10, 12; 19:1; 21:25; 22:6, 25).
It says he is both King and Prince. When did this happen Mike?
Jesus has the Title “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” which is a divine title that the Father also has.
How about this prophesy?
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, “The mighty God“, The everlasting Father, “The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace THERE SHALL BE NO END, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. “The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this“. Isa 9:6, 7
Then in the next chapter Isaiah calls YHWH “the Mighy God”…
The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto “the mighty God. Isa 10:21
Paul says…
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our “great God and Savior“, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and “to purify for himself a people that are his very own“, eager to do what is good. Tit 2:13, 14
So who are the remnant returning to? You do see the relation here don't you?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,22:40) Ah, but Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. from the Institute for Creation Research DOES agree with me. Where is your evidence that a word that means “only” linked with a word that means “generated” means anything other than “only generated”?
MikeNot so. Because you believe that “Monogenes” means Jesus had a beginning before time.
This is what your source says…
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).
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:25) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,15:28) 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,
mike
Yea I sure am. But you must quote the source in context…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).
You see “…HE NEVER HAD A BEGINNING, for He was there in the beginning (John 1:1). Right?
So as the Forefathers have been saying loud and clear his goings forth is from everlasting, because he was “eternally begotten” and was always with the Father having no beginning.
WJ
Great Keith! That is fantastic!I didn't want to “cut and paste” and have you accuse me of something dishonest again, so I posted your whole post. Now can I break it down to the point I want to make?
I asked:
Quote 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?
You answered:Quote Yea I sure am
Good……now do we agree that Jesus had “goings forth” even before the world was created?mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 09 2010,22:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Oct. 10 2010,13:13) Mike Check AT Robertson and the Net on Titus 2 :13 and see if they agree with you.
I don't have to Keith. I already checked the actual Greek text. And it shows the word “kai” directly preceding the genetive form of “savior”.So it means “of the great God…….AND………of the Savior of us…….”
mike
MikeWhat is your source for that Mike?
In other words you think you understand the Greek better than AT Robertson and the NET?
Isn't that what you said was arrogance to JA?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
