In the Beginning

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,11:35)

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 27 2013,19:31) ………the Holy Spirit (also known as the eternal spirit Son of God)…….. Scripture, please?

Mike,
It is hidden in scripture and revealed through praying and seeking.

[mikeboll64]

“Hidden in scripture”?  That's what the Trinitarians say about God being three in one.  

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 28 2013,17:10)

Yes can we please all get back on topic, Thank you.

Okie-dokey.  

John 1:1 NWT
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

First, I will point out that the NWT is far from being the ONLY translation that renders 1:1 as “a god”.  There are hundreds of others ones.  More importantly, it was rendered as “a god” in the Coptic language.  (Coptic is the first language into which the NT was translated from Greek – that actually uses an indefinite article like we do in English.  In other words, the first chance John 1:1c ever had of being rendered as “a god”, it was.)

As scriptural support for my understanding, I offer Hebrews 1:8,
But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever………..”

This is only one of many scriptures where Jesus is called a god.

And I offer Revelation 19,
11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True.

12 His eyes are like blazing fire………

13 ……….his name is the Word of God.

15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword………..

The rider is, without a doubt, Jesus.  We know this from what he says about himself in Rev 2 and 3.  And from what John says about him in Rev 1.  For “faithful and true”, see 3:14.  For “eyes of blazing fire”, see 1:14 and 2:18.  For the “sharp sword”, see 1:16 and 2:12.  (There are, of course, more comparisons I could list, but these should suffice for most of us.)

So, Jesus is a god, according to scriptures.  And Jesus is named “the Word”, according to scriptures.

I also offer John 17:5
5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

From this scripture, we learn that Jesus not only existed before the world began (“in the beginning”), but that he was WITH God back then.

So “Jesus” fits every criteria in John 1:1.  
1.  He was with God in the beginning.  
2.  He is called “the Word”.  
3.  And he is “a god”, according to scripture.

Can anyone scripturally refute any of the three points I just wrote?

Now, on the flip side, you guys offer me this:
1.  It is “sensible” for God Almighty Himself to be WITH God Almighty Himself.
2.  The translation of “the Word was God” just feels better to me.

Have I missed any of the “scriptural support” you guys have offered for YOUR understanding?  Or do the two things I listed above sum it up?

[terraricca]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 28 2013,21:31)

T, Quote so the rest of the human race was not God's creation Deuteronomy is calling the children of Israel his children as they claim to serve him just as the children of other nations served other other gods. In serving other gods they rejected Jehovah as their god and Father. Quote but to you it is not ,because you try to change the do process that God as put in place ,and use the recovery from sin to use it to cover your ignorance That is just a groundless accusation and so merely distracts from the conversation.  What God teaches us is that every good and perfect gift comes from above. The Anointed, John's baptism, and the Spirit are all from above.  Those that receive and walk by the Spirit and he who fulfills the prophecy of the Anointed are also from above.

K

do not find your answer ridiculous “” also from above.'''

HIS NOT ALL OF GOD AND SO ALL HIS FROM ABOVE ?

IS THIS MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU ,? TO ME IT DOES NOT ,IT MAKE ME THINK THAT ALL MUSHROOMS ARE FROM GOD;

BUT YOU FORGOT OR YOU DON'T KNOW THAT

NOT ALL MUSHROOMS ARE GOOD TO EAT

AND SO IT HIS WITH THE TEACHINGS AND UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH,

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,05:24)

“Hidden in scripture”?  That's what the Trinitarians say about God being three in one.

Mike,

Jesus states it as well.

[mikeboll64]

States what, Kerwin? That the Trinity is true, but it's “hidden in scripture”?

[2besee]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 29 2013,04:13)

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 28 2013,18:12) You have mixed me up     But you do not answer any of my question any way ,my point was that God does not create until his rest is done, It is you that says that Christ would be god/man what is Isiaiah 9;4-8 says That The son will be called mighty god , got this One more thing ,what do you call a man that is in charge of an entire planet  I call him a god 2besee………Remember Pierre is a Old man like me and sometimes we get our wires crossed. Not to mention he has a little problem with English expressions because he's of a different culture, so there is somewhat of a Language bearer. Pierre actually 2besee answered all of them brother. peace and love to you and yours……………………..gene

Gene, I understand T, it is okay. only having him on sometimes

He is just a grumpy old man!

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,11:27)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 27 2013,13:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 27 2013,09:37) Also Kerwin, I await your answer about 1 John 2:1-2.  Who is the son of God that was the propitiation for our sins? Mike, Offhand the only begotten Son can either be a] An animation of the Holy Spirit b] Jesus Christ Kerwin, No matter how you translate the “genes” part of “monogenes”, the “mono” part still means “ONLY”. Can God have two “ONLY begotten sons”?  Is Jesus the BROTHER of the Holy Spirit? Come on, man.   Face it.  You're stumped here.  As well you should be, Kerwin.   Jesus is the ONLY “only begotten Son of God”.  The Holy Spirit of God is not God's “SON”.  If it is, then show me the scripture where the Holy Spirit calls Jehovah “Father”.  Or the scripture where Jehovah calls the Spirit “Son”.

If I may,

I made a post to you Mike, earlier, explaining this.
I will re-post it.

——————

Begotten can be translated from the Greek into either “Only” or “Only Begotten” or “Unique“
The Words used are Strongs #3438 and #3439.
Short Definition: only, only-begotten, or unique

These are eight occurrences:

monogene  
John 1:14
John 1:18
John 3:16
John 3:18
1 John 4:9
Hebrews 11:17

monogenes
Luke 7:12
Luke 8:42
Luke 9:38

http://biblesuite.com/greek/monogene_s_3439.htm

Regarding Jesus is only the following from the list above. the rest are regarding other people:

http://interlinearbible.org/john/1-14.htm

http://interlinearbible.org/john/3-16.htm

http://interlinearbible.org/john/3-18.htm

http://interlinearbible.org/1_john/4-9.htm

—————–

The word Monogene/s is only used regarding God's Son in John (4 times)

In the rest of the NT, only the word “Son” is used. i.e “Son of God” which is translated from the word “huios” which means, simply “a son or a descendent” with no other words attached to it. (I have done a keyword search of “only son” and it only came up with the verses already covered above).

—————-

Another thing: What about the verse that says “This day I have begotten you”? That did not show up in Strongs as “monogenes”…….

Acts 13:13

The word here used for “begotten” is “gegenneka”…
Short Definition: I beget, bring forth, give birth to.

And, according to Acts 13:13, which day was Jesus “beget, brought forth, or given birth to”?
According to the wording of Acts 13:13,
When He was “raised up”

“anastesas” “Having raised up Jesus”

————–

But I plan to reread Acts 13 regarding this.

————-

So, Mike, can you agree that the word “Unique Son” could possibly be the correct English word that John was meaning with Monogene?

The other Gospels would agree with “Unique Son” as they only use the word “Son” or “Son or God”?

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,09:51)

It seems this thread has gone WAY off topic.  We started off trying to figure out who “the Word” was in John 1. We were moving along just fine until we all realized that the Word is the one who actually dwelled on earth with the glory of God's only begotten Son. At that point, it seems the non-preexisters didn't want to discuss the similarities between “Jesus” and “the Word” anymore.  (Like John the Baptist saying the EXACT SAME THING about “the Word” in verse 15 as he said about “Jesus” in verse 30.)  I had MANY more similarities to discuss with you all, but you have gone off into many different directions.  (Some of you have gone as far as to claim that God's Holy Spirit is “the only begotten Son of God” – just so you don't have to give up your non-preexistence doctrine.  How sad.) Anyway, let me know when you are ready to discuss the many things said about the Word in John 1, that are also said elsewhere in scripture about Jesus.  (Of course I already know this post will go ignored, because you guys don't really want the TRUTH, do you?  Instead, you are comfortable with what you already believe, and don't want to change.  Again, how sad.)

Hi Mike,

“After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.”  (John 1:30)
“He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.”  (John 1:15)

You are overlooking an alternate way of viewing this text:
Rather than his teachings growing out of mine, my teachings
came from him because they(Jesus' teachings) were before mine.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[2besee]

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 29 2013,17:17)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 27 2013,09:37) Kerwin, No matter how you translate the “genes” part of “monogenes”, the “mono” part still means “ONLY”. Can God have two “ONLY begotten sons”?  Is Jesus the BROTHER of the Holy Spirit? Come on, man.   Face it.  You're stumped here.  As well you should be, Kerwin.   Jesus is the ONLY “only begotten Son of God”.  The Holy Spirit of God is not God's “SON”.  If it is, then show me the scripture where the Holy Spirit calls Jehovah “Father”.  Or the scripture where Jehovah calls the Spirit “Son”. If I may, I made a post to you Mike, earlier, explaining this. I will re-post it. —————— Begotten can be translated from the Greek into either “Only” or “Only Begotten” or “Unique“ The Words used are Strongs #3438 and #3439. Short Definition: only, only-begotten, or unique These are eight occurrences: monogene   John 1:14 John 1:18 John 3:16 John 3:18 1 John 4:9 Hebrews 11:17 monogenes Luke 7:12 Luke 8:42 Luke 9:38 http://biblesuite.com/greek/monogene_s_3439.htm Regarding Jesus is only the following from the list above. the rest are regarding other people: http://interlinearbible.org/john/1-14.htm http://interlinearbible.org/john/3-16.htm http://interlinearbible.org/john/3-18.htm http://interlinearbible.org/1_john/4-9.htm —————– The word Monogene/s is only used regarding God's Son in John (4 times) In the rest of the NT, only the word “Son” is used. i.e “Son of God” which is translated from the word “huios” which means, simply “a son or a descendent” with no other words attached to it. (I have done a keyword search of “only son” and it only came up with the verses already covered above). —————- Another thing: What about the verse that says “This day I have begotten you”? That did not show up in Strongs as “monogenes”……. Acts 13:13 The word here used for “begotten” is “gegenneka”… Short Definition: I beget, bring forth, give birth to. And, according to Acts 13:13, which day was Jesus “beget, brought forth, or given birth to”? According to the wording of Acts 13:13, When He was “raised up” “anastesas” “Having raised up Jesus” ————– But I plan to reread Acts 13 regarding this. ————- So, Mike, can you agree that the word “Unique Son” could possibly be the correct English word that John was meaning with Monogene? The other Gospels would agree with “Unique Son” as they only use the word “Son” or “Son or God”?

Mike,

To back up what I say, I am not alone in saying that “Unique” could be the correct translation, as at biblos.com the 'ISV' chose the word “Unique” in each of the four verses…

John 1:14:

International Standard Version (©2012)
The Word became flesh and lived among us. We gazed on his glory, the kind of glory that belongs to the Father's unique Son, who is full of grace and truth.

http://bible.cc/john/1-14.htm

John 3:16

International Standard Version (©2012)
“For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.

http://bible.cc/john/3-16.htm

John 3:18

International Standard Version (©2012)
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's unique Son.

http://bible.cc/john/3-18.htm

1 John 4:9

International Standard Version (©2012)
This is how God's love was revealed among us: God sent his unique Son into the world so that we might live through him.

http://bible.cc/1_john/4-9.htm

[2besee]

And Mike you failed to comment on the fact that “The Shepherd of Hermas” was considered to be 'canon' until they changed their mind and took it out at the Council of Nicea in 325, despite it being so popular in the earliest church. I showed you proof that it was called canon and scripture. And I showed you how in “The Shepherd of Hermas” the Son of God is called the Holy Spirit. In “The Shepherd of Hermas”, God has two Sons. The Holy Spirit and Jesus! And it is exactly as we are saying.

You failed to comment though.

So it is you who is not listening!

[2besee]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,12:59)

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 28 2013,17:10) Yes can we please all get back on topic, Thank you. Okie-dokey.   John 1:1 NWT In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. First, I will point out that the NWT is far from being the ONLY translation that renders 1:1 as “a god”.  There are hundreds of others ones.  More importantly, it was rendered as “a god” in the Coptic language.  (Coptic is the first language into which the NT was translated from Greek – that actually uses an indefinite article like we do in English.  In other words, the first chance John 1:1c ever had of being rendered as “a god”, it was.) As scriptural support for my understanding, I offer Hebrews 1:8, But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever………..” This is only one of many scriptures where Jesus is called a god. And I offer Revelation 19, 11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire……… 13 ……….his name is the Word of God. 15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword……….. The rider is, without a doubt, Jesus.  We know this from what he says about himself in Rev 2 and 3.  And from what John says about him in Rev 1.  For “faithful and true”, see 3:14.  For “eyes of blazing fire”, see 1:14 and 2:18.  For the “sharp sword”, see 1:16 and 2:12.  (There are, of course, more comparisons I could list, but these should suffice for most of us.) So, Jesus is a god, according to scriptures.  And Jesus is named “the Word”, according to scriptures. I also offer John 17:5 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. From this scripture, we learn that Jesus not only existed before the world began (“in the beginning”), but that he was WITH God back then. So “Jesus” fits every criteria in John 1:1.   1.  He was with God in the beginning.   2.  He is called “the Word”.   3.  And he is “a god”, according to scripture. Can anyone scripturally refute any of the three points I just wrote? Now, on the flip side, you guys offer me this: 1.  It is “sensible” for God Almighty Himself to be WITH God Almighty Himself. 2.  The translation of “the Word was God” just feels better to me. Have I missed any of the “scriptural support” you guys have offered for YOUR understanding?  Or do the two things I listed above sum it up?

Thank you Mike

Have to get to this another day though okay.

Peace.

[2besee]

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 28 2013,20:12)

what do you call a man that is in charge of an entire planet  I call him a god

T.

You say that you call Jesus a god, and ask what I call Him,

I call Jesus: Lord, and Jesus.

There is only one God. That is what scripture tells us, yes?

[GeneBalthrop]

2besee……..I also believe that the proper term used there should be Unique Son, Because Jesus was indeed uniquely born.

I did a word search years ago and it showed the same thing brother.

I also can see how the Holy Spirit can be consideder a Seed of GOD , John seems to imply that also saying, “for his seed abides in you”, And we do recive the Spirit of God into us and it does seem to produce a Charateristic quality in us of a new Nature. And there is also Scripture that Says “that God may be in all and through all”. IMO

So from that point of view God Spiirt could be what makes us SON of GOD, as it did the Man Jesus.

peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene

[kerwin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,07:28)

States what, Kerwin?  That the Trinity is true, but it's “hidden in scripture”?

Mike,

Jesus states the truth is hidden from some and revealed to others.  He also speaks of those who search Scripture diligently but do not come to him.

[kerwin]

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 29 2013,06:33)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 28 2013,21:31) T, Quote so the rest of the human race was not God's creation Deuteronomy is calling the children of Israel his children as they claim to serve him just as the children of other nations served other other gods. In serving other gods they rejected Jehovah as their god and Father. Quote but to you it is not ,because you try to change the do process that God as put in place ,and use the recovery from sin to use it to cover your ignorance That is just a groundless accusation and so merely distracts from the conversation.  What God teaches us is that every good and perfect gift comes from above. The Anointed, John's baptism, and the Spirit are all from above.  Those that receive and walk by the Spirit and he who fulfills the prophecy of the Anointed are also from above. K do not find your answer ridiculous “” also from above.''' HIS NOT ALL OF GOD AND SO ALL HIS FROM ABOVE ? IS THIS MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU ,? TO ME IT DOES NOT ,IT MAKE ME THINK THAT ALL MUSHROOMS ARE FROM GOD; BUT YOU FORGOT OR YOU DON'T KNOW THAT  NOT ALL MUSHROOMS ARE GOOD TO EAT AND SO IT HIS WITH THE TEACHINGS AND UNDERSTANDING OF TRUTH,

T,

It is written that all good and perfect things are from above and so it is in some manner true.

Good mushrooms are from above and so we thank God for them.
Bad mushrooms are a corruption of Satan and so we petition God to deliver us from them.

As you say, the same is true of teachings.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 29 2013,12:29)

Mike, Jesus states the truth is hidden from some and revealed to others.  He also speaks of those who search Scripture diligently but do not come to him.

So then the Trinitarians might be right, Kerwin?  Because after I show them tons of scriptures that clearly identify Jesus as someone OTHER THAN God Almighty, their answer is always the same:  “It is not directly written in scripture.  And it is hidden from some, and revealed to some others.  God must show you this truth of a 3 in 1 God, Mike!”

Shall I start believing in a Trinity Godhead now, Kerwin?  Should I just assume that we can all make up our own doctrines, that aren't taught in any scripture, and say, “The Spirit must show this to you”?

Is that what you and 2B would like to do now, since you can't actually produce any scripture that speaks of God's Holy Spirit being His “son”?

I guess Jesus has to “show me” this hidden secret, and he just hasn't done it yet, huh?

Get real, guys.  This forum is for discussing SCRIPTURES, and what they actually DO say.  It is not for pushing bizarro world doctrines that have no scriptural support, and then saying, “The Spirit must show this to you, Mike!”.

Which brings me to 2B's post……………..

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 29 2013,01:44)

And Mike you failed to comment on the fact that “The Shepherd of Hermas” was considered to be 'canon' until they changed their mind…………

I have no comment, 2B.  We are here to discuss the Holy Scriptures that actually ARE in today's Bibles.

The Book of Mormon is also very popular.  And I suppose the millions of Mormons think IT should also be canon.  Doesn't make it so, though.

When you find a cannonized writer of scripture that speaks of God's TWO sons, let me know.  Until then, I believe the word “ONLY-begotten” speaks for itself.

Which brings me to your next post…………………

[mikeboll64]

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 28 2013,22:17)

So, Mike, can you agree that the word “Unique Son” could possibly be the correct English word that John was meaning with Monogene?

The Greek word “mono” means “only”, or “alone”.  The suffix “genes” has as it root the Greek word “ginomai”.  The first and most common definition of “ginomai” is:

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

James Strong says:
a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be
(“gen”-erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being),

The word “monogenes” technically means “only generated”.  (Notice how Strong actually puts “gen” in quotes to make his point: “genes” = “gen”-erate.)  

The English translation of “only begotten” is spot on, 2B.  And the ONLY reason you are now reading information about how it really means “unique” is because Trinitarians have found themselves in a trap of their own translation.

They know that normal, sane people will read “only begotten”, and know exactly what that means – that Jesus had a beginning.  But they don't WANT their “God Almighty #2” to have had a beginning.  “How can we fix this problem?”, they asked themselves.  “I know!  Let's pretend that 'monogenes' means 'unique'!  That way, Jesus doesn't have to have a beginning!  We can even use Hebrews 11:17 as our 'proof'!”

Wham, bam, thank you ma'am!  Problem solved.

2B, go through that list you posted, and find the other scriptures where the word “monogenes” is used of someone other than Jesus.  (There are three of them, not counting Heb 11:7)  Read those three, and tell me if it is true in each instance, that the one referred to as the “monogenes” was indeed the “only begotten” child of their parents.  They are Luke 7:12, 8:42, and 9:38 – and they ALL refer to only begotten children.  

Since the word technically means “only generated”, I personally think “only begotten” hits the nail right on the head.  I cannot explain why the writer of Hebrews called Isaac Abraham's “monogenes”.  Perhaps since Ishmael was sent off to live elsewhere, and wasn't actually raised by Abraham?  Perhaps to make a better comparison between the Head Patriarch being willing to offer his only begotten and God being willing to offer His only begotten?  Perhaps Sarah was an important part of God's plan (Gen 17:18-19), and Issac is the only begotten of Abraham and Sarah?  Perhaps Isaac is the only begotten of the one Abraham became “one flesh” with when he married her?    I can't say for sure.

But consider this 2B:  If Issac was Abraham's “monogenes” son, then even if you translate is as “unique”, it is clear that no other son of Abraham could also be his “monogenes” son, right?  

Similarly, if Jesus is God's “monogenes” son, it is clear that no other son of God can be His “monogenes” son.

Can we now get back to the topic of the thread?  I await your response to my post about John 1:1.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 28 2013,22:24)

You are overlooking an alternate way of viewing this text: Rather than his teachings growing out of mine, my teachings came from him because they(Jesus' teachings) were before mine.

I'm not talking about the “before me” part, Ed.

I'm merely pointing out the these words were said about “the Word” in verse 15, and then the same words were said about “Jesus” in verse 30.

Unless John said these same words about TWO different beings, I consider that very good support for “Jesus” being “the Word”.

(Also, just so you know, you will once again have to add words and change words for the understanding you posted in blue to be realized. We can't just add and change scriptural words at will, Ed. We must find a way to form our understanding around the words that were actually written.)

[Author]

Posts