- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
Are you taking an unfair advantage over your opponent 'to eventually be'?SF,
Should a moderator impose 'silence from Mike and WJ' until their debate starts?
Quote (JustAskin @ June 28 2010,01:21) Mike,
Are you taking an unfair advantage over your opponent 'to eventually be'?SF,
Should a moderator impose 'silence from Mike and WJ' until their debate starts?
Impose silence? I dont understandWJ,
Quote 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.
are you serious…. im tired of this, we are so going to get into this topic, i will create a thread to dicuss this,enough is enough!!!
To Mike and WJ,
here is the subject
“on begotten and firsborn, What the greek words really mean”my notes: sorry disregard these.
Is Monogenes now dropped?
title of Yaweh before revealed
Monogenes revealed by Christ in humanity
First born amoung brethern
discussion about Man, that he wasnt Man before time.
first adam topic,
page 4= everything starts over.
Ignatius said
To the Magnesians
Sorry i had to take small notes, i keep on forgettting what one said, and its to much for to qoute.This is what i see.
1)Based on the word Monogenes
First of all it is related to mankind, it is a condition but not a identity. So whether Monogenes is applied to Jesus before time or not is irrevalent becuase its a condition. This point should be dropped by both debaters.
MY example to support this would be argueing if God was a healer before time “Jehovah Rapha” even though pain wasnt present, he was a healer. This is not possible, even though God had the ability to heal, if pain is not present this manifestation or condition/role, cannot happen. Potential does not solve for effect.
So both should drop it.
2)Mikes first question, “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?”
HIs point about this, doesnt conclude to anything since Monogenes is a condition and not an identity. Unless Mike can prove how Monogenes is an identity and not a condition it should be dropped. because begotten is something that happens not a identity.
suggestion: Its better to debate whether Jesus was Jesus before revealed or If God was Father before revealed and because these are roles it makes more sense.3)There are a number of point that Mike didnt refute against WJ, but since this is point by point its ok.
4)Ignatius/To the Magnesians question was not answered by mike. which is still dealing with monogenes.
5) Mikes second question,
“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?”
This Question relates to the first and also should be dropped. unless you can prove how this is revelant to monogenes.
WJ can either answer by showing what was the purpose of Jesus becoming monogenes and the connecting it back to the point.
or Mike can show how Jesus was monogenes before nicodemus.6) to go back it seems that Mike said that the word monogenes wasnt found recorded before Jesus flesh but cameback with Psalms. so He either needs to reaffirm his psalms monogenes or drop it.
7) WJ hasnt answerd Mikes comment about John stating the begetting God, which i think Mike should post his scripture to support this cliam.
8) WJ cliams that Jesus doesnt have a beginning, I urge Mike to attack this. and which hasnt been refuted yet.
9) if the Sons of God has anything to do with the debate Mike needs to defend this point.
Whats Clear and shouldnt be argued.
>Jesus wasn't a man before he was born of Mary.
>Monogenes is a condition
>Identity doesnt solve for condition
>Anything before time is eternity
>There was a Beginning
>Monogenes has to do with temporal realityThese are my observations so far,
This isnt a offical debate so it shouldnt be take seriously.
this is what i see so far.note: that i added suggestions since this isnt offical.
usually i wouldnt, and i would just say its been dropped.Mike,
How is Isaac called the 'only [begotten] Son of Abraham' when the new testament Apostles knew that Abraham had many sons after Isaac, and one before?
Was it not because Isaac was the 'only [begotten] Son of the Covenant promise'? Hebrews 11:17.
Quote (JustAskin @ June 28 2010,02:59) Mike, How is Isaac called the 'only [begotten] Son of Abraham' when the new testament Apostles knew that Abraham had many sons after Isaac, and one before?
Was it not because Isaac was the 'only [begotten] Son of the Covenant promise'? Hebrews 11:17.
i missed that, great observationSF,
Did you then also miss in the same chapter that Isaac 'figuratively died and was reborn' as Christ was 'literally dead and was reborn'
And in Hebrews 5:5, '…Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was [God] who said to him:
“You are my son, Today I have begotten you'So, was 'he' Christ then already, when he was 'begotten/born'?
And also High Priest in the order of Melchizedek…who had not yet existed….?Quote (JustAskin @ June 28 2010,03:54) SF, Did you then also miss in the same chapter that Isaac 'figuratively died and was reborn' as Christ was 'literally dead and was reborn'
And in Hebrews 5:5, '…Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest, but it was [God] who said to him:
“You are my son, Today I have begotten you'So, was 'he' Christ then already, when he was 'begotten/born'?
And also High Priest in the order of Melchizedek…who had not yet existed….?
Ja,
lol are WE debating now?
I didnt understand your pointsHi Dennison,
I really appreciate the time you spent on researching for this post. And I am sorry, but we do not need you to determine what points are valid or not in this debate. I asked you to come on board to enforce us BOTH to answer the questions posed by the opposition. Since we are going ONE POINT AT A TIME, there is ONLY ONE QUESTION to enforce right now. The rest of your views are irrelevant, for we haven't even got to them yet. WJ is practicing the “everything at the speed of light” strategy, but that's not how this is going to go. When I started this thread, it was because WJ's long post had many valid points that needed to be addressed. And I will get to each and every one of them ONE POINT AT A TIME.
This is where we are:
WJ said:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?Then I said:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Not that scripture records.Then WJ said:
Quote Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part. And the ONLY point I've tried to get across so far is that the same thing he just said also applies to his view. Just because we didn't KNOW that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until a certain point in history IS NOT proof that he wasn't the only begotten Son of God before the time that we found out.
My only question that WJ needs to answer is:
Does the fact that we didn't KNOW Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until a certain time qualify as PROOF POSITIVE that he absolutely could NOT have been the only begotten Son of God BEFORE WE KNEW ABOUT IT?
Remember, this thread is dedicated to answering all of WJ's points, not mine. I haven't got to mine yet. I honestly and DIRECTLY answered him that it is absolutely NOT proof that Jesus WAS the only begotten Son of God before we knew about it. Now I want the playing field leveled because anyone in their right mind knows that it is also not proof that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God just because we weren't privy to the info yet. There might be proof out there, but this is definitely not it – and I want him to admit that so we can move on to HIS next point.
Dennison, please advise him to answer my very DIRECT and honest question that I have asked at least 6 times and in 6 different ways. It only requires a yes or a no.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,06:02) Hi Dennison, I really appreciate the time you spent on researching for this post. And I am sorry, but we do not need you to determine what points are valid or not in this debate. I asked you to come on board to enforce us BOTH to answer the questions posed by the opposition. Since we are going ONE POINT AT A TIME, there is ONLY ONE QUESTION to enforce right now. The rest of your views are irrelevant, for we haven't even got to them yet. WJ is practicing the “everything at the speed of light” strategy, but that's not how this is going to go. When I started this thread, it was because WJ's long post had many valid points that needed to be addressed. And I will get to each and every one of them ONE POINT AT A TIME.
This is where we are:
WJ said:
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39)
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?Then I said:
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45)
Not that scripture records.Then WJ said:
Quote Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part. And the ONLY point I've tried to get across so far is that the same thing he just said also applies to his view. Just because we didn't KNOW that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until a certain point in history IS NOT proof that he wasn't the only begotten Son of God before the time that we found out.
My only question that WJ needs to answer is:
Does the fact that we didn't KNOW Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until a certain time qualify as PROOF POSITIVE that he absolutely could NOT have been the only begotten Son of God BEFORE WE KNEW ABOUT IT?
Remember, this thread is dedicated to answering all of WJ's points, not mine. I haven't got to mine yet. I honestly and DIRECTLY answered him that it is absolutely NOT proof that Jesus WAS the only begotten Son of God before we knew about it. Now I want the playing field leveled because anyone in their right mind knows that it is also not proof that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God just because we weren't privy to the info yet. There might be proof out there, but this is definitely not it – and I want him to admit that so we can move on to HIS next point.
Dennison, please advise him to answer my very DIRECT and honest question that I have asked at least 6 times and in 6 different ways. It only requires a yes or a no.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
If you read my reply, It talks about that question.BUT let me ask,
do you want WJ to admit or refute
that Mankind NOT knowing Jesus was monogenes is proof?
Mike
by the way i stated these are just my observations.
I Said:Quote These are my observations so far,
This isnt a offical debate so it shouldnt be take seriously.
this is what i see so far.note: that i added suggestions since this isnt offical.
usually i wouldnt, and i would just say its been dropped.Quote (JustAskin @ June 28 2010,08:59) Mike, How is Isaac called the 'only [begotten] Son of Abraham' when the new testament Apostles knew that Abraham had many sons after Isaac, and one before?
Was it not because Isaac was the 'only [begotten] Son of the Covenant promise'? Hebrews 11:17.
Okay JA,Let me lay it out for you. Let's do a little test.
1. Isaac was the ONLY son of Abraham. T/F
2. Isaac was BEGOTTEN of Abraham. T/F
The answer to #1 is False. The answer to #2 is True. So when Isaac is referred to as the “only begotten” son of Abraham, it is not the “begotten” part that is in question, for Isaac was most definitely “caused to exist” by Abraham – it is the “only” part that makes us think.
But you guys switch this around for Jesus. You don't argue that the “only” part doesn't fit – you argue that the “begotten” part means something different than it's natural meaning of “caused to exist”.
Now, we know from scripture that Abraham had other children, so Isaac wasnt' his “only” one. But……do we know from scripture that God begat more than one Son? Not created, but procreated.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,12:08) Mike,
If you read my reply, It talks about that question.BUT let me ask,
do you want WJ to admit or refute
that Mankind NOT knowing Jesus was monogenes is proof?
Hi Dennison,This is what I said before:
Quote 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.
And that is all I want now. Either explain to me how it IS proof, or admit that it ISN'T.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,06:21) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,12:08) Mike,
If you read my reply, It talks about that question.BUT let me ask,
do you want WJ to admit or refute
that Mankind NOT knowing Jesus was monogenes is proof?
Hi Dennison,This is what I said before:
Quote 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.
And that is all I want now. Either explain to me how it IS proof, or admit that it ISN'T.
mike
Mikeim not Wj to answer that.
but i dont think thats what WJ was claiming.
His claim was something different.Are you SERIOUS, man?
He said:
Quote
Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.Then I said so what? It's only conjecture on YOUR part too, because us not knowing about something doesn't mean that same something didn't happen, right? And ever since, I've been railroaded. And now it seems by you, too.
Maybe you can answer, Dennison. Is the fact that we didn't KNOW that Jesus was God's only begotten Son until a certain time PROOF that Jesus WASN'T God's only begotten Son until that time that we found out about it?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,07:32) Are you SERIOUS, man? He said:
Quote
Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.Then I said so what? It's only conjecture on YOUR part too, because us not knowing about something doesn't mean that same something didn't happen, right? And ever since, I've been railroaded. And now it seems by you, too.
Maybe you can answer, Dennison. Is the fact that we didn't KNOW that Jesus was God's only begotten Son until a certain time PROOF that Jesus WASN'T God's only begotten Son until that time that we found out about it?
mike
Mike,I would have to agree with Wj on this.
again, Mongenes is a condition.
i already stated a example.
God is a healer. and God isnt “Jehovah rapha”(Lord is the Healer) until pain is presented. Even though God has pontential to be Healer doesnt mean he is until pain is present.
In other words this is a condition, a role.
To go back to your logic.
The proof isnt about our revelation of Jesus, the proof is that he wasnt truely manifested as felsh or monogenes until that point and time.Which means the former condition of Christ as creator is differenet.
your jehovah revelation cannot be compared to monogenes.
Jehovah is Gods idenitity,
Monogenes is Jesus condition. A result.
to answer your question directly
Our revelation is irrevelant. Its the Fact of what happen is what has validation.
begetting is an occurance, a role.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,13:43) to answer your question directly Our revelation is irrevelant. Its the Fact of what happen is what has validation.
begetting is an occurance, a role.
Hmmmm….in all that “manifesto” beliefs of yours – which btw, we're not discussing, you forgot to answer the simple yes or no question I asked of you.Is the fact that we didn't KNOW that Jesus was God's only begotten Son until a certain time PROOF that Jesus WASN'T God's only begotten Son until that time that we found out about it?
Yes or no, Dennison.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,07:47) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,13:43) to answer your question directly Our revelation is irrevelant. Its the Fact of what happen is what has validation.
begetting is an occurance, a role.
Hmmmm….in all that “manifesto” beliefs of yours – which btw, we're not discussing, you forgot to answer the simple yes or no question I asked of you.Is the fact that we didn't KNOW that Jesus was God's only begotten Son until a certain time PROOF that Jesus WASN'T God's only begotten Son until that time that we found out about it?
Yes or no, Dennison.
mike
lol manifesto mike?,
this is your response.
your question is irrevalent to the subject of monogenes.
It wouldnt matter either way.Its not proof either way what ever is revealed to us.
Its about what HAPPEN.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,13:56) your question is irrevalent to the subject of monogenes.
It wouldnt matter either way.Its not proof either way what ever is revealed to us.
My question didn't have two ways – so the “either way” comment doesn't apply. Nor does the “irrelevant” comment. It is relevant to me, so please, just a yes or a no.Is the fact that we didn't KNOW that Jesus was God's only begotten Son until a certain time PROOF that Jesus WASN'T God's only begotten Son until that time that we found out about it?
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
