- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,14:14) Mike, WJ ill test the waters for you,
I will say NO.
Why on earth should a person have to ask a simple question so many times and go through so much havoc to get a simple answer? Wow! That was like pulling teeth. Thank you! Now if you were WJ, we'd be moving on to his next point.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,08:23) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 28 2010,14:14) Mike, WJ ill test the waters for you,
I will say NO.
Why on earth should a person have to ask a simple question so many times and go through so much havoc to get a simple answer? Wow! That was like pulling teeth. Thank you! Now if you were WJ, we'd be moving on to his next point.mike
Because it smells badQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,06:02) Hi Dennison,
“everything at the speed of light” strategy,
I love it mike,we are starting to state these fallacys within the forum lol.
What should we call your fallacy…
“starting over” stradegy?
How about this.
Mike and WJ decide a simple tictac system and get on with it.
One question – one post.
The moderator decides if the responder has responded to the question …sort of… and a query back is inline with the topic.
All points are bulletted, page number, post number on page., eg, p4:6:2, meaning, 2nd point in 6th post on page 4.
There should be no need to 'quote the whole of a preceeding post' just refer to bulleted points …or quote the single point if it for clarity, eg, not on the same page.
Very simple. Time limit for response as stated. Penalty for failing to keep to rules ..a noted yellow card, then a red card then debate over sent off.
Mearcat simples!
Mike……….I have done some research on the Only Begotten phrase in scripture, and according to what i have read the word begotten has be added the Hebrew word used there is one word (ONLY) and translators added (Begotten) there. Check it out , type in Only begotten definition on the INTERNET. Tell me what you think brother.
peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 27 2010,21:56) 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.
BingoI have been away, but will answer Mikes diversional post again.
I can't respond at the moment, but will soon.
I will say this, if Mike would only “READ” my post with comprehension then he would see I specifically answered him.
So Mike, go back and read carefully what I said. I will be back soon.
I have been saying all along his question is irrelevent, but I answered him with a straight yes or no answer, now do me a favour Mike and go find it.
This is proof that when you give Mike answers then he continues asking the same questions or rephrases the question as if it is a new one!
WJ
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 27 2010,23:02) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,06:02) Hi Dennison,
“everything at the speed of light” strategy,
I love it mike,we are starting to state these fallacys within the forum lol.
What should we call your fallacy…
“starting over” stradegy?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2010,02:19) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 27 2010,21:56) 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.
BingoI have been away, but will answer Mikes diversional post again.
I can't respond at the moment, but will soon.
I will say this, if Mike would only “READ” my post with comprehension then he would see I specifically answered him.
So Mike, go back and read carefully what I said. I will be back soon.
I have been saying all along his question is irrelevent, but I answered him with a straight yes or no answer, now do me a favour Mike and go find it.
This is proof that when you give Mike answers then he continues asking the same questions or rephrases the question as if it is a new one!
WJ
Hi Keith,Not only does Mike's tactic divert from scripture but it also deflects from the fact that he has lost the argument scripturally.
He has said twice now that he has no scriptural evidence that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation:
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
Mike replied:Quote Not that scripture records.
There was also the statement he made to me on March 30:“When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.“
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=3900
Mike creates diversions in the hopes that people will forget that he has TWICE admitted that his views on monogenes lack scriptural support.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 28 2010,11:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2010,02:19) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 27 2010,21:56) 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.
BingoI have been away, but will answer Mikes diversional post again.
I can't respond at the moment, but will soon.
I will say this, if Mike would only “READ” my post with comprehension then he would see I specifically answered him.
So Mike, go back and read carefully what I said. I will be back soon.
I have been saying all along his question is irrelevent, but I answered him with a straight yes or no answer, now do me a favour Mike and go find it.
This is proof that when you give Mike answers then he continues asking the same questions or rephrases the question as if it is a new one!
WJ
Hi Keith,Not only does Mike's tactic divert from scripture but it also deflects from the fact that he has lost the argument scripturally.
He has said twice now that he has no scriptural evidence that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation:
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
Mike replied:Quote Not that scripture records.
There was also the statement he made to me on March 30:“When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.“
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=3900
Mike creates diversions in the hopes that people will forget that he has TWICE admitted that his views on monogenes lack scriptural support.
Jack
JackMike also admitted this…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) 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.
Yet he keeps wanting to make the argument that Jesus was procreated before he came in the flesh!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2010,03:15) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 28 2010,11:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 29 2010,02:19) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 27 2010,21:56) 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.
BingoI have been away, but will answer Mikes diversional post again.
I can't respond at the moment, but will soon.
I will say this, if Mike would only “READ” my post with comprehension then he would see I specifically answered him.
So Mike, go back and read carefully what I said. I will be back soon.
I have been saying all along his question is irrelevent, but I answered him with a straight yes or no answer, now do me a favour Mike and go find it.
This is proof that when you give Mike answers then he continues asking the same questions or rephrases the question as if it is a new one!
WJ
Hi Keith,Not only does Mike's tactic divert from scripture but it also deflects from the fact that he has lost the argument scripturally.
He has said twice now that he has no scriptural evidence that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation:
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?
Mike replied:Quote Not that scripture records.
There was also the statement he made to me on March 30:“When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.“
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….st=3900
Mike creates diversions in the hopes that people will forget that he has TWICE admitted that his views on monogenes lack scriptural support.
Jack
JackMike also admitted this…
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) 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.
Yet he keeps wanting to make the argument that Jesus was procreated before he came in the flesh!
WJ
Keith,What makes Mikeboll tick? I just can't figure out the man.
Jack
Quote (JustAskin @ June 28 2010,12:50) How about this. Mike and WJ decide a simple tictac system and get on with it.
One question – one post.
The moderator decides if the responder has responded to the question …sort of… and a query back is inline with the topic.
All points are bulletted, page number, post number on page., eg, p4:6:2, meaning, 2nd point in 6th post on page 4.
There should be no need to 'quote the whole of a preceeding post' just refer to bulleted points …or quote the single point if it for clarity, eg, not on the same page.
Very simple. Time limit for response as stated. Penalty for failing to keep to rules ..a noted yellow card, then a red card then debate over sent off.
Mearcat simples!
Ja,
Were you inspired by the World Cup?Hi All,
In an effort to save time, I'm adressing this to Dennison, Keith, Jack and JA.
I said:
Quote Why on earth should a person have to ask a simple question so many times and go through so much havoc to get a simple answer? Wow! That was like pulling teeth. Thank you! Now if you were WJ, we'd be moving on to his next point. Dennison said:
Quote Because it smells bad I don't even know what that means. It was a very simple question that required only a yes or no answer. It should have been answered the very first time I asked it.
Dennison said:
Quote What should we call your fallacy… “starting over” stradegy?
WJ seemed to think that was funny. I challenge any of you to show where I wanted to start over in this thead. This thread started when I posted a response from WJ from another thread. I could have just ignored his post altogether, but instead I started this thread with the sole intent of addressing each and every one of his points in that post ONE AT A TIME. I lettered the points a-n. And I have been trying desparately to get some closure on point “a” so we can move on. So what does “starting over” mean? We've never left point “a” yet.
JA said:
Quote How about this.
Mike and WJ decide a simple tictac system and get on with it.
One question – one post.
The moderator decides if the responder has responded to the question …sort of… and a query back is inline with the topic.Perfect! That's what I wanted from the start. I would change your “inline with the topic” to “inline with that particular point”. And I don't care for the bullet idea. I don't want to spend my time flipping between pages to see what he did and didn't say. WJ and I both prefer to post the quote of the other so anyone can see the whole of what's being answered.
WJ said:
Quote I have been away, but will answer Mikes diversional post again. I have been saying all along his question is irrelevent, but I answered him with a straight yes or no answer, now do me a favour Mike and go find it.
First, NO! There is no “post” for you to answer, only one simple question. Second, I will not go back and look for it through your long posts. I asked only one question, I bolded it, I asked you to ONLY answer one question. As soon as I saw that your responses had what looked like more than one answer to one question, I stopped reading them. I will not look for the answer to one simple question in the middle of pages of propaganda. And if you DID give me a yes or no answer in the middle of all the other words, then why didn't you say, “I already answered that…..see, here is the quote of my answer”? We could have moved on then. And what's the big deal, anyway? Are you only capable of answering a certain question once? So if someone else doesn't see it, and they ask again, you just blow them off? That doesn't seem productive to a discussion.
Jack said……Nevermind, it wasn't anything useful or constructive anyway – just more ridicules and insults from our loving Christian brother.
In my following post, I will move on to YOUR second point, WJ. If you post anything in response to anything I've already posted, I will ignore it also. Listen carefully! I will ONLY move ahead at the pace of ONE POINT AT A TIME. So, when I answer your second point, any responses you give are to be addressing ONLY that second point. If you move off the second point, I will not read your post, and I will ask any questions again as if they were never answered. Can you understand this? ONLY address your original second point, OR my rebuttal(s) of it. I will bold any questions that need to be answered by you.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Gene Balthrop @ June 29 2010,02:01) Mike……….I have done some research on the Only Begotten phrase in scripture, and according to what i have read the word begotten has be added the Hebrew word used there is one word (ONLY) and translators added (Begotten) there. Check it out , type in Only begotten definition on the INTERNET. Tell me what you think brother. peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
Hi Gene,I will check it out sometime, but the “only begottens” that I'm interested in right now are the Greek ones, not the Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek.
peace and love,
mikeHi WJ,
After much unecessarily waisted time, we have closure on your point “a”. To summarize, you asserted I can't prove Jesus was the only begotten Son of God from ONLY the fact that he wasn't known as that before he came in flesh. I said that although he was called that in Psalm 2:7, I agree that no one at that time knew that it was Jesus who was talked about. I agreed (immediately and directly) with your assertion.
I asked you if the fact that we didn't KNOW Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until he came in the flesh was proof that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE that time. You, (apparently, and with much unecessary ado) have stated that this fact ONLY is NOT proof that Jesus couldn't have already been the only begotten Son of God.
Regardless of what you and Dennison think, that acknowledgement is VERY RELEVANT, for with it, I have successfully nullified your point “a”. It needs never be brought up again, for we both admit that it proves nothing.
So, on to your point “b”.
Quote b. We have but you are not listening! It doesn’t matter if you say that Jesus was “begotten” before Jesus came in the flesh or not, for three reasons… 1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3.
What is before time Mike? Its called eternity!
3. The church Fathers including the earliest and most credible, “Ignatius” never speaks of Jesus having a beginning and in fact as I have shown Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh! I think Ignatius knows more than Eusebius about Jesus origin since he is close to John who wrote John 1:1, don't you?
Your point “b” is broken up into three points. I will answer them a point at a time.
B-1.
Quote 1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh. This is a null and void point both because of Psalm 2:7 and our agreement that it proves nothing.
So I will move on to B-2.
Quote 2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3. B-2 First part:
Quote There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning First, there are many scriptures that tell us Jesus had a beginning. (Psalm 2:7; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Prov 8:12,22,25-26) I will discuss any of them with you Keith, but pick ONE AT A TIME. Better yet, let's wait on these scriptures until after we do your B-3. There's no sense discussing them now since we disagree on the meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis”. Agreed?
B-2 Second part:
Quote but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. You assert that since the Word was in the beginning with God, he was before time. Genesis 1:1 says, 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”?
Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning?
B-2 Third part:
Quote Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3. This is conjecture on your part. I find it hard to believe that John had an accurate understanding of Einsteins' theory of relativity or the space/time continuum in the 1st century. And despite what Dennison tries to assert, none of us know anything about whether God exists “in time” or “outside of time” or “within space” or “outside of space”. So while I seriously doubt John had “time and space” in mind when he said that,
Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him?
Listen, Keith. These are points that YOU made and my rebuttals of them. Deal with ONLY these points and my rebuttals, please. In other words, I shouldn't see anything about Ignatius in your next post.
I have bolded the questions that I specifically want answered.peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2010,11:30) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 29 2010,02:01) Mike……….I have done some research on the Only Begotten phrase in scripture, and according to what i have read the word begotten has be added the Hebrew word used there is one word (ONLY) and translators added (Begotten) there. Check it out , type in Only begotten definition on the INTERNET. Tell me what you think brother. peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
Hi Gene,I will check it out sometime, but the “only begottens” that I'm interested in right now are the Greek ones, not the Hebrew. The NT was written in Greek.
peace and love,
mike
Mike….actually the new testament was written in Aramaic and Hebrew (originally) but translated later into Greek is the way i recall. let me give you and example of mistranslation. Remember when Jesus said it would be easer for a “Camel” to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Well the identical word used for camel in the Aramaic language is Rope. So just insert Rope there and it makes a lot more sense what Jesus was saying.Mike i am not saying that that is true with the word Begotten , but it was interesting how it is questioned by scholars.
peace and love to you and your brother……………………gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2010,05:26) Hi All, In an effort to save time, I'm adressing this to Dennison, Keith, Jack and JA.
I said:
Quote Why on earth should a person have to ask a simple question so many times and go through so much havoc to get a simple answer? Wow! That was like pulling teeth. Thank you! Now if you were WJ, we'd be moving on to his next point. Dennison said:
Quote Because it smells bad I don't even know what that means. It was a very simple question that required only a yes or no answer. It should have been answered the very first time I asked it.
Dennison said:
Quote What should we call your fallacy… “starting over” stradegy?
WJ seemed to think that was funny. I challenge any of you to show where I wanted to start over in this thead. This thread started when I posted a response from WJ from another thread. I could have just ignored his post altogether, but instead I started this thread with the sole intent of addressing each and every one of his points in that post ONE AT A TIME. I lettered the points a-n. And I have been trying desparately to get some closure on point “a” so we can move on. So what does “starting over” mean? We've never left point “a” yet.
JA said:
Quote How about this.
Mike and WJ decide a simple tictac system and get on with it.
One question – one post.
The moderator decides if the responder has responded to the question …sort of… and a query back is inline with the topic.Perfect! That's what I wanted from the start. I would change your “inline with the topic” to “inline with that particular point”. And I don't care for the bullet idea. I don't want to spend my time flipping between pages to see what he did and didn't say. WJ and I both prefer to post the quote of the other so anyone can see the whole of what's being answered.
WJ said:
Quote I have been away, but will answer Mikes diversional post again. I have been saying all along his question is irrelevent, but I answered him with a straight yes or no answer, now do me a favour Mike and go find it.
First, NO! There is no “post” for you to answer, only one simple question. Second, I will not go back and look for it through your long posts. I asked only one question, I bolded it, I asked you to ONLY answer one question. As soon as I saw that your responses had what looked like more than one answer to one question, I stopped reading them. I will not look for the answer to one simple question in the middle of pages of propaganda. And if you DID give me a yes or no answer in the middle of all the other words, then why didn't you say, “I already answered that…..see, here is the quote of my answer”? We could have moved on then. And what's the big deal, anyway? Are you only capable of answering a certain question once? So if someone else doesn't see it, and they ask again, you just blow them off? That doesn't seem productive to a discussion.
Jack said……Nevermind, it wasn't anything useful or constructive anyway – just more ridicules and insults from our loving Christian brother.
In my following post, I will move on to YOUR second point, WJ. If you post anything in response to anything I've already posted, I will ignore it also. Listen carefully! I will ONLY move ahead at the pace of ONE POINT AT A TIME. So, when I answer your second point, any responses you give are to be addressing ONLY that second point. If you move off the second point, I will not read your post, and I will ask any questions again as if they were never answered. Can you understand this? ONLY address your original second point, OR my rebuttal(s) of it. I will bold any questions that need to be answered by you.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,When i say it smells, its because im saying yoru question seems supscious and i was right.
in this thread?
you didnt start over, i was playing a joke on you.
Which you did to me on the other thread FYI.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 29 2010,06:45) Hi WJ, After much unecessarily waisted time, we have closure on your point “a”. To summarize, you asserted I can't prove Jesus was the only begotten Son of God from ONLY the fact that he wasn't known as that before he came in flesh. I said that although he was called that in Psalm 2:7, I agree that no one at that time knew that it was Jesus who was talked about. I agreed (immediately and directly) with your assertion.
I asked you if the fact that we didn't KNOW Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until he came in the flesh was proof that he WASN'T the only begotten Son of God BEFORE that time. You, (apparently, and with much unecessary ado) have stated that this fact ONLY is NOT proof that Jesus couldn't have already been the only begotten Son of God.
Regardless of what you and Dennison think, that acknowledgement is VERY RELEVANT, for with it, I have successfully nullified your point “a”. It needs never be brought up again, for we both admit that it proves nothing.
So, on to your point “b”.
Quote b. We have but you are not listening! It doesn’t matter if you say that Jesus was “begotten” before Jesus came in the flesh or not, for three reasons… 1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3.
What is before time Mike? Its called eternity!
3. The church Fathers including the earliest and most credible, “Ignatius” never speaks of Jesus having a beginning and in fact as I have shown Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh! I think Ignatius knows more than Eusebius about Jesus origin since he is close to John who wrote John 1:1, don't you?
Your point “b” is broken up into three points. I will answer them a point at a time.
B-1.
Quote 1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh. This is a null and void point both because of Psalm 2:7 and our agreement that it proves nothing.
So I will move on to B-2.
Quote 2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3. B-2 First part:
Quote There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning First, there are many scriptures that tell us Jesus had a beginning. (Psalm 2:7; John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9; Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Prov 8:12,22,25-26) I will discuss any of them with you Keith, but pick ONE AT A TIME. Better yet, let's wait on these scriptures until after we do your B-3. There's no sense discussing them now since we disagree on the meaning of “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis”. Agreed?
B-2 Second part:
Quote but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. You assert that since the Word was in the beginning with God, he was before time. Genesis 1:1 says, 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Were the heavens and the earth also “before time”?
Does Genesis nullify your “beginning” theory as NOT proof that Jesus DID NOT have a beginning?
B-2 Third part:
Quote Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3. This is conjecture on your part. I find it hard to believe that John had an accurate understanding of Einsteins' theory of relativity or the space/time continuum in the 1st century. And despite what Dennison tries to assert, none of us know anything about whether God exists “in time” or “outside of time” or “within space” or “outside of space”. So while I seriously doubt John had “time and space” in mind when he said that,
Is it a POSSIBILITY that Jesus could have been begotten before time, and then God created time and space and matter through him?
Listen, Keith. These are points that YOU made and my rebuttals of them. Deal with ONLY these points and my rebuttals, please. In other words, I shouldn't see anything about Ignatius in your next post.
I have bolded the questions that I specifically want answered.peace and love,
mike
Hi mike,Let me defend only my points that were addressed to me, and ill let WJ defend his.
Ill start with your intro so i can once again clarify.
Its simple, US knowing whether Chirst was called mongenes doesnt matter before monogenes.
Our revelations doesnt matter.
But that wasnt the point that WJ presented nor I.
I am stating that Monogenes is a condition, a moment in time, where is applied. He was begetton so it was a moment in time.
Its like talking about my 18th year which for most thats the age when a boy turns into a man,
iTs like your argueing, well Dennison we werent revealed you were 18 before, nor the other way. Again our revelation wouldnt matter if before anything happend, the fact is that in that day i turned 18 years old. That means that happen once in that day.
This is the same thing we are trying to point out to you. we see it as an event, not an identity.
Thats what i think WJ is trying to say.
But thats the way i see it.
So point “a” is open again, because we need to be clear what monogenes is, is it an identity, a moment in time? what is its purpose, and what does it mean?
Note: God said Today i have begotten thee.Quote First, there are many scriptures that tell us Jesus had a beginning. I would like WJ to clarify that point. Thank your for listening my suggestion mike,
Quote This is conjecture on your part. I find it hard to believe that John had an accurate understanding of Einsteins' theory of relativity or the space/time continuum in the 1st century. And despite what Dennison tries to assert, none of us know anything about whether God exists “in time” or “outside of time” or “within space” or “outside of space”. So while I seriously doubt John had “time and space” in mind when he said that,
Mike do you even know what your saying. We live in TIME, and its obvious through simple observation that God exists within time, AND ENTERNITY IS WITHOUT TIME! Gods is above time. why are you going back on your own words. wasnt it you who said that God can do ANYTHING. So God is in everything and above everything. Its very simple. John had an understanding that There was a begining and anything before that is just God. what are you trying to say that im asserting mike? You think Einstein came up with Gods creation? ISnt it God who inspired the scriptures. Did you know that the bible expressed that the world was round before the theory?Anyways Jesus created all those things. he CREATED all.
He created time, he created what takes up space, and what has mass.SimplyForgiven said:
Quote Anyways Jesus created all those things. he CREATED all.
He created time, he created what takes up space, and what has mass.
Amen and Amen!the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 30 2010,06:58) SimplyForgiven said: Quote Anyways Jesus created all those things. he CREATED all.
He created time, he created what takes up space, and what has mass.
Amen and Amen!the Roo
sf,Trinitarians have the testimony of the Father Himself:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Mikeboll has tried to debunk the Father's testimony but to no avail. If the Father was Mike's God like he claims, then he would not argue about it.
KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 30 2010,01:04) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 30 2010,06:58) SimplyForgiven said: Quote Anyways Jesus created all those things. he CREATED all.
He created time, he created what takes up space, and what has mass.
Amen and Amen!the Roo
sf,Trinitarians have the testimony of the Father Himself:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Mikeboll has tried to debunk the Father's testimony but to no avail. If the Father was Mike's God like he claims, then he would not argue about it.
KJ
What scripture is this KJ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
