Mike vs. wj on begotten and firsborn

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,12:22)

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.

Mike………….Welcome to my world brother. I have tried many times to bring WJ and His jumping brother Jack , back to Just one or two (simply) scriptures, and they just start shifting focuses to something else and never truly deal with the Main issue being discussed. This is the Man way TRINITARIANS Operate they just can not stay focused on ONE SPECIFIC Issue brought up.

They skirt it and dance all around the place , This only shows that there minds are in rejection to solid truth, they are deluded in there minds and cannot be stable and sound or Solid. 2Ths2, explains it clearly , “Because they did not recieve the Love of the truth God would send to them a delusion in order for them to believe A LIE”, and the Lie is that Jesus is GOD. This false image of Jesus turns him into the image of the Man of SIN> IMO

peace and love to you and yours………………..gene

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 25 2010,09:42)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,12:22) 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. Mike………….Welcome to my world brother. I have tried many times to bring WJ and His jumping brother Jack , back to Just one or two (simply) scriptures, and they just start shifting focuses to something else and never truly deal with the Main issue being discussed.  This is the Man way TRINITARIANS Operate they just can not stay focused on ONE SPECIFIC Issue brought up. They skirt it and dance all around the place , This only shows that there minds are in rejection to solid truth, they are deluded in there minds and cannot be stable and sound or Solid. 2Ths2, explains it clearly , “Because they did not recieve the Love of the truth God would send to them a delusion in order for them to believe A LIE”, and the Lie is that Jesus is GOD. This false image of Jesus turns him into the image of the Man of SIN> IMO peace and love to you and yours………………..gene

Gene
Your ad hominems is uncalled for.

Anyone who is not being biased can see that I addressed Mikes points, point by point.

That means there has to be scriptures and explanations to answer or counteract a point.

This is not the first time Mike has bailed out from a post of mine that was in response to his post point by point.

The problem with you guys is you don't like the scriptural answers that we give.

I am not surprised of your bias which is obvious

Why don't you say anything about Mike saying Jesus could have been a man before Adam?

Why don't you say something about Jesus being “a god” that we are to serve and follow even to the death?

Why don't you say something about Mike believing Jesus was born from Father as the “Only begotten Son” before the creation?

Why don't you say anything about Mike answering my question with a question?

No it seems that you are not interested in the truth here Gene, because you are simply “Antitrinitarian”.

Who is being illusive Gene?

So why don't you go through my post and show me where I have “skirted” around Mikes points?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 25 2010,01:09)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,10:16) 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 Hi Mike, sinced you metioned by using scripture. I recommend the BIF debate, if we are debating about a certain scripture, OR i would recommend the CIF to debate doctrine or certain ideas of chrisitanity. Its ya's choice. Lets talk about this in the debate thread.

SF

I don't understand all the suggestions.

The challenge I made to Mike in a debate is as follows…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,00:12)

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

Then I made this post to you…

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,00:16)

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!

All I was asking you to do is set up the debate format and see if that is what we can agree on.

The subject is already chosen in my challenge to Mike!

If he accepts great.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

SF

Also this thread could be just moved over into the debates thread rather than create another.

And also I do not want to interfere with Jacks and Mike’s debate. So it can wait if it needs to.

I was hoping someone like you or JA would call Mike out for the way he avoided my post!

Really all we need is a referee to keep us on track.

O well.

WJ

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

You asked:

Quote

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?

My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.  It doesn't prove he WAS the Son prior to coming in the flesh any more than it proves he was NOT the Son prior to coming in the flesh.  

That is how it is done, Keith.  A DIRECT answer to a DIRECT question.  

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?

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ARE TRYING TO USE THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT VERY INFO AS YOUR FOUNDATION – AND IT IS JUST AS UNPROVABLE.

Can you understand that?  And if you would only unreservedly admit that this particular info IN AND OF ITSELF doesn't prove anything, we could move on to your second point from the first page of this thread.  Surely you have other info to prove your point, right?  Let's get to it.

But first, you have to move on.  You claim that just because we didn't know Jesus as the only begotten Son of God until he was flesh means he couldn't possibly have already been the only begotten Son of God before he was flesh.  Is that a fair statement?  Is is reliable?  Is it PROOF?  Is it the ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO?

I have paralelled scripture and asserted that just because we didn't know God Almighty as YHVH until Moses doesn't mean that wasn't already His name.  You have agreed with this.  So why is it so hard for you to agree to the same thing about Jesus so we can move forward to your next point?  

I have also showed you Psalm 2:7, where he was in fact referred to as God's begotten Son before he came in the flesh.  But I will not try to build my foundation on that one scripture.

And as far as implying I can't answer your points:  Didn't the first words of this thread explain this?  I will answer EVERYTHING you have – ONE POINT AT A TIME.  This is what I'm now doing.  I am trying to answer your very first point.  I believe I've soundly nullified any claim you made of it being any kind of PROOF that Jesus couldn't have possibly already been the only begotten Son of God – you just have to acknowledge that or refute it.

Does your claim that Jesus wasn't referred to as the only begotten Son of God before he came in the flesh stand on it's own as solid PROOF that Jesus COULDN'T POSSIBLY have been the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he came in the flesh?

If yes, please explain to me how.  If no, please admit that so we can dismiss this point as invalid and move on to your other “proof”.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 25 2010,16:12)

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

Hi Keith,

Are you sure?  You know the first thing I will hit you with is the fact that both Ignatius and Eusebius think you are wrong.  Not to mention Stong, the KJV, and if I remember right from my debate with Jack, even Vine.  Oh, and also the very definition of the Greek words, and some pretty straight forward scriptures.

You think I'M THE ONE leading YOU down rabbit holes?  It is quite to the contrary, my friend.  You not only try to lead me down the hole, but also take me on a tour of the entire Wonderland.  

I'm the one saying, “Slow your roll, player.  I want to read the fine print before I sign off on anything.”

So instead you crying “DEBATE!” when I have you cornered like Jack did when he couldn't answer the Eusebius question, how about we let someone neutral jump on board this very thread.  I see you have suggested that and I WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE!     That is all I wanted with Roo, someone to keep things on track.  I'll accept JA, Dennison, Nick, Paul, t8, Lightenup, Gene, Ed J, Pierre……just about anyone on this site.

You pick the person, and we will continue as is, and go through EVERY point you made in the opening post, plus any and every other point you have yet to make – BUT ONLY ONE POINT AT A TIME.

Right now, your very first point is this:

Because I think there are no scriptures that show Jesus being referred to as the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he came in the flesh, that in itself is solid proof that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE he came in the flesh. (This is obviously a paraphrase)

I disagree, and my previous post shows why.  So you pick the person, and my first request to them is to demand that you show me how, just because we didn't have prior knowledge of a certain event, that means the event never happened.  And if you cannot, then they should demand that you admit your claim is unprovable conjecture on your part, so we can move on.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 26 2010,01:42)

Mike………….Welcome to my world brother. I have tried many times to bring WJ and His jumping brother Jack , back to Just one or two (simply) scriptures, and they just start shifting focuses to something else and never truly deal with the Main issue being discussed.  This is the Man way TRINITARIANS Operate they just can not stay focused on ONE SPECIFIC Issue brought up.

Hi Gene,

Don't I know it, brother.  The fact is, in order to show the trinity as something vaguely valid, they MUST fling all the out of context scriptures and the new definition changes and their conjecture toward you at the speed of light.  And their hope is that all jumbled up together, the average person will think it sounds viable.  

But they've never come up against me before.  I'm not the average person…..I'm much slower mentally.     And that weakness is my strength, I think.  Becasue I have to read it 10 times for it to sink in, it's harder for me to just absorb the whole jumbled up mess and agree to it.  I MUST break it down into little tidbits to understand it, and in doing so, I easily notice that the little tidbits don't actually say what they claim they do.

Anyway, thanks for your encouragement Gene.  I'm sure you can see the simple truth I'm trying to uncover in this one point.  Btw, I know you don't think Jesus was begotten before he came in the flesh either, but you are honest enough to see that what WJ is claiming as “proof” is anything but.

peace and love to you and yours,
mike

[Worshipping Jesus]

Hi Mike

Wow! That has to be the best dance I have ever seen. Mike I think you have missed your calling; you should have been an actor. When I read your post I had this visual image of a peacock standing tall and strutting his feathers in an attempt to intimidate its opponent with those little eyeball looking images on its feathers staring at you. But it’s just a peacock, and a peacock is nothing but prey!   Why are you still beating your chest Mike?

Also Mike, I started thinking about this and something came to me like a light bulb turned on. It’s like a chess game where the two opponents get into the game about ten moves and the one opponent realizes his opening was weak so he asked his opponent to restart the match. The one who had the edge could agree or he could say, no the game is started so finish or forfeit. That’s the way I see it when you bail out of my post. But I am going to let you start again Mike and respond to your opening point by point. Here goes…

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22)

Hi WJ, You asked: Quote 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? My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.  It doesn't prove he WAS the Son prior to coming in the flesh any more than it proves he was NOT the Son prior to coming in the flesh. That is how it is done, Keith.  A DIRECT answer to a DIRECT question.   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?

Thanks Mike for you have just agreed with what Jack and I have been trying to tell you all along?

But why in the world have you been arguing something you “cannot even come close to proving”?

The whole contention of the debate has been whether Jesus had a beginning through “Procreation” before the beginning of all things, and Jack and I have been telling you all along there is no scripture that “PROVES” Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh. Thank you Mike for finally admitting what Jack and I have been saying all along!

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22)

ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU ARE TRYING TO USE THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT VERY INFO AS YOUR FOUNDATION – AND IT IS JUST AS UNPROVABLE. Can you understand that?  And if you would only unreservedly admit that this particular info IN AND OF ITSELF doesn't prove anything, we could move on to your second point from the first page of this thread.  Surely you have other info to prove your point, right?  Let's get to it.

Mike you should slow down even more and listen rather than just speak. My contention all along has been that “begotten” and “firstborn” is in relation to Jesus after the incarnation.

That is a scriptural fact. I am not trying to prove the unprovable Mike. How many times have I told you it doesn’t matter if Eusibius or Ignatius believed that Jesus was the “Only Begotten Son” before the creation, what matters is they did not believe that Jesus was procreated before time.

You see Mike, this is what happens when you do not respond to my post point by point rather than just skimming over them, because you began to lose sight of what I am actually contending.

Remember you said…

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

God Almighty was not known as YHVH until the time of Moses.  Does that mean He was NOT YHVH until the time of Moses?  Or does it just mean that mankind didn't know Him as YHVH until He told Moses that was His name?

So you continued to try and prove that it could mean that Jesus was the “only Begotten Son” before Nicodemus, even though now you say “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?”

So my response to you all along has been that it doesn’t matter if he was called the “only Begotten Son” before the creation for the forefathers did not believe that “begotten” means that Jesus had a beginning.

In response to your question above I said…

——>”This is the part of my post that you are totally ignoring and so continue beating this dead horse.

Ignatius as well as many of the Fathers did not believe that Jesus had a beginning therefore your forced understanding of what they wrote is contradicting and false.

Ignatius said…

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2

Was he contradicting himself? He also said…

To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father “before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).

Before time is eternity Mike, this is how they understood Jesus as being always existing with the Father. The Word that was with God and was God!

This is what the Creed of the first Council of Nicea (325) read (emphasis mine)…

“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.<—— Here

So once again Mike, my contention is there is no scripture that proves Jesus had a beginning.

So here were my questions for you Mike…

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,23:04)

Hi Keith, Are you sure?  You know the first thing I will hit you with is the fact that both Ignatius and Eusebius think you are wrong.  Not to mention Stong, the KJV, and if I remember right from my debate with Jack, even Vine.  Oh, and also the very definition of the Greek words, and some pretty straight forward scriptures.

Hi Mike

Was there some doubt in my challenge? I want to see you prove that the scriptures or the early church Fathers believed Jesus was procreated.

That is the basis of the debate Mike. It doesn't matter if he is called the Son of God before the ages because he is…

…his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Rom 1:3, 4

That is a scriptural fact!

WJ

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 26 2010,14:22)

Hi WJ, You asked: Quote 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? My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.  It doesn't prove he WAS the Son prior to coming in the flesh any more than it proves he was NOT the Son prior to coming in the flesh.   That is how it is done, Keith.  A DIRECT answer to a DIRECT question.   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?

Mike ……..No one else can (PROVE) it either, so we are left to a simple conclusion, and that is, why would God chose a preexistent being to show man Kind His salvation work in Man Kind. It would make absolutely no sense for God to do it that way , and believe it or not God (IS) ABSOLUTE LOGICAL, in what he does. One has to absolutely through common sense out the window to believe Jesus was a GOD or he preexisted His Berth on earth, other then in the plan and Will of GOD. IMO

peace and love to you and yours Mike and i do appreciate your honesty and truthfulness brother………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Hi WJ,

Good, now we can get somewhere.

You said:

Quote

It’s like a chess game where the two opponents get into the game about ten moves and the one opponent realizes his opening was weak so he asked his opponent to restart the match.

EXACTLY, Keith!  That's what I AM SAYING!     We had a chess game going, but I made the last move a month ago and you refuse to take your turn (our original debate).  Then, I started this new chess game.  But you don't want to let me take my turn MOVE BY MOVE.  You want to play ALL OF YOUR MOVES on only your opening move.  The problem is that your first move was illegal, and you don't want to back up and address that first move.  You want to keep every piece in it's same position knowing that they wouldn't possibly be in that position if your first move WAS legal.  It's like you moved your knight forward 3 and to the left 2 on your first move.  And while my players are still in their beginning positions, you have kept moving until you have all your pieces in a position to checkmate me.  And I'm sitting here saying, “Woe there!  Your first move is not legal and therefore we must go back to our opening so your first move is a legal one.  And you are saying, “Let's just ignore that I cheated on this game and we'll start another one fresh so I can do the same thing again.”  Well no way, Keith.  Let's just put your pieces back to their beginning postions, and this time you  must move your knight in a legal movement.

So I'm not forfeiting, I want a fair game, that is all.

You said:

Quote

Thanks Mike for you have just agreed with what Jack and I have been trying to tell you all along? But why in the world have you been arguing something you “cannot even come close to proving”?

First of all, I didn't say I can't prove that Jesus had a beginning.  Prototokos pasa ktisis will do that for me – but we haven't gotten there yet.  What I honestly admitted is that I can't prove that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God before he came in the flesh armed with only the info that “he wasn't called that until he was in the flesh”.  And I have even pointed out twice so far that he WAS called that in Psalm 2:7 way before he came in the flesh.

You said:

Quote

The whole contention of the debate has been whether Jesus had a beginning through “Procreation” before the beginning of all things, and Jack and I have been telling you all along there is no scripture that “PROVES” Jesus had a beginning before he came in the flesh. Thank you Mike for finally admitting what Jack and I have been saying all along!

Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 will do nicely to refute you, but like I said, we are not there yet.  So I have admitted nothing of the sort to you.  First we have to get you to back up and make your first move a legal one.

You said:

Quote

That is a scriptural fact. I am not trying to prove the unprovable Mike.

Your initial point is that because you think the term monogenes wasn't used of Jesus before he came in the flesh, you also think that is proof that he wasn't the monogenes Son of God before that time.  This is your first move – the one where you moved your knight illegally.  Why?  First, because the term IS used of him before he came in the flesh, and second, because it is not proof in and of itself that Jesus wasn't monogenes before he came in the flesh.

You said:

Quote

You see Mike, this is what happens when you do not respond to my post point by point rather than just skimming over them, because you began to lose sight of what I am actually contending.

I haven't “skimmed” over anything.  This whole thread is dedicated to answering your very important beliefs ONE BY ONE.  We can't even get off of point #1 because you keep insisting that something that isn't even close to any kind of proof actually IS proof.  I will not move on until you:
a.  Show me how that me not knowing you had an only begotten son until that son was 40 years old is any kind of proof that he wasn't your only begotten son UNTIL he was 40 years old.

OR…….

b.  Admit that your “proof” that we didn't know Jesus was God's only begotten Son until he was flesh means he wasn't His only begotten Son until that time is NOT REALLY PROOF AT ALL.

I said:

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 said:

Quote

So you continued to try and prove that it could mean that Jesus was the “only Begotten Son” before Nicodemus, even though now you say “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.

No, Keith.  I am NOT trying to prove he was the only begotten Son before Nicodemus.  At least not yet, and not from only this info.  I'm just trying to get you to admit that it is also NOT PROOF of what you assert.  Can you do that?

You said:

Quote

So my response to you all along has been that it doesn’t matter if he was called the “only Begotten Son” before the creation for the forefathers did not believe that “begotten” means that Jesus had a beginning.

And we will get to that unvalidated claim and all of your following ones as we move along.  But I will not be bullied, shamed or ridiculed into letting this first false contention of yours slide.

My firm stand is this:

YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY PROVE THAT JESUS WASN'T THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH ONLY BY CLAIMING WE DID NOT KNOW HIM AS SUCH UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH.

DO YOU AGREE?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 27 2010,05:22)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,23:04) Hi Keith, Are you sure?  You know the first thing I will hit you with is the fact that both Ignatius and Eusebius think you are wrong.  Not to mention Stong, the KJV, and if I remember right from my debate with Jack, even Vine.  Oh, and also the very definition of the Greek words, and some pretty straight forward scriptures. Hi Mike Was there some doubt in my challenge? I want to see you prove that the scriptures or the early church Fathers believed Jesus was procreated. That is the basis of the debate Mike. It doesn't matter if he is called the Son of God before the ages because he is… …his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Rom 1:3, 4 That is a scriptural fact! WJ

Scriptural fact of what?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,07:49)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 26 2010,14:22) Hi WJ, You asked: Quote 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? My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.  It doesn't prove he WAS the Son prior to coming in the flesh any more than it proves he was NOT the Son prior to coming in the flesh.   That is how it is done, Keith.  A DIRECT answer to a DIRECT question.   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? Mike ……..No one else can (PROVE) it either, so we are left to a simple conclusion, and that is, why would God chose a preexistent being to show man Kind His salvation work in Man Kind. It would make absolutely no sense for God to do it that way , and believe it or not God (IS) ABSOLUTE LOGICAL, in what he does. One has to absolutely through common sense out the window to believe Jesus was a GOD or he preexisted His Berth on earth, other then in the plan and Will of GOD. IMO peace and love to you and yours Mike and i do appreciate your honesty and truthfulness brother………………..gene

Hi Gene,

I didn't say that I couldn't prove it at all. Just not from only this info. I have much more info – I will just not get into it until WJ admits it is also not proof positive of his assertion. They we can move on. I refuse to be a part of the “faster than the speed of light conjecture-proof” that the trinitarians (and some others here) use.

peace and love,
mike

[GeneBalthrop]

Hay Mike………..Could it be that Jesus was indeed the only begotten Son of God (from) mankind at that time, because the Holy spirit Had not fallen on any other until Pentecost, Just a thought. What do you think about this possibility?

peace and love………..gene

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 27 2010,10:35)

Hay Mike………..Could it be that Jesus was indeed the only begotten Son of God (from) mankind at that time, because the Holy spirit Had not fallen on any other until Pentecost, Just a thought. What do you think about this possibility? peace and love………..gene

Hi Gene,

I think it is totally possible.  Here's how I see it:

Jesus was the only begotten Son of God from his very beginning and there is no “hidden secret meaning” of monogenes.  It merely explains that Jesus was in fact begotten, or “caused to exist” by his Father and God.

If Jesus became the only begotten Son of God when he was born of Mary, in what sense was he God's Son before that?  We know from scripture that he was, so…….?  Also, how could he have been said to be the only one, since other men were also born of women?

If Jesus became the only begotten Son of God at the Jordan when he was anointed, in what sense was he God's Son before?  And again, how was he the ONLY one?  Many others had been anointed by God and many others had received of God's Holy Spirit before Jesus.

If Jesus became the only begotten Son of God when he was raised from the dead, we still have the problem of how was he a son before this.  We don't have the “only” problem anymore, even though others were raised from the dead, because he was the ONLY one so far to be raised from the dead to EVERLASTING life, as far as we know.  But that means his title of “the only begotten Son of God” is a temporary one, since others will soon follow, if some haven't already.  And that strikes me as strange.  I can easily understand the “firstborn” from the dead, but why the title of ONLY if it was clear even before he recieved this title that he wouldn't be the ONLY for long?  We also have the problem of how God GAVE His only begotten Son for our sins if he wasn't that until he had already died for our sins.  And the problem of how, if Jesus was raised to his previous glory, he wasn't already the only begotten Son of God before he was raised.  And if he was raised to a higher position than before, he must have been something LESS than God's only begotten Son before, which again means that God sacrificed someone of something OTHER than His only begotten Son for us.

Jesus is never referred to in the sense that he is just one of many anywhere in the Bible.  There is always a sense that he stands out as more special in his relationship with God than anyone else.  He is THE Word of God – the only one.  He is THE firstborn of all creation – the only one.  He is called “God's OWN Son” by Paul – the only one I believe that is said about.  He is God's ONLY begotten Son – the only one.  He is God's Messiah and Christ – the only one.  So when JA asserts that he is just one of God's many sons, it just doesn't click for me.  He was the only one whom everything was created through and for.  That means he had to be the first one with God.  And since it is abundantly clear that he is not God himself, he must have always been the next best thing.

That's how I see it and why I just take the words for what they say.  God begat him directly as the beginning of his life, therefore he is the ONLY begotten Son of God, for everything else was created through God's only begotten Son.  He was the firstborn of all creation simply because he is the first thing God ever caused to exist.  He is the beginning of the creation of God for the same reason.  It's simple in my mind, at least for now.

ps   See WJ?  I can do the “fling it all at you at once” thing too.  But does that mean that my beliefs are without a doubt correct?  And if you were to answer to ALL my points plus add yours, and then I refute your answers to my points, answer all of yours and make more of my own, you can see how our posts get so long and drawn out.  So please believe me when I say I DO want to address EVERY SINGLE point you have, just one at a time.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,13:58)

ps See WJ? I can do the “fling it all at you at once” thing too. But does that mean that my beliefs are without a doubt correct? And if you were to answer to ALL my points plus add yours, and then I refute your answers to my points, answer all of yours and make more of my own, you can see how our posts get so long and drawn out. So please believe me when I say I DO want to address EVERY SINGLE point you have, just one at a time.

Hi WJ,

Have you given any thought yet to a “moderator” or “judge” for this thread to keep things moving along smoothly? I think it would greatly help.

mike

[JustAskin]

SF,

It is the Spirit that reveals.

By myself I would know nothing but conjecture.

Pray to 'God Almighty' through Jesus Christ, our reigning Spiritual King, and acknowledge His greatness and glory.
Ask for forgiveness of your sins and the strength and desire to forgive your detractors.
Also, humility, wisdom and understanding in dealing with others and the relative amount of sensitility towards individuals.
Ask more so for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and enough self control not to abuse its power.
And finally, sign off with another acknowledgement of the power and majesty of God Almighty and the mediation of His honored Son, Jesus Christ.

(Add Sugar and adjust to taste)

[SimplyForgiven]

Ja,
Add sugar, spice, and everything right?
seems like your getting to know me, this is good.
God bless,

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 27 2010,13:58)

[? If Jesus became the only begotten Son of God at the Jordan when he was anointed, in what sense was he God's Son before?  And again, how was he the ONLY one?  Many others had been anointed by God and many others had received of God's Holy Spirit before Jesus.

Mike……..I believe Jesus was a son of God before his anointing Just as we are sons of God before we are anointed and as Adam Was. We all recieve our life from one God , Jesus even said before the apostles were anointed that there Father who was in Heaven, was their Father, He also told us to pray our Father who art in Heaven,again he said if we being Evil know how to give good gifts how much more does (your father in Heaven…….>

So to me there is this over all sense of the word Father that applies to all the human race and angles to. But that does not say we are begotten of GOD, until we recieve his Spirit into Us by the anointing we recieve. I also question the fact that before Jesus anyone actually recieved the Holy Spirit (INTO) them , While we are told others had Gods Spirit (ON) them and it was influencing them, I really do not believe they Had the Holy Seed (IN) them and that Jesus was the First to recieve it (INTO) HIM and later the apostles and others also. So Jesus is indeed the Firstborn and begotten of the Spirit or seed so to speak of God.

John said we (those who are anointed with God's Seed) are (NOW) the son of God, and we are exactly like Jesus and will see him the way He is , another word we will be exactly as he is.

This is a very deep and important subject to get it right will clear up much confusion. IMO.

May GOD bless our search and reveal the truth to us all.

peace and love………………..gene

[mikeboll64]

John is also the one who called Jesus the ONLY begotten AFTER John and the others were anointed with Holy Spirit. He also called Jesus the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD. Are John and the others “gods”? Were they begotten as gods by their anointing? Why is Jesus called the ONLY after others were similarly anointed?

peace and love,
mike

[Author]

Posts