- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi WJ,
Your point A is as follows:
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 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. Notice that your point A has nothing at all to do with Ignatius, or whether I can prove Jesus had a beginning, or whether “monogenes” is a title or a happening or a time or whatever. I will address those things and others WHEN we get to those points. But your point A is ONLY this:
WJ said: 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.
It is my understanding from scripture that Jesus is the Word of God who was begotten of God before the ages. Although Jesus wasn't called the “ONLY begotten” Son of God until he was flesh, he was called “begotten Son of God” before he was flesh. (Psalm 2:7 and possibly Psalm 110:3 depending on the translation) And it is not in scripture that God had many begotten Sons, but some of them died leaving Jesus to be the ONLY begotten Son. So while the answer to your question is YES, IT IS CONJECTURE ON MY PART, I think it is scripturally founded conjecture.
What I dislike about your point A is that I detect an inferrence that because he wasn't called by the title of “only begotten Son” until he applied it to himself while talking to Nicodemus, it is your contentions that he couldn't have possibly been the only begotten Son of God before that time. I feel that inferrence is unwarranted, so to clear the air I ask:
Is that fact that we didn't know Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until he said so to Nicodemus PROOF that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he told Nicodemus that he was?
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 07 2010,12:38) Number 8 mike, number 8, haha.
just teasing you
Hi Judge,Did you not see this from page 21?
Quote 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
And my response to it also from page 21?
Quote 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
So pipe down and don't speak until you are spoken to!
peace and love,
mikePart one point “a” of the “new” debate!
Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,20:50) Hi WJ, Your point A is as follows:
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. Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39) 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 @ July 06 2010,20:50) Notice that your point A has nothing at all to do with Ignatius, or whether I can prove Jesus had a beginning, or whether “monogenes” is a title or a happening or a time or whatever. I will address those things and others WHEN we get to those points. But your point A is ONLY this: Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39) 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.
It is my understanding from scripture that Jesus is the Word of God who was begotten of God before the ages. Although Jesus wasn't called the “ONLY begotten” Son of God until he was flesh, he was called “begotten Son of God” before he was flesh. (Psalm 2:7 and possibly Psalm 110:3 depending on the translation)
What does this have to do with my point being a valid point and based on facts?Is the word “begotten” in Psalm 2:7 the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word “Monogenes” which is (yachiyd)
If not then your point as far as the term “Monogenes” referring to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture and my point is still fact. When you concede that my point is a valid point based on facts then we can move on to the next point.
As far as Psalms 110:3, I am sure you got that from Kathi and is not found translated by any major translation that way including the NWT, so it is ambiguous and even if it is translated as referring to Jesus being begotten from the Fathers womb ,which is preposterous, the word “Monogenes” or its Hebrew equivalent (yachiyd) is still not found in the text.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,20:50) And it is not in scripture that God had many begotten Sons, but some of them died leaving Jesus to be the ONLY begotten Son.
Can you substantiate this point with scriptures?Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,20:50) So while the answer to your question is YES, IT IS CONJECTURE ON MY PART, I think it is scripturally founded conjecture.
If it is “scripturally founded” mike then it is a scriptural fact and not just conjecture.The problem seems to be you are treating conjecture as fact based on ambiguous concepts.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,20:50) What I dislike about your point A is that I detect an inferrence that because he wasn't called by the title of “only begotten Son” until he applied it to himself while talking to Nicodemus, it is your contentions that he couldn't have possibly been the only begotten Son of God before that time. I feel that inferrence is unwarranted, so to clear the air I ask:
Mike there is no inference in my point. I am not trying to prove that the word “Monogenes” not being applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh is proof that he had no beginning. I am simply proving that the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) Son of God is not proof that Jesus had a beginning, and that it is merely conjecture to say that the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) Son of God is a term that belongs to Jesus before he came in the flesh.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,20:50) Is that fact that we didn't know Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until he said so to Nicodemus PROOF that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he told Nicodemus that he was?
Once again the answer is no and it doesn’t make any difference to my point because your question is based on conjecture and not fact.Mike we are talking about facts not unknowns or conjecture.
FACT…no scripture applies the word “Monogenes” to Jesus until after he came in the flesh.
Conjecture…”it could have been! He still could have been the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh. Just because it’s not in scripture doesn't mean it isn't true”.
We are discussing scripture and not what could be or could have been or what you think it is!!!
- Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
If not then concede to my point and let’s move on to the next point.
Mike there are 830 words in this post and all I did was respond to your points.
WJ
Quote And it is not in scripture that God had many begotten Sons, but some of them died leaving Jesus to be the ONLY begotten Son. Are you serious!!!!! you believe this. and my time and space point is crazy?
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 07 2010,15:21) Quote And it is not in scripture that God had many begotten Sons, but some of them died leaving Jesus to be the ONLY begotten Son. ………………………………….
Simply!No offence, but you should not be making points or jabs at either mike or myself unless we request a settling of a particular point.
You should delete that post IMO!
Since you are a judge here you should try to be neutral and only go by the facts IMO.
WJ
Hi WJ,
First, I am having doubts AGAIN about Dennison's ability to be an impartial judge. He has jumped in twice already (since he knew he was judge) and insulted me. How is he to be trusted to rule impartially if he's already picking on me before we ask him to rule? Last chance, Dennison. Please stay out until we need you, okay?
Second, let me clear up the misunderstanding caused by my bad grammar. This is what I meant to say:
Scripture does NOT imply that God had more than one begotten Son, and something happened to the other(s) making Jesus the ONLY begotten. So it stands to reason that when God says “You are my Son, today I have begotten you” in Psalm 2, it MUST be talking only of Jesus. The fact that we find out later that Jesus is the ONLY begotten doesn't change the fact that God said, “Today I have begotten you” 700 years before Jesus was flesh. Btw, the Hebrew word is “yalad” which means,
Yalad TWOT – 867
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yaw-lad' VerbDefinition
to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/yalad.htmlWe disagree strongly about the meaning of “monogenes” and we will get to that in one of your other points.
Anyway, it is not so much “conjecture” on my part, but more like scriptures revealing MORE info later on than they did earlier. It happens throughout scripture and often times, what we learn in the NT is the ONLY way we have to understand something that was said in the OT. It is the same in this case. Jesus was called the begotten Son of God in the OT, but we only find out he's the ONLY one in the NT.
I asked:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 06 2010,20:50) Is that fact that we didn't know Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until he said so to Nicodemus PROOF that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he told Nicodemus that he was? You answered:
Quote Once again the answer is no Thank you, we can move on.
You asked:
Quote - Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
Absolutely YES, but we aren't there yet, are we? POINT BY POINT, WJ. This is in your point F, and trust me, we'll get there.
But for now, your point B.
peace and love,
mikeps Thanks for the comment to SF
mikeboll64,July wrote:[/quote]
Hi WJ,This is your point B:
Quote 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?
Your point “b” is broken up into three points. I will answer them a point at a time.
B-1.
Quote 1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh. This is a null and void point both because of my explanation of Psalm 2:7 and because in your last post you said:
Quote I am not trying to prove that the word “Monogenes” not being applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh is proof that he had no beginning. So IMO, it is a non-point that is good for nothing but sensless arguing, BUT……………..
Do we need to talk more about this, or can I move on to your point B-2?
peace and love,
mikeGuys,
I didnt even know im still judging this thread. everyone jumped it, it was open from the beginning and it was put in the wrong grouping WHEN IT SHOULD BE IN THE DEBATE THREAD.
Wj contacted me to set up a debate,you guys were already debating.
this has no format and his a endless cycles of debate
i have no intrest of judging this.you want me to continue forever looking at your arguements.
no way.
formal debates are the only debates im willing to judge.
FYI
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 08 2010,01:51) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 07 2010,15:21) Quote And it is not in scripture that God had many begotten Sons, but some of them died leaving Jesus to be the ONLY begotten Son. ………………………………….
Simply!No offence, but you should not be making points or jabs at either mike or myself unless we request a settling of a particular point.
You should delete that post IMO!
Since you are a judge here you should try to be neutral and only go by the facts IMO.
WJ
when you setup a formal debate, than you are right. this is nothing but a endless cycle.im going to be like JA, and when im judging something,
ill write
[judge]
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,07:43) Hi WJ, First, I am having doubts AGAIN about Dennison's ability to be an impartial judge. He has jumped in twice already (since he knew he was judge) and insulted me. How is he to be trusted to rule impartially if he's already picking on me before we ask him to rule? Last chance, Dennison. Please stay out until we need you, okay?
So you just want to use me to make WJ to answer your questions and viseversa.fine.. whatever,
let me know.
FYI i didnt know i was judgeing. im not picking sides.
tell me exactly what you want from me, and ill do just that, becuase it seems that you guys are going to have endless debate.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 08 2010,14:16) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,07:43) Hi WJ, First, I am having doubts AGAIN about Dennison's ability to be an impartial judge. He has jumped in twice already (since he knew he was judge) and insulted me. How is he to be trusted to rule impartially if he's already picking on me before we ask him to rule? Last chance, Dennison. Please stay out until we need you, okay?
So you just want to use me to make WJ to answer your questions and viseversa.fine.. whatever,
let me know.
FYI i didnt know i was judgeing. im not picking sides.
tell me exactly what you want from me, and ill do just that, becuase it seems that you guys are going to have endless debate.
From page 22: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.
We will let you know when your services are required, sir.
peace and love,
mikePart 2 of point “a”
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,22:07) Do we need to talk more about this, or can I move on to your point B-2?
MikeNo we cannot move on because you still refuse to deal with point “a” in an honest manner!
You are skirting around the issue again.
Here is a reminder of this discussion on point “a”….
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
What part of this statement do you not understand Mike?You have already agreed the term “Monogenes” was not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
And you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Since the term “Monogenes” means “only, of the same kind” Son of God, then you further clarified this by saying…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why are you stubbornly ignoring the facts?The point was…
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.
The question again is…
- Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
You say yes and then try and move on to another point.
You must prove your assumption that the term “monogenes” referring to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning before he came in the flesh.
You can get to the other “terms” that deal with Jesus being the “firstborn” later.
Your answer is dishonest and is not dealing with the facts.
The Hebrew word “yachiyd” is the equivalent of the Greek word “monogenes”. The Hebrew word “Yalad” is the equivalent of the Greek word “gennaō” which is the same word the writers of Hebrews and Acts used when they quoted Psalms 2:7. (Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 -5:5)
So you are not getting away from this point Mike until you concede the point as valid and based on facts.
The question once again is…
- Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,21:43) POINT BY POINT, WJ. This is in your point F, and trust me, we'll get there.
MikeBut you didn't address my post “point by point” which was an answer to your post “point by point”, did you?
WJ
Hi WJ,
The point by point was clearly explained when I started this thread. It was re-explained many, many times after that. It was expalined yet again when t8 moved us to a debate thread. This is how it works. You made a large post. Instead of answering all of your points in one larger post, I thought it would suit both of us better to address them ONE POINT AT A TIME. Your point A has NOTHING at all to do with the meaning of monogenes. I have answered to everything in your point A. The meaning of monogenes is one of your later points that we will get to ONE POINT AT A TIME.
ONE POINT AT A TIME does not mean you can ask a question from your original point F and insist it is a new point I have to answer before we get to F. This is how it should work:
A…valid or not
B…valid or not
C…valid or not
And so on and so on.So now I give you the choice. We can either continue addressing your points from your original post ONE AT A TIME, or we can change this debate right here and now to a ONE QUESTION AT A TIME debate starting with your question about the meaning of monogenes. I will answer and ask ONE, you will answer and ask ONE, and so on.
Which is it to be? You decide. But if it stays how it started, I will answer about the meaning of monogenes WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 08 2010,10:44) Part 2 of point “a” Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,22:07) Do we need to talk more about this, or can I move on to your point B-2?
MikeNo we cannot move on because you still refuse to deal with point “a” in an honest manner!
You are skirting around the issue again.
Here is a reminder of this discussion on point “a”….
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
What part of this statement do you not understand Mike?You have already agreed the term “Monogenes” was not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
And you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Since the term “Monogenes” means “only, of the same kind” Son of God, then you further clarified this by saying…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why are you stubbornly ignoring the facts?The point was…
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.
The question again is…
- Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
You say yes and then try and move on to another point.
You must prove your assumption that the term “monogenes” referring to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning before he came in the flesh.
You can get to the other “terms” that deal with Jesus being the “firstborn” later.
Your answer is dishonest and is not dealing with the facts.
The Hebrew word “yachiyd” is the equivalent of the Greek word “monogenes”. The Hebrew word “Yalad” is the equivalent of the Greek word “gennaō” which is the same word the writers of Hebrews and Acts used when they quoted Psalms 2:7. (Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 -5:5)
So you are not getting away from this point Mike until you concede the point as valid and based on facts.
The question once again is…
- Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
WJ
Bump!!! This is where we are at MIke!WJ
Dennison
Can you please tell Mike that my point “a” is a valid point scripturally and conjecture does not invalidate that point.
This debate will not go forward until Mike concedes.
He keeps making post then when I respond to every point in his post as I did his last one then he bails and does not answer my points in my post but then again puts up a big song and dance of how he is anwering my points.
Is it true or not that if you answer a point it has to be based on scripture and not some point in the future?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:59) Your point A has NOTHING at all to do with the meaning of monogenes.
Really Mike?This is my point…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 04 2010,05:56) Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
What part of this statement do you not understand Mike?You have already agreed the term “Monogenes” was not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010 @ 10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
And you said…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010 @ 20:45)
Not that scripture records.
Since the term “Monogenes” means “only, of the same kind” Son of God, then you further clarified this by saying…Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why are you stubbornly ignoring the facts?The point was…
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.
Give it up Mike!
WJ
I'm sorry Keith, but was this:
Wrong, because it proves what I have said all along that you cannot say “Monogenes” is proof Jesus had a beginning.
part of your original point A? No.
Was this?
Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
Again, No.
You choose, point by point or question by question. Why are you like this? If you want that question answered so badly right now, then just agree to a question by question debate and let's get down to it, man.
btw, I'm waiting for your reply in our other question by question debate.
I'm tired of your games Keith. Tell me your decision in your very next post, or bugger off. This has been a colossal waste of my time so far. And all because I wanted to address YOUR points in a organized manner so nothing got left out or lost in the shuffle.
mike
- Is the term “monogenes” (only, single of its kind) referring to Jesus proof that Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
