Mike vs. wj on begotten and firsborn

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:41)

You can't expect an opponent to answer all of your points and then just stick to one of theirs!

Keith, I have asked 3 questions:

Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”?

This is a yes or no.

Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning?

This is a yes or no.

Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him?

This is a yes or no.

I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved.

3 questions, Keith.  Can you just answer them?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:47)

Mike Because “time” has a beginning and has an end! Eternity doesn't. This is elementary stuff! WJ

According to who?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Dennison, could you request that Keith DIRECTLY answer my last post of his point “b”? Especially the 3 bolded questions? He keeps posting stuff about everything EXCEPT them and taking the debate way off course AGAIN.

thanks,
mike

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,06:51)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:41) You can't expect an opponent to answer all of your points and then just stick to one of theirs! Keith, I have asked 3 questions: Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”? This is a yes or no. Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning? This is a yes or no. Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him? This is a yes or no. I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved. 3 questions, Keith.  Can you just answer them? mike

Hi Mike,

I think it is reasonable that you 'demand' an answer from WJ,
but it's unreasonable you limit him to answer either “Yes” or “No”!

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,14:51)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:41) You can't expect an opponent to answer all of your points and then just stick to one of theirs! Keith, I have asked 3 questions: Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”? This is a yes or no. Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning? This is a yes or no. Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him? This is a yes or no. I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved. 3 questions, Keith.  Can you just answer them? mike

Mike

And I will ignore you until you do what you said and that is to address my points beginning with point a.

You created this thread to do that and now you are making this about you and your points.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ July 06 2010,07:10)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,06:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:41) You can't expect an opponent to answer all of your points and then just stick to one of theirs! Keith, I have asked 3 questions: Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”? This is a yes or no. Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning? This is a yes or no. Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him? This is a yes or no. I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved. 3 questions, Keith.  Can you just answer them? mike Hi Mike, I think it is reasonable that you 'demand' an answer from WJ, but it's unreasonable you limit him to answer either “Yes” or “No”! God bless Ed J http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Ed, what does this say?

I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved.

It was in the post you quoted.     This is the 3rd time you've done this to me today.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,07:13)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,14:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:41) You can't expect an opponent to answer all of your points and then just stick to one of theirs! Keith, I have asked 3 questions: Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”? This is a yes or no. Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning? This is a yes or no. Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him? This is a yes or no. I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved. 3 questions, Keith.  Can you just answer them? mike Mike And I will ignore you until you do what you said and that is to address my points beginning with point a. You created this thread to do that and now you are making this about you and your points. WJ

Okay WJ. I will post this in a debate thread and we will start with your point “a” all over again – at YOUR request, not mine. Dennison and JA were right, I should have done that from the beginning.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,15:52)

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.

Mike the above is your words at the beginning of this thread that you created.

Now you are trying to make it about your “new points” when the post that you brought here from the “Protokos” thread  found here… was a post addressing all of your points and you stating in the above you were going to address mine here.

Now you want to claim you have made my first point “null and void” which is based on scriptural fact with a question that is merely conjecture on your part. Then you want to move on claiming you are addressing another point of mine by requiring me to answer “New questions” of yours.

I refuse to play your game of deception Mike.

——————————————————————————————

SF, since you are selected to keep this debate in line, can you please tell Mike to concede that he has not made my point invalid so we can move on to the next point.

If you can't do that then please explain why and make a decision either way, and I will accept that decision.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,15:24)

I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved.

Mike

The point is you cannot prove that Jesus had a beginning by using the word “monogenes” in referring to Jesus.

You have already admitted this! This is what point “a” is about.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,15:27)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,07:13) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,14:51) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:41) You can't expect an opponent to answer all of your points and then just stick to one of theirs! Keith, I have asked 3 questions: Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”? This is a yes or no. Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning? This is a yes or no. Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him? This is a yes or no. I understand if you affirm your yes or no with your thoughts or scriptures, but if you start with the “you can't prove Jesus had a beginning” stuff when we have not yet got to that point (which, btw, I CAN prove), then I will ignore it until these 3 questions are resolved. 3 questions, Keith.  Can you just answer them? mike Mike And I will ignore you until you do what you said and that is to address my points beginning with point a. You created this thread to do that and now you are making this about you and your points. WJ Okay WJ.  I will post this in a debate thread and we will start with your point “a” all over again – at YOUR request, not mine.  Dennison and JA were right, I should have done that from the beginning. mike

Unacceptable!

Ask t8 to move this thread into the debates thread.

I am not gonna have my post lost by some more of your diversional tricks!

Then limit the responses to you and I and SF!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,14:52)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:47) Mike Because “time” has a beginning and has an end! Eternity doesn't. This is elementary stuff! WJ According to who? mike

Mike

Time  – Websters
1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues

Eternity  – Websters
1 : the quality or state of being eternal

WJ

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,07:24)

Ed, which, btw, I CAN prove mike

Hi  Mike,

You can 'only' offer proof, if it isn't believed
you haven't proved anything; understand?

You can ask Stuart, he'll tell ya.
“Proof is in the eye of the beholder.”

God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[karmarie]

Mike, you need to give up on these debates.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,08:56)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 05 2010,14:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 06 2010,06:47) Mike Because “time” has a beginning and has an end! Eternity doesn't. This is elementary stuff! WJ According to who? mike Mike Time  – Websters 1 a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues Eternity  – Websters 1 : the quality or state of being eternal WJ

I'm sorry WJ. Where in Webster's did it say that time itself had a beginning or will have an end?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (karmarie @ July 06 2010,09:14)

Mike, you need to give up on these debates.

Hi Karmarie,

I got your pm and appreciate your concern. The others you mention might have been like the seeds that were dropped on the rocky soil in Jesus' parable – I don't know.

And I might just do what you suggest. I will pray about it. Pray that God sends me guidance on it, will you?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ July 06 2010,09:12)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,07:24) Ed, which, btw, I CAN prove mike Hi  Mike, You can 'only' offer proof, if it isn't believed you haven't proved anything; understand? You can ask Stuart, he'll tell ya. “Proof is in the eye of the beholder.” God bless Ed J http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

Hi Ed,

Understood.

mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (karmarie @ July 06 2010,03:14)

Mike, you need to give up on these debates.

Structered debates reaches conclusoins,
Reaches an end to debate

[mikeboll64]

t8 has moved this discussion to the Debates.  This is now a debate thread.  

PLEASE, NO ONE post here unless you are Mikeboll, WJ, or SimplyForgiven.

Below is the original post by WJ.  I have lettered his points and questions for easier referrence.  I will address each and every point he has made, ONE AT A TIME.  I will ask that WJ answer my direct bolded questions DIRECTLY, and stay on point.  In other words, do not jump to point E if we haven't finished point A……UNLESS your DIRECT answer to my question requires info from point E.  I know it is all related, but it will all be addressed as we go.  WJ can make his posts as long as he wants, BUT he MUST answer my ONE BOLDED QUESTION in each of his posts, and I am only required to answer ONE BOLDED QUESTION from his post at a time.  

We have asked Dennison to monitor this thread and IF ASKED by me or WJ, make a judgement to keep this debate ON TRACK.  

Hi Mike

A.  

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?

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 8:29 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.

D.  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?

E.  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.

F.  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

G.  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).

H.  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.

I.  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?

J.  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.

K.  But if we are “Sons of God” also, then in what sense is Jesus the “Only Monogenes” Son?

L.  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!

M.  

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!

N.  

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!

O.  

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?

P.  

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: P.  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.

Q.  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).

R.  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 Chur
ch.

S.  

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

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

I hope we can put the past nonsense of this thread behind us and get down to some serious discussion. We are starting fresh, so let's not sink back into what the earlier part of this thread became.

peace and love,
mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Number 8 mike, number 8,

haha.

just teasing you

[Author]

Posts