- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Istari @ April 10 2011,04:57) Mike
Your point is mute. Do you not see your climbing down step by step on every issue.
Each step you step back on you create another frivolous point to discuss.
How so? Please show an example.Quote (Istari @ April 10 2011,04:57) You are misreading whatever you THINK you are reading because there is no issue with the wording that substantiates your claim.
I suppose I could answer this with your own words, “What i do see is that you do not comment on any of the other more important matters in my post. Can I take it then that you therefore agree with them?MikeIstari, it would be nice to hear you actually say,'Yes' for once rather than do as the Trinitarians do and just ignore good parts of members post!”Istari, this whole post of yours seems like a diversion to not address my last post to you. Please directly and honestly address the past tense words that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus.
Quote (Istari @ April 10 2011,04:57) I genuinely cannot see what your issue is – because there IS NO ISSUE.
Sure there is. The issue is that while Jesus was still on the earth, way before he was raised from the dead, some people ALREADY HAD BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God and some people had already made up their minds NOT to believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And way before Jesus was raised from the dead, those people who had NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only begotten Son of God had ALREADY BEEN CONDEMNED for their disbelief.You used the word “genuinely”, but I have to wonder if you're missing the meaning of these past tense words in 3:18 honestly, or on purpose?
mike
Mike,
You know it does no one any credit trying to answer 'Non-questions'!This is what fuels disputes because genuine questions produce genuine answers where genuine discussion is the aim.
I genuinely state that I cannot see what your issue is. How can I answer a question that has no point to it. I would have to either see the fallacy that you see or else 'pretend' to see it and produce dishonest answers – just to argue a case!!
The thing to look at is WHY you find what think is a problem – a problem!
My guess is that you cannot find a fault with my point of view and therefore need to force another point as a means of attempted recovery.And why should I desire to not answer ANY VALID QUESTIONS from you.
in fact, WHAT have I not answered (And how many people have accused you CONSTANTLY of not accepting answers because YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR ANSWER)
A question answered is a question answered and that is why I said that in the Hot Seat, any answer given should be accepted… If the person gives a deceptive answer then so be it frustrating as it will be – others will see that that person is being deceptive – and deceptive answer can only mean a deceitful person… Better then that they just say, 'I don't know' or 'Ill give you this one for the time being…'Quote (Istari @ April 10 2011,09:05) I genuinely state that I cannot see what your issue is. How can I answer a question that has no point to it. I would have to either see the fallacy that you see or else 'pretend' to see it and produce dishonest answers – just to argue a case!!
Okay. I'll accept that you truly don't understand what I've been saying, and say it a different way.If, before Jesus was raised from the dead, there existed no such thing as “the only begotten Son of God”, then there would be no way that any person could have already been condemned for having not believed in the name of “the only begotten Son of God”.
For example, no one could have possibly believed in the name of Jesus before Jesus was even there to be believed in, right?
So likewise, no one could have possibly not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God, and have been already condemned for their disbelief, if there did not yet exist an only begotten Son of God to be believed in in the first place.
mike
mike
Mike,
That's not how I read it which is why I couldn't see your point.
I will read it again with your point of view in mind because seeing it the way you state it above does cause an anomaly.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 10 2011,10:24) Quote (Istari @ April 10 2011,09:05) I genuinely state that I cannot see what your issue is. How can I answer a question that has no point to it. I would have to either see the fallacy that you see or else 'pretend' to see it and produce dishonest answers – just to argue a case!!
Okay. I'll accept that you truly don't understand what I've been saying, and say it a different way.If, before Jesus was raised from the dead, there existed no such thing as “the only begotten Son of God”, then there would be no way that any person could have already been condemned for having not believed in the name of “the only begotten Son of God”.
For example, no one could have possibly believed in the name of Jesus before Jesus was even there to be believed in, right?
So likewise, no one could have possibly not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God, and have been already condemned for their disbelief, if there did not yet exist an only begotten Son of God to be believed in in the first place.
mike
mike
Good point Mike.Consider this, If no Son before creation, then no Father either before creation.
Kathi
Kathi,
Neither Mike nor myself believe that 'No Son existed before creation'.All sentient entities created by God and has the Spirit of God, IS a Son of God!!
Romans 8:14, 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the Sons of God'And, are not even Angels 'Led by the Spirit of God'?
And was not Jesus 'Led by the Spirit of God'?And, when did Jesus stop being 'Led by the spirit' and become the 'Holder and Giver' of the Spirit?
Was it not after he was risen?Istari,
Only non-created beings existed before creation. Angels were not self-existing and did not exist before creation.Kathi
Mike,
Can you take a look at verse 13, 'No one has ASCENDED to Heaven but he who came down from Heaven, that is, the Son of Man who IS IN HEAVEN”
(This also puts paid to the 'Poor man in the Bosom of Abraham in Heaven' story – Jack, take note!!)
Mike, how is Jesus telling the Teachers of Israel that the Son of Man (Himself) IS the only one who has ASCENDED into Heaven after coming down from there – AND is there 'Now' (As Jesus was presently speaking)?
Also, from what I read the script is saying what I said before, NAMELY, that Jesus is saying that those who BELIEVE in him will be saved and those who DO NOT (not DID NOT) are ALREADY CONDEMNED (Condemned even before their Judgement, just as the thief on the cross who repented and 'believed' in Jesus was 'Saved to life in Paradise' even before he was judged!)
Mike,
Even John 2:22 fastforwards to the Disciples 'Remembering what Jesus HAD SAID to them'.And 3:35 states that 'the Father HAS given ALL THINGS into his (Jesus) Hand', yet we know that it was not so until after he was risen!
Following on in verse 36: 'He who BELIEVES in the Son has everlasting life; And he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him' (NKJV)
There is no verse that says 'those that Believed in him will be saved'. That would have been logically and grammatically incorrect!!
Mike, you not reading from one of them weird Internet 'I'll say what you want to you want to read' translations, are you?
Istari,
Jesus, according to the flesh was led by the Spirit. After He was risen, according to His flesh, He received the ok to give the Father's Spirit, together with the Spirit of the Son so that they would both dwell within the believers…by their spirit called 'the Comforter.'Kathi
Quote (Istari @ April 11 2011,06:19) Kathi,
Neither Mike nor myself believe that 'No Son existed before creation'.All sentient entities created by God and has the Spirit of God, IS a Son of God!!
Romans 8:14, 'For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the Sons of God'And, are not even Angels 'Led by the Spirit of God'?
And was not Jesus 'Led by the Spirit of God'?And, when did Jesus stop being 'Led by the spirit' and become the 'Holder and Giver' of the Spirit?
Was it not after he was risen?
Istari!Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Jhn 1:1 ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Rev 3:14 ¶ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Jesus was not only the firstborn of all creatuon, but God thriugh Jesus created all.
You are wrong, because Mike also believes what I just said…….
Peace and Love Irene
Quote (Istari @ April 10 2011,14:49) Mike,
Even John 2:22 fastforwards to the Disciples 'Remembering what Jesus HAD SAID to them'.And 3:35 states that 'the Father HAS given ALL THINGS into his (Jesus) Hand', yet we know that it was not so until after he was risen!
Following on in verse 36: 'He who BELIEVES in the Son has everlasting life; And he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides in him' (NKJV)
There is no verse that says 'those that Believed in him will be saved'. That would have been logically and grammatically incorrect!!
Mike, you not reading from one of them weird Internet 'I'll say what you want to you want to read' translations, are you?
Acts 16:31
New International Version (©1984)
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved–you and your household.”New Living Translation (©2007)
They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household.”English Standard Version (©2001)
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”New American Standard Bible (©1995)
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
They answered, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will be saved.”Bible in Basic English
And they said, Have faith in the Lord Jesus, and you and your family will have salvation.Douay-Rheims Bible
But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.Mike,
Was it Jesus the 'Angel/Spirit' who was/Is the Begotten Son of God or Jesus 'the Man' who is Begotten Son of God
Romans 8:15 says that the human Apostles received the Spirit of ADOPTION by which they become CHILDREN OF GOD, 'and if Children, then heirs, and joint heirs with Christ (Trinnies: then they are also God Almighty?). Indeed, they suffered with him so they are glorified together with him.
Of they are begotten to God the Father by adoption then does it not stand to reason that Jesus being exactly like them should also have been begotten by adoption – the first of the many?Angels are not begotten from anyone. Angels could only be begotten from other angels if it were possible. Angels are not self-existent…only God is. God begets God, God does not beget angels…He created them. Angels are not born again, only man is born again…begotten from the dead by the Son who is the giver of eternal life into the adoption of the Sons of God.
Is Jesus a son because He was begotten
or
was He begotten because He was a Son.Kathi
Kathi,
I think you do not understand what Mike and myself are discussing.For your interest: it is about John 3:16 or such… Mike is saying that, specifically, it says that Jesus said 'Those that HAD NOT BELIEVED in his name are condemned'
Mike is asking how can they have not believed in his name, 'The only begotten Son of God' if hevonly received that name after he was risen (Please join me in explainng to Mike that 'Only Begotten Don of God' is NOT A NAME – but a TITLE!)I am trying to show that mike must be reading some grammatically incorrect extract be sued there can not be any such wording… It is 'Those that DO NOT believe in his name are already condemned ' as I wrote above… But, Kathi, specifically from John 3…
Istari,
Only Begotten Son of Goda name?
a title?or a relationship?
I say relationship. You must believe that He is the 'only' begotten Son of God. His relationship to God is that of the only one truly begotten from Him, as true of a Son as one can be. That is a big difference than merely believing that He is 'a' begotten son of God. There are many begotten by second birth or being 'born again' and therefore begotten from the dead. Then also, there is the sense of being sons merely in a creator/creation relationship.
Kathi
Kathi,
You are failing to understand the premise of the discussion. We are not disputing RELATIONSHIPS…
nor that Jesus is Son of God, or Son of Man, or Christ, or Messaiah, or Lord, or King, or anything else such, but linguist syntax.Syntax, not Semantics!
Ok, Istari, ha…syntax is something about studying the logic of grammar structure. Well, I have never had a discussion about syntax. You can enlighten me if you would like…if you are bored today
or you can pass me by on this, either way that's fine. I really don't know how talking about syntax is going to help me understand the truth of that verse. How do you expect it to help you?Kathi
Boy, I don't know where to start!
I took a second off, and we're all over the place now! Istari, let me first say that discussing with you in this clear and concise manner is very nice. It seems you are at least seeing my points, and I yours. And that's good, even if we end up understanding things differently when it's over.
First, verse 13 does not have the words, “who is in heaven”. I don't know where the KJV got those words, but they are not in the Greek text, and so also not in the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NET, etc. The “ascended”, as in past tense, is unusual, and there are many different thoughts on that word. But can we put that verse on the back burner for a minute, along with verse 16? Because no matter what explanation you accept for “ascended”, that oddly worded sentence doesn't change everything else Jesus ever said into a “speaking of the future as if it happened in the past” tense, right? We can wonder about the “ascended”, but we can't logically and honestly use that to make any other thing Jesus said belong in the tense we desire it to.
So let's just focus on 3:18 for now: 18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I even used your KJV to keep you happy, although each Bible has the same past tense “condemned” and “believed”. These following are also all from the KJV:
John 2:11
This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.John 2:23
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.John 7:31
And many of the people believed on him, and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?John 12:37
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:You can see that throughout Jesus' ministry, many HAD believed in him, and many HAD NOT believed in him. And 3:18 says that those who, at that time, had already made the decision to NOT believe in his name had already been condemned. And the name “Jesus”, which they had ALREADY not believed in, was the name of the ALREADY only begotten Son of God.
This is what 3:18 clearly teaches us in all Bibles. And I understand you want to bring up other “oddly tensed” wordings as support to what you WANT 3:18 to mean. But is it fair and honest to start with your own understanding that Jesus was not begotten until he was raised, and then make 3:18 “mean” something that's not specified just so it forms around your prior understanding? Is it fair and honest to take another sentence that Jesus spoke, which DOES have an “odd tense situation”, and use that scripture as proof that 3:16 and 3:18 also must have an “odd tense situation”?
Istari, as we go through scripture after scripture, the tide might turn in your favor as the evidence compounds. But you can't faithfully just assert that 3:16 and 3:18, taken as they were written, say anything at all to imply that Jesus wasn't ALREADY the only begotten Son of God who some people had ALREADY not believed in.
In fact, taken as they are, WITHOUT your claim that “they must mean this”, they are very straight forward scriptures that teach us Jesus WAS the only begotten Son of God that God “gave”. And they teach that the people who already hadn't believed in his name had already been condemned.
I also saw where you posted that “only begotten Son of God” is not a “name”, and I want to nip that in the bud, because like “ascended”, it's not really a “deciding factor” in 3:18. The “name” in question is the name Jesus. And “Jesus”, according to Jesus, is the name of the only begotten Son of God. There couldn't have been another name, for there is only one name under heaven by which we can be saved. So if Jesus says, “haven't believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”, he is saying, “haven't believed in the name of Jesus”. It is actually confirming that “Jesus” WAS the name of “the only begotten Son of God” when he made the statement concerning those who had already been condemned.
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
