- This topic is empty.
- Posts
WJ………You Still have not looked up and posted the word used there for (through) and not the word Used for (FOR) why is that WJ? could there be some descriptions you may not want to be brought out. Let me help you out a little seeing you don't really want to.
dia or pronounced dee-ah'………> a primary preposition denoting the Channel of an act: through (in a very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retain the same general import:- After, alway, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause)….fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, By reason of, for sake (of), that (of) thereby, therefore, X through, through (-out, to, wherefore (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
Spin the wheel Vanna, take you pick , Let see if i decide i wan to use the words because of would that also work WJ or what about the word For, God created it For Jesus or because of Him . So preexistences and Trinitarians Bot chose (through) as If Jesus did It himslef because after all according to Trinitarians Jesus was GOD almighty right?. And again there is just the Preexistences who also chose the word through for there preexistence ideologies. So pick and choose because there are plenty of Picks available right.
Now lets consider the word (For) used in Rom 11:36….hoti…hot'-ee….. A Neuter of G748 as conjugation demonstrative that (sometimes redundant) ; causatively Because;-as concerning that , as though, because (that), for (that), how (that), (in) that, through, why.
Spin the wheel again Vanna, so lets see which on can we use o it depend on what you believe right> We can force the text to come out any way we want it to . As Trinitarians and preexistences do.
Now i chose to use the meaning for For (because of) him (GOD) in there and For the Word Through i Chose (By reason of) him (GOD) So let me quote it as I read it WJ.
Rom 11:36, For of GOD, and by the reason of GOD and to GOD are all things: to whom be glory forever Amen.
The reason i said start with verse 32 is because if you had you would have know it was God the Father in the first place WJ. IMO
peace and love to you and yours……………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 30 2010,11:21) Now i chose to use the meaning for For (because of) him (GOD) in there and For the Word Through i Chose (By reason of) him (GOD) So let me quote it as I read it WJ. Rom 11:36, For of GOD, and by the reason of GOD and to GOD are all things: to whom be glory forever Amen.
The reason i said start with verse 32 is because if you had you would have know it was God the Father in the first place WJ. IMO
GeneSo do you read Greek and are you an authority over the translation of the text!
Most translations render it…
For of him, and through (Dia) him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:36
As I said, I know, the word “dia” means both through and by.
The Arians say there is a difference but the reality is there is no difference according to the scritpures…
For of him, and “THROUGH HIM, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:36
If you say the above scripture is the Father then it is true that the Father created everything through himself also.
If you say the above scripture is Jesus, then you have to admit that in context it is God that Paul is speaking of.
Paul uses the same language in 1 Cor 8:6 for Jesus.
Almost every major translation renders Rom 11:36 through.
Of course we know how you have chosen!
Either way you lose!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,04:00) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 30 2010,11:21) Now i chose to use the meaning for For (because of) him (GOD) in there and For the Word Through i Chose (By reason of) him (GOD) So let me quote it as I read it WJ. Rom 11:36, For of GOD, and by the reason of GOD and to GOD are all things: to whom be glory forever Amen.
The reason i said start with verse 32 is because if you had you would have know it was God the Father in the first place WJ. IMO
GeneSo do you read Greek and are you an authority over the translation of the text!
Most translations render it…
For of him, and through (Dia) him, and to him, [are] all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:36
As I said, I know, the word “dia” means both through and by.
The Arians say there is a difference but the reality is there is no difference according to the scritpures…
For of him, and “THROUGH HIM, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Rom 11:36
If you say the above scripture is the Father then it is true that the Father created everything through himself also.
If you say the above scripture is Jesus, then you have to admit that in context it is God that Paul is speaking of.
Paul uses the same language in 1 Cor 8:6 for Jesus.
Almost every major translation renders Rom 11:36 through.
Of course we know how you have chosen!
Either way you lose!
WJ
Keith,So Gene still argues with the Father who he claims is his God. The Father said that the Son created the heavens and the earth with His own hands (Heb. 1:8-10). Therefore, “through” means “by.”
All things were created “BY” Him (Jesus) and “FOR” Him (Jesus).
Jack
WJ……….Again start with verse 32 and go to verse 36 how do you think is is talking about Jesus or GOD the father. And another thing you left off all the other meanings like Because of that fits there just as well . So it could just as easily read
All things were created because of Him (GOD) and For Him (GOD) the FATHER that is. IMO and the proceeding verses back this up right?
peace and love………………….gene
WJ…………I was just trying to show you that many word have a whole host of meanings in the Greek translations. That is unfortunate but none the less true. So we need to consider the whole Bible in context to make a proper determination. And you know as will as i that GOD Said He created everything (ALONE and BY HIMSELF) and You also know Jesus said in Prayer “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD” Why try to change that to mean something else in the First place. WJ. Why can't you see Jesus exactly as one of Us in every way a human being from mankind the first to be raised from the dead and given eternal life. An example of the fulfillment of Gods plan from the beginning. Do you feel like Jesus being a Purely human being some How belittles Him in any way. I find just the opposite it bonds me closer to him when i see him exactly as one of Us and I see how God can by his power cause us to be just like Jesus and save us the same way i have Hope that if God could do it for a human being exactly like me he can do it for another and even Me also. Jesus is my example of what God can do in man by his Holy Spirit and power. Jesus given ME Hope in GOD the FATHER the same Hope and Faith He had. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 30 2010,02:11) Mike….actually the new testament was written in Aramaic and Hebrew (originally) but translated later into Greek is the way i recall.
Hi Gene,The NT was written in Koine Greek – with the possible exception of Matthew – which MAY have been written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 30 2010,06:17) Mike, When i say it smells, its because im saying yoru question seems supscious and i was right.
Hi Dennison,There was nothing “suspicious” about it at all. WJ said the term monogenes wasn't applied to Jesus until he was flesh. After pointing out that it actually was applied to him before, I just wanted to clarify that he wasn't implying this was some kind of proof that Jesus wasn't begotten until he was flesh.
It's not any kind of proof, and I wanted him to admit that, that's all.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ June 30 2010,06:17) in this thread?
you didnt start over, i was playing a joke on you.
Thank you for your honesty.mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ June 30 2010,06:20) 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?
Do you even know what point “a” is, Dennison? Did you not get the part where I started this thread to point by point answer WJ's questions? Was one of WJ's questions “Is monogenes an identity or a moment in time?”? No, I don't remember that question.I should have made this a debate thread.
But I don't mind everyone's thoughts on the matter of monogenes and prototokos pasa ktisis. I just wish you would all follow the protocol of the thread. And that is: to answer every one of WJ's (not yours) points one by one. If you and WJ say that point “a” is not done, then let's revist it so you all can start saying I keep asking the same question over and over. (Hint, answer the question and I promise I'll stop asking it.
)WJ's point “a” is this:
Quote a. Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part. And I'll try to ask this as simply as possible. If you want to respond, please respect the topic and guidelines of this thread and respond to this yes or no question ONLY.
EVEN IF Jesus wasn't CALLED the only begotten Son of God until he came in the flesh, IS IT PROOF IN AND OF ITSELF THAT HE WASN'T THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH?
There you have it. That is ALL of point “a”. There is nothing else dicussed in WJ's point “a”. Get it? Not Ignatius, not “how do you define monogenes?”, not “no scripture shows Jesus having a beginning”. NOTHING BUT THIS SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.
My answer is a resounding NO.
Dennison answered the same already – NO.
So what do you say? WJ? Jack? Gene? JA? It's is only a yes or no. Pretend it is a poll – how do you vote? YES or NO?I am well aware that I am the only one posting on this thread that thinks Jesus was begotten as the first thing God every brought into existence. I know you all want to prove me wrong. Fine, if I'm wrong, time will tell. But you guys just spouting “Today, I have begotten you” and your other opinions will do nothing but muddy the waters and leave us where we all started – I think this, Gene thinks that, WJ thinks the other, etc. I want to move past this. I want to finally get to the bottom of something at HN. WJ, you say that in all the years you've been on HN, no one has ever radically changed their beliefs? You asked me who am I to think I can make a difference? Well, this is why! Can't you see that if you keep going thread to thread spouting the same tired stuff, and I just do the same – no one gets anywhere.
My objective here is to make you actually answer to your hazy claims. Just like I tried to do with “all power”. You run around saying, “He has ALL POWER, Mike! That makes him God!” But when I try to get you to admit what you know – that “all” is relative, not absolute – you run away. My simple yes or no question has been the last thing posted in our first debate for months now, I think. And you refuse to answer it because your unsubstantiated claim will lose all of it's sting.
It's the same thing here. You don't want to say “Uh well, NO”, to this current question because your inferrence that “We didn't know Jesus was the only begotten Son of God until he was flesh, so therefore he must not have been” will also lose all of it's sting.
I'm asking for all of your help, here. Stay on point only, please. And right now there is only one question being asked of all of you. Dennison, if you want to discuss what monogenes “really means”, start your own thread. This one is dedicated to answering ONLY WJ's points that are posted on the opening page. And it's dedicated to answering them ONE POINT AT A TIME.
peace and love,
mikeps Kathi just lost her father and has her hands full right now. She will give a boost of support to me when she returns.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 30 2010,07:16) So I responded to all your points once again here (third post down), then you claim in your next post here (4th post down) that you were frustrated, and then begin whining again about the post.
Really WJ?Stupid games. You have never answered my question. You did end runs around it. You finally answered the first part about God being YHVH before we knew it, but when I followed up with the “Well then it also stands to reason…..” you did nothing but avoid. Here's one example from the links you posted:
I said:
Quote Does it not then follow that just because Jesus wasn't referred to as “monogenes” until he applied it to himself while talking to Nicodemus, it ALSO does not mean that he was NOT the only begotten Son of God until the time that he spoke the words, right? And you said:
Quote Wrong, because you are comparing apples to oranges. The Father was never given the term “Monogenes”. Stupid games. Just like I know you are too scared to directly answer it now. You like your hazy inferrences. You tell them to yourself over and over to keep you from entering the truth. Have you ever doubted them? Have you ever really LOOKED at them? I didn't think so. Well, I'm here to see that you do. You might run and hide, but deep down, I know I got you thinking about them.
IF YOU ARE SO RIGHT ABOUT THE TRINITY AND I AM SO WRONG, IT SHOULD BE EASY TO ANSWER MY FIRST LITTLE QUESTION, RIGHT? DON'T BE SCARED……YOU CAN DO IT.
IT ONLY TAKES A YES OR A NO, FOR THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY, “IS THAT PROOF?”mike
Mike,
You should have put this in the debate thread,
AS I SUGGESTED since the first page.AND since your a moderator,
you should have known,Its an open debate now
WJ, KJ.
You were almost admitting the Truth. Hallelujah!
Just keep coming along the way you are going.
God made the world through Jesus.
The Father Himself does not physically(figuratively speaking) do the work, but ordaines it to others, with 'Jesus' being the Chief Builder.
If I am building a house, I first make the architechural design and then appoint 'builders' to do the work, of which one will be the Chief Builder.
Contextually, then, Who 'built' the house?
Top level. I did.
Extra-top level. The Chief Builder did.
Bottom line. Everyone who was involved, did it.Contextually, only the first two levels matter.
In a business, a great new product is made and publicised.
Who do the accollades go to?
Is it not the Business Owner and the Chief Designer.My, my, are we not images of God. Do we not 'immitate' his ways, his principles, his character…even in our sinful state?
Then, why is it hard to believe that the principle of 'The Owner and the Principle builder' are both, contextually, said to have built the building.
Besides, Scriptures states that it was 'through' the chief builder, and for the chief builder.
Now, why would it have to be stated that the building was 'for' the Owner??The 'Owner' owns 'ALL Things' so there is no need to state this..but, if He gives it to another, …then… It needs to be stated that it is 'for' that 'other'.
!I will design a new thing. A thing that is not spirit. It is a wonderful thing, it will be a 'visible' thing. A thing of visible and 'solid' substance. It will consist of a solid platform upon which a new thing will be formed. That form will be called 'flesh'. That flesh will be self sustaining. I will give ita life of it's own, like mine but restricted within the zones of its sustainability, within a limited number of dimensions. And this new creation will be to my glory and the glory of the one whom I appoint as my chief builder in this task. But, you shall all help, every spirit to a station. And every spirit that maintains himself in his station to the end shall be glorified also within his station, to the glory of being in my presence, the presence of the Almighty, yes, YHVH, Me, I, for only YHVH is GOD, the one and only, True God!
Hi all
Mike once again is insisting that I have not answered his question, even though I had told him to go back and read the post over again because I had already answered him.
He has admitted he won't even read our post if he doesn't see what he wants to see.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 28 2010,19:26) 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.
Found here (2nd post down) But it seems that he only sees what he wants to see!Mike says he created this thread to address my points but it seems that all Mike is interested in is me answering his points while he completely ignores mine.
The following is proof that Mike is both flat lying and being deceptive or he is just so into himself that he cannot hear anything but only what he wants to hear. To me Mike’s tactics seem deceptive and disingenuous at best.
This is what Mike just posted then accuses me again for not answering him while he once again completely ignores my points.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 30 2010,21:14) EVEN IF Jesus wasn't CALLED the only begotten Son of God until he came in the flesh, IS IT PROOF IN AND OF ITSELF THAT HE WASN'T THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD BEFORE HE CAME IN THE FLESH? There you have it. That is ALL of point “a”. There is nothing else dicussed in WJ's point “a”. Get it? Not Ignatius, not “how do you define monogenes?”, not “no scripture shows Jesus having a beginning”. NOTHING BUT THIS SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.
My answer is a resounding NO.
Dennison answered the same already – NO.
So what do you say? WJ? Jack? Gene? JA? It's is only a yes or no. Pretend it is a poll – how do you vote? YES or NO?But I had already said…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 26 2010,13:00) But now you have admitted that you cannot prove Jesus was “procreated” before he came in the flesh. Thank you! 
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22)
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”.
No, and it doesn’t matter either way for what I have proven is that there is no scripture that proves Jesus was procreated before the creation of all time and now you have agreed.There goes the Arian proof that Jesus is not God because he had a beginning before he came in the flesh.
So I have answered you point by point once again, now its your move or are you gonna whine about the opening and request a new game?
Found here (8th post down)Mike asks….
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? Found here… (5th post down)I answered him….
No, and it doesn’t matter either way…
No, and it doesn’t matter either way…
No, and it doesn’t matter either way…
There you have it Mike. This is proof of what we have been saying all along, that you get answers but do not acknowledge them and then go on and ask the same questions over and over again expecting a different answer it seems.
Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty!
WJ
WordhippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty!
Exactly!KJ
Hi guys, is it out of sorts for you to sort things out in another guise?
How about the guise of starting again?
Just start at the beginning and you might get to finish at the end.
He who starts first will be a blast
And he who is aghast shall be not be averstQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2010,02:50) Mike asks….
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? Found here… (5th post down)I answered him….
No, and it doesn’t matter either way…
Hi WJ,Okay, then why did you say this?
Quote Mike BTW the first point like SF has stated is still open and not closed just because you say it is!
WJ
Look on the first page of this thread. Your point “a” only involves whether or not we can determine if Jesus was begotten before or after he came in the flesh by using only the limited info that we didn't know him as the only begotten until he was flesh. That's it, man. That's all of point “a”.
You worded it in a way that inferred Jesus couldn't have been the only begotten before he was flesh based solely on this info. And all I've been doing since then is trying to get you to admit that the same little amount of info also doesn't prove your assertion that he must have been begotten after flesh because that's when the title is applied to him.
That's all she wrote, brother.
You have clearly said it is not proof, so tell me again why we can't nullify your point “a” and move on to “b”.
If we can, you'll find my “point b post” already posted.
So, will you either explain why point “a” is still valid, or admit that it proves nothing for either one of us and answer to my response of your point “b”.
You know, I asked my rebuttal question of your point “a” on the very first page of this thread. Now there are pages of useless posts, most of them slamming me for something or the other, and it is senseless. It was a simple yes or no question.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,10:50) Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
WJQuote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,10:50) Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
WJ
You already know my preferrence. I ask ONE question, you answer it and ask ONE question. Back and forth, ONE POINT AT A TIME, until I've solidly refuted every single point you made in that post I started this thread with.I've made your point “a” null and void. I've done the same with your point “b – parts 1 and 2”. And I am really looking forward to your answers to my rebut of B-1&2, so I can beat you over the head with Ignatius in “b – part 3”.
mike
oops, I thought the word “referree” was “preferrence”
That's what happens when you get old.
I offer Ed J or Gene. You pick which one. They are not to comment or offer opinions at all – only direct one of us to answer the others question and rule on if it was in fact answered in a direct fashion if the other complains.
If you want to do this, I'll ask t8 to move this to a debate thread. Remember, ONE question answered, ONE question asked each post. Fair enough?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 02 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 01 2010,10:50) Pick your referee Mike. I am done with your diversional methods of debate and I am beginning to question your honesty! WJ
WJ
Keith,Good! A controlled debate is the only way with Mikester. He has too many personality issues that get in the way. He wears you out with his incessant nonsense and then beats his chest claiming that you are running form his arguments even after you have answered his arguments a zilion times.
He belongs to no religious comunity. Even to the JW's he is an apostate. So he has a lot of time to make mischief here. He can't exasperate in a controlled debate. After I answer his points and he comes back and says I didn't SF will set it straight.
Jack
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
