- This topic is empty.
- Posts
This is a post from WJ to me in the prototokos thread. I want to address ALL of his points one by one so we can get somewhere finally. If I respond to all of his claims in one huge post, too much gets lost in the mix – and too many of my refutes get ignored in his following post to answer my post. I have lettered his points for easier referrence later.
Hi Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Not that scripture records.a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
But John says he is the “only begotten god”. And your buddy Ignatius says the Father is “unbegotten” and the Son was begotten by the Father before the worlds. And Jesus says the Father GAVE His only begotten Son and SENT him INTO THE WORLD. Why won't anyone answer my questions?b. We have but you are not listening! It doesn’t matter if you say that Jesus was “begotten” before Jesus came in the flesh or not, for three reasons…
1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3.
What is before time Mike? Its called eternity!
3. The church Fathers including the earliest and most credible, “Ignatius” never speaks of Jesus having a beginning and in fact as I have shown Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh! I think Ignatius knows more than Eusebius about Jesus origin since he is close to John who wrote John 1:1, don't you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
In what way did God GIVE His only begotten Son AFTER he was raised? And when did God SEND His Son into the world “to save it through His Son” AFTER he was raised? And what does this mean? “but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son.” How can anyone STAND CONDEMNED ALREADY for having not ALREADY BELIEVED in the name of someone who didn't yet exist according to you?c. Exactly Mike! Can you see it? Jesus had not yet existed as the “Monogenes” Son until he came into existence (ginomai) in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man. John 1:14 – Phil 2:6-8
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, “that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokos) among many brothers”. Rom 8:29The term “might be the firstborn” is in the present tense, and cannot mean that Jesus is the first to be born by a procreative act from the Father and then we follow after him as the second born, third born, etc.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Why not?d. Why not? Because Rom 8:29 deals with us being brothers with Jesus after he comes in the flesh as a man and not before. So the word “firstborn” (prōtotokos) here does not mean that Jesus was “procreated” but rather that he is first, the prototype by whom we will become like, and Paul’s use of the word in Col 1:15 doesn’t mean God beget a god either!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Jesus was begotten by God before all the ages.e. The word is “Monogenes” which does not mean “to come into existence”, but you insist on viewing the word “ginomai” and “monogenes” as having the same meaning!
Monogenes: 1) single of its kind, only
You have absolutely no evidence at all that Jesus had a beginning even if you say he was the “begotten Son” before the ages (meaning time).
Please quit equivocating and give ONE shred of evidence that says Jesus had a beginning. Time and Time again Jack an I have shown you that the early Fathers did not view the words “firstborn” or “begotten” as meaning Jesus had a beginning. In fact that was the whole reason of the creeds, to refute Arius and the Arians concept that there was a time that Jesus did not exist. Eusebius signed off on it. But you insist on going down rabbit trails and endless discussion to prove your false theory.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
He was born of Mary as flesh.f. No, he was the Word that was with God and was God who took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man. John 1:1, 14 – Phil 2:6-8
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Then he was the firstborn FROM the dead, not the ONLY-born from the dead, because many will follow. Do you see the difference?g. No, because again the “firstborn from the dead” does not mean that Jesus was “born again” by some procreative act. In Spirit Jesus was alive. Firstborn again means that he has the preeminence over all that are raised from the dead because all that are raised will be by him. Was Jesus the “first” to be raised from the dead? If not then your meaning cannot be true.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God, but merely the FIRSTborn from the dead.h. But if we are “Sons of God” also, then in what sense is Jesus the “Only Monogenes” Son?
Could it be that it is because he is “unique” and the “Only” one that was with God and was God and who was born of a virgin and appeared to men in the flesh? Yep, that’s scriptural alright!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
This is another reason why your logic is flawed. Because if Jesus being the firstborn from the Father means he is literally a product of Gods procreative power then the term firstborn would be meaningless because we know there will never be “another”, second or third “Monogenes” Son.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Yes, that is correct. There will NEVER be another BEGOTTEN Son of God. Jesus is the ONLY one. The fact that Jesus was also the firstborn of all creation only means he is the first thing God ever caused to exist.i. There you go equivocating again Mike! The word “ginomai” does not apply to Jesus until the incarnation and it is not the same word as begotten!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
It doesn't negate that he is the ONLY thing God caused to exist through BEGETTING. Jesus will alone hold that title forever. For God made Jesus directly, or begat him, then everything else that was made was made FROM God, THROUGH Jesus.j. Please, this is pure conjecture and fact less diatribe! Monogenes doesn’t mean come into existence or born Mike!
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
And again, Jesus could not be the “firstborn” of many brethren through the procreative process since he is the “Only Begotten” or “Monogenes” (Unique) Son of God!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
And again, when is Jesus ever called the ONLY one born from the dead? He is only the FIRST of many to come. And when is anyone else said to be BEGOTTEN by God? There is only Jesus.k. So what does that tell you about the word “Firstborn”? Are those who are resurrected “IN CHRIST” not the same person that already preexisted their death? So “Firstborn” in relation to Jesus cannot mean procreated or
came into existence, can it?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
You and Kathi are simply grasping straws by reinventing the terms “firstborn” and “Begotten” in reference to JesusQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Boy, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is. Me, Kathi, Ignatius, Eusebius and the JW's seem to be the only ones reading the scriptures as they are written. It is the rest of you guys who are reading things into the scriptures and re-inventing terms.l. I noticed you threw in Ignatius, but you are wrong Mike and you know it. We have shown you how men can be appointed to be the “firstborn” without being born the firstborn. We have also shown you how Monogenes simply means “Only Unique” and how the word is applied to Isaac as the Only Son of the promise though he was not the firstborn!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Please answer my above bolded questions, and this one:m. Why did Ignatius, who lived in the era, naturally spoke the language, and studied under the Apostle John think the Father was the ONLY “unbegotten” and Jesus was the only begotten Son of God (monogenes) backed up with “begotten from the Father before all worlds” (genao)?
Are you getting Ignatius and Eusebius words mixed up?
Nevertheless, I have said before, and will say it again, the only time the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Monogenes Son is after he came in the flesh. So they are referring to the person Jesus as the “Begotten Son” who was always with the Father.
Ignatius as well as many of the Fathers did not believe that Jesus had a beginning therefore your forced understanding of what they wrote is contradicting and false.
Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Was he contradicting himself? He also said…
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father “before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).Before time is eternity Mike, this is how they understood Jesus as being always existing with the Father. The Word that was with God and was God!
This is what the Creed of the first Council of Nicea (325) read (emphasis mine)…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT”; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
It doesn't take a lot of end runs about how Ignatius=trinity and blah, blah, blah to answer this question. Just answer what he meant when he said the Father was “unbegotten” and Jesus was “begotten by the Father”. Don't avoid the fact that the word here is “genao”, not “monogenes”. And why did he add the “before all worlds”?n. Can you show me the evidence that the word “genao” is used in Ignatius quotes in referring to Jesus before time?
Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? I said:
Quote Not that scripture records. You said:
Quote a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on your part. God Almighty was not known as YHVH until the time of Moses. Does that mean He was NOT YHVH until the time of Moses? Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?
This is ONLY for WJ to answer please.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,15:52) I have lettered his points for easier referrence later.
MikeThe post is totally confusing and unreadable. If someone new who had not read our discussion would come in and read this they would be lost as to who said what.
It's unacceptable and I will not play your Ed J games of confusion, by breaking up the post with numbers like this.
We have a quote button and that is what you should use.
You don't even provide a link from where the post came from!!!
WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 21 2010,16:37) THis should be in the debate forum.
sf,Mike knows that he is not able to take on WJ by himself. Mike is getting more obnoxious with every day.
the Roo
Hi Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Not that scripture records.
Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) But John says he is the “only begotten god”. And your buddy Ignatius says the Father is “unbegotten” and the Son was begotten by the Father before the worlds. And Jesus says the Father GAVE His only begotten Son and SENT him INTO THE WORLD. Why won't anyone answer my questions?
We have but you are not listening! It doesn’t matter if you say that Jesus was “begotten” before Jesus came in the flesh or not, for three reasons…1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3.
What is before time Mike? Its called eternity!
3. The church Fathers including the earliest and most credible, “Ignatius” never speaks of Jesus having a beginning and in fact as I have shown Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh! I think Ignatius knows more than Eusebius about Jesus origin since he is close to John who wrote John 1:1, don't you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) In what way did God GIVE His only begotten Son AFTER he was raised? And when did God SEND His Son into the world “to save it through His Son” AFTER he was raised? And what does this mean? “but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son.” How can anyone STAND CONDEMNED ALREADY for having not ALREADY BELIEVED in the name of someone who didn't yet exist according to you?
Exactly Mike! Can you see it? Jesus had not yet existed as the “Monogenes” Son until he came into existence (ginomai) in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man. John 1:14 – Phil 2:6-8Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, “that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokos) among many brothers“. Rom 8:29 The term “might be the firstborn” is in the present tense, and cannot mean that Jesus is the first to be born by a procreative act from the Father and then we follow after him as the second born, third born, etc.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Why not?
Why not? Because Rom 8:29 deals with us being brothers with Jesus after he comes in the flesh as a man and not before. So the word “firstborn” (prōtotokos) here does not mean that Jesus was “procreated” but rather that he is first, the prototype by whom we will become like, and Paul’s use of the word in Col 1:15 doesn’t mean God beget a god either!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Jesus was begotten by God before all the ages.
The word is “Monogenes” which does not mean “to come into existence”, but you insist on viewing the word “ginomai” and “monogenes” as having the same meaning!Monogenes: 1) single of its kind, only
You have absolutely no evidence at all that Jesus had a beginning even if you say he was the “begotten Son” before the ages (meaning time).
Please quit equivocating and give ONE shred of evidence that says Jesus had a beginning. Time and Time again Jack an I have shown you that the early Fathers did not view the words “firstborn” or “begotten” as meaning Jesus had a beginning. In fact that was the whole reason of the creeds, to refute Arius and the Arians concept that there was a time that Jesus did not exist. Eusebius signed off on it. But you insist on going down rabbit trails and endless discussion to prove your false theory.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) He was born of Mary as flesh.
No, he was the Word that was with God and was God who took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man. John 1:1, 14 – Phil 2:6-8Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Then he was the firstborn FROM the dead, not the ONLY-born from the dead, because many will follow. Do you see the difference?
No, because again the “firstborn from the dead” does not mean that Jesus was “born again” by some procreative act. In Spirit Jesus was alive. Firstborn again means that he has the preeminence over all that are raised from the dead because all that are raised will be by him. Was Jesus the “first” to be raised from the dead? If not then your meaning cannot be true.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God, but merely the FIRSTborn from the dead.
But if we are “Sons of God” also, then in what sense is Jesus the “Only Monogenes” Son?Could it be that it is because he is “unique” and the “Only” one that was with God and was God and who was born of a
virgin and appeared to men in the flesh? Yep, that’s scriptural alright!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) This is another reason why your logic is flawed. Because if Jesus being the firstborn from the Father means he is literally a product of Gods procreative power then the term firstborn would be meaningless because we know there will never be “another”, second or third “Monogenes” Son. Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Yes, that is correct. There will NEVER be another BEGOTTEN Son of God. Jesus is the ONLY one. The fact that Jesus was also the firstborn of all creation only means he is the first thing God ever caused to exist.
There you go equivocating again Mike! The word “ginomai” does not apply to Jesus until the incarnation and it is not the same word as begotten!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) It doesn't negate that he is the ONLY thing God caused to exist through BEGETTING. Jesus will alone hold that title forever. For God made Jesus directly, or begat him, then everything else that was made was made FROM God, THROUGH Jesus.
Please, this is pure conjecture and fact less diatribe! Monogenes doesn’t mean come into existence or born Mike!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) And again, Jesus could not be the “firstborn” of many brethren through the procreative process since he is the “Only Begotten” or “Monogenes” (Unique) Son of God! Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) And again, when is Jesus ever called the ONLY one born from the dead? He is only the FIRST of many to come. And when is anyone else said to be BEGOTTEN by God? There is only Jesus.
So what does that tell you about the word “Firstborn”? Are those who are resurrected “IN CHRIST” not the same person that already preexisted their death? So “Firstborn” in relation to Jesus cannot mean procreated or came into existence, can it?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) You and Kathi are simply grasping straws by reinventing the terms “firstborn” and “Begotten” in reference to Jesus Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Boy, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is. 
Me, Kathi, Ignatius, Eusebius and the JW's seem to be the only ones reading the scriptures as they are written. It is the rest of you guys who are reading things into the scriptures and re-inventing terms.
I noticed you threw in Ignatius, but you are wrong Mike and you know it. We have shown you how men can be appointed to be the “firstborn” without being born the firstborn. We have also shown you how Monogenes simply means “Only Unique” and how the word is applied to Isaac as the Only Son of the promise though he was not the firstborn!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Please answer my above bolded questions, and this one: Why did Ignatius, who lived in the era, naturally spoke the language, and studied under the Apostle John think the Father was the ONLY “unbegotten” and Jesus was the only begotten Son of God (monogenes) backed up with “begotten from the Father before all worlds” (genao)?
Are you getting Ignatius and Eusebius words mixed up?Nevertheless, I have said before, and will say it again, the only time the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Monogenes Son is after he came in the flesh. So they are referring to the person Jesus as the “Begotten Son” who was always with the Father.
Ignatius as well as many of the Fathers did not believe that Jesus had a beginning therefore your forced understanding of what they wrote is contradicting and false.
Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Was he contradicting himself? He also said…
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father “before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).Before time is eternity Mike, this is how they understood Jesus as being always existing with the Father. The Word that was with God and was God!
This is what the Creed of the first Council of Nicea (325) read (emphasis mine)…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) It doesn't take a lot of end runs about how Ignatius=trinity and blah, blah, blah to answer this question. Just answer what he meant when he said the Father was “unbegotten” and Jesus was “begotten by the Father”. Don't avoid the fact that the word here is “genao”, not “monogenes”. And why did he add the “before all worlds”?
Can you show me the evidence that the word “genao” is used in Ignatius quotes in referring to Jesus before time?WJ
Is this better, WJ? It's the same exact words, and my first of many points is still the same. Please address it.
Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
I said:Quote
Not that scripture records.You said:
Quote
a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on your part.God Almighty was not known as YHVH until the time of Moses. Does that mean He was NOT YHVH until the time of Moses? Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?
This is ONLY for WJ to answer please.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,05:06) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 21 2010,16:37) THis should be in the debate forum.
sf,Mike knows that he is not able to take on WJ by himself. Mike is getting more obnoxious with every day.
the Roo
Yes Jack,Yet somehow it is you and WJ who have seemingly dropped out of our debates, while my posted questions remain unanswered.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,18:02) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,05:06) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 21 2010,16:37) THis should be in the debate forum.
sf,Mike knows that he is not able to take on WJ by himself. Mike is getting more obnoxious with every day.
the Roo
Yes Jack,Yet somehow it is you and WJ who have seemingly dropped out of our debates, while my posted questions remain unanswered.
MikeGet real. We do not like going in circles!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,10:02) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,05:06) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 21 2010,16:37) THis should be in the debate forum.
sf,Mike knows that he is not able to take on WJ by himself. Mike is getting more obnoxious with every day.
the Roo
Yes Jack,Yet somehow it is you and WJ who have seemingly dropped out of our debates, while my posted questions remain unanswered.
Mike,You are really a piece of work. I received a pm from someone here saying that our debate was too long. Then SF says that it was a “waste of time.” So yeah we quit.
May I call you lastword Mike? When I had asked you if you ever take a break and you replied, “It's either this or tv” I knew it was never going to end with you.
As Is. 1:18 said,
Quote Look at it like this Mike. All discussions have to have a terminus, right? Since you're the type of person who always has to have the last say you'll probably experience others ending discussions with you a lot of the time. No one wants to go around the theological merry-go-round ad infinitum, at some point we get off and move onto something else. Better get used to it. the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,18:00) Is this better, WJ? It's the same exact words, and my first of many points is still the same. Please address it.
MikeI already have. The answer is even in the post that you copied here.
Your frustration is evident because you are trying desperately to make a point by beating a dead horse continuously while hoping it will somehow come to life.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,18:00) Not that scripture records. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on your part. Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,18:00) God Almighty was not known as YHVH until the time of Moses. Does that mean He was NOT YHVH until the time of Moses? Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?
So how is this proof that Jesus had a beginning?The scriptures also say that we were predestined to be conformed to the Image of his Son.
Did we preexist as having the “Image of Jesus” before he came in the flesh?
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokos) among many brethren. Rom 8:29
Jesus clearly is the “Firstborn” among “many brethren”, meaning that he is also a “man” like us. When did this take place Mike? How is Jesus the “Firstborn” among many brethren if he was “Born” in a different way before time?
This is the part of my post that you are totally ignoring and so continue beating this dead horse.
Ignatius as well as many of the Fathers did not believe that Jesus had a beginning therefore your forced understanding of what they wrote is contradicting and false.
Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Was he contradicting himself? He also said…
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father “before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).Before time is eternity Mike, this is how they understood Jesus as being always existing with the Father. The Word that was with God and was God!
This is what the Creed of the first Council of Nicea (325) read (emphasis mine)…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
WJ
WJ said to Mike:
Quote You frustration is evident because you are trying desperately to make a point by beating a dead horse continuously while hoping it will somehow come to life. 
the Roo
Worshippingjesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? Mike replied:
Quote Not that scripture records.
Wow! We now have TWO statements inwhich Mike admits that he cannot scripturally prove something. First there was the statement he made to me on March 30:“When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.“
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=3900
Now he admits that the scriptures do not record that Jesus was begotten before His natural birth.
Question: Why does Mike keep arguing points that he admits has no scriptural proof:
Answer: Because Mike has a psychological need to have the last word in everything!Mike doesn't know if Jesus was begotten before His “creation” or even if it was before His natural birth. If Mike would only accept the plain declaration of scripture that Christ was begotten at His resurrection.
the Roo
Hi WJ,
Again, the one single point I've asked you to address is:
God Almighty was not known as YHVH until the time of Moses. Does that mean He was NOT YHVH until the time of Moses? Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?
Please address the point in question.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 23 2010,07:02) You are really a piece of work. I received a pm from someone here saying that our debate was too long. Then SF says that it was a “waste of time.” So yeah we quit.
Hi Jack,Didn't you ever play sports? If you did you should know that winners never quit and quitters never win.
I started to wonder if you were avoiding the right hand issue when, after many repeated attempts by me to move on (see the cif debate thread for a list of some of these attempts), you refused to.
Then, when you started all this talk about how we had already debated it thoroughly even though you had yet to answer my very first question about it, I didn't wonder anymore. I knew at that point it was just a matter of time before you came up with a reason to bail out of the debate.
As it stands now, you have “rationalized” many reasons:
1. I have to have the last word
2. I am a heretic
3. I keep asking questions that have been answered
4. It was too long
5. I have too much idle time to spend on HN
6. I'm obstinateI feel that I must let you guys know how funny (but also sad) it is to me that a novice student of the Bible like myself has all three of you so scared that you can no longer answer my questions, but instead, go thread to thread in a pack, slamming anything and everything about me. For instance, you all get together and repeat that I must have the last word and that I'm beating dead horses. But the cif debate thread shows the truth. First, it shows that it was me who was doing anything I could to move mine and Jack's debate forward, and it was Jack who would not move on. Second, I asked you each one of the three questions I've been asking for weeks now so you all had a chance to put up or shut up. And what happened? Did even ONE of my questions get answered? Nope……just more slams and lies about how you already answered them.
But here it is another day. The questions have still not been answered DIRECTLY, and the slams continue. I hope you all will remember that this site is not about performing devious tactics to avoid confrontations with direct evidence against your beliefs. It is about truth. How can you claim you have the truth when you are afraid to answer fair and honest questions that contradict your views of the truth?
mike
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 23 2010,11:28) Mike………..You can't corner a snake in a bier patch. peace and love to you and yours……………….gene
Hi Gene,That sounds like something Dr. Phil would say!
But I like it.
I've seen your frustration with this also. It's like we ask them what letter does the word “black” start with, and we get loads of conjecture about the color purple, orange, red, etc., but nothing that actually answers the simple question we asked.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,19:20) I feel that I must let you guys know how funny (but also sad) it is to me that a novice student of the Bible like myself has all three of you so scared that you can no longer answer my questions, but instead, go thread to thread in a pack, slamming anything and everything about me.
MikeScared?
.Even now you insist that you answer us and we do not answer you which is false and without merrit.
You can't see the forest for the trees Mike!
Please show me where I have run from you.
I got tired of your complaining about the post being to long in the debates thread even though I was responding to your every point which made for long post.
But did you do that on my post?
No, you just clipped what you wanted and commented.
Now you are grandstanding as if you have us running scared and that you are the only one that is so brave and bold and honest.
BTW, you talk about us jumping from thread to thread, why did you create another thread and bring our discussion to this thread?
Could it be so that the readers may not be able to see the context of the debate?
WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
