In the Beginning

Blocked

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 29 2013,16:15)

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

What? Satan corrupted the earth's mushroom supply? Hmmmm……………

Kerwin, will you please address the third post down on page 111?

January 30, 2013 at 12:55 am#330619

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2013,11:56)

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…………………

Mike,

The book of Mormon is no comparison to the Shepherd of Hermas. The book of Mormon was not considered to be CANON, wheres the Shepherd of Hermas WAS.

I have shown you this fact.
You do not WANT to see this fact because it proves you wrong.
You would not make a good detective!

Quote from Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia:

The Shepherd of Hermas is a Christian literary work of the 1st or 2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.
The Shepherd had great authority in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
It was bound with New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus.

Irenaeus quotes it as scripture in “Against Heresy” (c. 180).

Origen freely cites Hermas as scripture, and in his Commentary on Romans attributes it to the Hermas of Rom.16:14 (an identification supported by Coleborne).

Christology:

In parable 5, the author mentions a Son of God, as a virtuous man filled with [the] Holy “pre-existent spirit” and adopted as the Son. In the 2nd century, adoptionism (the view that Jesus Christ was only a mortal man) was one of two competing doctrines about Jesus' true nature, the other being that he pre-existed as a divine spirit (Logos); Christ's identity with the Logos (Jn 1:1) was affirmed in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. Bogdan G. Bucur, however, notes how widely accepted the Shepherd of Hermas was among “orthodox” Christians, yet was never criticized for apparently exhibiting an adoptionistic Christology.

How do you know that this is not the missing part in scriptures? Perhaps that is why there is so much confusion and so many different beliefs?

January 30, 2013 at 1:05 am#330620

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2013,12:35)

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.

If this is true, why did John not use the word “genenneka” (Acts 13:13) which does ONLY mean “Beget, bring forth, give birth to”.

Common sense (and scriptures) would tell you Mike, that God has other Sons. So how could Jesus be called “The only Son” when “John” continues to say “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Plus, I have already shown you something, which you fail to see:

The word Monogene/s is only used regarding God's Son in the NT in “John” (and that is only 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).

So evidence would suggest that “Unique” is in harmony with ALL of the scriptures.

Quote

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

Yes, later

January 30, 2013 at 1:06 am#330621

Blocked

2B,

I haven't read Hermas, or anything about it. But if the part you bolded is supposed to be the part that says God has TWO only begotten sons, you have missed the mark.

Post me ONLY the part of Hermas that says God has TWO only begotten sons, okay? I'll take a look at that part.

In the meantime: 3rd post on page 111 please.

January 30, 2013 at 1:11 am#330622

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 30 2013,12:45)

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 29 2013,17:38)

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

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?

2bee

is any one can tell me what his a god

because it seems 2bee and others do not understand what the word god means ;in scriptures that is ;

the way I see it is this way; first their his and will be only one truth almighty God ,that created all thing visible and invisible ,THIS HIS CLEAR AND WE NEVER WILL CHANGE THAT ;RIGHT ,

NOW TWO THINGS HAPPEN 1) one of God angel REBEL TOWARDS HIS GOD ,his name came to be known as SATAN (ADVERSARY) 2) he corrupted the creation just created a little lower that the angels ,

whit this in mind there have now been changes implemented,to Gods creation ,and understand that God almighty just took a rest for a day (time of day )

to be continued ,

Hi T,

Will let you continue…… but “God” to me, when used with anything or anyone else, is nothing to do with the one and only God, but is a title indicating power and authority, but we know that there is only one God because scriptures tell us this. Yes?

———–

“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed (nō·w·ṣar), nor will after any become (yih·yeh).” Isaiah 43:10

“This moreover is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and Him whom you did send, Jesus Christ”

“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? (monou theou)“

“To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God (monou theou), be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

“To the only God (mono theou), our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.”

—————

Let you continue though.

January 30, 2013 at 1:13 am#330623

Participant

T, those verses above were only a few, there are many more in scripture. But we know that.

January 30, 2013 at 1:14 am#330624

Blocked

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 29 2013,18:05)

Common sense (and scriptures) would tell you Mike, that God has other Sons. So how could Jesus be called “The only Son”

He is never called God's “mono” (only) son, is he? He is, however, called God's “monogenes” (only begotten) son.

Quote (2besee @ Jan. 29 2013,18:05)

So evidence would suggest that “Unique” is in harmony with ALL of the scriptures.

Did you read the scriptures in Luke that I listed for you? Could each of these “only begotten” children also be called “unique” children? Of course. It stands to reason that a person's ONLY begotten child would also be their UNIQUE child, right?

But the Greek word technically means “only generated”, or “only begotten”.

Like I said, either way it doesn't matter. If Jesus is THE “unique” son of God, then God doesn't have another “unique” son.

January 30, 2013 at 1:14 am#330625

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2013,13:06)

2B,

I haven't read Hermas, or anything about it. But if the part you bolded is supposed to be the part that says God has TWO only begotten sons, you have missed the mark.

Post me ONLY the part of Hermas that says God has TWO only begotten sons, okay? I'll take a look at that part.

In the meantime: 3rd post on page 111 please.

Mike, okay. I only had a short time so will be back.

January 30, 2013 at 1:18 am#330626

Blocked

No problem. Don't get fired because of me!

January 30, 2013 at 4:39 am#330655

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 29 2013,03:32)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 27 2013,00:30)

If Jesus' conception had been “consistent” with human norm it would not be the sign it is was performed to be, and neither would the line of Solomon been kept off the throne.

So you're okay with Jesus being the ONLY human ever conceived by a human mother, but without a human father? And not only are you okay with it, but you think this abnormal occurance was necessary for the birth of Jesus to be the sign it was performed to be?

Yet you won't consider that Jesus could have existed prior to being conceived in the womb of a human mother?

So abnormal occurances are okay with you, as long as the particular occurance in question doesn't damper your doctrine? Is that it?

Hmmmmm………………..

Mike,

He is no longer the only one that have cloned humans in order to cannibalize them for scientific and medical reasons. I already quoted to an excerpt that spoke of such being done. T was the one I posted to.

It is like you do not know what conception is when it relates to Jesus but you do when it relates to John the Baptist or any other human.

Quote

parthenogenesis [ˌpɑːθɪnəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a type of reproduction, occurring in some insects and flowers, in which the unfertilized ovum develops directly into a new individual
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) human conception without fertilization by a male; virgin birth
[from Greek parthenos virgin + genesis birth]

Quote

parthenogenesis (pärth-n-jn-ss)
Reproduction in which an egg develops into a new individual without being fertilized. Aphids and certain other insects can reproduce by parthenogenesis. Parthenogenesis does not necessarily produce clones of the parent. Among hymenopterans such as honeybees and ants, the haploid males develop from unfertilized eggs laid by the queen, who is diploid. Parthenogenesis is a form of apomixis.

Conception is when a cell develops into a new individual.

A miracle is an abnormal occurrence.

Source is the freedictionary.com

January 30, 2013 at 4:50 am#330658

terraricca

Participant

Quote

is any one can tell me what his a god

because it seems 2bee and others do not understand what the word god means ;in scriptures that is ;

the way I see it is this way; first their his and will be only one truth almighty God ,that created all thing visible and invisible ,THIS HIS CLEAR AND WE NEVER WILL CHANGE THAT ;RIGHT ,

NOW TWO THINGS HAPPEN 1) one of God angel REBEL TOWARDS HIS GOD ,his name came to be known as SATAN (ADVERSARY) 2) he corrupted the creation just created a little lower that the angels ,

whit this in mind there have now been changes implemented,to Gods creation ,and understand that God almighty just took a rest for a day (time of day )

to be continued , >2

part 2…

now what God find himself with two rebels Satan and Adam , and this in his rest ,

this is were the WORD of GOD his son is planed to make some moves to fix the problem ; but it seems that their should be no problem just destroy and restart ,right

but God can not lie ;did he not say to Adam and Eve to multiply and full the earth and to master over all living creatures,??? yes to all questions

and so it was that God did not destroy all his creation but in time he sew good man coming along and was moved until the time of Noah he called it the end of that era or age ,but something did not changed it is the experience that they ad all lived on the other side of the flood ,

that was the seed of the devil (satan) even though it did not changed them but it did to their offspring wen the story wen around ,and also the blessings and the prophecy foretold by the patriarch to his sons ,(words ad great value in those days people did not talk to say nothing unless they were not a man yet )

so the real problem became what to do to fix the problem and save men or human kind (this imply only the one that are chosen )from the rebellion now in full swing ,

this is the great work of God to set up a system to only save those who are worthy of him, first Moses great works fulfillment of prophecy ,setting up new nation with new laws and new understanding ,but why well to set up the stage that was the plan at the beginning to bring down at one specific time the WORD of God alias the son of God alias to become the Christ and savior in the name of his father , we can read many of those details in the book of Chronicles ,and other books of God s chosen people ,we also learn trough those years that God has a way and should be followed for our own sake ,but time passes and now at come that the Christ as to appear ,(but all according to what God ad foretold ears earlier like generations earlier,) so the WORD of God the son of God was SEND TO BECOME A MAN TO FULFILL THE LAW AND DIE TO ANNUL(AND TAKE ON HIMSELF ALL THE SINS OF MEN ) IT FOR ALL MAN KIND SO THAT MEN FROM THE ALL EARTH CAN RECEIVE ETERNAL LIFE,

FOR THIS REASON THE CHRIST COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE HUMAN RACE WERE THEIR WAS A CURSE ON ,SO HE CAME AND WAS GIVEN TO A WOMEN SO THAT HE COULD BE COVERED WITH FLESH THIS WAS THE ONLY THING THAT THE SON OF GOD NEEDED TO BE A PART OF HUMAN KIND SO MARY WAS HIS SURROGATE MOTHER ,SHE AD TO ACCEPT THE SON THAT SHE GIVE BIRTH TO AS THE SON OF GOD AND AS THE WORD OF GOD IF SHE WANTED TO BE SAVED BY HIM ,
WEN CHRIST TIME CAME TO BE OLD ENOUGH AND WAS READY HE NOW CAME OUT HAS THE MESSIAH OR CHRIST ,HE CAME FIRST AS A PRIEST THE GRAND PRIEST ,AND SO WEN TO JOHN THE PROPHET TO BE DIP IN WATER SO HE WOULD BE CLEAN TO OFFER HIS SACRIFICE TO GOD HIS FATHER FOR THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL

THE WITNESSING OF JOHN AS TO WHO CHRIST WAS WAS MADE CLEAR TO ALL ,BUT WHAT GOD SAID AND HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT CONFIRM HIS APPOINTMENT IS NOW WITHOUT A DOUBT,HE WAS AND HIS THE SON AND THE WORD OF GOD ,

FROM THEN ON CHRIST WAS WORKING FOR WHAT WOULD BECOME THE NEXT AGE ,AGE THAT WOULD START AFTER HE AD FINISH HIS EARTHLY WORK ,AND SO RETURN TO HIS FATHER STILL CLOTHED WITH FLESH BUT WOULD SHED IT TO RETAKE HIS FORMER LIFE AS AN HEAVENLY BEING WITH GLORY OF HIS OWN,NEXT TO THE FATHER ,HIS FATHER .

TO CONTINUED ……3)

January 30, 2013 at 4:53 am#330659

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2013,05:45)

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 29 2013,16:15)

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

What? Satan corrupted the earth's mushroom supply? Hmmmm……………

Kerwin, will you please address the third post down on page 111?

Mike,

There is a war going on and poison food, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, does not seem to be an item Jehovah had in the garden.

Who do you think modifies genetics in order to cause the world's ills?

January 30, 2013 at 6:16 am#330663

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Jan. 30 2013,04:02)

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.

Hi Gene,
ISV (International Standard Version) seems to be quite a good translation from what I have seen so far.

January 30, 2013 at 6:17 am#330664

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 30 2013,16:50)

TO CONTINUED ……3)

Okay T, looking forward to part 3!

January 30, 2013 at 6:19 am#330665

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Jan. 30 2013,16:53)

Mike,

There is a war going on and poison food, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, does not seem to be an item Jehovah had in the garden.

Who do you think modifies genetics in order to cause the world's ills?

Kerwin, I love the way that your mind thinks things over I look forward to reading your posts, but realize that you are busy as you said.

January 30, 2013 at 6:38 am#330666

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob26.htm

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2013,13:06)

2B,

I haven't read Hermas, or anything about it. But if the part you bolded is supposed to be the part that says God has TWO only begotten sons, you have missed the mark.

Post me ONLY the part of Hermas that says God has TWO only begotten sons, okay? I'll take a look at that part.

In the meantime: 3rd post on page 111 please.

Hi Mike,
It does not say that God had two “only begotten Sons”. It says that the Son of God is the Holy Spirit and the one who became co-heir with the Holy Spirit (Son) is the man who was perfect and co-operated perfectly with the Holy Spirit and so then went on to become co-heir with the Son (The Holy Spirit).

Here is the bit that shows this, but you really need to read the whole thing because otherwise you could be confused as to what Son it is talking about:

I will bolden the relevant bits:

The field is this world; and the Lord of the field is He who created, and perfected, and strengthened all things; and the son is the Holy Spirit; and the slave is the Son of God; and the vines are this people, whom He Himself planted; and the stakes are the holy angels of the Lord, who keep His people together; and the weeds that were plucked out of the vineyard are the iniquities of God's servants; and the dishes which He sent Him from His able are the commandments which He gave His people through His Son; and the friends and fellow-councillors are the holy angels who were first created; and the Master's absence from home is the time that remains until His appearing.”

I said to him, “Sir, all these are great, and marvellous, and glorious things. Could I, therefore,” I continued, “understand them? No, nor could any other man, even if exceedingly wise. Moreover,” I added, “explain to me what I am about to ask you.” “Say what you wish,” he replied.
“Why, sir,” I asked, “is the Son of God in the parable in the form of a slave?”

CHAPTER 6.

“Hear,” he answered: “the Son of God is not in the form of a slave, but in great power and might.”
“How so, sir?” I said; “I do not understand.” “Because,” he answered, “God planted the vineyard, that is to say, He created the people, and gave them to His Son; and the Son appointed His angels over them to keep them; and He Himself purged away their sins, having suffered many trials and undergone many labours, for no one is able to dig without labour and toil.
He Himself, then, having purged away the sins of the people, showed them the paths of life by giving them the law which He received from His Father. [You see,” he said, “that He is the Lord of the people, having received all authority from His Father. ] And why the Lord took His Son as councillor, and the glorious angels, regarding the heirship of the slave, listen. The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit, walking religiously and chastely, in no respect defiling the Spirit; and accordingly, after living excellently and purely, and after labouring and co-operating with the Spirit, and having in everything acted vigorously and courageously along with the Holy Spirit, He assumed it as a partner with it.
For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him, because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit.
He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels, in order that this flesh, which had been subject to the body without a fault, might have some place of tabernacle, and that it might not appear that the reward [of its servitude had been lost], for the flesh that has been found without spot or defilement, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, [will receive a reward].

You have now the explanation of this parable also.”

There is more in the book about the Son, which I will look at later.

Remember that this was considered canon, and was called canon, but it was taken out at the council of Nicaea. Until then it was accepted by the church as canon, and they had no problem with this teaching. Why?

January 30, 2013 at 6:42 am#330668

Participant

The above seems to be saying that the Son of God is the Holy Spirit and it only mentions the flesh that the Son of God (The Holy Spirit) came to dwell in as only flesh that became co-heir. The Holy Spirit Son of God is the one who is in the form of a slave also.

There is only one Son of God mentioned and it is the Holy Spirit.

January 30, 2013 at 7:26 am#330671

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 30 2013,04:53)

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……………..

Mike,

I an just stating what Jesus taught us. God reveals the truth to those that hunger and thirst for righteousness but hides is from those that love darkness.

January 30, 2013 at 6:43 pm#330687