Mikeboll64 vs. the thinker (Kangaroo Jack)

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

This is the nicest post you have ever sent. No real slams or ridicules. Thanks for that – It finally feels like I'm conversing with an adult.

Sorry Mike. I have felt like I have been conversing with a brick wall. I have not been too patient about it.

Mike:

Quote

Mike,

The Septuagint is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. It uses the Greek “monogenes” for the Hebrew “yachid” which simply means “only” or “alone.” Therefore, the word “monogenes” simply means “only” or “alone.” The KJV and the NWT translate “monogenes” literally but not accurately. It should have been translated according to its “usus loquendi” which is Latin for “common usage.” The “koine” (common) usage of the word “monogenes” was simply “only” or “alone.” So you have no evidence from the Koine Greek that Jesus was begotten before His resurrection.

Psalm 25:16: 16

Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am LONELY and afflicted. NIV

The Greek word in the Septuagint is “monogenes” which means that it was thought of as the equivalent for the Hebrew “yachid” which simply means “only” or “alone.”

The KJV and the NWT have misled all readers! The ancient translations read “only” or “unique” according to the “usus loquendi.”

Mike:

Quote

Put your pre-conceived notions at bay and read what is plainly written for you. GOD SENT HIS ONLY SON, PERIOD.

I have never denied that He was God's Son before His exaltation. I have said that He was not “begotten” until His resurrection and exaltation. This disproves your theory that “begotten” means that He was created.

Quote

5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:

“ You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.”

6 As He also says in another place:

“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”;

7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,”

Note that it says that Jesus was “a Son” but He had to be “perfected” before He could be called “High Priest (vss. 8-10). The preceding verses indicate that He became High Priest when He was begotten as the Son.

Mike:

Quote

You showed three Scriptures written by Paul, two of which the word “today” is included because Paul is quoting Scripture word for word. It was not his intent to say WHEN Jesus was begotten, only to illustrate that Jesus was in fact the Son of God.

No! I showed you THREE scriptures written by Paul and TWO from the unknown apostle to the Hebrews.

A. The three from Paul from are:

1. Acts 13:33: He was begotten when God raised Him from the dead.

2. Romans 1:3: He was decreed to be the Son of God by the rising from the dead.

3. Colossians 1:18: He was the first begotten from the dead.

B. The two from the unknown apostle to the Hebrews are:

1. Hebrews 1:5-6: He was begotten when He was exalted above the angels.

2. Hebrews 5:5-6: He was begotten when He became High Priest.

I repeat: The unified apostolic testimony is that Jesus was begotten when He was raised from the dead and exalted!

Mike:

Quote

Hey Mike! Your explanation helps me and not you. You are saying that at His resurrection He became the Son of God “with all power and authority.” This means that when He was raised from the dead He became King-Son. Does not Psalm 2 say that He became King-Son when He was “begotten?”

6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.

There you go! You said that it was at His resurrection that He became Son with “all power and authority.” In other words, at His resurrection He became King-Son. Psalm 2 says that when He was begotten He became King-Son.

Therefore, Jesus was “begotten” AT HIS RESURRECTION. Your explanation establishes what I have been saying. Thanks man!

Mike:

Quote

I notice that Vine's didn't enforce your thoughts that Col 1:15 also means “mankind”.

Why am I not surprised you said this? Vine gave only a couple of the more obvious examples. You cannot intelligibly maintain that Jesus is the brother of animals. He is the firstborn (supreme brother) of men alone.

Mike:

Quote

They are asking why the Son is the only one of the three that is considered to be “the MOST distinguished in relation to those created” Wouldn't Jehovah and the Holy Spirit be equally “the MOST distinguished”? Now do you get their point?

I answered their point already. The Father and the Spirit are not the supreme in rank because they are not the “firstborn Son.” The father in the Hebrew family turned over the supremacy to the firstborn son. So the heavenly Father turned over the supremacy to Jesus.

You keep
dodging the JW's other point that the firstborn was the “firstborn” of its own family or kind. Jesus is not the brother of swine. Again, your view that Jesus is the firstborn over the whole created order cannot be maintained with any intelligibility.

Show from scripture where a firstborn son was “firstborn” in relation to the whole created order.

Mike:

Quote

It's actually quite the opposite. I'm just understanding the words as they are written.

No! You read the words according to your Western notions and not according to the “usus loquendi” (common usage) of the ancient times. You should read the words as the original recipients read them.

Mike:

Quote

Even if Jesus was begotten when he was raised, you have to ask yourself, why was the former God Almighty only raised to a mere “begotten Son of God” stature? Does this make sense? He was God, but now he's only God's son. Wouldn't this be a cause of jealousy for one of your gods? Oh well, we'll get to that if we ever move to the right hand thing.

We will not get into this point until you concede the obvious: Jesus is the firstborn of men alone. We are stuck here until then. I won't move forward against such obstinance by you. I will continue to balk until you acknowledge the self evident and the plain.

Show an example from scripture when a firstborn son was “firstborn” in relation to the whole created order. If you cannot then you should concede the self evident and the plain.

Mike:

Quote

Now that I know more (thank you for that), I agree that in 3:14 it could be translated as “ruler”.

Thank you!

Mike:

Quote

But the first, most used definition of the word arche is “beginning”, and it's a 50/50 chance as to which one John meant. Both could equally apply.

Nonsense!

Mike:

Quote

First, you are not the teacher, the Scriptures are. You are the catalyst for me to learn more about them.

Then let the scriptures teach you. If you cannot produce biblical evidence that a firstborn son was “firstborn” in relation to the whole created order, then concede the biblical meaning that the word “firstborn” has to do with one's relationship to his own kind only and maintain that in Colossians 1.

Mike:

Quote

Second, you had your choice of “when was Jesus begotten”. My choice was “right hand”, but we've by passed my choice and went straight to “firstborn of all creation”

When Jesus was “begotten” and when He became the “firstborn” (firstbegotten) are the same point.

thinker

April 1, 2010 at 3:52 am#185631

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

Just because you haven't proved what you set out to prove, I'm a brick wall? I've been called worse.

You said:

Quote

It uses the Greek “monogenes” for the Hebrew “yachid” which simply means “only” or “alone.”

My point was that when translating Hebrew into Greek, there might have been times when there wasn't a perfect fit for the Hebrew word. So I don't care what word they used to translate “lonely” from Hebrew. John wrote his book in Greek – no translation from Hebrew. Now if the experts you always rely on say it means “begotten” in the case of Jesus, who are you to argue?

You said:

Quote

I have never denied that He was God's Son before His exaltation.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that you said “Son of God” is also just a title or position; one Jesus recieved upon being begotten.

You said:

Quote

I repeat: The unified apostolic testimony is that Jesus was begotten when He was raised from the dead and exalted!

First, what makes you think Paul isn't the author of Hebrews? The Mcclintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says:

Quote

There is no substantial evidence, external or internal, in favor of any claimant to the authorship of this epistle except Paul.

Second, your five Scriptures (all written by Paul) just do not prove what you want them to, sorry. So again, your “unified apostolic testimony” falls short.

You said:

Quote

Hey Mike! Your explanation helps me and not you. You are saying that at His resurrection He became the Son of God “with all power and authority.” This means that when He was raised from the dead He became King-Son. Does not Psalm 2 say that He became King-Son when He was “begotten?”

No, nice try. Jesus was the Son of God before he was raised. This much we agree on. But he was also the King of the Jews before he was raised, and he acknowledged as much to Pilate. My point was not that he “became” the Son of God when he was raised, but he was given “power” when he was raised. Just like it says. And no, Psalm 2 doesn't say that when God set him up as King on Zion was when he was begotten. You and WJ are always screaming about the exact words used, ie: “WHAT DOES THE WORD “TODAY” MEAN, MIKE?” or “WHAT DOES THE WORD “ALL” MEAN WHEN IT SAYS “ALL POWER AND AUTHORITY, MIKE?” But when it suits you, conjecture without Scriptural backing is just fine.

You said:

Quote

“Firstborn of all creation” simply means that Jesus was the first thing God ever created. It's really that simple. And why do you think Vine's did not support your view that “all creation” means “mankind” in Col 1:15? Seems to me that would be a biggie for them to mention.

You said:

Quote

Really Jack? So now instead of equality, Jesus is actually the most supreme of the three? Isn't that blasphemy?

You said:

Quote

You keep dodging the JW's other point that the firstborn was the “firstborn” of its own family or kind.

I believe I answered with:

Quote

Come on Jack. Humans are a part of the group of created things. Are we swine? And why didn't you answer to the bolded part? Is that what you ARE saying? And while you're at it, please answer this:

Quote

So Jesus does not hold the “position of firstborn” concerning the angels or anything else? Only mankind?

You said:

Quote

Show from scripture where a firstborn son was “firstborn” in relation to the whole created order.

Easy. Col 1:15. Your turn. Show me from Scripture where begotten doesn't mean born or borne.

You said:

Quote

We will not get into this point until you concede the obvious: Jesus is the firstborn of men alone. We are stuck here until then. I won't move forward against such obstinance by you. I will continue to balk until you acknowledge the self evident and the plain.

Translation: “Until you agree to acknowledge my conjecture as proof, I'm not going to let you show me that right hand doesn't mean equality and therfore my “equal God, Jesus” isn't so equal after all. Or in other words, “It's my video game, and if I can't be player 1 at all times, I'll take my game and go home.”

I said:

Quote

But the first, most used definition of the word arche is “beginning”, and it's a 50/50 chance as to which one John meant. Both could equally apply.

You said:

Quote

Nonsense!

Is it your stand that the word “arche” could absolutely in no way be translated as “beginning” in Rev 3:14? Careful with the answer now, you might show that your bias overrides the truth. Aren't you seeking truth, Jack?

You said:

Quote

Then let the scriptures teach you. If you cannot produce biblical evidence that a firstborn son was “firstborn” in relation to the whole created order, then concede the biblical meaning that the word “firstborn” has to do with one's relationship to his own kind only and maintain that in Colossians 1.

If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart. How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”? Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures? So as I understand it, if Jesus wasn't the firstborn until he was raised, then “all of creation” can't mean “mankind only”. And if “all of creation” does mean “mankind only”, then Jesus must have recieved the “position of firstborn” while he was a man.

I'm not being obstinant, you are just simply not proving your point. We have spent many days and thousands of words on this point (most of them the same repeated words), it's time to move on.

Show me how being at the right hand of God means equality with God.

peace and love,
mike

April 2, 2010 at 4:00 am#185707

Blocked

Hi thinker,

No post today? I hope everything is alright. Just a quick question tonight.

Do you think that Jesus rules over earth as our King at the present time? Or do you think we are still in the era of Satan as ruler and god of the world, and that we should be no part of this world?

April 2, 2010 at 7:25 pm#185774

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=40

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

No post today? I hope everything is alright.

Mike,

Our daughter came in from school for spring break and I wanted to spend my time with her. I may not be posting for a few days after this post. But then again I may. I'll see.

Mike:

Quote

Just because you haven't proved what you set out to prove, I'm a brick wall?

For you to insist that Jesus is the firstborn brother in relation to the whole created order is absurd. This makes you a “brick wall.” You have been disproven and you should concede. Even your own JW source substantiated what I have said. Please give it up!

Mike:

Quote

So I don't care what word they used to translate “lonely” from Hebrew.

Your “I don't care” statement is the proof that you are a “brick wall.” You should care dude! There are 300 old testament quotes in the new testament. Approximately 200 of them are from the Septuagint. So Jesus and the apostles combined quoted the Septuagint 66.666% of the time. This means that the septuagint was a highly authoritative translation. The Septuagint was competed before 132 B.C. So the word “monogenes” simply meant “only” or “alone” long before the apostle John wrote.

The people were accustomed to the Septuagint translation. They would not have thought that John meant something different by his use of the word. They would not have thought that Jesus meant something different by His use of the word seeing that He had quoted from the Septuagint many times. Why didn't they use “monos” (only) to translate the Hebrew “yachid?” They chose “monogenes.” This means that “monogenes” was used in koine Greek to simply insdicate “only” or “alone.” The ancient translations did not translate the word “only begotten.”

Therefore, the KJV and the NWT are not reliable in this matter. The ancient translations had it right.

Mike:

Quote

John wrote his book in Greek – no translation from Hebrew.

And this proves what?

Mike:

Quote

Now if the experts you always rely on say it means “begotten” in the case of Jesus, who are you to argue?

I have not invoked any “experts” which say that “monogenes” means “begotten” in the case of Jesus. I have invoked only the Septuagint which shows that the koine Greek is against the KJV and the NWT. I do not know what you are talking about.

Again, when you say “I don't care” you show yourself obstinate.

Mike:

Quote

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that you said “Son of God” is also just a title or position; one Jesus recieved upon being begotten.

I said that He was the Son of God by decree before His exaltation and that He assumed the position of officiating Son at His exaltation. This is what it meant for Him to be “begotten.”

Mike:

Quote

First, what makes you think Paul isn't the author of Hebrews? The Mcclintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says:

Paul began all of his epistles by saying his name which is not the case in Hebrews. All those who say that Paul is the author recognize that the book is not his style of writing. Therefore, the whole matter of authorship is inconclusive.

Why does it matter?

Mike:

Quote

Second, your five Scriptures (all written by Paul) just do not prove what you want them to, sorry. So again, your “unified apostolic testimony” falls short.

They are pretty clear to me.

18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstbegotten from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Does it not say that He was “begotten from the dead?” Was Jesus begotten two times Mike?

Mike:

Quote

But he was also the King of the Jews before he was raised, and he acknowledged as much to Pilate.

Jesus was not installed as King before He was raised from the dead. He did not have all power and authority before He was raised from the dead. Come on! He did not become King-Son before His exaltation.

If Jesus had been installed as King-Son before His resurrection, then explain why He was LOWER than the angels before His resurrection. Explain why the name “begotten Son” is a name that is “so much better” than the angels. How could Jesus have had a name that is “so much better” than the angels and He be LOWER than them at the same time?

Mike:

Quote

And no, Psalm 2 doesn't say that when God set him up as King on Zion was when he was begotten.

Oh yes Psalm 2 does say that He was begotten when He became King Mike. And Hebrews chapter 1 concurs:

…when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

It is clear Mike! He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High (as King). At that time He became superior to the angels. For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten You.

Mike:

Quote

But when it suits you, conjecture without Scriptural backing is just fine.

Rubbish!

Mike:

Quote

“Firstborn of all creation” simply means that Jesus was the first thing God ever created. It's really that simple.

If it's “that simple” as you say then you should be able to produce some biblical evidence
. You expect me to just accept your circular reasoning? According to the biblical usage of the term it means “firstborn of a family of sons” or “first in rank.” There is no relationship to the whole created order to be found in the word. This is your Arain presupposition. Jesus is the firstborn of the many BRETHREN (Rom. 8:29). The words “pasa ktisis” do not magically change meaning from verse 6 to verse 23. It means “all mankind” in one context in both verses.

Mike:

Quote

And why do you think Vine's did not support your view that “all creation” means “mankind” in Col 1:15? Seems to me that would be a biggie for them to mention.

Hey, Vine ain't perfect.

Mike:

Quote

Really Jack? So now instead of equality, Jesus is actually the most supreme of the three? Isn't that blasphemy?

I said before that Jesus acts in the place of the Father. This is what the firstborn did. After that I said that the Father “turned over ths supremacy to Jesus.” This does not mean that the Son is above the Father. You have never addressed Paul's use of the names “head” and “supreme” in reference to Christ in Colossians 1.

If you work for a family owned company and the father turns over all administrative powers to his son, then as far as you are concerned only the Son is your boss. When the heavenly Father turned over all the administrative powers of the covenant of redemption to the Son, then the Son at that point became your “only master and Lord” (Jude 4).

Now argue with God all you want Mike. It is not going to do you any good. The Father has turned over all administrative powers and supremacy to His Son. Therefore, the Son alone is your Lord. Jesus is supreme over all mankind.

Mike:

Quote

Twist my words all you like. I have consistently said that Jesus became the supreme head (firstborn) over all mankind at His resurrection. The “group” concept just limits “pasa ktisis” to men alone.

You know exactly what I am saying. You are dishonestly twisting what I am saying.

Mike:

Quote

Show me from Scripture where begotten doesn't mean born or borne.

I already have shown you a gazillion times. God appointed David His “firstborn.” David was God's “firstborn” by anointing and by appointment and not by birth. This was true also of His Seed.

Mike:

Quote

On March 17 you said:

Quote

Please don't start on another point until we're BOTH satisfied that this one is resolved.

I am not satisfied Mike. You offer me circular reasoning. You start out with the presupposition that “all creation” means the whole created order. But you will not show it from the immediate context and from the biblical usage of the terms “firstborn” and “pasa ktisis.” You cannot show it because it is self evident an plain. So we are stuck here until you concede.

Mike:

Quote

First, it says that He is the “arche of the ktisis of God.” The Greek “ktisis” everywhere in the new testament as Jesus is related to ktisis refers to “mankind.” Since Jesus is not the first man, then “arche” means that He is the RULER of God's creation, that is, MEN.

Second, the word “arche” is often translated as “ruler” in the KJV and “government” in the NWT .

Third, the kin word “archwn” in Revelation 1:5 is translated as “ruler” both in the KJV and the NWT.

Fourth, I said that I prefer the meaning “ruler” but that I could definitely live with Liddell and Scott's view that “arche” in 3:14 means “source or origin.”

Mike:

Quote

If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart. How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”? Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures? So as I understand it, if Jesus wasn't the firstborn until he was raised, then “all of creation” can't mean “mankind only”. And if “all of creation” does mean “mankind only”, then Jesus must have recieved the “position of firstborn” while he was a man.

First, this is a logical fallacy which is called “begging the question.” This is a circular argument:

Quote

Begging the question (or petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”) is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise. Begging the question is related to circular argument, circulus in probando (Latin for “circle in proving”) or circular reasoning but they are considered absolutely different by Aristotle.[1] The first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 BCE, in his book Prior Analytics, where he classified it as a material fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Second, Jesus is called “the IMAGE of the invisible God, the FIRSTBORN of all creation” (all mankind).

Our kinship to Him is on the basis that He IS the the image of God and that we are IN the image of
God. So your theory that Jesus is no longer a man now fails even if it be true. It fails because His true manhood and our true manhood is summed up in “the image.”

So it does not matter if He is a “spirit creature” now as you say. He IS the image of God which is what makes us who are IN the image of God His brothers. And it was at His resurrection that He became our “firstborn” (chief) brother.

NOTE THIS WELL! Is the whole created order in God's image Mike? He is the IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL [MANKIND]

The terms “IMAGE” and “FIRSTBORN” limit the term “pasa ktisis” to “all mankind.”

Paul CLEARLY said that Jesus was begotten from the dead. He CLEARLY said that as the “firstborn” (or begotten) that He is our “HEAD” and that He is “PREEMINENT” (or supreme).

18 And He is the HEAD of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstbegotten from the dead, that in all things He may have the PREEMINENCE.

Mike:

Quote

I'm not being obstinant, you are just simply not proving your point.

I beg to differ!

thinker

April 3, 2010 at 4:42 am#185869

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

For you to insist that Jesus is the firstborn brother in relation to the whole created order is absurd.

When did I say that?

You said:

Quote

Your “I don't care” statement is the proof that you are a “brick wall.”

That's the second time I've used that language, and the second time you've called me on it. You were right both times. After I posted, I knew I should have worded it differently. So I'll do it now. Personally, I don't care that the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word for desolate as monogenes. Much as I do not care that Ed J thinks I shouldn't use Jehovah as the presonal name for God. My point was that John wasn't translating his books from Hebrew. He wrote them in Greek, so it doesn't matter for this debate what word was used to translate “lonely” from a different language. This is from my Witness friends:

Quote

The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac (Hebrews 11:17) is mo‧no‧ge‧nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and gi′no‧mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo‧no‧ge‧nes′ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.

I wonder why Mr. two years of Greek failed to mention that bolded part in our debate.

You said:

Quote

I have not invoked any “experts” which say that “monogenes” means “begotten” in the case of Jesus.

Of course you haven't. They don't see things your way on this one. My point is these are the same experts you use for other points of discussion – why not believe them when they say monogenes means only begotten in the case of Jesus?

You said:

Quote

I said that He was the Son of God by decree before His exaltation and that He assumed the position of officiating Son at His exaltation. This is what it meant for Him to be “begotten.”

Oh, that's right. So why do you dance around the question I asked?

I said:

Quote

GOD SENT HIS ONLY SON, PERIOD. God was not said to have sent the one who would soon inherit the office of “His Son”. And He could not have been said to have SENT His Son if Jesus wasn't already His Son.

To which you replied:

Quote

I have never denied that He was God's Son before His exaltation.

Stop dancing and answer the bolded point in my quote. God wasn't said to have sent His “Son by decree but soon to be my real Son”.

You said:

Quote

All those who say that Paul is the author recognize that the book is not his style of writing. Therefore, the whole matter of authorship is inconclusive.

Why does it matter?

Just letting the air out of your “unified apostolic testimony” claim, that's all.

You said:

Quote

Does it not say that He was “begotten from the dead?” Was Jesus begotten two times Mike?

Since Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, then died, of course he would have to be begotten by God again. When the dead are raised to life, won't they also be said to have been begotten twice? And the ones who are “born again” will have been begotten three times. Once by their father, once by spirit and once by God himself (through Jesus of course).

You said:

Quote

First of all, stop lumping King and Son together. He was the Son before he was raised. He was the King of the Jews before he was raised. I agree he did not become King of kings before he was raised. I don't think he will become active in that role until the things foretold in Rev come to pass.

Second, Rev tells us that no one knows that new name he was given. It certainly wasn't the name “begotten Son”. You know that name. Rev says NO ONE knows his new name.

You said:

Quote

It is clear Mike! He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High (as King). At that time He became superior to the angels. For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, TODAY I have begotten You.

Think it out, thinker. If you are right, and Jesus was God Almighty before he lowered himself, wouldn't he have been superior to the angels before he became flesh? If I am right, and he was the first thing God ever created, and everything else was created through the only begotten Son of God, wouldn't he have been superior to the angels before he became flesh? While a man, he was lower than the angels, but becoming superior to them again after he was raised doesn't make your point that it is then that he became begotten. I've already answered to Psalm 2 and the other Scriptures that quote it, many times.

You said:

Quote

If it's “that simple” as you say then you should be able to produce some biblical evidence.

I have given you Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14. How about Proverbs 8:22?

You said:

Quote

There is no relationship to the whole created order to be found in the word. This is your Arain presupposition. Jesus is the firstborn of the many BRETHREN (Rom. 8:29). The words “pasa ktisis” do not magically change meaning from verse 6 to verse 23. It means “all mankind” in one context in both verses.

Does the word “ktisis” mean only mankind in Mark 13?

Quote

19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be .

Just because “ktisis” implies “only mankind” in some verses does not mean it can not be used literally in others. Rev 12:9 says Satan has been decieving the world. We know that implies that he has been deceiving the people of the world. But when it says God created the world, it doesn't mean only the people of the world, it actually means the world. Do you think Col 1:23 is not a figure of speech?

Quote

This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

Do you think the gospel had at that time actually been proclaimed to every creature (or man) under heaven? Had it been proclaimed to the Native Americans or the Aborigines?

You said:

Quote

Hey, Vine ain't perfect.

:laugh: I'm saving this quote for the next time Vine supports your view. :laugh:

You said:

Quote

You have never addressed Paul's use of the names “head” and “supreme” in reference to Christ in Colossians 1.

I said that the same thing applies here as in 1 Cor 15:27

Quote

Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF…

There is only One who is Supreme over all others in heaven, and that is Jehovah God Almighty.

You said:

Quote

Now argue with God all you want Mike.

Jehovah says he is one, and will share His glory with no other. He also asks, “Who is my equal?” Jesus said Jehovah was the ONLY true God. Why does none of this resonate with you Trinitarians? You not only argue with God, but also with the one you try to make God, even though he never taught this doctrine.

You said:

Quote

You know exactly what I am saying. You are dishonestly twisting what I am saying.

I had no idea that you thought Jesus was still a flesh and blood man sitting at the right hand of God in heaven. I have always assumed he was a spirit creature again. I see now why it's important to you to change the meaning of “seen” in John. I'll look into it.

I said:

Quote

Show me from Scripture where begotten doesn't mean born or borne.

You said:

Quote

I already have shown you a gazillion times. God appointed David His “firstborn.” David was God's “firstborn” by anointing and by appointment and not by birth. This was true also of His Seed.

Again, David was APPOINTED “firstborn of God's kings OF THE EARTH”. You make a point of saying, “Was Jesus begotten twice, Mike?” Then you try to insist that after David was begotten by Jesse, he was begotten again by God. Make up your mind, man. But the clear simple truth of it is: David was said to be APPOINTED to his position, Jesus was not. David was not said to be a firstborn SON, Jesus was.

Besides, you didn't answer the question. When does “begotten” mean something different than “born” or “borne”? And when did someone become “begotten” AFTER their birth?

You said:

Quote

I showed you Mark 13:19 where “ktisis” means more than mankind. In Rev 3:14, it also means more than mankind. Unless you think Jesus is “ruler” of mankind only. I don't know because you have twice refused to answer my question:

Quote

So Jesus does not hold the “position of firstborn” concerning the angels or anything else? Only mankind?

You said:

Quote

First, it says that He is the “arche of the ktisis of God.” The Gre
ek “ktisis” everywhere in the new testament as Jesus is related to ktisis refers to “mankind.” Since Jesus is not the first man, then “arche” means that He is the RULER of God's creation, that is, MEN.

I guess that's the answer to my question. So you think that the SUPREME heavenly being is only going to rule over men? Why do the angels do obeisance to him then?

You said:

Quote

Second, the word “arche” is often translated as “ruler” in the KJV and “government” in the NWT .

As we have already discussed, it has many different meanings. Context dictates which one is used. In the case of Rev 3:14, what John actually meant is up for grabs, unfortunately.

You said:

Quote

Third, the kin word “archwn” in Revelation 1:5 is translated as “ruler” both in the KJV and the NWT.

It is actually translated as “prince” in the KJV.

You said:

Quote

Fourth, I said that I prefer the meaning “ruler” but that I could definitely live with Liddell and Scott's view that “arche” in 3:14 means “source or origin.”

Wow! If that statement doesn't show your bias, I don't know what will. You can live with two of the three that could fit, but not the third? You can blow off Jehovah God Almighty and many Scriptures by translating it as “Jesus is the source of all creation”, but you can't concede that it COULD POSSIBLY mean “beginning”? Here's another little tidbit from my friends:

Quote

In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar‧khe′ more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning”.

You said:

Quote

NOTE THIS WELL! Is the whole created order in God's image Mike? He is the IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL [MANKIND]

I'm sure that you don't actually believe the crap you post sometimes. Are you saying Jesus can't be the ruler of anything but mankind because only mankind is created in God's image? Yet, you often point out that he could have called twelve legions of angels to his aid. I wonder if it is because He is “the INVISIBLE God” that “no man has seen God at any time”.

Look Jack, you are the one being obstinant. I believe that Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”, just like it says. And I believe that Jesus is the “beginning of the creation of God”, just like it says. He was begotten by God before the heavens were formed and has been the Son of God ever since. He will always be the Son of God whether he is defeating the last enemy or after he is subjected. You are just spinning your wheels, man. We're getting nowhere with this. I have avoided NO question you've put forth. I have answered honestly from the heart, and the answers I have given are truly what I believe the Scriptures say. I have also showed support for my beliefs from “the experts”, while none of them support your beliefs.

Let's move on for a while. Some of the other points will undoubtedly shed more light on these points. Right hand?

peace and love,
mike

April 3, 2010 at 10:00 am#185890

Participant

thethinker said:

Quote

For you to insist that Jesus is the firstborn brother in relation to the whole created order is absurd.

Mike replied:

Quote

When did I say that?

You have been properly instructed by the JW's and by myself that the term “firstborn” means “eldest son.” You knowingly and wrongfully insist that Jesus is the firstborn of the whole created order which would make Him the brother of the whole creation. This is absurd!

Mike:

Quote

Personally, I don't care that the Septuagint translated the Hebrew word for desolate as monogenes.

And you claim that you are here to learn. The Greek “monogenes” was commonly used to convey the idea “only” or “alone” and you just don't care. You don't care how a word was used in ancient times. You don't care that the Septuagint translation was used by Jesus and the apostles and therefore authoritative. You are just going to assign a meaning of your own to the word. What arrogance!

When you say, “I don't care” you really mean, “I cannot refute it so I will just say 'I don't care.' “

Mike:

Quote

He wrote them in Greek, so it doesn't matter for this debate what word was used to translate “lonely” from a different language. This is from my Witness friends:

Hmmmm….You don't accept your friends defintion of “firstborn” but then invoke them for the word “onlybegotten.” If you don't care how an authoritative trsanslation employs the word, then why should I care what your friends think?

Mike:

Quote

The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac (Hebrews 11:17) is mo‧no‧ge‧nes′, from mo′nos, meaning “only,” and gi′no‧mai, a root word meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Hence, mo‧no‧ge‧nes′ is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.

MISREPRESENTATION! Strong's Concordance simply says ” only” or “only child.” Strong says nothing about the word meaning “to come into being.” The word was not used in that way in ancient times.

Your source gives Isaac as an example. But Isaac did not become “begotten” when God declared Him Abraham's “only” son Mike! Isaac became Abraham's only son BY A DECREE Mike!

So the example from Isaac works against your source Mike. Jesus also became God's Son BY A DECREE!

Mike:

Quote

Oh, that's right. So why do you dance around the question I asked?

My answer will not change. I have given the example of our being “called” sons of God now even though the adoption as sons has not yet been received.

Mike:

Quote

Stop dancing and answer the bolded point in my quote. God wasn't said to have sent His “Son by decree but soon to be my real Son”.

I noticed that you inserted the word “real.” Jesus was God's Son by decree which meant that it was as IF He had already been God's Son. He had not been “begotten” until His exaltation. If you ask the question again I will give the same answer.

Jesus could not have been God's Son in real time before His anointing by the Spirit at the Jordan. Even your own JW friends do not believe your “begotten before creation” theory?

On March 25 you said:

“I just read some JW material on when Jesus was begotten. They say he was begotten by spirit at his baptism.”

Mike:

Quote

Just letting the air out of your “unified apostolic testimony” claim, that's all.

You failed.

thethinker asked:

Quote

Does it not say that He was “begotten from the dead?” Was Jesus begotten two times Mike?

Mike replied:

Quote

Since Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, then died, of course he would have to be begotten by God again.

BOOM! Therefore, the word “begotten” does not mean “to come into being.” It means the SAME thing in verse 15 as it does in verse 18. It does not mystically change its meaning in the two verses. If “begotten” does not mean “to come into being” in verse 18, then it does not mean that in verse 15.

Jesus was not begotten two times Mike.

Mike:

Quote

When the dead are raised to life, won't they also be said to have been begotten twice? And the ones who are “born again” will have been begotten three times. Once by their father, once by spirit and once by God himself (through Jesus of course).

Nonsense! The Bible does not say that a person is “born again.” It says that a person must be born “from above.”

Mike:

Quote

Since Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, then died, of course he would have to be begotten by God again.

Jesus was not the “only begotten” Son of God. The word “monogenes” simply means “only.” Jesus was the “first begotten” (Colossians 1:18 & Hebrews 1:6). Jesus cannot be both the “only” begotten and the “first” begotten. This is a contradiction! He is the “first” begotten of MANY BRETHREN which means that His brethren are “begotten” sons too!

This destroys your view that “monogenes” means only “begotten.” It simply means “only son.” Again, Jesus is the “first” begotten.

Mike:

Quote

If you are right, and Jesus was God Almighty before he lowered himself, wouldn't he have been superior to the angels before he became flesh?

Hebrews 2 EXPLICITLY says that He was made lower than the angels:

7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

This is CLEAR! Jesus was made LOWER than the angels and then “crowned with glory and honor.” According to Hebrews 1 this “crowning” made Him ABOVE the angels when He was begotten.

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, TODAY have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Argue with scripture if you must.

Mike:

Quote

…stop lumping King and Son together. He was the Son before he was raised.

You also are lumping King and Son together. You say that he was both King ad Son before He was raised. You should tell Jehovah to stop lumping King and Son together. It was Jehovah who lumped the two terms together.

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; TODAY have I begotten thee.

Jesus was “begotten” when Jehovah installed Him as King. Argue with Jehovah if you must.

Mike:

Quote

He was the King of the Jews before he was raised.

See! You are lumping King and Son together as I have done. The major difference between us is the timing of it. Jesus was not installed as King before His resurrection. He told Pilate that His kingdom was “not of this world” and that it is “not from here.”

Jesus gave parables of His going away to RECEIVE His kingdom. He RECEIVED His kingdom when He was resurrected and begotten.

Mike:

Quote

I have given you Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14.

On March 31 you said this:

“Now that I know more (thank you for that), I agree that in 3:14 it could be translated as “ruler”.”

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80 Flip flop

Mike:

Quote

Does the word “ktisis” mean only mankind in Mark 13?

Yes because mankind has always been the object of tribulation.

Mike:

Quote

Just because “ktisis” implies “only mankind” in some verses does not mean it can not be used literally in others.

In Colossians 1 Jesus is the “firstborn” of all mankind. He cannot be the brother of the whole created order.

Mike:

Quote

Do you think Col 1:23 is not a figure of speech?

At least you have abandoned your original exlanation that the apostles preached to the rocks and the animals. Whew! I was a little worried about you then. In Colossians 1:23 the word “ktisis” means “all mankind.” The meaning of the word is the same in verse 6.

Mike:

Quote

Do you think the gospel had at that time actually been proclaimed to every creature (or man) under heaven? Had it been proclaimed to the Native Americans or the Aborigines?

Off topic!

Mike:

Quote

I said that the same thing applies here as in 1 Cor 15:27
Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF…

I will not discuss this point UNTIL you concede that Jesus is “firstborn” only in relation to men.

Mke:

Quote

Jehovah says he is one, and will share His glory with no other.

This is for the “GOD IS A PLURAL GOD” point.

Mike:

Quote

I had no idea that you thought Jesus was still a flesh and blood man sitting at the right hand of God in heaven.

I do not believe that and I did not say that.

Mike:

Quote

Again, David was APPOINTED “firstborn of God's kings OF THE EARTH”.

So is Jesus. So what's your point?

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

Mike:

Quote

You make a point of saying, “Was Jesus begotten twice, Mike?” Then you try to insist that after David was begotten by Jesse, he was begotten again by God.

Nonsense! David was not literally “begotten” when God installed him as king-son. Neither was Jesus literally “begotten” when He was installed as King-Son. Their flesh origin does not fugure into this at all. You are saying that Jesus was begotten (created) and then begotten again.

Mike:

Quote

I showed you Mark 13:19 where
“ktisis” means more than mankind. In Rev 3:14, it also means more than mankind. Unless you think Jesus is “ruler” of mankind only. I don't know because you have twice refused to answer my question:

You have assumed that “ktisis” means the whole created order. You did not demonstrate it at all. And yes, Jesus is the Ruler of all mankind. The rule of Jesus is in the hearts of men.

Mike:

Quote

So you think that the SUPREME heavenly being is only going to rule over men? Why do the angels do obeisance to him then?

Jesus is not the firstborn (supreme brother) of angels. He is the brother of men alone. Angels are not included in the “ktisis” of Colossians 1. The creation of Colossians 1 is men alone.

Angels are indeed His servants sent forth to minister to those who inherit salvation which is men alone (Hberews 1:14).

Mike:

Quote

So Jesus does not hold the “position of firstborn” concerning the angels or anything else? Only mankind?

For the thousandth time. The firstborn was “firstborn” only in relation to men. Jesus is not the brother of angels.

Mike:

Quote

It is actually translated as “prince” in the KJV.

So what? It is King James English. King James was also called “Prince” James. What's this all about? First you say that Jesus is the “king” of the Jews. Now you make a point of the word “prince.”

Mike:

Quote

In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar‧khe′ more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of “beginning”.

Cut the crap! When I say that I can “live with” Liddell and Scott's treatment of “arche” in 3:14 it is because it agrees with trinitarianism. It does not mean that I agree with them. I accept only the reading “ruler.”

And the NWT very frequently translates the word “arche” as “government” despite what your friends say. You should let this one go now because you have already admitted that “arche” could be translated “ruler” in Revelation 3:14

“Now that I know more (thank you for that), I agree that in 3:14 it could be translated as “ruler.”

Am I going to have to keep beating you over the head with this?

Mike:

Quote

Are you saying Jesus can't be the ruler of anything but mankind because only mankind is created in God's image?

The word “firstborn” is restricted to “mankind” as I have repeatedly said. The rule of Jesus is in the hearts of men. The gospel was preached TO MEN (pasa ktisis) in verse 23.

Mike:

Quote

I believe that Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”, just like it says.

But it does not say that Jesus is the brother of insects and trees and rocks any more than it says that the gospel was preached to insects and trees and rocks.

As God's “firstborn” Jesus is the supreme brother.

29For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among the many brethren.

He is the firstborn of “the many brethren” Mike!

Your sources have put words into Strong's mouth. His Concordance does not say that monogenes means “to come into being.” He said that it simply means “only child.”

Please concede that Christ is “firstborn” only in relation to men so that we may advance to the next point.

thinker

April 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm#185897

Participant

Mike,

This is my second post in reply to your post last night. I am turning the heat up on you. Yesterday you said that Jesus is no longer a man but has become a spirit creature. This would mean that He is no longer the Son of Man. Yet the name still applied to Him after He stopped being a man. He said that the “Son of Man” will come in the glory of His Father with His holy angels.

Explain how the name “Son of Man” still applied to Jesus AFTER He stopped being a man. If He stopped being a man when He was exalted, then the name “Son of Man” obviously could not have applied to Him in the way it did when He was in the flesh. Then say to yourself, “Hmmmm….. I really have no legitimate complaint that thethinker applies the name “Son of Man” to Jesus in a different sense BEFORE He became a man. And the thinker's assertion that the name “Son of God” also applied to Jesus in a different sense before His exaltation is therefore tenable.”

thinker

April 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm#185921

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

Either I'm learning more and receiving more Spirit, or you're slipping. This seems to be getting easier with every post.

You said:

Quote

Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”. That means he is the first thing God ever created. The words say it and the scholars agree with me on what it means, not you. Later God created everything else through Jesus, but only Jesus, angels and men are called “sons of God”. The fact that birds are not called “sons of God” doesn't mean they are not a part of God's creation, does it? Some of mankind will get the privledged opportunity to be considered brothers to Jesus and share in his inheritence from God. So some of mankind will get to be brothers to the first person God ever created, or God's “eldest son”. The fact that birds are not included in this offer to be Christ's brother in no way negates the fact that Jesus is the firstborn of every creation God ever made.

You said:

Quote

When you say, “I don't care” you really mean, “I cannot refute it so I will just say 'I don't care.' “

There is nothing to refute. I believe Ed J when he says the Hebrew language has no “w”. But it doesn't change the fact that the Divine Name is well known as Jehovah in the States. Just like the translation of “yachlid” as “monogenes” one time doesn't change the fact that “monogenes” literally means “only begotten”. Much like the fact that the KJV translates “arche” as “prince” doesn't negate that it should be translated as “ruler” in that instance. While the Word is inspired of God, the translations are from imperfect men. Could it be that the translaters of the Septuagint misused the word “monogenes” for that one and only instance? Should we assume it always means “lonely”? So not only have I refuted it, I did it with the help of the scholars you frequently quote.

You said:

Quote

Hmmmm….You don't accept your friends defintion of “firstborn” but then invoke them for the word “onlybegotten.” If you don't care how an authoritative trsanslation employs the word, then why should I care what your friends think?

And there goes some more proof that I am not a JW, nor do I agree with every Scriptural interpretation they make. And you should also only care what “my friends” think when it is Scripturally and factually supported.

You said:

Quote

MISREPRESENTATION! Strong's Concordance simply says ” only” or “only child.”

How does an “only child” come into physical being? Is there a way you know of besides being begotten?

You said:

Quote

Your source gives Isaac as an example. But Isaac did not become “begotten” when God declared Him Abraham's “only” son Mike! Isaac became Abraham's only son BY A DECREE Mike!

Do you have Scriptural support to say that Isaac's begetting happened at a time other than his birth? Or anyone else's in the Bible?

You said:

Quote

My answer will not change. I have given the example of our being “called” sons of God now even though the adoption as sons has not yet been received.

But are we acually now the “decreed sons of God” and will later be “the begotten sons of God”? No. We are actually sons of God because we were created by Him. But because we wait to be adopted as spiritual sons of God, doesn't mean we haven't yet been begotten.

You said:

Quote

I noticed that you inserted the word “real.” Jesus was God's Son by decree which meant that it was as IF He had already been God's Son. He had not been “begotten” until His exaltation. If you ask the question again I will give the same answer.

I understand that's how you interpret the Scriptures. I don't intepret them the same way. I also will keep giving the same answers, which is why I keep suggesting we call this a stalemate and move on.

You said:

Quote

Jesus could not have been God's Son in real time before His anointing by the Spirit at the Jordan. Even your own JW friends do not believe your “begotten before creation” theory?

This is what the JW scholars actually believe:

Quote

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says: “[Mo‧no‧ge‧nes′] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the only-begotten to the Father.”

So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge.

When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven, it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case. Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God, the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.

You said:

Quote

BOOM! Therefore, the word “begotten” does not mean “to come into being.”

It sure doe
s, Jack. If Jesus was dead and gone, wouldn't he have to be begotten again? When mankind is raised from the dead, some of them to everlasting life, won't they be begotten again? If they are not begotten again, then they are dead forever. That's why Jesus, although being God's only begotten Son from the beginning, is also the first one begotten from the dead.

You said:

Quote

Nonsense! The Bible does not say that a person is “born again.” It says that a person must be born “from above.”

John 3 says:

Quote

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!”

The Greek word “anothen” is used. The definitions are:

Quote

Transliterated Word
Anothen
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
an'-o-then Adverb

Definition
from above, from a higher place
of things which come from heaven or God
from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
anew, over again

Judging from Nicodemus' use of “second time” in verse 4, he must have thought it meant “again” in this instance.

You said:

Quote

Jesus was not the “only begotten” Son of God. The word “monogenes” simply means “only.” Jesus was the “first begotten” (Colossians 1:18 & Hebrews 1:6). Jesus cannot be both the “only” begotten and the “first” begotten. This is a contradiction! He is the “first” begotten of MANY BRETHREN which means that His brethren are “begotten” sons too!

Thank you, Jack! If Jesus became God's “ONLY begotten” when he was raised from the dead, how can he also be only the “FIRST” of many who will be begotten from the dead. We will also be begotten from the dead to be sons of God, hence the word FIRST when referring to Jesus. But because Jesus is the ONLY Son who was begotten directly by God in the beginning, he can also then rightly also be called the FIRST of the many of God's sons to be begotten from death.

You said:

Quote

You also are lumping King and Son together. You say that he was both King ad Son before He was raised.

I have never called Jesus the KING-SON.

You said:

Quote

Jesus was “begotten” when Jehovah installed Him as King. Argue with Jehovah if you must.

I'm not arguing with Jehovah Jack, just your misinterpretations of what the Scriptures mean.

I said:

Quote

Does the word “ktisis” mean only mankind in Mark 13?

You said:

Quote

Yes because mankind has always been the object of tribulation.

But a third of the vegetation and animals will also be destroyed. Stars will fall from the sky. I think it will be a time of distress for more than just mankind.

You said:

Quote

In Colossians 1:23 the word “ktisis” means “all mankind.” The meaning of the word is the same in verse 6.

And then you called my question “off topic”. No way, man. You are trying to prove that “creation” is not just an exaggerated way of saying mankind – but that the word it self always MEANS only mankind. Answer the question:

Quote

Do you think the gospel had at that time actually been proclaimed to every creature (or man) under heaven? Had it been proclaimed to the Native Americans or the Aborigines?

This IS the topic!

You said:

Quote

Again, show me one time in the Scriptures when the word begotten doesn't mean “born” or “borne”. And show me where David is called Jehovah's firstborrn SON.

You said:

Quote

Cut the crap! When I say that I can “live with” Liddell and Scott's treatment of “arche” in 3:14 it is because it agrees with trinitarianism.

I was wrong! I thought your previous statement was the most biased one you could possibly make. But now it is even more clear that twisting the Scriptures to fit into your man-made flawed doctrine of the trinity is more important to you that what the Scriptures actually teach. How sad for you, Jack. But also how typical of Trinitarians.

I want truth only. That's why I can honestly say that “arche” in Rev 3:14 could mean “ruler”. You, however, have made it crystal clear that you will never even concede that it COULD mean “beginning”, even though both are definitions for the word. Who is the obstinant one, Jack?

You said:

Quote

Please concede that Christ is “firstborn” only in relation to men so that we may advance to the next point.

Okay. I concede that when he is called the firstborn from the dead, it deals wi
th mankind. When he is called the firstborn of all creation, it does not. We don't have to agree on this point to move on. Maybe you can enlighten me to the fact that Jesus is God while discussing one of the other points. But we'll never know if we don't move on.

Your second post is just nonsense. David is still called the king of Israel even though he is dead. If you think Jesus is still a man living in heaven, more power to you. It has nothing to do with this topic.

peace and love,
mike

April 5, 2010 at 6:12 pm#186048

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation”. That means he is the first thing God ever created.

No! The term “pasa ktisis” in verse 23 means “all mankind” and it means the same thing in verse 6. Jesus is not the brother of birds.

Mike:

Quote

The fact that birds are not called “sons of God” doesn't mean they are not a part of God's creation, does it?

Who said that the birds are not part of the creation? I said that the word “ktisis” is used only of mankind in the new testament. Jesus is not the brother of birds. Hear James:

18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

The word “creatures” is “ktisis.” James told those Jewish Christians that they were the firstfruits of His “creatures” (men). The use of the harvest metaphor certainly indicates that it is men that are in view. Those Jewish Christians were the “firstfruits” OF MEN who would be harvested AFTER them..

Mike:

Quote

Just like the translation of “yachlid” as “monogenes” one time doesn't change the fact that “monogenes” literally means “only begotten”.

First, where do you get the idea that monogenes translates “yachid” only one time in the Septuagint? I gave you TWO examples and there are more.

Second, the fact that monogenes translates as “only” or “alone” means that when you read it you just can't assume that it means “begotten.” Assumption is exactly what you are doing. Are you saying that Jesus was the only Son of God who “came into being?” Come on! I also am a son of God who came into being.

My paraphrase below is how your view works out:

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son who came into being“

Are you trying to tell us that Jesus is the only Son of God who “came into being?”

Third, the Septuagint has the new testament's stamp of authority on it. In Acts 8 the Greek Septuagint is called “the scripture.”

32 The place in the Scripture which he (Philip) read was this:

“ He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
33 In His humiliation His justice was taken away [Septuagint: in his humiliation justice was denied him.]
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth.”

Did you note that Mike? Philip read Isaiah 53:7-8 from the Septuagint. Luke calls the Greek translation from which Philip read “THE SCRIPTURE!”

In the new testament the Septuagint and the Hebrew text are called “The Scripture.” And you just flippantly say that the Septuagint translators “misused” monogenes?

You have the audacity to put your ideas above the Septuagint which AN APOSTLE says is “THE SCRIPTURE?” What arrogance!

thethinker said:

Quote

MISREPRESENTATION! Strong's Concordance simply says ” only” or “only child.”

Mike replied:

Quote

How does an “only child” come into physical being? Is there a way you know of besides being begotten?

There is more than one way to become a son of God in scripture. Your source correctly pointed out that Strong says that the second part of monogenes (genes) comes from the word “ginomai.” But they misrepresent Strong by not indicating that he says that there is a “great latitude” of meanings.

They failed to point out that Strong says that “ginomai” could also mean “to be ordained to be”.

Jesus was the Son of God only by decree until His resurrection when He was actually begotten as Son. Strong says that “ginomai” may also mean “to be ordained to be.”. But your source left out this information Mike!

Strong did not say that “monogenes” means that Jesus is the only Son of God “to come into being.” This is total nonsense!

Mike:

Quote

Do you have Scriptural support to say that Isaac's begetting happened at a time other than his birth? Or anyone else's in the Bible?

Read again what I actually said with comprehension. I said,

But Isaac did not become “begotten” when God declared Him Abraham's “only” son Mike!

Mike:

Quote

The scripture no where says that we are sons of God by creation. It explicitly says that we WILL BE sons by adoption.

23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Paul CLEARLY said that we “WAIT for the ADOPTION as sons.” Give a scripture that says that we are sons of God by creation.

Mike quotes a JW source:

Quote

And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son.

So God had relations with Himself?

First, it is totally pagan to say that God begat “in the same sense” that men beget. Men beget by having sexual intercourse with women. Who did Jehovah have relations with Mike? Can't you see the strong resemblance between the JW's and ancient Greek mythology? This is sheer nonsense!

Second, your JW friends do not have a consistent theology. The first source you provided from them said that Jesus was begotten at His baptism. But now you provide a source from them that implies that God had relations with Himself or with some female god and begat “in the same sense” that men beget. Are these two different sources Mike?

Mike:

Quote

I have never called Jesus the KING-SON.

First, you said that Jesus was King before His resurrection and that He was also Son before His resurrection. I say that He became both at His resurrection. Therefore, the only difference between us is the timing of His becoming King-Son.

Second, Jehovah said that Jesus became King-Son when He was “begotten” (Psalm 2:6-7). Paul says that He was “begotten” at His resurrection. It is MOST CLEAR!

thethinker said:

Quote

BOOM! Therefore, the word “begotten” does not mean “to come into being.”

Mike replied:

Quote

It sure does, Jack. If Jesus was dead and gone, wouldn't he have to be begotten again?

Peter said that He was put to death in the flesh but made remained alive in the spirit. Jesus was never “gone.” Therefore, Jesus did not “come into being” again when He came up from among the dead.

Mike:

Quote

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!…Judging from Nicodemus' use of “second time” in verse 4, he must have thought it meant “again” in this instance.

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus. Jesus was not implying that a man must be born a second time as Nicodemus thought. Jesus simply stated as a matter of fact that a man must be born according to the spirit. Paul taught that a man is born according to the spirit FROM HIS PHYSICAL BIRTH

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Galatians 4:28-29

Ishmael was born according to the flesh FROM HAGAR'S WOMB. Isaac was born according to the spirit FROM SARAH'S WOMB. Therefore, all those who are born according to the spirit are born that way FROM THEIR MOTHERS' WOMB. They are not born a “second” time. Nicodemus misundertsood Jesus and Jesus rebuked Him for his ignorance.

Mike:

Quote

But because Jesus is the ONLY Son who was begotten directly by God in the beginning,

You said that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before creation.

You said:

“When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.”

Mike:

Quote

We will also be begotten from the dead to be sons of God,

THERE YOU GO! First, you said that we WILL BE (future) begotten from the dead “to be sons of God.” THANK YOU! This means that we are not actually sons now or that we will become sons in a different way.

Second, you said in the same post that we became sons of God by being created and that we have already been begotten.

You said:

.We are actually sons of God because we were created by Him. But because we wait to be adopted as spiritual sons of God, doesn't mean we haven't yet been begotten

You are confusing me Mike. You said said that we “will be” begotten to be sons. But first you said that we were begotten as sons when we were created.

You seem to be saying something that is a little similar to what I have been saying. I have been saying that Jesus was not the Son of God in the same way He was after His resurrection just as we are not sons of God now in the same way we will be. The difference is that I say that He was the Son of God only by decree and then He was begotten as Son at His resurrection. You are saying that He was begotten as Son twice. Your view is incohernet and unscriptural.

Mike:

Quote

I'm not arguing with Jehovah Jack, just your misinterpretations of what the Scriptures mean.

You are arguing with Jehovah Mike. Jesus was installed as King-Son at the same point in time.

6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

What about this do you not understand?

Mike said:

Quote

Do you think the gospel had at that time actually been proclaimed to every creature (or man) under heaven? Had it been proclaimed to the Native Americans or the Aborigines?

So you are saying then that “pasa ktisis” means the whole created order and that the apostles commanded the rocks and the birds to repent and be baptized?

The scripture says that the gospel had been preached to all mankind. What is your explanation of Paul's words? Paul certainly could not have been saying that the gospel was preached to the rocks and the birds. Did the apostles baptize rocks and birds? What is your explanation Mike? You question Paul's words. Were you there Mike? I really don't know where you expect to go with this.

AGAIN, WERE YOU THERE MIKE?

Mike:

Quote

Again, show me one time in the Scriptures when the word begotten doesn't mean “born” or “borne”. And show me where David is called Jehovah's firstborrn SON.

Psalm 89:20-27 answers both questions as I have already shown.

God said that He would “appoint” David as His Firstborn. Therefore, David was not born when God appointed him. God said that David would address God saying “My Father.” Therefore, David was God's son.

Mike:

Quote

Okay. I concede that when he is called the firstborn from the dead, it deals with mankind. When he is called the firstborn of all creation, it does not. We don't have to agree on this point to move on. Maybe you can enlighten me to the fact that Jesus is God while discussing one
of the other points.

Not good enough! Jesus is called the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn (brother) of all creation” (mankind). The words “image” and “firstborn” restrict the term “pasa ktisis” to mankind. I will not proceed to the next point until you concede the self evident and the plain. For if you cannot concede this then there is no chance of my “enlightening” you on any other point.

Mike:

Quote

Your second post is just nonsense. David is still called the king of Israel even though he is dead.

Wow! To you “death” means “to cease to exist.” You say that David is king even though he is non existant and then say that I speak “nonsense.”

Mike:

Quote

If you think Jesus is still a man living in heaven, more power to you.

I do not believe that Jesus is still a man of flesh like us. But He is still a true man because He still the image of God which is the chief trait of man. He is therefore still a man.

Mike:

Quote

It has nothing to do with this topic.

You first brought it up. Now answer it. How can Jesus still be the Son of Man after He stopped being a man?

Answer it!

thinker

April 6, 2010 at 4:14 am#186099

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

We are debating a lot of different stuff here, which is great because I'm learning. But these post are getting so long again.

Let me ask you two simple questions.

1. If, let's say John, wanted to write a sentence in koine Greek that said, “I love birds and are glad they are a part of 'all creation'”, would the Greek words he used be “pasa ktisis” or not?

2. If John wanted to say that Jim was Stan's 'only begotten' son, would he use the word “monogenes” or not?

There's a contemporary Christian song I like called “Until the whole world hears”. The point of the song is that they are going to sing the praises of Jesus and God until the whole world hears. The planet earth does not have ears, nor will they probably be able to sing it to every single living person on the earth. But in their excitement to spread the good news, they exaggerate a little. Just like when Paul said that they had ALREADY prolcaimed the gospel to all creation, when it is clear that none of the disciples in Paul's day made it to the Americas or Australia. It was an exaggeration. So EVEN AS (WJ's favorite phrase) “the whole world” today can mean “as many people as I can”, “all creation” then could be an eager way of saying “as many people as I can”. And the point of all this is that “the whole world” can still be used literally EVEN AS it can be used metaphorically. Just like “pasa ktisis” could still be used literally. And you have nothing but the fact that it seems to have been used metaphorically for mankind on occasion, to support your claim that it ALWAYS means “only mankind”. I, on the other hand, have the fact that it actually DOES mean ALL CREATION combined with the experts saying that it also means ALL CREATION in the case of Jesus. Your point is not proved, my friend. Sorry.

You said:

Quote

Second, the fact that monogenes translates as “only” or “alone” means that when you read it you just can't assume that it means “begotten.”

Mono means “only” or “alone”. Ginomai means “to generate”. Both words and definitions put together in monogenes mean “only generated”. And again, the experts agree with me:

Quote

used of Christ, denotes the ONLY BEGOTTEN son of God

You said:

Quote

Are you saying that Jesus was the only Son of God who “came into being?”

I'm not saying anything, it's God's Holy Word that tells us that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son. Not that he is the only person who is a son of God. Do you see now why the word “begotten” is so important? It distinguishes Jesus from the angels and mankind. To say that Jesus is the ONLY Son of God would make no sense considering God already called Solomon His son, and Paul says we ARE sons of God,

Quote

Romans 8:14 NIV
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Quote

Galatians 3:26 NIV
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,

Quote

Galatians 4:6 NIV
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

Quote

Hebrews 12:7 NIV
Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?

So Jesus cannot be the ONLY Son of God. But he can be the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Not the only Son who “came into being”, but the only one who was “generated” directly by God in the beginning. Jesus is the only thing created solo by Jehovah, all other things came from God, through Jesus. Not, “all things came from God AND Jesus”.

You have never responded to this logic, yet. If Jesus was God in the beginning, then lowered himself to become man and do his equal's will, when he was raised to the “title position” of only Begotten Son of God, it would have been a demotion. Do you or do you not agree? Sure, God has given him “all power and authority” for now, but he will give it back so Jehovah can be “all in all”. How is this fair or just for the one who used to be equal God?

You said:

Quote

Read again what I actually said with comprehension. I said,

But Isaac did not become “begotten” when God declared Him Abraham's “only” son Mike!

Did he become “begotten” when he was born?

You said:

Quote

So God had relations with Himself?

You sink to a new low, Jack. On the verge of blasphemy IMO. How did God create Adam. Was there a female god involved? Beget simply means “to cause to exist”.

You said:

Quote

Second, your JW friends do not have a consistent theology.

They didn't give any reasons that stand out as to why they think that although he was begotten by God in the beginning, they also think he was begotten by Spirit at his baptism. On the surface, to me it sounds as lame as your argument that he was “begotten” when he was raised. Like all the rest of the time, he didn't exist yet. Oh yeah, “begotten” is just a title. I'll tell you what, I'll give you all the info why they think he was begotten a second time by Spirit so you can refute it. And then you'll be able to see the debate we've been having through my eyes. It gets old when someone just insists by conjecture that this means that and that means this. Show me the Sciptures where someone other than you says or even implies that “firstborn” and “begotten” in the case of Christ are just a titles. A Scripture that actually uses “title” or “position” or a similar word.

You said:

Quote

Where does Peter say that? If Christ wasn't really dead and raised, what hope is there for us? For when we die, we are really dead and gone. 1 Cor 15 says:

Quote

16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

You said:

Quote

Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus.

Okay, that's your take on it. But for Nicodemus to misunderstand Jesus to mean “born again”, the words Jesus used must have had “born again” as one of their definitions. And I note that Jesus did not correct him, but repeats the same words again shortly thereafter, knowing Nicodemus thinks they mean “born again”. This is off topic anyway, but look what I found when I was re-reading it:

Quote

18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son.

How can one stand condemned ALREADY if the one they are to believe in doesn't actually become that one until 3 years later?

You said:

Quote

Ishmael was born according to the flesh FROM HAGAR'S WOMB. Isaac was born according to the spirit FROM SARAH'S WOMB. Therefore, all those who are born according to the spirit are born that way FROM THEIR MOTHERS' WOMB.

Issac was begotten when he was born, not later in his life. So maybe you should be arguing that Jesus was God in the beginning, and became begotten when he was borne by Mary.

You said:

Quote

You said that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before creation.

That's correct. But I can Scripturally prove that he was the “only begotten Son of God” before he was raised. And I have. And I can even prove that he was God's only begotten Son before he came to the earth. And I have. You just want to ignore what the Scriptures actually say. You would rather twist words and definitions and add conjecture to try to make the Scriptures say something other than what is clearly stated. All so you can “prove” that Jesus wasn't less than God in the beginning. I think of all the trinitarian scholars going over Scripture after Scripture with a fine tooth comb, trying to find another verse that is worded a little out of the ordinary, so they can add another strand to their web of deceit. Put the whole book all together, Jack. It's very clear and concise.

You said:

Quote

THERE YOU GO! First, you said that we WILL BE (future) begotten from the dead “to be sons of God.” THANK YOU! This means that we are not actually sons now or that we will become sons in a different way.

That's right again! Now all you have to do is show me the Scripture where someone says Jesus “WILL BE” the only begotten Son of God while he was still on the earth. Because all the tense I can find is present or past. Never future while Jesus was flesh. And we are actually sons now, read the Scriptures I quoted.

You said:

Quote

Second, you said in the same post that we became sons of God by being created and that we have already been begotten.

Right again, old chap! Why is this so hard for you? I know. It's because you can't prove your conjecture Scipturally, so you try to trap me in my own words. We are sons of God because mankind was created by God. We are already begotten because our fathers borne us. Some of us will be sons of God in a different, better sense after the resurrection. Whether we will be called “begotten of God” at that time, and Jesus will cease to be the “ONLY begotten Son of God, or we will be called “adopted” sons of God, or “spiritual” sons of God, or even something else, I do not know. Do you? But we are not now sons of God only by decree.

You said:

Quote

You are saying that He was begotten as Son twice. Your view is incohernet and unscriptural.

The Scriptures say he was the only begotten Son of God before he was on the earth. That's how God was able to have SENT His only begotten Son. The Scriptures also say he is the “firstborn from the dead”. The first one who was BORN or BEGOTTEN from the dead. So, I'm not the one saying he was begotten twice, God is.

You said for the hundreth time:

Quote

You are arguing with Jehovah Mike. Jesus was installed as King-Son at the same point in time.

6 “Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

What about this do you not understand?

It does not say, “I will declare the decree the LORD said to me when He set me on Zion as King:” Jesus said God SENT His only begotten Son. Jesus said that some were ALREADY condemned because they didn't believe he was God's only begotten Son. If Jesus then, in fact became King on Zion after he was raised, then the two statements concern different times.

You said:

Quote

The scripture says that the gospel had been preached to all mankind. What is your explanation of Paul's words? Paul certainly could not have been saying that the gospel was preached to the rocks and the birds.

Answered above.

You said:

Quote

What's that you and WJ always like to say? A half truth i
s a lie. NEVER is David said to be God's firstborn SON. He was APPOINTED “the firstborn of God's kings of the earth”. And you're right, he had already been borne of Jesse when God APPOINTED him. While Jesus was APPOINTED as King, he was NEVER said to have been APPOINTED as God's Son. And I address God as “My Father”, too. That's how Jesus taught us to pray.

You said:

Quote

Not good enough! Jesus is called the “image of the invisible God, the firstborn (brother) of all creation” (mankind). The words “image” and “firstborn” restrict the term “pasa ktisis” to mankind. I will not proceed to the next point until you concede the self evident and the plain. For if you cannot concede this then there is no chance of my “enlightening” you on any other point.

It's funny how trinitarians like to use “image of the invisible God” to mean that Jesus was God. But now you use it to say it means “mankind” because only mankind was made in the image of God. So, by being in the image of God, Jesus was in the image of mankind. I'll remember that if you bring it up for the first reason again. Look Jack, you are the one using parenthesis to explain that firstborn means (brother) and creation means (mankind). These parenthesis are not in the Bible. You have not proven that the wording in the Bible is flawed. The experts agree with me, not you. Give it up. If you cannot bring something new to this point, I am done with it. I will not answer to the same thing over and over anymore. If you do not want to move to “right hand”, I'll just challenge you to another debate about it. Then you will have the choice of whining about how I didn't play the game by your rules so you won't debate me, or you can man up and prove to me that Jesus is God Almighty.

The rest of your post, I've already answered clearly, and you are playing word games. The Son of Man can still be said as one of Jesus' many names, even though he is no longer a man. EVEN AS we can refer to him as the Lamb, even though it's doubful that he is in the form of a bloody lamb in heaven right now. King can still be said in referring to David, so people know which David you are talking about, even though he is dead. Can I still call Abraham Abraham, even though he is dead? When I talk to someone about the OT, can I call him by his old name of Abram if I'm referring to a passage earlier in his life, even though God has now changed it to Abraham?

Move on or move out. I'm done with “begotten” and “firstborn of all creation”.

peace and love,
mike

April 7, 2010 at 12:04 am#186195

Participant

Mike,

I did not have time today. I will be back.

thinker

April 7, 2010 at 2:07 am#186200

Blocked

okay, I'll be here – God the Father willing.

April 7, 2010 at 6:56 pm#186257

http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/documen….nes.pdf

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

Let me ask you two simple questions.

1. If, let's say John, wanted to write a sentence in koine Greek that said, “I love birds and are glad they are a part of 'all creation'”, would the Greek words he used be “pasa ktisis” or not?

Answer: That would depend on context. Paul uses “pasa ktisis” to refer to “all mankind.”

Mike:

Quote

2. If John wanted to say that Jim was Stan's 'only begotten' son, would he use the word “monogenes” or not?

John would not have used “monogenes.” The author to the Hebrews used “monogenes” in reference to Isaac who was NOT Abraham's only Son (Hebrews 11:17). Abraham begat TWO sons. So how was the apostle using “monogenes?” He used it to convey that Isaac was unique from his brother Ishmael. By the time the new testament was written the verbal idea of origin in the word “genes” had been dropped:

Quote

Second, there is linguistic evidence indicating that by the time of the New Testament the idea of derivation or birth was detached from the verbal substantive genos. Hence we find terms like homo-genēs (“of the same kind”) and hetero-genēs (“of a different kind”), in which genēs has absolutely nothing to do with birth or derivation. In fact, there are usages in the Greek literature in which the term monogenēs itself is totally disconnected from the idea of derivation. For instances, the liver is described as monogenēs, that is to say as a “unique” organ; the heavenly bodies are qualified as monogenēs, “unique.” There are certain trees that are monogenēs, “the only ones of their kind.”2

Again, Isaac was not Abraham's only “begotten” son. But he was uniquely different from Ishmael.

According to “usus loquendi” or “common usage” the word “monogenes” meant only, alone or unique. Note that the liver was also called by the term “monogenes.” It was thought of as a unique bodily organ.

Mike:

Quote

Mono means “only” or “alone”. Ginomai means “to generate”. Both words and definitions put together in monogenes mean “only generated”. And again, the experts agree with me:

Origin and etymology are two different things. You prove nothing. You once again ignore that Strong's Concordance says that “ginomai” has a “great latitude” of meanings. Besides, I already told you that if you “don't care” about the authority of the Septuagint, then I “don't care” about your sources.

thethinker said:

Quote

Are you saying that Jesus was the only Son of God who “came into being?”

Mike replied:

Quote

I'm not saying anything, it's God's Holy Word that tells us that Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son.

You are indeed saying that Jesus is the only Son of God who came into being. So own up to it. Your treatment of “monogenes” cannot be maintained with any intelligibility.

Mike:

Quote

So Jesus cannot be the ONLY Son of God.

Thank you Mike! I set you up for this and you took the bait. Previously you said that you take monogenes “AS IT IS WRITTEN.” But what you really mean is that you take the “genes” part of the word as it is written but not the “monos” part. You mean to say that Jesus is literally “begotten” but not literally “only.”

So you are talking out of two sides of your mouth and you are revealing your hypocrisy to all! You take only the second part of the word “as it is written.” HYPOCRITE!

Mike:

Quote

But he can be the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Not the only Son who “came into being”, but the only one who was “generated” directly by God in the beginning.

Huh what? Previously you said:

When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.”

How could Jesus have meant that He was the only Son of God generated in the beginning when the term “Son of Man” is used interchangeably with the term “Son of God?”

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

The “only Son of God” of verse 16 is the “Son of Man” of verse 14. How could Jesus have been God's Son before His becoming a man? ONLY MEN ARE SONS OF GOD! If Jesus was begotten before His exaltation, then it was at His physical birth for ONLY A MAN can be a son of God.

You get more incoherent every day!

Mike:

Quote

I told you that I will answer it when we get to the next point on equality. You assume that the title “only Son” implies inferiority.

Mike:

Quote

You sink to a new low, Jack. On the verge of blasphemy IMO. How did God create Adam. Was there a female god involved? Beget simply means “to cause to exist”.

No way Mike! I did not sink to a new low. You quoted sources that said that God begets in the “SAME SENSE” that men beget. Your source said:

Quote

And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son.

You are now saying that “beget” simply means “to cause to exist.” But your source said that “God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the SAME SENSE that an eartly father, like Abraham begets a son.”

So you would agree with me that this is sheer, pagan nonsense? Do you even pay attention to your own sources before you post them?

Mike:

Quote

Show me the Sciptures where someone other than you says or even implies that “firstborn” and “begotten” in the case of Christ are just a titles. A Scripture that actually uses “title” or “position” or a similar word.

I already have Mike. In Psalm 89:20-27 God said that He would “appoint” David as His “FIRSTBORN.” But you keep sweeping it under the rug. God said, “I will APPOINT Him My firstborn.” And in Psalm 2 God said “I will set my King upon my holy hill….TODAY I have begotten you.”
The word “set” is the Hebrew “nawsak” which means “to anoint.”

Jesus was “anointed” as King on the very day He was begotten as Son.

6 “Yet I have set (anointed) My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.

It's so clear dude! But you have repeatedly swept this under the rug too. Jesus was appointed to the office of King-Son just as His father David.

Mike:

Quote

Where does Peter say that? If Christ wasn't really dead and raised, what hope is there for us? For when we die, we are really dead and gone.[/color]
It was Paul and not Peter. Sorry. Paul said that Jesus was put to death in the flesh but justified in the spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16).

The Bible is clear that Jesus was justified in the spirit. This means that His spirit did not die because a justified spirit cannot be condemned. And if it is not condemned it cannot die. Jesus died only in the flesh.

Mike:

For when we die, we are really dead and gone.

The scripture repeatedly says that the dead “slept.” One who sleeps is not “gone.”

Mike:

Quote

But for Nicodemus to misunderstand Jesus to mean “born again”, the words Jesus used must have had “born again” as one of their definitions. And I note that Jesus did not correct him, but repeats the same words again shortly thereafter, knowing Nicodemus thinks they mean “born again”.

First, the Greek “anothen” is erroneously translated “again” in John 3. It is no where else translated that way. In verse 31 it is translated as “above.”

Second, the translators render it “again” on the basis of Nicodemus' question about a “second” birth and not on the basis of what Jesus Himself said. Nicodemus erroneously thought that birth from above implied a second birth.

Third, Jesus indeed corrected Nicodemus contrary to what you think (verse 10).

Fourth, the word “anothen” is also translated as “from the first.”

…it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, Luke 1:3

The reading “from the first” is the Greek “anothen.” It NEVER means “again.” The translators base their translation on Nicodemus' thought that birth from above is a second birth. But birth from above is not a second birth. All who are born from beneath come into the world that way. All who are born from above also come into the world that way. Therefore, birth from above is not a second birth.

Mike:

Quote

How can one stand condemned ALREADY if the one they are to believe in doesn't actually become that one until 3 years later?

Mike:

Quote

Issac was begotten when he was born, not later in his life. So maybe you should be arguing that Jesus was God in the beginning, and became begotten when he was borne by Mary.

Mike:

Quote

First, you admit again that you cannot prove scripturally that Jesus was begotten before creation. THEN CONCEDE THAT “FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION” MEANS THAT JESUS IS THE SUPREME BROTHER OF MANKIND.

Second, you have proven only to yourself that Jesus was begotten before His exaltation. You have denied the apostolic testimony that He was begotten at his resurrection. And you have denied the Septuagint rendering of “monogenes” and the “usus loquendi” (common usage) of the time.

You have miserably failed in this debate!

Mike:

Quote

Now all you have to do is show me the Scripture where someone says Jesus “WILL BE” the only begotten Son of God while he was still on the earth.

See all my arguments above.

Mike:

Quote

We are sons of God because mankind was created by God.

I asked you to show it from scripture and instead you just repeat your theory without any basis. This is called “circular reasoning” in case you didn't know. Please give a chapter and verse which says that we are sons of God by creation. Paul CLEARLY said that we are sons of God by faith in Jes
us Christ. Do all men believe in Jesus Mike? NO! Therefore, men are not sons by creation.

Give your scriptural support or drop it.

Mike:

Quote

It does not say, “I will declare the decree the LORD said to me when He set me on Zion as King:”

First, the Psalm CLEARLY says that Jesus was made King when He was “begotten” as Son.

Paul said that He was “begotten” at His resurrection (Acts 13:33).

It's clear dude!

Mike:

Quote

Jesus said that some were ALREADY condemned because they didn't believe he was God's only begotten Son. If Jesus then, in fact became King on Zion after he was raised, then the two statements concern different times.

No! The etymology and the “usus loquendi” of the word “monogenes” contradicts you. Not to mention the authoritative Septuagint. Jesus simply said that He was God's “only Son.” Before His resurrection He was God's Son by decree. Psalm 2 puts His being begotten in real time with His being set up as King. Jesus said that He was going away to receive His kingdom. Therefore, He was not King-Son UNTIL He went back to heaven and assumed His throne.

Mike:

Quote

NEVER is David said to be God's firstborn SON

I don't want to be cruel but this is asinine. God said that He would appoint David as His “firstborn” and that David would call God “My Father.” Strong's Concordance says that the word “firstborn” means “eldest son” (# 1060). So God in essence said “I will appoint him my ELDEST SON.

You're really a piece of work my friend.

Mike:

Quote

It's funny how trinitarians like to use “image of the invisible God” to mean that Jesus was God.

What! I used the term to show that Jesus is still a man!

Mike:

Quote

So, by being in the image of God, Jesus was in the image of mankind. I'll remember that if you bring it up for the first reason again.

What! I said that His still being in the image of God means that He is still a man. When did I say that “image of God” means “image of man?”

Mike:

Quote

Jack, you are the one using parenthesis to explain that firstborn means (brother) and creation means (mankind). These parenthesis are not in the Bible. You have not proven that the wording in the Bible is flawed. The experts agree with me, not you.

First, you have a poor memory Mike. It was your own JW “experts” who said that the “firstborn” was the eldest son in relation to its own group. Remember! So there are “experts” that agree with me too.

Second, many “experts” agree with me that “pasa ktisis” in verse 23 means “all mankind.” I am just interpreting it the same in verse 6. I don't know what you are talking about in reference to there being no parenthesis in the Bible. Who said anything about “parenthesis?” I say to you that there is no equivocation in the Bible. The term” “pasa ktisis” does not mean one thing in verse 6 and another thing in verse 23. Paul gives no indication that the meaning changes.

A “firstborn” son was the eldest in a family. Therefore, the term “pasa ktisis” in verse 6 is “all mankind” and is the same who was preached to in verse 23. IT IS CLEAR!

Mike:

Quote

The Son of Man can still be said as one of Jesus' many names, even though he is no longer a man. EVEN AS we can refer to him as the Lamb, even though it's doubful that he is in the form of a bloody lamb in heaven right now. King can still be said in referring to David, so people know which David you are talking about, even though he is dead. Can I still call Abraham Abraham, even though he is dead? When I talk to someone about the OT, can I call him by his old name of Abram if I'm referring to a passage earlier in his life, even though God has now changed it to Abraham?

If Jesus is no longer a man then He is not still the Son of Man. For you to say that He can still be called the Son of Man when He is not a man and that David is still a king when he no longer exists is absurd.

Jesus cannot be the Son of Man if He is not a man.

Your explanation is an example of you allowing liberties for yourself that you will not allow for me.

I noticed that you did not comment on my point that the Septuagint is called “the scripture” by Luke. This destroys your theory that “monogenes” still meant “begotten” when the new testament was written.

thinker

April 8, 2010 at 3:21 am#186313

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

I will only answer to the parts of this post needed to clarify lies you've told, to get a real answer to my questions, or if it's something new.

You said:

Quote

Answer: That would depend on context. Paul uses “pasa ktisis” to refer to “all mankind.”

I gave you the context. Answer the question.

You said:

Quote

John would not have used “monogenes.”

What word would have been used. COULD monogenes have been used?

You said:

Quote

According to “usus loquendi” or “common usage” the word “monogenes” meant only, alone or unique.

I've showed you that “only” couldn't work.

You said:

Quote

So you are talking out of two sides of your mouth and you are revealing your hypocrisy to all! You take only the second part of the word “as it is written.” HYPOCRITE!

Wow! You're so smart – you got me! Read back and you'll find what I actually said.

You said:

Quote

That is not what Paul said or implied. Solomon said that the living are conscious that they will die, the dead are conscious of nothing at all.

You said:

Quote

The scripture repeatedly says that the dead “slept.” One who sleeps is not “gone.”

“Sleep” was a polite way of saying died. Just as we say “passed away”. Do you refute Solomon?

You said:

Quote

If God had said ” David is my firstborn son” and left it at that, I could agree. But He didn't, did He? He made it clear that he was APPOINTED as the firstborn of the kings of the earth. For the millionth time, do you have a Scripture where Jesus is actually said, (not just thought by you), to be appointed as the Son of God? One where the word “appointed” is used of Christ being a firstborn of anything, as it is of David?

You said:

Quote

Jesus cannot be the Son of Man if He is not a man.

Was Jesus a man when Daniel had his vision and saw one that looked like a “son of man”?

That's it. Everything else has been discussed repeatedly and my view, NOT YOURS has been corroborated by the experts.

Right Hand or move on.

peace and love,
mike

April 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm#186358

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

I gave you the context. Answer the question.

Mike,

You gave me no “context” to work with. You gave me an example of how “pasa ktisis” should be an exaggeration in verse 23. In other words, you do not accept the scriptures “as they read” as you claim. The problem FOR YOU is that I can impose your exaggeration theory into verse 6. I can say that Paul was using exaggeration when he said that Jesus is the firstborn of “pasa ktisis.”

Try to understand Mike that I deny that there is equivocation in the Bible. When a word is used more than once in the same context it must have the same meaning and not two or more meanings. It must also have the same scope of meaning. Therefore, if “pasa ktisis” is a hyperbole in verse 23, then it is also a hyperbole in verse 6.

You should have learned before now how I think. You should have said to yourself, “If I say that pasa ktisis is an exaggeration in verse 23, then thethinker will say it is an exaggeration in verse 6.”

I don't buy your “exaggeration” explanation Mike. Jesus did not say “go into all the world as much as you can and preach the gospel to pasa ktisis as much as you can.”

Paul said that “TRULY” everyone heard the gospel:

18 But I say, have they not heard? YES TRULY:

“ Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.” Rom. 10:18

Paul said “TRULY” they all have heard! Therefore, “pasa ktisis” means “all mankind” both in verses 6 & 23

Mike:

Quote

What word would have been used. COULD monogenes have been used?

The Lexographers say that John would have used the word monogennetos (unigenitus or only begotten). By the time the new testament was written the word “monogenes” meant “one of a kind” or “unique.” This is why the ancient translations rendered it “only” or “unique.”

Mike:

Quote

I've showed you that “only” couldn't work.

Therefore, you do not take the whole word “as it reads” as you have falsely claimed. You take only the “genes” part of it as you think it reads. The “genes” part of it as you understand it certainly does not work in John 1:18. Did God beget God (hotheos)?

Mike:

Quote

Read back and you'll find what I actually said

Repeat it please!

Mike:

Quote

That is not what Paul said or implied. Solomon said that the living are conscious that they will die, the dead are conscious of nothing at all.

Paul said that Jesus was justified in the spirit. A justified spirit cannot be condemned to death. Paul then said that He was seen of angels. How can a person that is “gone” be seen of angels? Therefore, Jesus was not gone. He said to the thief, “Today, you shall be WITH ME in paradise.” Show how two people who are “gone” can be WITH each other.

Mike:

Quote

Solomon said that the living are conscious that they will die, the dead are conscious of nothing at all.

I have met this lame argument many times. Read the whole book in its context dude. Solomon was speaking of his perception of things when he was in pursuit of the wisdom that is “under the sun.” He said that there is no profit in labor and that the crooked cannot be made straight. We know that these are the perceptions of a hopeless man who is not thinking according to God's wisdom.

But later Solomon came to understand the wisdom of God. Beginning with chapter 9:7 to the end Solomon reversed all His previous perceptions.

When will you condition yourself to read the Bible in its context?

Mike:

Quote

“Sleep” was a polite way of saying died. Just as we say “passed away”. Do you refute Solomon?

I agree that “sleep” was another way of saying “died.” But “died” did not mean annihilation. If Jesus was annihilated, then the One sitting at God's right hand would not be the same Jesus. You misunderstand Solomon. Chapter 9:7 to the end reveals that he had a change in his thinking.

Mike:

Quote

God had said ” David is my firstborn son” and left it at that, I could agree.

CRAP! God Himself said that David would address God as “My Father.” The word “firstborn” means “eldest SON.” Of all your arguments this is the most lame of them.

Mike:

Quote

Was Jesus a man when Daniel had his vision and saw one that looked like a “son of man”?

So you are open that Jesus could have been the Son of God before He was actually begotten?

If He could be the Son of Man before actually becoming a man, then why couldn't he be the Son of God before actually being begotten? You walked right in to that one as the Star Wars Emperor would say, “as I have foreseen.”

Mike:

Quote

Everything else has been discussed repeatedly and my view, NOT YOURS has been corroborated by the experts.

Big talk. I suppose the Septuagint translation's rendering of “monogenes” is not “expert?”

Again you said:

Quote

When was Jesus begotten? While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.”

You certainly spend a whole lot of time trying to argue a point that you admitted more than once you cannot scripturally prove. What a waste of time it is to argue something you know you cannot scripturally prove. This makes no more
sense than your goofy theology.

I am consistent. That's one thing you gotta grant me.

thinker

April 9, 2010 at 4:05 am#186458

Blocked

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

You gave me no “context” to work with.

I gave you the context of John saying a bird was a part of “all creation”. What words would John have used?

You said:

Quote

The problem FOR YOU is that I can impose your exaggeration theory into verse 6. I can say that Paul was using exaggeration when he said that Jesus is the firstborn of “pasa ktisis.”

I gave an example of how “the whole world” could be used both figuratively and literally. Could they not do this in Bible times?

You said:

Quote

Try to understand Mike that I deny that there is equivocation in the Bible. When a word is used more than once in the same context it must have the same meaning and not two or more meanings.

Yet, you insist that monogenes has many different meanings and usages in the Bible.

You said:

Quote

Paul said “TRULY” they all have heard! Therefore, “pasa ktisis” means “all mankind” both in verses 6 & 23

Yet, that was obvioulsy a zealous exaggeration. Had the gospel actually gone out to all the earth at that time? It still hasn't today.

You said:

Quote

The Lexographers say that John would have used the word monogennetos (unigenitus or only begotten). By the time the new testament was written the word “monogenes” meant “one of a kind” or “unique.” This is why the ancient translations rendered it “only” or “unique.”

Paste your proof of this, please. What of Issac? Did it not mean “only born”? And if it meant “only” in the case of Jesus, would that fit in with the rest of Scripture that tells us God has many sons?

You said:

Quote

Did God beget God (hotheos)?

Online Bible Tools says the word used, “huios”, means son, not God. But even so, of course God Almighty could beget a god (powerful one). Why not?

You said:

Quote

Repeat it please!

Okay, I'll repeat it. As if I have nothing else to do. You said:

Quote

So you are talking out of two sides of your mouth and you are revealing your hypocrisy to all! You take only the second part of the word “as it is written.” HYPOCRITE!

I take the whole word as it is said. Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. He cannot be the ONLY son, period, because God has many sons. But he is the only one begotten directly by God. In other words, while we all come from God indirectly, we are not begotten by Him, but our fathers. Jesus is the only son of God that was begotten by Him.

You said:

Quote

Therefore, Jesus was not gone.

Sure he was, but this is another point of discussion and will have to wait until after right hand. Mark it down, I'll be happy to discuss it with you later.

You said:

Quote

CRAP! God Himself said that David would address God as “My Father.” The word “firstborn” means “eldest SON.” Of all your arguments this is the most lame of them.

You're trying desperately to show that “firstborn” is a title only. Even as a title, how many firstborn sons can there be? Doesn't the word “FIRST” limit it to one?

You said:

Quote

If it said he was the “begotten Son of Man”, then whether he was that before, during, or after he was raised, the begotten stays with the timeline. So if he was the “begotten Son of Man” in heaven before he came to earth, then he was “BEGOTTEN” in heaven before he came to earth. If he wasn't begotten as the Son of Man until he was born of Mary, then he wasn't the Son of Man at all until he was born of Mary. Begotten stays with the rest. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He can't be just the Son of God part and then be begotten, or caused to exist later. If he didn't become begotten until he was raised, then he wasn't the Son of God until he was raised. So, who was he on earth? God says he was His Son. Jesus says he was His Son. The disciples say he was His Son. The demons say he was His Son. The Bible scholars say he was His Son. Only Jack says he wasn't His Son.

Let me try it another way. You said:

Quote

then why couldn't he be the Son of God before actually being begotten?

Could he actually BE the Son of God before he actually was the Son of God? NO. So could he actually then BE the Begotten Son of God before he actually was the Begotten Son of God? NO. I don't know what else to do here, Jack. He couldn't have been the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD on earth if he wasn't really the only begotten Son of God until he was raised. And the Scriptures say that he WAS the only begotten Son of God while he was on the earth, and even before he came to earth.

You said:

Quote

B
ig talk. I suppose the Septuagint translation's rendering of “monogenes” is not “expert?”

What does that even mean? Does the Septuagint come with a disclaimer saying that when it mentions “monogenes” in regard to Jesus, it means “only”, not “only begotten”?

BTW, Paul gave some links yesterday, but I was hoping to find an interlinear where I could see the original Hebrew next to the Septuagint Greek next to the English. Any thoughts?

You said:

Quote

You certainly spend a whole lot of time trying to argue a point that you admitted more than once you cannot scripturally prove.

That's kind of misleading. I said that while I can Scripturally prove he was begotten before the creation of anything else, I can't say when exactly that was. A million years ago? A billion? A gazillion? Who knows? As the Word, he was the only begotten Son of God, through whom everything else came into being. So, it was probably a long time ago.

peace and love,
mike

April 9, 2010 at 6:33 pm#186519

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

I gave you the context of John saying a bird was a part of “all creation”. What words would John have used?

Mike,

If you want to move on to the next point, then why do you keep this point alive?

I missed the “context” you gave about birds. John qould have used “oikumene” which by metonymy denotes the inhabitants of the earth. I am getting irritated with this. Eeven if I agreed that “pasa ktisis” was used elsewhere for the whole created order it definitely refers to “all mankind” in Colossians 1.

And while we are on the subject the word for the whole created order is “kosmos.”

“pasa ktisis” = all mankind

“oikoumene” = the inhabitable earth or the inhabitants of the earth

“kosmos” = the whole created order.

Enough now. It is your turn to prove that “pasa ktisis” in Colossians 1 means more than “all mankind.” I don't want your assumptions. I want proof.

Mike:

Quote

Yet, you insist that monogenes has many different meanings and usages in the Bible

Read what I said again. I said that a word that is used more than once in the same context cannot have more than one meaning and scope. The word “pasa ktisis” has only one meaning and scope in Colossians chapter one. I have not attributed many meanings to monogenes. Produce the statements where I did.

Mike:

Quote

Yet, that was obvioulsy a zealous exaggeration. Had the gospel actually gone out to all the earth at that time? It still hasn't today.

Were you there? So you don't interpret the Bible “as it reads” after all eh? The fact that the gospel has not reached everyone today has nothing to do with what Paul said. It had reached THEIR whole world. Jesus promised them that they would reach their world (Acts 1:8).

I said:

Quote

You replied:

Quote

Paste your proof of this, please.

I will if you give me your word that you will properly refute it if you disagree and not just say “I don't care.” I can't take that man. My spirit gets out of whack when you do that.

Mike:

Quote

What of Issac? Did it not mean “only born”?

The word “genes” did not mean “born” by the time the new testament was written. The word when used with a suffix simply meant “kind.” An example is the word homogenous which means human kind.

Isaac was Abraham's “kind” because he followed in the footsteps of His father Abraham. Isaac as Abraham's “monogenes” had nothing to do with birth. The idea of origin in the word “genes” had been dropped before the new testament was written.

The ancient translations had it right in translating monogenes as “only” or “unique.” Jesus is the only Son who is after God's kind. What of Issac? Did it not mean “only born”? Modern english translation of monogenes is to be rejected.

Mike:

Quote

As if I have nothing else to do.

Cut the crap! You post way too much already wasting time trying to argue things you admit you cannot scripturally prove.

Mike:

Quote

take the whole word as it is said. Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. He cannot be the ONLY son, period, because God has many sons.

You are indeed a blind man. You say that you take it as it is said ONLY BEGOTTEN SON. Then in the next breath you say “He cannot be God's ONLY son.” So you are speaking out of two sides of your mouth!

I said:

Quote

Did God beget God (hotheos)?

You replied:

Quote

Online Bible Tools says the word used, “huios”, means son, not God.

Are you having a few beers before you post? The NWT says “only begotten god.” But the word “theos” (god) has the definite article. So it is not “a god” that was “begotten.” So answer my question. Can God beget [the] God (hotheos)? My answer is an emphatic NO! Therefore, “monogenes theos” means, “the only God of the Father's kind.”

Mike:

Quote

Sure he was, but this is another point of discussion and will have to wait until after right hand.

Then who is the person sitting at God's right hand now? If the first Jesus was “gone” then the “Jesus” at God's right hand is another being. You commented out of context a statement made by king Solomon when he said that the dead know nothing. You failed to notice that he this BEFORE he acquired the wisdom of God when he was still wrestling with the wisdom that is “under the sun” (human wisdom). He later came to realize the falsity of his perceptions.

The book of Proverbs contains the wisdom of Solomon which came from God. Solomon did not believe that men were annihilated. In Proverbs he said just the opposite. He said that men go down to sheol ALIVE. Sheol was the place where men went to await the resurrection. Solomon said that men go down there ALIVE.

Show from the book of Proverbs that Solomon believed that men were annihilated.

Mike:

Quote

What does that even mean? Does the Septuagint come with a disclaimer saying that when it mentions “monogenes” in regard to Jesus, it means “only”, not “only begotten”?

It has all been explained to you already. Show that the word “monogenes” meant “begotten.” It did not. We have been misled by English translations. It means “only” or “unique” (in kind). Jesus was the only Son who was after God' kind.

Mike:

Quote

You're trying desperately to show that “firstborn” is a title only.

You're trying desperately to rob the word “firstborn” of the “eldest son” meaning. When God anointed and appointed David as “My Firstborn” He meant “My firstborn [son].” God said that David would address him as “My Father” as the direct result of the anointing and appointing. The “desperation” is all yours.

Mike:

Quote

it said he was the “begotten Son of Man”, then whether he was that before, during, or after he was raised, the begotten stays with the timeline. So if he was the “begotten Son of Man” in heaven before he came to earth, then he was “BEGOTTEN” in heaven before he came to earth. If he wasn't begotten as the Son of Man until he was born of Mary, then he wasn't the Son of Man at all until he was born of Mary. Begotten stays with the rest. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. He can't be just the Son of God part and then be begotten, or caused to exist later. If he didn't become begotten until he was raised, then he wasn't the Son of God until he was raised. So, who was he on earth?

Decipher please!

Mike:

Quote

God says he was His Son. Jesus says he was His Son. The disciples say he was His Son. The demons say he was His Son. The Bible scholars say he was His Son. Only Jack says he wasn't His Son.

Jack did not say He wasn't Son. Jack said that He was Son by decree but not begotten until His resurrection. He was also the Son of Man but not “begotten” until he was born of a woman. I believe I have made myself clear. We are sons now though we are not yet adopted. I will gladly help your infirmity and keep repeating this.
Mike:

Quote

Could he actually BE the Son of God before he actually was the Son of God? NO. So could he actually then BE the Begotten Son of God before he actually was the Begotten Son of God? NO.

Yet you say that he was the Son of Man before He became a man.

Mike:

Quote

And the Scriptures say that he WAS the only begotten Son of God while he was on the earth, and even before he came to earth.

The scriptures do not say that He was the “monogennetos” Son while on earth. He was not begotten until His resurrection. He was the monogenes Son while on earth and forevermore. The word “genes” does not mean “begotten.” We can thank our English translation for your confusion.

The ancient translations did not translate “genes” as “begotten.” All the Latin translations, the Peshitta Syriac and the Greek old testament translations read “only” or “unique” or “one of a kind.”

Jesus was God's “monogenes” Son, that is, “the Only Son after God's kind.”

Example: Homogenous” means “humankind.”

thinker

April 9, 2010 at 11:59 pm#186553

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?….k&gl=us

Participant

Mike,

This is a supplement to my post earlier today. I decided to give you one of my sources for “monogennetos.” Please don't give me any of your “I don't care” stuff. If you disagree with it then refute it.

Please note especially the sections I put in bold.

Christ's Sonship:

It was at the resurrection of Jesus Christ that God declared the decree: “Thou art My Son, this day have I brought Thee forth.” As Paul said in Romans 1:4; “Declared to be the Son of God . . . by the resurrection from among the dead.”

The title, or office, as the Son of God had nothing to do with Jesus being God’s little boy. It had everything to do with Jesus Christ becoming God’s Son as the official representative in all matters that relate to God’s authority, power, dignity, and right. Sonship, to the ancient Hebrew’s way of thinking, constituted rulership. Even while the father was still alive, his “son” was equal to the father. When the son spoke, it was as if the father had spoken. In the Hebrew concept, the “son” was the representative of the father. The Lord Jesus Christ certainly confirms this many times when He says such things as; “And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak: (John 12:50).

Tom L. Ballinger

Monogennetos:

For this to be correctly translated “only begotten,” the Greek word would have to have been monogennetos, but this word was not in the Greek text. The Interlinear Bible shows the Greek word translated “only begotten” was monogenes (Strong’s Concordance word No. 3439). Hence, a wrong translation—the evidence is clear.
.
Look at the NIV translation of John 1:14; “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only (monogenes), who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The NIV didn’t fall into the trap of letting their theological views dictate the translation of monogenes. The NIV’s “One and Only” translation, based on my understanding, would be true to the Greek and true to the truth which the Spirit is imparting.

The Revised Standard Version, also, seems to be true to the truth; “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son (monogenes) from the Father.”

Monogenes does not mean “only begotten.” Monogennetos means “only begotten.”

Monogenes means “only Son after God's kind.

Example: Homogenous means “humankind.”

I have more sources on this which I will invoke if necessary.

thinker

April 10, 2010 at 7:24 pm#186649