Mike vs. wj on begotten and firsborn

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

Yes, I deleted my own post. I deleted within 10 seconds of posting it. My reasoning was at first that I'm sick of these games so I'll just go ahead and SAY your point is valid so we can move on. Then, right after i posted it, I remembered that we both agreed to Dennison judging this thing, so I IMMEDIATELY deleted it because I thought there was no posssible way you could have read it the split second I posted it.

It doesn't matter though. Go ahead and use that post. It is more to the point than the first one I wrote but deleted without posting. That one said:

Yes WJ, your point A is SOOOOO valid that I'm even considering becoming a trinitarian! Move on to point B!

If I had thought for a second that you would have read it within a few seconds of it's posting, I would never have deleted it. Sorry about the bad timing, but don't you EVER call me dishonest.

Anyway, Dennison says:

So i do find it valid, because the statement of point A, is not saying its wrong, nor that its right, more as its a theory and its uncertain whether he is or isnt.

IMO, his words that it says neither “right” nor “wrong” makes it an invalid point for the purpose of this debate and what it's about. IMO, by that very definition, it is a “non-point”, for it proves NOTHING. But for some reason he calls a point that proves nothing “valid”, so be it.

The one we appointed (listening Jack?) TO judge has ruled in your favor. His directive is to move to point B, so move on.

I will follow with a repost of my point B rebuttal.

mike

[Proclaimer]

Nobody posted after you, or replied to the post, so I don't have a problem with it.

In the end, it is better to get Mike's honest opinion than a statement of convenience. Remember the truth or lie is on trial, not people.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (t8 @ July 18 2010,10:24)

Nobody posted after you, or replied to the post, so I don't have a problem with it. In the end, it is better to get Mike's honest opinion than a statement of convenience. Remember the truth or lie is on trial, not people.

Hi t8,

thanks for undestanding it wasn't intended to be misleading or dishonest.

WJ, I hope you can see that too.  Even if you didn't find it in your cache, I would have honestly admitted what I did if you asked about it.  And I could have told you I hit the post button accidently before I was done editing, and that is why I deleted it,  but that would be a lie.  I posted it on purpose, then as an afterthought remembered Dennison.

Sorry.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,18:59)

Quote (t8 @ July 18 2010,10:24) Nobody posted after you, or replied to the post, so I don't have a problem with it. In the end, it is better to get Mike's honest opinion than a statement of convenience. Remember the truth or lie is on trial, not people. Hi t8, thanks for undestanding it wasn't intended to be misleading or dishonest. WJ, I hope you can see that too.  Even if you didn't find it in your cache, I would have honestly admitted what I did if you asked about it.  And I could have told you I hit the post button accidently before I was done editing, and that is why I deleted it,  but that would be a lie.  I posted it on purpose, then as an afterthought remembered Dennison. Sorry. mike

Mike

Fine, but I still do not believe you are being honest about my point.

The point is valid as it is dealing with the word “Monogenes” being used as merely conjecture to say that it is applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh”. Scripturally that is a fact and you cannot show otherwise, yet you will not concede the point!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (t8 @ July 17 2010,18:24)

Nobody posted after you, or replied to the post, so I don't have a problem with it. In the end, it is better to get Mike's honest opinion than a statement of convenience. Remember the truth or lie is on trial, not people.

t8

Yes but it is the people that tells the truth or a lie and can be purposely misleading or evasive!

But I will accept his explanation.

WJ

[SimplyForgiven]

Mike i think you misunderstanding me.
Im telling you that Point A is valid as in it would be a conjecture to say that monogenes was used before Jesus was flesh,

BUT that doesnt PROVE anything as i said.

So for me i dont even see why its such a big debate.

Begnnings is a different story.
and a different point that is mentioned here and there, and that is mixed in to the subject of monogenes.
so either make a sub point a, abuot begnnings or move on to B

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,13:41)

Mike Fine, but I still do not believe you are being honest about my point. The point is valid as it is dealing with the word “Monogenes” being used as merely conjecture to say that it is applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh”. Scripturally that is a fact and you cannot show otherwise, yet you will not concede the point! WJ

Hi WJ,

You are trying to prove that Jesus didn't have a beginning.  Does your Point A prove that, or even imply it.  Can it even be used along with other scriptures to prove that Jesus didn't have a beginning?  NO TO ALL.  Check this out:  

WJ, you must admit that Gen 1:1 does NOT prove that Jesus didn't have a beginning.  And using ONLY Gen 1:1, it is merely conjecture on your part that Jesus didn't have a beginning.

There.  I made a “valid” point that you can't refute.

Do you see what I've been railing against this whole time?  Sure, you can call my point “valid” because it's true, but Gen 1:1 doesn't help at all to prove whether or not Jesus had a beginning, so is it really “valid” to this debate?  It is nothing but inflammatory fluff designed to make a “nothing” point seem like it means “something”.

Let it go.  You “won” your point A.  The judge has ruled that while it “doesn't PROVE anything”, it is a “valid” point.

Maybe we can get through point B in less than 20 pages?  
I'm waiting for your response.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,13:43)

But I will accept his explanation.

Thanks, and sorry again.

I was thinking maybe you have your preferrences set to notify you when I respond and to include the post itself?

Because I deleted that sucker fast. Anyway, it won't happen again.

mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Mike

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,11:39)

Let it go.  You “won” your point A.  The judge has ruled that while it “doesn't PROVE anything”, it is a “valid” point.

What it does prove is you can't use the word “Monogenes” to prove that Jesus had a beginning!

That simple. But it has taken you 20 pages to admit that!

I won't play this game forever Mike!

I will respond to point “b” soon!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,11:42)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,13:43) But I will accept his explanation. Thanks, and sorry again. I was thinking maybe you have your preferrences set to notify you when I respond and to include the post itself? Because I deleted that sucker fast.  Anyway, it won't happen again. mike

No Mike

It was just a matter of timing. I remember busting out laughing when I saw it and was going to respond with a laughing face after going through 20 pages of distractions and diversions concerning the point.

I wish I had of responded emediately, but when I came back to it I was amazed that the post had not just been edited but deleted.

I still do not understand how you can have those powers when someone like myself who has a reputation of integrity here is denied that power.

But actually I do know why, and am glad I don't have those powers because it could be said by my enemys that I have deleted post, but that is a different story.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,10:17)

What it does prove is you can't use the word “Monogenes” to prove that Jesus had a beginning! That simple. But it has taken you 20 pages to admit that!

See, here we go again.  That was NEVER in your point A, although I knew that's where it would lead if I gave in.

I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.

All I agreed to is that we didn't KNOW Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God until he told Nicodemus.  We DID ALREADY KNOW God had a BEGOTTEN SON from Psalm 2:7.  

We just didn't KNOW IT WAS JESUS AT THE TIME AND WE DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS THE ONLY ONE AT THE TIME.

That's a far cry from what you just stated. So much for “Mr. Integrity”.

mike

[SimplyForgiven]

let me calrify this again!

POINT A- shouldnt even be a point, its a refutation of a point.
ITs a point taht doesnt prove anything, but calrify what is valid.

Whats valid is that the words monogenes was used for Jesus at a specfic time while he was in Flesh.

whats not valid, and only a conjecture is the idea of the word monongenes referring to Jesus before that event.

THEREFORE:
i cannot validate a point that refutes the validation of another point.
because that makes no sense.

Point A doesnt prove anything, its just stating simply that Jesus was monogenes in a specific event and any other idea would be a theory but not valid.

So I do not understand why there is 20 pages of this.

Point A does not prove that Jesus did not have a beginning.

As i said before, the topic of beginning should be seperate because monogenes has nothign to do with it unless you can prove it.

Is this more clear now or not?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 18 2010,23:42)

let me calrify this again! POINT A- shouldnt even be a point, its a refutation of a point. ITs a point taht doesnt prove anything, but calrify what is valid. Whats valid is that the words monogenes was used for Jesus at a specfic time while he was in Flesh. whats not valid, and only a conjecture is the idea of the word monongenes referring to Jesus before that event. THEREFORE: i cannot validate a point that refutes the validation of another point. because that makes no sense. Point A doesnt prove anything, its just stating simply that Jesus was monogenes in a specific event and any other idea would be a theory but not valid. So I do not understand why there is 20 pages of this. Point A does not prove that Jesus did not have a beginning. As i said before, the topic of beginning should be seperate because monogenes has nothign to do with it unless you can prove it. Is this more clear now or not?

SF

The point was made so to silence the claim that “Monogenes” can be used to prove that Jesus had a beginning.

It is merely conjecture to say that the word “applies” to Jesus before he came in the flesh.

So it is a “fact” that it cannot be used to prove he had a beginning.

Is this not true?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:09)

I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.

What are you talking about Mike?

You agreed that to say “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture.

Now how are you going to use “Monogenes” to prove he had a beginning?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:09)

I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.

BTW, what are you waiting for? Here is your chance. Prove that Jesus had a beginning by using the word “Monogenes”.

Where is your honesty here Mike? You say my point is valid but now you infer it isn't!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:09)

I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.

You see what I mean SF?

This is why I made the point. Now Mike continues to claim that the point is invalid!

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 20 2010,01:51)

The point was made so to silence the claim that “Monogenes” can be used to prove that Jesus had a beginning. It is merely conjecture to say that the word “applies” to Jesus before he came in the flesh. So it is a “fact” that it cannot be used to prove he had a beginning. Is this not true?

Hi WJ,

I KNOW that's why you made the point.  Not at first, but then it dawned on me.  That's why I changed my original answer to say it's NOT conjecture, but more a case of NT revealing more info about the OT than we knew before.

What we scripturally KNOW:

1.  God said he had “begotten” a Son in Psalm 2:7 (about 700 years before Jesus came in the flesh).

2.  We later find out that Son is Jesus, AND that he is the ONLY Son God ever begat.

Like I asked in Kathi's thread:  How do you think God expected us to understand, “I have begotten you, you are my Son”?  He knew what the word yalad meant to the Hebrews.  Why would he use that word in referrence to His Son if He didn't expect the Hebrews (and us) to understand it that way?

So, what have we learned?  God said He begat a Son hundreds of years before Jesus was flesh.  We later find out that Son He talked about was Jesus, and that he was the ONLY begotten Son of God.  Does finding out those details later make the begetting talked about in Psalm 2:7 non-existent?

mike

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,19:51)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 18 2010,23:42) let me calrify this again! POINT A- shouldnt even be a point, its a refutation of a point. ITs a point taht doesnt prove anything, but calrify what is valid. Whats valid is that the words monogenes was used for Jesus at a specfic time while he was in Flesh. whats not valid, and only a conjecture is the idea of the word monongenes referring to Jesus before that event. THEREFORE: i cannot validate a point that refutes the validation of another point. because that makes no sense. Point A doesnt prove anything, its just stating simply that Jesus was monogenes in a specific event and any other idea would be a theory but not valid. So I do not understand why there is 20 pages of this. Point A does not prove that Jesus did not have a beginning. As i said before, the topic of beginning should be seperate because monogenes has nothign to do with it unless you can prove it. Is this more clear now or not? SF The point was made so to silence the claim that “Monogenes” can be used to prove that Jesus had a beginning. It is merely conjecture to say that the word “applies” to Jesus before he came in the flesh. So it is a “fact” that it cannot be used to prove he had a beginning. Is this not true? WJ

Wj your not understanding what im saying.

The way ya debated this point was wrong.
let me attempt to correct this.

This is the Claim A: Monogenes was used before Jesus became flesh,

WJ Famous Point A, which i will change to calling it
Refutation A: “…that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.”

This is refutation of a cliam. A refutation is not held “valid” its purpose is to “invalidate” a cliam or to discredit or drop teh cliam.

So thats what im saying, its not PROVEING, but DISPROVING a claim.

Thats why i say it doesnt prove anything, but it disproves the conjecture from being fact.
so therefore the claim is now dropped unless again if mike can prove that psalms verse.

Do you understand what i mean now WJ?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 20 2010,01:15)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,19:51) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 18 2010,23:42) let me calrify this again! POINT A- shouldnt even be a point, its a refutation of a point. ITs a point taht doesnt prove anything, but calrify what is valid. Whats valid is that the words monogenes was used for Jesus at a specfic time while he was in Flesh. whats not valid, and only a conjecture is the idea of the word monongenes referring to Jesus before that event. THEREFORE: i cannot validate a point that refutes the validation of another point. because that makes no sense. Point A doesnt prove anything, its just stating simply that Jesus was monogenes in a specific event and any other idea would be a theory but not valid. So I do not understand why there is 20 pages of this. Point A does not prove that Jesus did not have a beginning. As i said before, the topic of beginning should be seperate because monogenes has nothign to do with it unless you can prove it. Is this more clear now or not? SF The point was made so to silence the claim that “Monogenes” can be used to prove that Jesus had a beginning. It is merely conjecture to say that the word “applies” to Jesus before he came in the flesh. So it is a “fact” that it cannot be used to prove he had a beginning. Is this not true? WJ Wj your not understanding what im saying. The way ya debated this point was wrong. let me attempt to correct this. This is the Claim A: Monogenes was used before Jesus became flesh, WJ Famous Point A, which i will change to calling it Refutation A: “…that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.” This is refutation of a cliam.   A refutation is not held “valid” its purpose is to “invalidate” a cliam or to discredit or drop teh cliam.   So thats what im saying, its not PROVEING, but DISPROVING  a claim. Thats why i say it doesnt prove anything, but it disproves the conjecture from being fact. so therefore the claim is now dropped unless again if mike can prove that psalms verse. Do you understand what i mean now WJ?

SF

Yea, it’s like looking at the glass half full or half empty. Its just semantics!

Mikes point is not valid in Pss 2:7 because the word for begotten is not “Monogenes” and because the scripture has a two fold application for David and prophetically as the Apostles show of Jesus at his resurrection.

If mike is going to prove that “This day” means 700 years before Jesus came in the flesh that he was begotten, then he has to prove that when the scriptures say he was there in the beginning before the ages, that is the same day. Because if he was begotten on a “certain” day then he was not there before the ages or in the beginning was he?

My point is still valid, please inform the escape artist of this fact. He is really grasping for straws now.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

First, like Dennison said, your point A is a refutation, not an assertion.  The thing is, I never said anything for you to refute about monogenes.  

Second, when did I say that the Psalmist wrote about God begetting a Son on the same day (or millennium) that it happened?  Just because the Psalmist wrote it 700 years ago doesn't mean the actual begetting of Jesus couldn't have happened a billion years ago.

The facts remain the same.  

1.  Psalm 2:7 tells us that God already had a begotten Son hundreds of years BEFORE Christ was made flesh.  God used the word “yalad” which has no other meaning except an actual begetting or birth.  None of the alternate meanings the Greeks have with gennao ever applied to yalad.  It simply meant “begotten” or “birthed” in a very real sense.  And THAT'S the word God chose to explain how his Son came to exist, knowing full well that the Hebrews would take it to mean a literal begetting.

2.  We later find out that Jesus IS that begotten Son of God talked about in Psalm 2:7, and that he is God's ONLY begotten, or the “monogenes” Son of God.

The bottom line is that your point A is refuted, because I can reasonably add the new info from the NT to what we already knew from the OT and deduce that Jesus has been the “monogenes” Son of God for at least about 6500 years, based on two facts.  

  a. We know scripturally that all things were created through God's only begotten Son, so that means he had to have been begotten “before creation”.
 
b. We now know that Jesus is God's ONLY begotten Son, so that PROVES that the “begotten Son of God” spoken of in Psalm 2:7 HAD to have been Jesus, which means he had to have been the monogenes Son of God even then.

Therefore, I can logically deduce that Jesus IS that begotten Son mentioned in Psalms, that he was the only one then – as he is now, and that his begetting had to have happened before all things were created.

mike

[Author]

Posts