Mike vs. wj on begotten and firsborn

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 23 2010,09:54)

peace and love to you and your buddy Jumping Jack flash, known as the Roo, a suitable name i might add, …………….gene

Gene

If you do not have anything substantive to add why make such accusations without any proof.

It is Mike that created this thread. Look at my history in 4 years Gene and you will see that you can probably count on one hand the times that I have created a thread in this forum!

Since you seem to know so much about this why don't you tell us what questions we have not answered.

Please gives us times dates and quotes and I promise you we have answered Mike, but Mike continues with the same questions if he doesn't like the answers.

Some how like David he thinks that he will get a different answer if he keeps asking the same thing!

June 23, 2010 at 4:05 pm#202025

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,18:53)

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?

First of all Mike, this question is a diversion from the subject in discussion which is the word “Monogenes” and its application to Jesus. Is the term “Monogenes” ever applied to the Father? But I will humor you and answer though I already have on topic.

The obvious answer is “NO”. There it is Mike, I have answered the obvious with a simple “NO”, the Father was YHWH, God Almighty before he was known by even “Adam”.

But as you will see Mike your own logic betrays you because the term “Monogenes” in relation to Jesus is a term given to him after he came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a MAN. Was Jesus a “MAN” before he was born of the Virgin Mary?

Did Isaac exist before he became the “Monogenes” Son of the promise?

Of course he did. Why do you refuse to see these Biblical points?

Here is the context of our discussion…

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?

You yourself have admitted that scripturally “Monogenes” was never given to Jesus before his natural birth. Jack and I have shown to you over and over again that the term “Monogenes” means “single of its kind, only” according to strongs, and that Monogenes is not equivalent to “ginomai”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,18:53)

Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?

True, and neither did mankind know Jesus as a man until he “came into existence” (ginomai) in the likeness of sinful flesh and was declared to be the “Monogenes” Son of God.

Now that I have answered you, it is your turn!

Was Jesus a MAN before he came in the flesh?
Can you prove by scripture that Jesus was the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,18:53)
Please address the point in question.

Yes please do and then we can go onto the next point.
WJ

June 23, 2010 at 6:54 pm#202026

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 24 2010,03:05)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,18:53)

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?

The obvious answer is “NO”. There it is Mike, I have answered the obvious with a simple “NO”, the Father was YHWH, God Almighty before he was known by even “Adam”.

Did Isaac exist before he became the “Monogenes” Son of the promise?

Of course he did. Why do you refuse to see these Biblical points?

Here is the context of our discussion…

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)

You yourself have admitted that scripturally “Monogenes” was never given to Jesus before his natural birth. And Jack and I have shown to you over and over again that the term “Monogenes” means “single of its kind, only” according to strongs, and that Monogenes is not equivalent to “ginomai”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,18:53)

Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?

True, and neither did mankind know Jesus as a man until he “came into existence” (ginomai) in the likeness of sinful flesh and was declared to be the “Monogenes” Son of God.

Now that I have answered you, it is your turn!

Was Jesus a MAN before he came in the flesh?

Can you prove by scripture that Jesus was the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,18:53)

Please address the point in question.

Yes please do and then we can go onto the next point.

Hi Keith,

I told you in a pm that I do not have much time to post here the next few days. I have taken on a lot of extra work. Don't let Mike beat his chest too much now.

It was wise of Mike to drop the “begotten” topic as his choice for our second debate (if the first was really a debate). We have TWO statements now inwhich Mike admits that the scripture does not say when Jesus was begotten though it does say that it was at His resurrection.

Anyway, two such statments amount to a history of gaffes and I would have beaten Mike over the head with them in another debate on “begotten.” He would have had to spend many of his alotted words explaining his gaffes with the second gaffe being nearly impossible to explain. Mike is fortunate that we will be doing Plurality because he has no history of gaffes.

WJ:

Quote

Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?

Mikeboll:

Quote

Not that scripture records.

I LOVE IT!

See you later. I will be researching for my opening statement too.

Jack

June 23, 2010 at 7:04 pm#202027

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 23 2010,01:02)

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

correction, its a waste of time to DEBATE ABOUT DEBATING!

June 23, 2010 at 7:05 pm#202028

Participant

WJ said to Mikeboll:

Quote

BTW, you talk about us jumping from thread to thread, why did you create another thread and bring our discussion to this thread?

What's this all about? Mike now thinks that we are here for him alone? Mike is the one who started this thread on “begotten” when there was already a juicy one in progress.

Mike was diasppointed that KJ would not wear out the “begotten” topic with him again so he starts a thread with WJ so he could still get his way.

Jack

June 23, 2010 at 7:10 pm#202029

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….67;st=0

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 24 2010,06:04)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 23 2010,01:02)

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

the Roo

correction, its a waste of time to DEBATE ABOUT DEBATING!

CORRECTION! You said that the debate was a waste of time.

Quote

Problem: What I see is, that there are many debates, most within the forum topics, uncontrollable, personal, and disorganized debates that cannot be controlled, no one knows what points were held, nor what points were refuted and dropped. very few that are in the debates section (which is more of a freestyle debate), where two people go one on one over subject, within a never ending cycle of going off topic, and no one knows what was held valid, or what wasn’t refuted. (KJ vs. Mike was hilarious, never reached anything though, it was a waste of time.)

the Roo

June 23, 2010 at 7:15 pm#202030

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….67;st=0

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 24 2010,00:10)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 24 2010,06:04)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 23 2010,01:02)

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

the Roo

correction, its a waste of time to DEBATE ABOUT DEBATING!

CORRECTION! You said that the debate was a waste of time.

Quote

the Roo

OHHHH THAT…….!!!

lol… sorry i thuoght you were talking about something else.

ya it was funny, but a waste of time.

lol

June 23, 2010 at 7:25 pm#202031

Participant

WJ,

are you saying that the term begotten wasnt used until Jesus ressurection? can you explain this. curious

Mike,
When Jesus was mentioned to be the first born of all creation, it also says the first born of all that died, think about it. IF life consists out of Jesus, and God has to be first amoung all things, yet Jesus is FIRST in everything that has happened.

Fact is that Jesus is first in creation, which is life itself,
and the Fact that he is first of among the dead, he is the begining and the end, he is always first,
our salvation is through him,

So that Christ can be all IN ALL.
Which its pleases the father that ALL FULLNESS dwells of him, that life consists of!

IF JESUS IS LIFE,
IS God out of the picture?

TIME SPACE AND MATTER.

finally someone got into that subject.

How is it that before flesh that Jesus was typically man?
Yet they say he is distinct from God, as a man, because what need does God need to pray to himself.

Ok before flesh what happened?

If God particpated within this World he would have to limit himself, because he is eternal, for him to do something within time space and matter is a limitation.

Therefore Jesus is Gods role participating in this world.
not only as the Son of Man, but as the Son of God.

note: i didnt have time to really write this effectively im abotu to leave right now. Sorry ill probably go more into depth later.

much love,

June 23, 2010 at 8:35 pm#202032

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 23 2010,14:25)

WJ,

are you saying that the term begotten wasnt used until Jesus ressurection? can you explain this. curious

The term “begotten” is found in the AV 15 times.

Yet the Greek shows us there are two different Greek words that were translated begotten.

“Monogenes” which according to Strongs G3439 simply means; 1) single of its kind, only

a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

It is translated only begotten 6 times, only 2, only child 1

In reference to Jesus it denotes Jesus being the “single of its kind or only” Son of God, so the translators of the KJV chose to translate it “Only begotten” in reference to Jesus 6 times.

However the other three times they translated it 2 times “only” and 1 time “only child”.

The term in reference to Jesus is never found until he came in the flesh.

Monogenes is found in the LXX (the Greek translation of the OT) in reference too Isaac who is the 'Only Son” or Unique Son of the promise. The contention is Isaac already existed before he became the “Monogenes” Son. In like manner Jesus already existed in the beginning with the Father as the Word that was God. John 1:1, but when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man became the “Monogenes” Son. He is the only unique one.

The other Greek word the translators translated “begotten is “gennaō” which according to Strongs g1080 means;

1) of men who fathered children

a) to be born

b) to be begotten

1) of women giving birth to children

2) metaph.

a) to engender, cause to arise, excite

b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone

c) of God making Christ his son

d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's work

It is translated begat 49 times, be born 39, bear 2, gender 2, bring forth 1, be delivered 1, misc 3, begotten 6

It is most often used of the literal birth or beginning of sons or daughters however not always.

For instance it is used by John in speaking of the spiritual birth of the Children of God who were already in existence.

It is interesting that the same word is used of Jesus who already existed when the Father said…

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten (gennaō) thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb 1:5

So since we know that Jesus was before time for he was there in the beginning, then we know that “This day” must have followed after the beginning of time.

Contextually according to Hebrews 1:4, 5 – Acts 13:33, and Psalms 2:6-12 the begetting of Jesus took place after his resurrection and ascension.

Jesus is the “Monogenes” (only unique) Son of God at birth and declared to be the “gennaō” (begotten) Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead!

John 1:1, 14 – Heb 1:5 – Acts 13:33 Rom 1:3, 4 Pss 2:6-12

Blessings Keith

June 23, 2010 at 11:00 pm#202033

Participant

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

The contention is Isaac already existed before he became the “Monogenes” Son. In like manner Jesus already existed in the beginning with the Father as the Word that was God. John 1:1, but when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man became the “Monogenes” Son. He is the only unique one.

Yeap! Isaac existed before his becoming Abraham's “only” (Heb. “yachad” & Greek “monogenes”) son.

*Genesis 12:22: Isaac called Abraham's “yachad”, that is, “only son like Abraham”
*Hebrews 11: 17: Isaac called Abraham's “monogenes”, that is, “only son after Abraham's kind.”

Isaac did not become Abraham's “yachad” (monogenes) until Ishmael was kicked out of the covenant. Isaac therefore preexisted his becoming Abraham's yachad (monogenes) son.

the Roo

June 24, 2010 at 1:59 am#202034

mikeboll64

Blocked

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

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.

I said:

Quote

You FINALLY answered and said:

Quote

The obvious answer is “NO”. There it is Mike, I have answered the obvious with a simple “NO”, the Father was YHWH, God Almighty before he was known by even “Adam”.

First, let me sincerely thank you for your honest and direct answer……Thank you!

So, just because YHVH wasn't referred to by that name in scripture until Moses, it doesn't mean that it wasn't God Almighty's name before that, right? Does it not then follow that just because Jesus wasn't referred to as “monogenes” until he applied it to himself while talking to Nicodemus, it ALSO does not mean that he was NOT the only begotten Son of God until the time that he spoke the words, right?

So your original claim…….

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 your part.

……..does not really hold water, does it? It most definitely DOESN'T prove in any way that Jesus couldn't have been the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he came in the flesh, does it? Question: Do you agree that the point you made is inconclusive as to when Jesus became the only begotten Son of God, and therefore a “non-issue” which should be disregarded?

Now, I will answer your first direct question directly.

You said:

Quote

Was Jesus a MAN before he came in the flesh?

I do not know the answer to that. I know from Jesus that the Son of Man “came from heaven”. (John 3:13) And I know that Jesus asked, “What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! (John 6:62) That supports John 3:13. John the Baptist called Jesus “the one who comes from heaven”. (John 3:31) But was the “Son of Man” a literal “man” in heaven before he came in the flesh? I can't say.

But why are you asking when Jesus became a “man”? I thought we were discussing when he became God's only begotten Son. You cannot equate the two, for angels are sons of God and they are not mankind.

WJ, do you believe that Jesus was God's Son before he came as a man?

Even though I'd like to take this ONE point or question at a time, I'll answer your second question because it is a “non-point”.

You said:

Quote

Can you prove by scripture that Jesus was the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man?

Can you prove he WASN'T?

peace and love,
mike

June 24, 2010 at 7:29 pm#202035

Participant

Mike

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)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

You FINALLY answered and said:

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2010,11:05)

The obvious answer is “NO”. There it is Mike, I have answered the obvious with a simple “NO”, the Father was YHWH, God Almighty before he was known by even “Adam”.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

First, let me sincerely thank you for your honest and direct answer……Thank you!

Thanks, but the answer was already in the post about the word “firstborn” and its application to Jesus. In other words the question was a diversion and a non issue to the subject being discussed.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

So, just because YHVH wasn't referred to by that name in scripture until Moses, it doesn't mean that it wasn't God Almighty's name before that, right?

Yes but again what does it have to do with Jesus? We know his name also wasn’t revealed until he came in the flesh. But the term “Monogenes” does not have to do with his “identity” or name, but rather with his nature or his origin.

You have nothing in scriptures that prove that Jesus was the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh. But I have plenty of evidence that the word “Monogenes” is given to Jesus who already existed just like Isaac!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

Does it not then follow that just because Jesus wasn't referred to as “monogenes” until he applied it to himself while talking to Nicodemus, it ALSO does not mean that he was NOT the only begotten Son of God until the time that he spoke the words, right?

Wrong, because you are comparing apples to oranges. The Father was never given the term “Monogenes”. John looking back when he recorded these things did not say that the Word that was with God was “the Monogenes Son of God”, did he? Instead he uses the word “ginomai” in describing the Word that was with God and was God, as coming into existence as a man and then he follows with the word “Monogenes” son of God which agrees with Paul’s use of the word “ginomai” in referring to Jesus coming in the likeness of sinful flesh and being found in fashion as a man. Phil 2:6-8

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

So your original claim…….

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 your part.

……..does not really hold water, does it? It most definitely DOESN'T prove in any way that Jesus couldn't have been the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he came in the flesh, does it?

My confession holds plenty of water because it is you that agreed that the word “Monogenes” is not applied to Jesus in the scriptures before he came in the flesh.

You said…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,18:00)

Not that scripture records.

And I said…

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.

So if it is not in the scriptures Mike then it is merely conjecture isn’t it?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

Question: Do you agree that the point you made is inconclusive as to when Jesus became the only begotten Son of God, and therefore a “non-issue” which should be disregarded?

No I don’t, because it is conclusive that after Jesus came in the flesh he was spoken of as the “Monogenes” (single of its kind, only-Strongs) Son of God and we also have examples of the word used for both those who already existed as a Son and was given the “title” like Isaac (Heb 11:17), as well a
s examples of an “only (monogenes) son ” (Luke 7:12) — “only (monogenes) daughter (Luke 8:42) and “only (monogenes) child (Luke 9:38) which is proof that the word means “single of its kind, only” and is only found in describing those in the flesh.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

Now, I will answer your first direct question directly.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2010,11:05)

Was Jesus a MAN before he came in the flesh?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

Yea just like Obama saying what if you see the President of the USA going back to Harvard Law school? Was he the President when he originally was in law school? Don’t you get it Mike? Jesus was not the Messiah until he came in the flesh. For the word Messiah means the anointed one. Jesus was not declared to be the Son of God with power until he was raised from the dead. Rom 1:3, 4. He was declared by the Father to be his Begotten (gennaō) Son after the resurrection.

So now I can say the Messiah was the Word that was with the Father in the beginning.

I can say the Only Begotten (monogenes) Son was both born and not born. (Ring a bell?)

I can say the Son of man can ascend up where he was before.

Get it Mike?

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

That supports John 3:13. John the Baptist called Jesus “the one who comes from heaven”. (John 3:31) But was the “Son of Man” a literal “man” in heaven before he came in the flesh? I can't say.

Really Mike, this is becoming embarrassing for you. Jesus could not be a man until he was born of a virgin and take on the likeness of sinful flesh. If he was a man before he came in the flesh then “Adam” would not be the “first Adam” and Jesus wouldn’t be the “second Adam”, and John 1:1, 14 and Phil 2:6-8 would mean nothing because he emptied himself and was found in fashion as a man.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

But why are you asking when Jesus became a “man”? I thought we were discussing when he became God's only begotten Son.

Because the word “Monogenes” in reference to Jesus and others is related to humanity!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

You cannot equate the two, for angels are sons of God and they are not mankind.

Can you give some scriptures for your assumption? There is no scripture that says Angels are “Sons of God” that is merely more conjecture based on tradition.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

WJ, do you believe that Jesus was God's Son before he came as a man?

I believe he is the same person that came in the flesh and was announced by the Angel Gabriel to be called the “Son of God”. (Luke 1:35

Jesus is the “firstborn” (prōtotokos) Son of God among many brethren, which means that he would have to be a man to be our brother. Since no one could be his brother until after the resurrection then the term firstborn Son goes along with him being the “firstborn” prōtotokos from the dead which obviously means he has the “preeminence” over the Born again sons and those who are raised from the dead. This also lines up with the term “Son of man”…

used by Christ himself, doubtless in order that he might intimate his Messiahship and also that he might designate himself as the head of the human family, the man, the one who both furnished the pattern of the perfect man and acted on behalf of all mankind. Christ seems to have preferred this to the other Messianic titles, because by its lowliness it was least suited to foster the expectation of an earthly Messiah in royal splendour. Strongs

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 23 2010,20:59)

Even though I'd like to take this ONE point or question at a time, I'll answer your second question because it is a “non-point”.

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2010,11:05)

Can you prove by scripture that Jesus was the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man?

Can you prove he WASN'T?

So you think you answered the question with a question?

I have proven that the word “Monogenes” in relation to Jesus is spoken of after he comes in the flesh and that there is no scripture anywhere that claims Jesus had a beginning before coming in the flesh. You cannot present any.

The contention is “Did Jesus have a beginning before he came in the flesh”? You have with your own words said that Monogenes is not applied to Jesus before he came in the flesh.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 21 2010,18:00)

Not that scripture records.

So once again the question is…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 23 2010,11:05)

Can you prove by scripture that Jesus was the “Monogenes” Son of God before he came in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man?

It is a yes or no question Mike.

June 25, 2010 at 1:22 am#202036

mikeboll64

Blocked

Hi Keith,

Man, this is frustrating. I'm sure you don't do it on purpose. You most likely believe the words you post and get zealous and want to show me your version of the truth all at once so I can “understand”. But from my point of view, it goes like this:
1. Jesus wasn't a man before he was born of Mary.
2. So Jesus couldn't be monogenes before……
3. And he couldn't have been a son of God before….
4. Because angels aren't sons of God….
5. And God made him monogenes Son when…..
6. Etc., etc., etc.

The problem is that you are laying ALL your beliefs on me starting with #1. And you can't even PROVE #1 yet. So #'s 2-6 etc, become a weak house, because you have built it upon an unstable foundation. It is the same thing with your view of “all power and authority”. You string a whole bunch of views together that say, “because of this, that, and since we know that, the other, and now that we know the other, this……” But when I asked you if “all power and authority” means that God has none, you bailed from our debate at least a month ago. Why? Because you know that when you admit that “all power and authority” DOESN'T mean God has none, then you'll have to admit that “all power and authority” is relative. And once you do that, you'll have to admit that since it doesn't REALLY mean “ALL”, it is only unsubstantiated conjecture on your part that it means up to the point he is equal to God. And once you admit that it is only conjecture, you'll also have to admit that MY conjecture that it means up to the point that he is the next one lower than God is equally viable.

So, POINT BY POINT, please. Let's get some concrete proof on #1 before we move on. Okay, here we go.

Let me rephrase my very first point. You say that only begotten Son is not applied to Jesus until he is man. (Actually, it is applied to SOMEONE in Psalm 2:7 – about 700 years before Jesus was born of Mary. But I won't even argue that point, because it would consist of conjecture on both our parts – me saying these words were said eons ago, and you saying they were prophesied for the future. And neither one of us can prove our point.) But I can (and will) argue your assertion that because we didn't KNOW Jesus as the only begotten Son of God until he spoke with Nicodemus, it means he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God until at least that time. This is an “end run” IMO. So I will say it again:

We didn't know God's name was YHWH until He told Moses, but that DOESN'T mean it wasn't ALREADY His name.

THEREFORE…

We didn't know Jesus was the only begotten Son of God before he told Nicodemus, but that DOESN'T mean he wasn't ALREADY the only begotten Son of God.

Before you start listing different kinds of fruit again, I'll say it another way:

If I just found out today that your only son was 40 years old, that DOESN'T mean he hasn't ALREADY been your only begotten son for the last 40 years, does it?

WJ, if we are to ever do anything besides spin our wheels, you must come to terms with the fact that just because you say it, it is not automatically the way things are (or were). So, I'll ask you once again, and I will hope for a DIRECT answer with no “ifs” and “buts”:

IN AND OF ITSELF, does the fact that mankind didn't KNOW that Jesus was the only begotten Son until Nicodemus PROVE that he ABSOLUTELY WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE Nicodemus?

You cannot build your view of what's what on a foundation so flimsy, Keith.

You started off (after some urging) with an honest answer, but then you've nullified that answer by adding:

Quote

My confession holds plenty of water because it is you that agreed that the word “Monogenes” is not applied to Jesus in the scriptures before he came in the flesh.

Actually, I misspoke (Psalm 2:7). But regardless, YHVH wasn't applied to God Almighty until Moses, yet you admit it was His name BEFORE that. So again, does your theory hold water? Honest and direct, Keith. And by “hold water” I mean, is this concrete scriptural proof in itself that Jesus could NOT POSSIBLY have already been the only begotten Son of Man and we just weren't privy to that knowledge?

Keith, I've got great replies to your points about Strong, the children that are mentioned in those scriptures who are actually only begotten children, Obama, Adam, humanity, angels as sons of God, and all the rest. But the reason I started this other thread was to completely discuss YOUR views from your first long post ONE POINT AT A TIME. We can both just post our opinions of how things are and throw in some scriptures to make our opinions sound valid – but then we are just spinning wheels and getting nowhere. Stand and prove that your very first point is actually PROOF of something, or admit it isn't. I say it isn't.

peace and love,
mike

June 25, 2010 at 5:12 am#202037

Participant

Mike

I am not going to chase you down your diversionary rabbit holes any more Mike.

You have done it again. You have not answered a single point that I have made, yet I have addresed every point that you made.

You answered my question with a question and now you are diverting attention to an old debate.

Now you are shifting your position about your confession that the word “Monogenes” is not spoken of Jesus before he came in the flesh.

Then you come up with a revised question as if you have been asking it all along.

Your question is…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 24 2010,20:22)

IN AND OF ITSELF, does the fact that mankind didn't KNOW that Jesus was the only begotten Son until Nicodemus PROVE that he ABSOLUTELY WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE Nicodemus?

My answer is…

IN AND OF ITSELF, does the fact that mankind didn't KNOW that Jesus was the only begotten Son until Nicodemus PROVE that he ABSOLUTELY WAS the only begotten Son of God BEFORE Nicodemus?

Isn't that what you are doing to me Mike?

When you start answering my points and quesitons then we can continue.

You have completely avoided 2 post now without responding to the points that I made.

I am done with your games Mike, so here is what I want to do.

Since you insist on smokescreens and diversersions then we need to have a formal debate like you and Jack so that you can't keep pulling these diversional tricks.

I challenge you to a debate on the words “monogenes” and “prōtotokos” in relation to Jesus and his origins.

It seems to me the only thing you want to answer and discuss is what you want Mike. You are not willing to take a walk through the scriptures point by point and discuss them, and that doesn't mean that other points cannot relate to the subject and in fact that is what dialogue and debate is about.

Since you do not care to post and then me respond to your points and then you reply to mine, then lets do it in a format that we both have to stick to, and especially where you and I can be held to the fire.

I am not chasing your rabbit trails any longer.

June 25, 2010 at 5:16 am#202038

Participant

Hi SF

Above is another prime example of Mike’s diversionary tactics. He even contradicts his own words if you read it closely.

The post before that he says he is going to answer my last question and turns around and answers it with a question.

So let it be known I am not going to start this rabbit trail again.

Therefore I challenge Mike to a debate in the debates thread on two words in the Bible, “monogenes” and “prōtotokos” to pin down the fact that the words do not mean that Jesus was born from the Father by procreation before time.

Mike insists that the words prove Jesus had a beginning as a Son of God before he came in the flesh and now even implies he could have been a man before he came in the flesh.

I challenge him to “Prove” by scriptures that this is true using those two words.

Please set this up if you like and if Mike will go along then let’s get ready to rumble!

This way there will be no more postulating and equivocating!

I have never really done a formal debate like this but I look forward to the first.

Blessings Keith

June 25, 2010 at 5:40 am#202039

JustAskin

Participant

SF,

You are all over the place with your posts.

More times it's hard to understand what it is you are actually trying to say, let alone what you do say.

And you say your strength is in public debating…and judging…?

perhaps speaking and writing draws on different parts of the mental processing, and, while, allegedly, you are a great verbal debator and judge, you patently fail in the written aspect of your, so called, skill.

June 25, 2010 at 5:46 am#202040

JustAskin

Participant

Oh, and Mike, …only being picky… But,,, All [nonfallen] angels are 'Sons of God'

A 'Son of God' is anyone who is 'born or begotten of God', that is: 'walking in the way of God, in the Spirit'

June 25, 2010 at 5:47 am#202041

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ June 25 2010,10:40)

SF,

You are all over the place with your posts.

More times it's hard to understand what it is you are actually trying to say, let alone what you do say.

And you say your strength is in public debating…and judging…?

JA,

Your right!
Im alot better in person.
RM should know.
Sometimes my writing does not catch up with my thoughts.
I do have a lack at times.
But thanks for understanding though.
Seems like your getting to know me JA.

=) your a good study of people.

Continue….

June 25, 2010 at 6:09 am#202042