Mikeboll64 vs. the thinker (Kangaroo Jack)

[KangarooJack]

Mike has said:

Quote

When was Jesus begotten?  While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it.” ]https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80

Mike said:

Quote

It is a big leap for you to use the word “definitely” for something that is only your conjecture, and not supported by the leading scholoars, don't you think?

Arthur Custance replies:

“It seems clear enough that the Great Commission of Mark's Gospel has reference to the human race alone. There is the familiar story of St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds, but I doubt if it is really the intent of the original that the Gospel is to be preached to animals as well as to man, commanding them all alike to believe and be saved. If it is, the command has certainly never been taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Christian people. So at least in Mark the Greek phrase rendered “the whole creation” clearly refers only to humanity, to human society. Nor can one suppose that Paul was including the world of animals in Colossians 1:23. This must surely be equally true of Colossians 1:15, for it would be ABSURD to suppose that the Lord is to be called the firstborn of animals and plants.”

http://custance.org/old/seed/ch8s.html

Fine Mike. If you want to believe the “absurd” as Custance would say then go for it. If you want to propagate the nonsense that the Lord is firstborn over dumb animals then more power to you.

thethinker said:

Quote

I have not attributed many meanings to monogenes. Produce the statements where I did.

Mike replied:

Quote

Unique, alone, lonely, only, liver.

Yes, the word “monogenes” simply means “only” or “unique” no matter what noun it modifies whether it be a “unique” organ such as the liver or a “unique” person such as God's Son. One meaning no matter what it modifies.

Mike:

Quote

I gave you the logic that Jesus is not the firstborn of mankind.  What more can I do?  You are the one who assumes it means something other than it's definition.

It is you who assumes it means something else. Your own source said:

“Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals…. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?”

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=70

There it is Mike! Your own source says that before Colossians 1:15 the “firstborn” always was “part of a group.” Then they say, “What then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning of it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof.”

So what is it that causes you to ascribe a different meaning of the word in Colossians 1:15? What motivates you to make Jesus the firstborn of the groups of dumb animals?

Mike:

Quote

And, excluding Adam and Eve, doesn't “human kind” infer one who was “BORN” of a human?

In the case of humans but not in the case of God. He didn't give birth because He is spirit.

Mike:

Quote

God, while having other sons by creation, has only one begotten son.

God does not have a monogennetos (begotten) Son. Jesus is His “monogenes” Son (the Son after His kind). The word “genes” does not mean “begotten.”

Mike:

Quote

And God can beget anyone or anything he desires.

God does not have reproductive organs. He is spirit.

Mike:

Quote

If Scripture says that God had sent the begotten Son of Man to the earth, then we could reason that Jesus had been begotten as the Son of Man by God before he was born of Mary.

The scripture does not say that God sent His “gennetos” (begotten) Son to the earth. It says that Jesus is God's “genes” Son. The word “genes” does not mean “begotten.”

Mike:

Quote

Does the “begotten” he received after he was raised mean “begotten” or “only”?  You are not really arguing what the word “monogenes” means Jack, only when the “monogenes” applies.

I am indeed arguing with your meaning of the word “genes.” I am not saying that “genes” applied at His resurrection. The word “begotten” in reference to His resurrection is the Greek “gennao” which is a totally different word.

Mike:

Quote

All right, let's use your definition.  God sent to the earth “the Only Son after God's kind”.  Does taking out the word “begotten” change the timeframe?  He was still “the Only Son after God's kind” while he was on earth.  And since God SENT the one who was already “the Only Son after God's kind”, he must have been “the Only Son after God's kind” in heaven, before he came to earth.  Was David APPOINTED to be “the Only Son after God's kind”?  And was Jesus said to be APPOINTED to the position of “the Only Son after God's kind?

The problem for you is that if we use my definition, then Jesus was not created but was the ETERNAL Son after God's kind. But this cannot be the cas
e either. He was God's kind because He was the ETERNAL WORD. The Eternal Word became Son and was the “only Son after God's kind.”

Mike:

Quote

And I would jump on board with you if those pesky little words “with power”, that Mr. Ballinger left out, weren't there.  Or if all those other pesky little Scriptures that say something different weren't there.  But they are.  And the words “with power” change the whole meaning.  So since the quote he uses to support his conjecture of when the decree was declared, does not say what he interprets it to say, his first claim is nothing except his opinion.

I fail to see how the words “with power” help you. For you have said that it means that when He was raised from the dead He became Son with “all power.” This means that He became King-Son at His resurrection right along with what Psalm 2:6-7 says. It says that He became King-Son when He was “begotten.”

The term “with power” may also be rendered “with authority.”

He became the Son of God “with authority” by the resurrection of the dead. He became King-Son when He was resurrected or begotten.

Mike:

Quote

Jack, enough enough enough.  You want to prove your opinion by others who have a similar opinion.  But the Scriptures do not support the opinion, no matter how many others you quote that believe it.

The scriptures do not support your idea that Jesus is the “firstborn” of dumb animals. Furthermore, you are being totally irrational. You have admitted that you cannot scripturally prove that jesus was begotten before creation. No rational man argues for that he knows he cannot scripturally prove. This does not make sense!

You said:

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

Mike:

Quote

Pasa ktisis does mean “every creature” or “all creation” regardless of whether the phrase was used as a zealous way of saying “all the people you can” or not.

Nope! Jesus is not the “firstborn” of dumb animals.

You said:

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

Mike:

Quote

And even if we use your definition instead of “begotten”, it doesn't change WHEN it happened.

There is no scripture which says that Jesus was ever “gennato” (begotten) at any time. They say that He was “gennao” at His resurrection. The word “genes” does not mean “begotten” and does not have a reference to time at all. Jesus was the Eternal Word after God's kind who became the “monogenes” Son among men.

Mike:

Quote

Nor does it all of a sudden make it be only a title or position.

Your reasoning is circular. You assume that it was not a title to begin with. It was a title to begin with in the case of His father David and was also a title for Himself.

Mike:

Quote

You have failed to show a Scripture that supports your theory that Jesus was “appointed” as firstborn, God's Son, or God's only begotten Son, or that they are “titles” or “positions”

And you have failed to show that Jesus is the “firstborn” of the groups of dumb animals. In fact, you even go against your own source which says that up until Colossians 1:15 the word always meant the “firstborn of a group.” Your own source indicts you in saying,

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals…. “What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?”

Your own source indicts you and justifies me.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

How long can this go on?  I will clarify some things for you again.

I had said:

Quote

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

I stand by this statement still.  I can and have proven he was begotten before he came to earth by, “God SENT his only begotten Son…”  Isn't that enough for the puposes of our debate?  Aren't we debating whether he was begotten before of after he was raised?  Besides, the fact that everything came from the Father, through the Son makes a pretty strong statement that Jesus was the Son before everything else was created.  And since “begotten” means “caused to exist”, he would have had to be “begotten” the exact moment he became alive.

You said:

Quote

Fine Mike. If you want to believe the “absurd” as my source would say then go for it. If you want to propagate the nonsense that the Lord is firstborn over dumb animals then more power to you.

While I appreciated reading your source's material, three things come to mind.
1.  I would be willing to bet a million dollars that the writer is a trinitarian.
2.  I'm not the only one who preaches to animals, so you don't have to worry about me anymore.
3.  Your source and you have a strange way of looking at “firstborn of all creation”, but I will lump this answer in with the JW part below:

Quote

Jack:It is you who assumes it means something else. Your own source said: Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals…. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

Firstborn of all creation means Jesus was born before anything else in the whole of creation was born.  The Witnesses are saying that the “firstborn” is part of the group it is the “firstborn” of.  Which makes Jesus a part of the group of “created things”.  The JW's are asking why people like you attempt to change the meaning of “firstborn of creation” to make it be only a title or position, or to make it apply only to mankind, when every other time it is used, it means what it says.  So, as “absurd” as it may seem to you and the friend you quoted, yes, Jesus was born before angels, men, rabbits and even parasites.  Since all are a part of the group of creation, he is the firstborn of them all.

You said:

Quote

In the case of humans but not in the case of God. He didn't give birth because He is spirit.

You have no idea how God brought about the existence of His Son.

You said:

Quote

I am indeed arguing with your meaning of the word “genes.” I am not saying that “genes” applied at His resurrection. The word “begotten” in reference to His resurrection is the Greek “gennao” which is a totally different word.

Tell me Mr. two years of Greek, does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word?  Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”.  Is this information correct?

You said:

Quote

The problem for you is that if we use my definition, then Jesus was not created but was the ETERNAL Son after God's kind. But this cannot be the case either. He was God's kind because He was the ETERNAL WORD. The Eternal Word became Son and was the “only Son after God's kind.”

Nonsense.  If God created Jesus to be “the only son after God's kind”, the fact that he was made eliminates the “from everlasting” part.  And the fact that Jesus died eliminates the “to everlasting” part.  However, he cannot die again, according to Paul, therefore he is now eternal in the sense that he will live “to everlasting”.  And I've been meaning to ask you, where do you find “ETERNAL WORD” in the Scriptures?

You said:

Quote

I fail to see how the words “with power” help you.

Jesus was the Son of God on earth.  He did not have all the power then that he now has after being raised.  Therefore, while still being the same Son of God that he was on earth, he is now the Son of God “with power”.

I said:

Quote

You have failed to show a Scripture that supports your theory that Jesus was “appointed” as firstborn, God's Son, or God's only begotten Son, or that they are “titles” or “positions”

To which you responded:

Quote

And you have failed to show that Jesus is the “firstborn” of the groups of dumb animals. In fact, you even go against your own source which says that up until Colossians 1:15 the word always meant the “firstborn of a group.” Your own source indicts you in saying,

Your word, “AND” sums it up for this point of discussion.  It is your admittal that you cannot Scripturally prove what you set out to prove.  All you have is conjecture, and I do not agree with your opinion on this matter.  Let's move on!

And one last time, in case you missed it – Jesus is the firstborn of the group of things created.  He was created before anything else was.

Show me that “at the right hand of” means equality.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike,

I am taking a break today and maybe tomorrow. I answered you on the Echad Elohim thread and WJ's post will keep you busy anyway.

I do want to post a scripture that WJ gave David on the “Title confusion Trick” topic:

YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT

This means that Jesus could not have been “begotten.” There was no God formed before or after Jehovah. Therefore, Jesus did not come into being.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Good.  Maybe you can come back fresh and show me how right hand means equality.

Our debate is to investigate whether or not Jesus is God Almighty.  I can prove he's not without the “begotten” or “firstborn” points.  So let's move on – we have been at a stalemate on these for a long time.  Everything is repetition.

To answer your quote – There is absolutely no other GOD besides Jehovah.  That includes His Son, Jesus Christ.  There are however, other “gods”.  The Scriptures prove it, and Jesus is one of them.  So is Satan. We can discuss this after the “right hand” point if you like.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

I can and have proven he was begotten before he came to earth by, “God SENT his only begotten Son…”

You have proven nothing because you argue from “monogenes” which does not mean “begotten.”  

Mike:

Quote

Besides, the fact that everything came from the Father, through the Son makes a pretty strong statement that Jesus was the Son before everything else was created.

Again your reasoning is circular. Everything comes through the Son NOW. This was not necessarily true before. Why is the old testament silent about things coming through the Son?

Mike:

Quote

And since “begotten” means “caused to exist”, he would have had to be “begotten” the exact moment he became alive.

There is no scripture which says that Jesus was begotten before His resurrection. The word “monogenes” does not mean “begotten.” He never “came alive” for He is the Word which was always with God.

Mike:

Quote

While I appreciated reading your source's material, three things come to mind. 1.  I would be willing to bet a million dollars that the writer is a trinitarian.

Ad hominen! This is just your way of dismissing evidence.

Mike:

Quote

Firstborn of all creation means Jesus was born before anything else in the whole of creation was born.

So Jesus came out of a female god's womb? Firstborn means “born” and not created. Paul never said that Jesus was the first created.

Mike:

Quote

The Witnesses are saying that the “firstborn” is part of the group it is the “firstborn” of.  Which makes Jesus a part of the group of “created things”.

They explicitly say that the word “firstborn” means “eldest son.” David was also God's “firstborn.” David was not the first created was he? The Witnesses said that the firstborn of Israel was an Israelite, the firstborn of Pharoah was of the house of Pharoah. They said that the firstborn of beasts are themselves animals.

Mike:

Quote

The JW's are asking why people like you attempt to change the meaning of “firstborn of creation” to make it be only a title or position, or to make it apply only to mankind, when every other time it is used, it means what it says.

First, I never said that firstborn refers “only” to a title or position. I said that David and Christ were firstborn by title and position. Second, the JW's are not talking about me at all. No definition I have offered for the word “firstborn” is unbiblical. It means “eldest son” AND “first in rank” and one may become the firstborn in title or position. All that I have said about the word is biblical. Paul said that Jesus is the firstborn and as such He has the “Supremacy.” You have never talked about the “Supremacy” idea which is present in the word “firstborn.” I should not have let you slide on that. Be prepared to be dogged about it now. It never means first created. What does “firstborn of Abraham” mean? Does it mean that Ishmael was the first created being or does it mean that he was Abraham's eldest son holding rank by right?

By your logic all the Jewish Christians were the first created because they are all called the “firstborn.”

22But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23To the general assembly and church of the firstborn [ones], which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, Hebrews 12:22-23

The word “firstborn” here is plural. There were many others who were “firstborn.” These were the Jewish Christians of the first century. Were they the “first created” creatures?

Mike:

Quote

You have no idea how God brought about the existence of His Son.

So you do believe then that Jesus was a god who was formed after God even though WJ has destroyed this idea?

YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT

What part of the statement, “no God was formed BEFORE Me OR AFTER Me” do you not understand? Your own translation makes it clear that no God was formed before or after Jehovah. It seems to me that you should side with those who deny Christ's preexistence and deny that He is any kind of god at all. For no god of any kind was formed before or after Jehovah! On this point WJ has buried you. I wish I would have thought of it.

You have been hung up to dry here my friend!

Mike:

Quote

…does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word?  Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”.  Is this information correct?

Strong's says that “gennao” means “to procreate of the father and of the mother” (# 1080). So you have just said that Jesus was procreated. In other words, God has sex with a female god and that's how Jesus came into being. Greek vocabulary is one thing. Greek exegesis is another thing. You know nothing about Greek Exegesis.

Mike:

Quote

If God created Jesus to be “the only son after God's kind”, the fact that he was made eliminates the “from everlasting” part.

Now that's a big “if” isn't it? There was no God formed before or after Jehovah:

YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTI
NUED TO BE NONE”. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT

Mike;

Quote

Therefore, while still being the same Son of God that he was on earth, he is now the Son of God “with power”.

Exactly! This is also when He was begotten (gennao).

Mike:

Quote

Your word, “AND” sums it up for this point of discussion.  It is your admittal that you cannot Scripturally prove what you set out to prove.

First, the word is “admission” and not “admittal.” Second, show how what I said is an admission of anything. All I meant by my statment is that I proved nothing TO YOU. I did receive a message from an anti-trinitarian who said that he agrees with me. So I have persuaded at least one person regarding the meaning of “firstborn.”  You are just being hard headed about the word “firstborn” and you know it.

Mike:

Quote

And one last time, in case you missed it – Jesus is the firstborn of the group of things created.  He was created before anything else was.

Now make up your mind. You have said that you stand by your statement that you cannot scripturally prove that He was begotten when He was created. Then you speak out of the other side of your mouth and say that He is the firstborn because He is the firstcreated. This would mean that He was begotten when He was created.

I believed you when you originally said you were here to learn. I do not believe you now.

YOU are my witnesses,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. “BEFORE ME THERE WAS NO GOD FORMED, AND AFTER ME THERE CONTINUED TO BE NONE”. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.” Isa 43:10 NWT

How could Jesus be a created god when Jehovah plainly said that before and after Him there has been no god formed?

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

You have proven nothing because you argue from “monogenes” which does not mean “begotten.”

So use your definition then.  It proves that Jesus was “the Only Son after God's kind” before he came to earth because God SENT His “only Son after God's kind” to earth.  

You said:

Quote

Everything comes through the Son NOW. This was not necessarily true before.

Who do you think John was talking about when he said, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”?

You said:

Quote

There is no scripture which says that Jesus was begotten before His resurrection.

So he became “the Only Son after God's kind” when he was raised?  How could God have SENT someone who didn't exist yet?  Who was he really on earth while he was telling people he was God's Son?

You said:

Quote

So Jesus came out of a female god's womb? Firstborn means “born” and not created.

Jesus is also the “firstborn from the dead”.  Was he “born” of a female god's womb when he was raised?  

You said:

Quote

The word “firstborn” here is plural. There were many others who were “firstborn.” These were the Jewish Christians of the first century. Were they the “first created” creatures?

Does it say they were the “firstborn of all creation”?

You said:

Quote

It means “eldest son” AND “first in rank” and one may become the firstborn in title or position. All that I have said about the word is biblical.

Yet, you cannot accept that it could possibly mean exactly what it says – Jesus is the first born of all creation, period.  Let's see if you can be honest with yourself and me.  Say that Col 1:15 wasn't talking about Jesus at all.  Say Paul was talking about the angel Gabriel.  He said, “Gabriel is the image of the invisible Trinity Godhead, the firstborn of all creation.”  Do you think that you and all your trinitarian scholars would be looking over Scripture after Scripture to find any spec of evidence that could invalidate that statement or change the definition of the words?  Would you take the “image” part to mean he was in fact The Trinity Godhead or equal to It?

Then later, Gabriel says, “I am the 'arche' of the creation of The Trinity Godhead.”  After comparing it with Col 1:15, would you translate the word “arche” as “beginning”, or “ruler”?
How about after knowing John used that word 20 other times, and it always meant “beginning”?

You said:

Quote

What part of the statement, “no God was formed BEFORE Me OR AFTER Me” do you not understand?

So I guess the “god of this world” wasn't formed.  Satan must then, like Jesus, be the eternal Almighty God Jehovah, right?

You said:

Quote

Strong's says that “gennao” means “to procreate…”

Thank you, that is all.  But I would like a concise “yes” or “no” to my questions, please.  1.  Does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word?  Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”.  2.  Is this information correct?

You said:

Quote

Exactly! This is also when He was begotten (gennao).

Ahhh!  So THIS is when God had sex with a female god and procreated Jesus.  Like I said before, you're not REALLY arguing the “begotten”, just the WHEN of it.

You said:

Quote

I did receive a message from an anti-trinitarian who said that he agrees with me.

So did I – when we first started this debate.  And I told him the same thing I told you:  If you can reasonably show me from Scripture how God could have sent His only begotten Son before he was actually begotten, I too will believe.  Jack, all I've asked of you is a Scripture where someone says, “begotten is a title”, or firstborn is a position” when they refer to Jesus.  But there are none.  Therefore, I will take the Scriptures at face value instead of your opinion.  BTW, I never was sent any Scriptural evidence from the person who sent the message, either.

You said:

Quote

This would mean that He was begotten when He was created.

And?  They both mean “caused to exist”.  And Jesus calls himself the “only begotten Son of God” and also the “beginning of the creation of God”.  And John calls him the “only begotten god” and Paul calls him the “firstborn of all creation”.  So whether it is worded as “created” or “begotten”, God caused Jesus to exist.  When?  At the exact time that God caused Jesus to exist.  That's my final answer, Regis.

You said:

Quote

I believed you when you originally said you were here to learn. I do not believe you now.

Oh, but I AM learning so much.  Just because I don't agree with your opinion, don't think I don't appreciate you as a catalyst for learning.  I've delved deeper into Scriptural knowledge than I ever would have without this debate.  (P.S.  Even though I just said “I AM”, don't confuse me with Jehovah)

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker, I just got this from your post:

Quote

From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God's Son, was at work in the creation.”

Who? That's right, God's Son. The one who was God's Son before creation. Or did they really mean, “God's decreed, soon to be after he is raised from the dead, Son”?

You said:

Quote

Everything comes through the Son NOW. This was not necessarily true before.

Do you disagree with the source you saw fit to quote?

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

So use your definition then.  It proves that Jesus was “the Only Son after God's kind” before he came to earth because God SENT His “only Son after God's kind” to earth.

I have said that He was the Son of God by decree a zillion times. But He was not “begotten” to the office of Son until He was resurrected from the dead. The son in Hebrew culture still had to be “investitured” as the source I gave correctly said.

The word monogenes does not prove that Jesus was created.

Mike:

Quote

Who do you think John was talking about when he said, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”?

I can't believe you asked this. Verse 1 says that it was the Word “through which all things came into being.”

thethinker said:

Quote

There is no scripture which says that Jesus was begotten before His resurrection.

Mike asked:

Quote

So he became “the Only Son after God's kind” when he was raised?

I have said that His being begotten (gennao) at His resurrection had to do with His assuming His office as King-Son. His being after God's kind is separate.

Mike:

Quote

Jesus is also the “firstborn from the dead”.  Was he “born” of a female god's womb when he was raised?

I asked you first. Did Jesus come into being by procreation?

thethinker

Quote

The word “firstborn” here is plural. There were many others who were “firstborn.” These were the Jewish Christians of the first century. Were they the “first created” creatures?

Mike replied:

Quote

Does it say they were the “firstborn of all creation”?

I asked you first. Just answer the question. Does the word “firstborn” in reference to them mean that they were first created? If you say no then in what sense were they firstborn?

Mike:

Quote

Yet, you cannot accept that it could possibly mean exactly what it says – Jesus is the first born of all creation, period.

First, I see no “period” after the term “pasa ktisis.” I see Paul's explanation that it means that He is the Head of the body. There is no “period” where you put it.

Second, Paul said that He is the “firstborn of pasa ktisis” BECAUSE all things were created by Him. How can He be the first created being BECAUSE all things were created by Him?

Mike:

Quote

So I guess the “god of this world” wasn't formed.  Satan must then, like Jesus, be the eternal Almighty God Jehovah, right?

So you are saying then that the people of God have more than one God? Please answer plainly.

thethinker said:

Quote

Strong's says that “gennao” means “to procreate of the father and of the mother” (# 1080).

Mike's cut n' paste of thinker's words:

Quote

Strong's says that “gennao” means “to procreate…”

Mike's reply to his cut n' paste of thinker's words:

Quote

Thank you, that is all.  But I would like a concise “yes” or “no” to my questions, please.  1.  Does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word?  Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”.  2.  Is this information correct?

You say “thank you” for what? You cut n' pasted what I said. Now deal with my point. Was Jesus procreated of a father and a mother?

Cut n' paste work like this causes me to think you are a dishonest man.

Mike:

Quote

Ahhh!  So THIS is when God had sex with a female god and procreated Jesus.

You are getting bizarre. It is you who is insisting upon the literal interpretation of the word “begotten.” My point was that if you take “gennao” literally in reference to Christ's supposed origin, then you are stuck with the conclusion that Jesus came into being by God having sex.

I am glad you are keeping this point alive. The more we go at this the more nonsensical you get.

Mike:

Quote

They both mean “caused to exist”.

The word “begotten” in the phrase, “today I have begotten you” is the word “gennao” which means specifically “to procreate of a father and a mother”. You say that Jesus was begotten when He came into existence. So will you take gennao “as it reads” which would mean that God had sex and that's how Jesus came into being? Or will you go with Strong's statement that “ginomai” has a “great latitude of meaning?”

Please indicate where you will go with the word “gennao”. Literal or figurative.

Mike:

Quote

So did I – when we first started this debate.  And I told him the same thing I told you:  If you can reasonably show me from Scripture how God could have sent His only begotten Son before he was actually begotten, I too will believe.  Jack, all I've asked of you is a Scripture where someone says, “begotten is a title”, or firstborn is a position” when they refer t o Jesus.  But there are none.  Therefore, I will take the Scriptures at face value instead of your opinion.  BTW, I never was sent any Scriptural evidence from the person who sent the message, either.

Only my message counts because it was from a person on the opposing side. I have given you king David as my prime example that one may be appointed as “firstborn”. I have also given Isaac and Jacob as examples but it has done no good. They were appointed firstborn in the place of their older brothers.

I have also given you Hebrews 1 which says that Jesus has BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent NAME. It goes on to say that that name is “firstborn.” Yet you even denied this. You blatantly contradicted Hebrews 1.

Jacob appointed Ephraim the firstborn and declared that God would honor the appointment:

Quote

17And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head. 18And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. 19And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. 20And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. Gen. 48:17-70

Notice that Jacob “SET” Ephraim “BEFORE” Manasseh. The word “set” here means “to appoint.” Ephraim was anointed the firstborn. This had nothing to do with Ephraim existing before Manasseh. He became “before” Manasseh in the sense he was preeminent or supreme.

God honored this appointment and said “Ephraim is MY FIRSTBORN” (Jeremiah 31:9).

Oh geez Mike! God had at least TWO firstborn sons which were Ephraim and David. This really messes thing up for you Bub! God had at least THREE firstborn sons we know about.

Therefore, Christ is the “firstborn of pasa ktisis” in the sense that He is OVER pasa ktisis. It has nothing to do with His coming into being chronologically before creation anymore than Ephraim's being before Manasseh had a chronological reference

You still have not commented on the word “head” and “supreme” in reference to Christ's being firstborn:

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence (supremacy). When will you get around to commenting on this?

1. How can Jesus be “a god” with God when God said that there were no gods formed before or after Him? Satan has nothing to do with it. You say that Christ is “a god” with God. HOW?

2. Do you take the Greek word gennao “as it reads”? If so, then with whom did God have relations? It literally means “to procreate as of a father and a mother”. Or do you take it in a figurative sense?

3. Are the “firstborn [ones]” in Hebrews 12 first created? If not, then what does the term “firstborn” mean in reference to them?

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

This is getting really old, man.  There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “position” of the Son of God by a decree.  There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “title” of begotten Son of God.  I have an 8 year old son.  Do you think he is my son by “title” only, and that I gave him the position of “begotten son of Mike” when he was, say, 5 years old?  Take the words for what they say, Jack.  I am getting very tired of this.  Jesus is God's Son.  From the beginning of his existence, he was God's Son.  That's what the Scriptures so plainly teach.  But you must twist them to fit into a MAN (not God)-made doctrine.  But all it does is make you look desparate and unintelligent.  An intelligent man would know the significance of the Father/Son relationship.  How many times do the Scriptures have to say that Jehovah is the Father AND God of Jesus until it sinks in?

Against my better judgement, I will do this one more time.  Your questions/points are:

1.  I have said that He was the Son of God by decree a zillion times.      

You have failed to Scripturally prove that.

2.   But He was not “begotten” to the office of Son until He was resurrected from the dead.

You have failed to Scripturally prove that.

3.  I asked you first. Did Jesus come into being by procreation?

I don't know what method Jehovah used to cause Jesus to exist.  And neither can you put any limitations on how God brought Jesus into existence.  Everything is possible with God.

4.  Does the word “firstborn” in reference to them mean that they were first created? If you say no then in what sense were they firstborn?

 No. IMO, he is talking about the ones who are the FIRST to be “BORN again”.  So the term works.  Please don't try to infer that “this is a title, so firstborn is also a title for Jesus”.  I have no more patience for nonsense.  Only Scriptural proof, or at least intelligent logic based on Scriptures from now on, please.  Paul uses the term “firstfruits” in 1 Cor to refer to the first ones after Jesus to be raised from the dead.

5.  First, I see no “period” after the term “pasa ktisis.”

The “period” is mine, Jack.  Come on, really?  Let me rephrase it:  Yet, you cannot accept that it could possibly mean exactly what it says – Jesus is the first born of all creation, AND THAT'S ALL, NOTHING ELSE NO HIDDEN MEANINGS, AMEN.

6.  Second, Paul said that He is the “firstborn of pasa ktisis” BECAUSE all things were created by Him. How can He be the first created being BECAUSE all things were created by Him?

Could it be like the “when it says 'everything', it is clear that this does not include God himself” verse?  It means that he HAD TO HAVE BEEN the first thing ever created, BECAUSE everything else was created through him.  All (other) things could not have come through him if he wasn't created before all (other) things.  You have to infer the (other), because unlike 1 Cor 15:27, Paul doesn't add the disclaimer, “when it says 'all things', it is clear that this does not include Jesus himself, therefore it means 'all OTHER things'”.  Paul was making it clear that God didn't create a few things, then create Jesus, then create other things through Jesus.  Jesus had to be the first in order that God could create everything (else) through His Son.

7.  So you are saying then that the people of God have more than one God? Please answer plainly.

Jesus is my Lord, not my God.  If I saw Gabriel, I would say, “There's an angel”, not, “There's my angel”.  If I saw Jesus, I would say, “There's my Lord”, or, “There's my King”.  If I saw the glory of Jehovah, I would say, “There's my God”.  That should be plain enough for you.

8.  Strong's says that “gennao” means “to procreate of the father and of the mother” (# 1080).

Strong's says that monogenes in the case of Jesus means he is the “only begotten Son of God”.

9.  Please indicate where you will go with the word “gennao”. Literal or figurative.

 You know where I stand.  And you also know that “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word.  And that Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And that the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”.  While you have put your own spin on this information and have tried to use some slight of hand, you have denied none of it.

10.  I have given you king David as my prime example that one may be appointed as “firstborn”.

When you show me the Scripture that say Jesus was APPOINTED as the only begotten Son of God, I will take a hard look at it.  Until then, you're just whistling Dixie.

11.   I have also given Isaac and Jacob as examples but it has done no good. they were appointed firstborn in the place of their older brothers.

And if Jesus had a brother, and gave his rights to them for a meal or whatever, then the brother would inherit the rights of the firstborn.  THE BROTHER WOULD INHERIT THE RIGHTS THAT USED TO BELONG TO JESUS BECAUSE HE WAS THE FIRST ONE BORN.

12.  I have also given you Hebrews 1 which says that Jesus has BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent NAME. It goes on to say that that name is “firstborn.”

It does not say the name is “firstborn”.  In Rev, we are told that no one knows this name he inherited.  This is just more repetition and lies.

13.  Jacob appointed Ephraim the firstborn and declared that God would honor the appointment:

Remember that Scripture.  I'll use it for the “right hand” debate.  My answer of #11 applies equally here.

14.  Oh geez Mike! God had at least TWO firstborn sons which were Ephraim and David. This really messes thing up for you Bub! God had at least THREE firstborn sons we know about.

More than that, Jack!  “‘This is what Jehovah has said: “Israel is my son, my firstborn”.  Do you think the tribe of Ephraim and the nation of Israel are God's firstborn sons in the same way that Jesus is?  You're moving further and further from the truth, dude.

15.  Therefore, Christ is the “firstborn of pasa ktisis” in the sense that He is OVER pasa ktisis. It has nothing to do with His coming into being chronologically before creation anymore than Ephraim's being before Manasseh had a chronological reference.

I've answered this in #11.  Just because someone's firstborn rights are given to one who was born after him, it doesn't change the fact that the firstborn rights originally belonged to THE ONE WHO WAS BORN FIRST.

16.  You still have not commented on the word “head” and “supreme” in reference to Christ's being firstborn:

What's to comment on?  It doesn't say that since Christ was given the “position” of firstborn, he now is supreme.  Nor does it say that about being the head of the church.  It does, however, say: 18 “And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 FOR GOD WAS PLEASED to have all his fullness dwell in him,…”   God was pleased to make His son, Jesus supreme.  About the “head”, Paul says elsewhere that God is the “head” of Christ.  Maybe God the Son secretly gave Jehovah the superior “title” of “only begotten Son of God”, and that is why Jehovah is now the “head” of Christ.  

Do you see how utterly ridiculous your arguments are?  You pick a word here and a sentence there and try to bend it into Scriptural truth.  IT DOESN'T WORK, MAN!  Anymore than me arguing that the nation of Israel is really Jesus' begotten br
other because God called it His firstborn son.  Is the nation of Israel also a part of your godhead?  Because I've got Scriptural proof that God made it equal to God by calling it His son.  This is what your arguments sound like to me.  And Moses is also God because God said he would be God to Pharoah, and once God, always God, right?  Utter stupidity, man.

For the last time, “firstborn of all creation” means Jesus was born before anything else in creation, Amen.

And “the only begotten Son of God” means Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, Amen.

Jack, I am done with this.  My questions in this post are rhetorical.  I will not respond to any more of this nonsense.  You have failed miserably to show the two terms mean anything other than what they say.  The scholars and the Scriptures agree with me, Amen.

If you fail to answer on the right hand, I will post a different debate, but I am done responding on begotten and firstborn of all creation.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “position” of the Son of God by a decree.

May I ask you what Bible you are reading?

“I WILL DECLARE THE DECREE: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”Ps. 2

and,

3 “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh 4And DECREED to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead” Rom. 1

Mike:

Quote

There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “title” of begotten Son of God.

May I ask you AGAIN which Bible you are reading?

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, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

It CLEARLY says that Jesus acquired the name “Son” BY INHERITANCE!

Mike:

Quote

I have an 8 year old son.  Do you think he is my son by “title” only, and that I gave him the position of “begotten son of Mike” when he was, say, 5 years old?

Your son was not appointed your son. Jesus was appointed Son like His father David before Him. Your illustration reflects your Westernized view of the title “Son” in reference to Jesus. This is a bastardization of God's truth!

thethinker said:

Quote

I have said that He was the Son of God by decree a zillion times.

     

Mike replied:

Quote

You have failed to Scripturally prove that.

God replies to Mike:
I WILL DECLARE THE DECREE: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ps. 2

thethinker said:

Quote

But He was not “begotten” to the office of Son until He was resurrected from the dead.

Mike replied:

Quote

You have failed to Scripturally prove that.

Paul replies to Mike:
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Mike said:

Quote

I don't know what method Jehovah used to cause Jesus to exist.

Yes you do know how God supposedly brought Jesus into existence. You know because you take the words of scripture “as they read.” Paul said that Jesus was “gennao” (begotten). This literally means “to come into being by procreation of a father and a mother.” Therefore, you are forced by your reading of the scriptures to conclude that God had relations with a female god. You are a polytheist aren't you? You believe that there are many gods out there. So couldn't some of the gods out there be females? Couldn't Jehovah have had relations with one of them?

Don't say that you take the scriptures “as they read” and then say you “don't know” how God brought Jesus into being.

You know that if you press the literal meaning of “gennao” it will open the door for me to come after you on the word “ginomai.”

Mike:

Quote

IMO, he is talking about the ones who are the FIRST to be “BORN again”.  So the term works.

So the term “firstborn” does not necessarily mean “first created.” Right? My point was that if it ever means “firstborn [by appointment]”, then your views of Colossians 1 are inconclusive at best.

Furthermore, the word “firstborn” ALWAYS REFERS TO A MAN! Was Jesus a man at the beginning of creation? Was Jesus created a man Mike?

Mike:

Quote

Could it be like the “when it says 'everything', it is clear that this does not include God himself” verse?  It means that he HAD TO HAVE BEEN the first thing ever created, BECAUSE everything else was created through him.  All (other) things could not have come through him if he wasn't created before all (other) things.  You have to infer the (other), because unlike 1 Cor 15:27, Paul doesn't add the disclaimer, “when it says 'all things', it is clear that this does not include Jesus himself, therefore it means 'all OTHER things'”.  Paul was making it clear that God didn't create a few things, then create Jesus, then create other things through Jesus.  Jesus had to be the first in order that God could create everything (else) through His Son.

Gobbledygook!

thethinker said:

Quote

So you are saying then that the people of God have more than one God? Please answer plainly.

Mike replied:

Quote

Jesus is my Lord, not my God.

Yet you believe that Jesus is “a god” who is with God. But God said that there is no god formed BEFORE or AFTER Him.

Therefore, Jesus is either one with God as God or He is no god at all. It's that simple! You should take the side of those here who deny that Jesus us a god of any kind. That would be better than your constant double talk. A theology that is inconsistent cannot be correct.

Mike:

Quote

It does not say the name is “firstborn”.  In Rev, we are told that no one knows this name he inherited.  This is just more repetition and lies.

Great! So you agree now that He “inherited” a name? You're coming along after all! It says that He inherited the name “Son” and “firstborn.”

4 So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that HE HAS INHERITED a name more excellent than theirs.

5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”  NWT

thethinker said:

Quote

Please indicate where you will go with the word “gennao”. Literal or figurative.

Mike replied:

Quote

You know where I stand.  And you also know that “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word.

Where you “stand”? You just said that you “don't know” how Jesus came into being. You said:

“I don't know what method Jehovah used to cause Jesus to exist.”

But now you say that I know where you “stand.” You don't even know where you stand.  

Mike:

Quote

And you also know that “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word.

And you also know that Strong's says that the root word “ginomai” has a “GREAT LATITUDE of meaning.” And you also know from the authoritative Septuagint translation that “genes” did not have reference to coming into being. You also know that the idea of origin in the word “genes” was dropped before new testament times. You also know that words undergo etymological changes over time. Yet you bury your head in the sand.

But the one thing you do not know is how Jehovah brought Jesus into being. Yet you say that I know where you “stand.”

Mike:

Quote

When you show me the Scripture that say Jesus was APPOINTED as the only begotten Son of God, I will take a hard look at it.  Until then, you're just whistling Dixie.

The whole Davidic line was APPOINTED. God said, “I will SET (appoint) my king upon My holy hill. I will declare the decree, 'You are My Son….' “

thethinker said:

Quote

I have also given Isaac and Jacob as examples but it has done no good. they were appointed firstborn in the place of their older brothers.

Mike replied:

Quote

And if Jesus had a brother, and gave his rights to them for a meal or whatever, then the brother would inherit the rights of the firstborn.  THE BROTHER WOULD INHERIT THE RIGHTS THAT USED TO BELONG TO JESUS BECAUSE HE WAS THE FIRST ONE BORN.

Are you now saying that Jesus was firstborn from His human birth and not before creation? This would be a more consistent anti-trinitarianism for you to adopt. The problem with the JW brand of anti-trinitarianism is that it is so incoherent and inconsistent.

Mike:

Quote

What's to comment on?  It doesn't say that since Christ was given the “position” of firstborn, he now is supreme.

It says that “firstborn” means “supreme.”

Mike:

Quote

God was pleased to make His son, Jesus supreme.

Therefore, God made Him “firstborn” because the word “firstborn” means “supreme.”

Mike:

Quote

About the “head”, Paul says elsewhere that God is the “head” of Christ.

First, Paul said that God was the head of Christ as the man is the head of the woman. The man was not ontologically superior to the woman. The man's headship was only functional. So God was superior to Christ only functionally.

Second, Paul said that the head of the man is Christ.

Third, Paul taught that Christ is the head because He is the HUSBAND (Eph. 5). Uh, maybe you didn't know this but the Husband in the old testament was God. You said that Christ is your Lord but not your God. Then He is not your “husband” either because the Husband was God.

If Christ is the Husband of the new testament, then He is the God of the new testament for the Husband is God.

Mike:

Quote

Do you see how utterly ridiculous your arguments are?  You pick a word here and a sentence there and try to bend it into Scriptural truth.  IT DOESN'T WORK, MAN!  Anymore than me arguing that the nation of Israel is really Jesus' begotten brother because God called it His firstborn son.

Those were all types of Christ sir! All the apppointments of men or of nations to the position of “firstborn” were prophetic of the appointment of Christ to His position of “firstborn.” Those appointments were shadows of Christ's appointment. This means that they foretold Christ's appointment to Firstborn Son.

So I am not ridiculous! You are without spiritual perception. You think with a carnal mind.

Mike:

Quote

For the last time, “firstborn of all creation” means Jesus was born before anything else in creation, Amen.

Yet you have said more than once:

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

You said you stand by this:

“I stand by this statement still.”

You have said that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before His creation. Then you said that y
ou “stand by” that statement. Yet you continue to argue for it even putting your “Amen” to it.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Ok Thinker,

I can't resist.  You talk so much trash without shame.

I said:  There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “position” of the Son of God by a decree.

Answer to the BOLDED part, smarty.

I said:  There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “title” of begotten Son of God.

Answer to the BOLDED part.

You said:

Quote

It CLEARLY says that Jesus acquired the name “Son” BY INHERITANCE!

Not only doesn't it say the name he inherited was “son”, as if we can now call him “Sonny Boy” or something, but your interpretation doesn't allow for him ALREADY BEING THE SON OF GOD WHILE ON EARTH.

Show a Scripture, please, where someone besides you thought that while on earth, Jesus was only “the soon to be Son of God”.

You said:

Quote

Your son was not appointed your son. Jesus was appointed Son like His father David before Him.

Show a Scripture that says Jesus was APPOINTED as God's Son.

You said:

Quote

I have said that He was the Son of God by decree a zillion times.

I'm sorry, I misread the word “only” in front of “by decree” in your statement.  Yes, he was decreed by his Father and his God to be His only begotten Son before he came to earth.  You get hung up on timing the Kingship with Jesus being the Son.  But Jesus isn't actually our reigning King yet, is he?  But you and I agree that he is the Son of God at present.  Read this:

Quote

Isaiah 46:10 NIV I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

So if God says he set His King on Zion, it could be that it hasn't happened yet, but he has purposed it to happen.  And according to the other things to come associated with that Psalm, I would have to guess that the latter part is for the future.  For he is not ruling our world with an iron scepter as of yet.  On the other hand, Peter and John say that the earlier things mentioned in that Psalm happened while Jesus was on earth.  Acts 4 says:

25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
  ” 'Why do the nations rage
     and the peoples plot in vain?
   26 The kings of the earth take their stand
     and the rulers gather together
     against the Lord
     and against his Anointed One. 27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Was Jesus set as King on Zion when he was raised?  Or is the actual “crowning” not to take place until the future?  It was spoken about by God as if it had already happened many years before he was raised.  But if God purposes it to be, then it is like it has happened, because it WILL be done.  The same could also be said about Jesus being begotten.  But in this case, you'll have to have a better answer than, “Everyone knew by Spirit that he 'would be' the Son, so that's why he was called the Son of God before he was raised.”  Just as we know from Acts that the things mentioned in verses 1 and 2 of that Psalm happened while Jesus was on earth, we also know from Jesus' own mouth that the “begotten part” happened BEFORE he came to earth.

You said:

Quote

Paul replies to Mike: 32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

What promise made to the fathers was fulfilled?  Please answer.  Hint: Read the previous verses.

You said:

Quote

You know that if you press the literal meaning of “gennao” it will open the door for me to come after you on the word “ginomai.”

Please don't avoid this again:
1.  Does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word?  Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”. 2.  Is this information correct?

You said:

Quote

So the term “firstborn” does not necessarily mean “first created.”

Only if it says “the firstborn OF ALL CREATION”.

You said:

Quote

Furthermore, the word “firstborn” ALWAYS REFERS TO A MAN! Was Jesus a man at the beginning of creation? Was Jesus created a man Mike?

Even if it is referring to “the firstborn male goat”?

I said:  Could it be like the “when it says 'everything', it is clear that this does not include God himself” verse?  It means that he HAD TO HAVE BEEN the first thing ever created, BECAUSE everything else was created through him.  All (other) things could not have come through him if he wasn't created before all (other) things.  You have to infer the (other), because unlike 1 Cor 15:27, Paul doesn't add the disclaimer, “when it says 'all things', it is clear that this does not include Jesus himself, therefore it means 'all OTHER things'”.  Paul was making it clear that God didn't create a few things, then create Jesus, then create other things through Jesus.  Jesus had to be the first in order that God could create everything (else) through His Son.

To which you said:  Gobbledygook!

Answer to the fact that Jesus has to be the “firstborn of creation BECAUSE all (other) things were created through him.

You said:

Quote

Therefore, Jesus is either one with God as God or He is no god at all. It's that simple! You should take the side of those here who deny that Jesus us a god of any kind. That would be better than your constant double talk. A theology that is inconsistent cannot be correct.

Please post the definitions for the wor
d “god”.  Use any source you like.  Then explain to me how what you posted above is anything more than stupidity.

You said:

Quote

Great! So you agree now that He “inherited” a name? You're coming along after all! It says that He inherited the name “Son” and “firstborn.”

Please answer all of these:

Quote

Revelation 3:12 NIV Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

If you overcome, will the new name Jesus writes on you be “Son of God”?

Quote

Revelation 14:1 NIV Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.

Will Jesus write “Son of God” on your forehead, Jack?

Quote

Revelation 19:12 NIV His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself.

Did John mean to say that no one knows it but himself AND JACK?

How in the world could he inherit a name by being raised that he already had while he was on earth?  And before?

You said:

Quote

And you also know from the authoritative Septuagint translation that “genes” did not have reference to coming into being. You also know that the idea of origin in the word “genes” was dropped before new testament times.

I know nothing of the sort.  What I do know is that Strong's says the in the case of Jesus, monogenes means “THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD”.  Do you think that for all the years Bibles have translated it this way they were all wrong?  Did none of these translators understand Greek the way your new trinitarian scholars do?  It is just another attempt by trinitarians to say, “Well, we can't argue this Scripture away, so we'll have to use the 'black really means white' trick and hope that it sticks.

You said:

Quote

But the one thing you do not know is how Jehovah brought Jesus into being.

In the words of Jehovah Himself, “Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!” (Job 38:21 NIV)

You said:

Quote

The whole Davidic line was APPOINTED. God said, “I will SET (appoint) my king upon My holy hill. I will declare the decree, 'You are My Son….' “

Sorry, no sale.  You're reaching again.  Where does it say Jesus was APPOIONTED as God's Son?

You said:

Quote

Are you now saying that Jesus was firstborn from His human birth and not before creation? This would be a more consistent anti-trinitarianism for you to adopt. The problem with the JW brand of anti-trinitarianism is that it is so incoherent and inconsistent.

Is that what I said?  Did I even specify whether it was a human or spiritual brother in my analogy?  Please answer both, because I am getting sick and tired of you twisting my words.  It is an idiotic thing to do when the words I actually said are in plain view for all to see.  You're like the guy who sets his clock 5 minutes ahead because he thinks he can actually fool himself into thinking it's later than it is so he won't be late.  I'm the guy asking myself, “Is he so dumb that he doesn't remember that he set his clock 5 minutes ahead?”  And what does my analogy have to do with Jehovah's Witnesses?  Idiocy!

You said:

Quote

It says that “firstborn” means “supreme.”

Please post your translation of the Scripture so I can read those words for myself – they're not in my Bible.

You said:

Quote

Therefore, God made Him “firstborn” because the word “firstborn” means “supreme.”

But it doesn't actually say that, does it?

You said:

Quote

First, Paul said that God was the head of Christ as the man is the head of the woman.

We're getting ahead of ourselves.  We can discuss your twists on this after “right hand”.

You said:

Quote

Those were all types of Christ sir!

I guess you're right, Christ means annointed one.  I think I'll run with this and start my own flawed man-made doctrine that states “the nation of Israel is the fourth person in the godhead”.  Will you support me?

You said:

Quote

So I am not ridiculous!

I'll take that as a “YES”.

You said:

Quote

You have said that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before His creation. Then you said that you “stand by” that statement. Yet you continue to argue for it even putting your “Amen” to it.

You're right.  You've got me pinned down.  I'm tapping out.  You have overwhelmed me with your Scriptural prowess.  Begotten is a title.  Firstborn is a position.  You win.  Let's move on.

Show me how being at the “right hand” of someone means you are:
a.  That same being.
b.  Equal to that being.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Show me how being at the “right hand” of someone means you are:
a. That same being.
b. Equal to that being.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 20 2010,11:08)

Hi Thinker, Show me how being at the “right hand” of someone means you are: a.  That same being. b.  Equal to that being. peace and love, mike

Mike,

I am going to get to your other post here eventually. I have a family. I have never said that the Son was the same being. The Father and the Son are two persons but one subsistence. My wife and I are two persons but one body.

Christ's session at His Father's right hand means that He is EQUAL with His Father. It does not mean that He is the Father. You know what trinitarians say so please stop feigning ignorance by such questions.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

God is ONE BEING, right?  Don't the trinitarians think that the godhead is ONE God, but made up of three separate persons?  This is the first I've heard of the godhead being made up of three separate beings, or entities.  I'm confused.

You said:  “Christ's session at His Father's right hand means that He is EQUAL with His Father.”

I have been anxiously awaiting the proof for a long time now.

peace and love,
mike

ps  take your time, I only refreshed earlier as a reminder

[KangarooJack]

thethinker said:

Quote

Show from scripture where Christ's Father is called His “Lord.”

Mike replied:

Quote

At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.[/color] If the Father is Lord of heaven and earth, doesn't that include Jesus, too?  Now you show from Scripture where Jehovah calls Jesus “MY GOD”.

First, this was an intersessory prayer by Jesus. He prayed this in our behalf. Jesus did NOT address His Father as “My Lord.”

Second, The Father also addressed His Son as “Lord.”

8But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10And, THOU, LORD, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

Mike:

Quote

Now you show from Scripture where Jehovah calls Jesus “MY GOD”

I never said that Jehovah addressed Jesus as His God. The whole idea is absurd.

Mike:

Quote

Yes, He created the heavens and the earth BY “Wisdom”, another title of His Son in Proverbs 8.

This is not a valid argument because the book of Proverbs is poetic. Wisdom is personified as a FEMALE throughout the book. The Father CLEARLY said that the creation is the work His Son's own hands.

Mike:

Quote

But to make it more clear to you, read Acts 4. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.

The word for “made” is the Greek “poieo” which may mean “to appoint.” Peter meant that God “appointed” the creation to take place. But it was Jesus who actually spoke the creation into existence and made it with HIS OWN HANDS. The creation was spoken into existence by the “WORD.” Jesus alone is the Word. The Father is not the Word.

In John 1:3 it says that all things were “made” by Him (the Word). The word “made” here is “ginomai” (to come into being).

The Father: He appointed the creation to come into being.

Jesus: He actually brought the creation into being.

Mike:

Quote

It starts out clearly explaining that they are praying to Jehovah, the Father.

You are correct that they are praying to the Father. But you err in your treatment of the word “made.” The Greek is “poieo” which means “to appoint.” The Father “appointed” the creation to come into being. But it was actually formed by the Son's own hands. You have miserably failed to debunk the Father's testimony.

Mike:

Quote

This is where they call Jesus God's “holy servant”.  The part I posted for you before.  The part to which you responded, “As usual, you've taken what Peter said out of context.  He was talking about the pre-exalted Jesus.  Jesus is not God's servant anymore, Mike.”  (Or something to that effect.)  Which is why I included verse 29 and 30 this time.  Do you see the bolded “NOW”?  “Now” they were asking for miracles through the name of God's STILL holy servant Jesus.  AFTER he was exalted.

You are in error. The word “servant” is not in the Greek text. The Greek says “boy” in both verses 27 & 30. The KJV says “child.” This is how we know that Peter is referring to Christ BEFORE His exaltation. In the days of His flesh He was as the boy who was the same as the servant and not a fully investitured son. He was as the “boy son” who according to Paul was the same as the servant. (Gal. 4). Peter could not have been asking a work to be done in the name of the exalted Jesus. He was asking the work to be done in the name of the “child-servant” Jesus who lived among them and who proved Himself before God and men. Jesus is a fully investitured Son now. A fully investitured son was not a servant in the Hebrew culture. It's that simple!

Mike:

Quote

Both can share the credit of the creation, but it is important to know which one was the source.  And that is the one FROM whom all things come.

Horse hockey and double talk! God does not share His glory with any other but God! Get real!

Mike:

Quote

Grammmar”?  How do you get “plurality of persons” out of “GODS”?  Wouldn't it be a “plurality of Gods”?  Walk me through how you come to “plurality of persons inside one God”.

You have crossed over into harassing me now. If you visit the original “echad and elohym” thread you will see that Martian posted a source which says that the singular verb indicates that the word “elohim” means “God.” I triple checked my theology books and found that trintiarians concur. The difference is that the anti-trinitarians take the plural pronouns figuratively while the trinitairans take them literally.

In other words, the anti-trinitarians pick and choose which is literal and not literal. They assign the literal meaning to the verb but a so called “plural of majesty” (non-literal) meaning to the pronouns. The trinitarians take the plural pronouns as the literal plural and the singular verb as a literal singular verb. I prefer to go with the grammar that is consistent. Please don't ask me again. I will not change my answer.

thethinker said:

Quote

It CLEARLY says that Jesus is “counted worthy” of the glory of the builder. Then it says that God is the builder. The implication is clear.

Mike replied:

Quote

Read Peter's prayer above.  The implication doesn't seem all that clear to him, or to ANY NT writer for that matter.

You have misunderstood Peter as I have shown above. I will not hold this one against you because our translations failed to bring out that “made” means “appoint” and “servant” is not in the Greek text. The Father's own testimony is that His Son created all things BY HIS OWN HANDS.

I accept the Father's testimony.

Mike:

Quote

You say “adonay” always means “God”.   Here's what Online Bible Study Tools says: 'Adonay TWOT – 27b Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ad-o-noy'    Noun Masculine   Definition my lord, lord of men of God Lord – title, spoken in place of Yahweh in Jewish display of reverence Looks like it can even be used of men, Jack.  It just basically means the same thing as “adonai”.

You're pulling a “Martian” on me now. You took the TWOT out of context just as Martian. On page 13 the TWOT goes on to say that the word “adon” in the plural (adonay) ALWAYS REFERS TO GOD just as Strong's says. I am getting really irritated with you and Martain pulling this kind of stuff.

David replied to Jehovah saying, “My Adonay (God) is at your right hand.”

Mike:

Quote

Jehovah says to Jesus, “Sit at my right hand”.  That is not a position of equality, Jack.

Oh yes it is a position of equality young Mike. Paul said that when all things are subjected to Christ THEN the Son “will also be subject” to the Father (1 cor. 15:28). This means that at the right hand the Son is not subject to the Father sir! Paul said that He WILL BE subject!

Mike:

Quote

Then He says He will bust down Jesus' enemies. Why would God Almighty need someone else to break his enemies for him?

Uh, verses 5-7 is talking about the Messiah Himself busting down His enemies. We have been over this already. The last enemy to be destroyed is death and Paul said that it is Jesus who destroys and abolishes death.

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

and,

10But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: Heb. 2:14 & 2 Tim. 1:10

It CLEARLY says that Christ destroys His arch enemy the devil who holds the power of death. It CLEARLY says that He abolishes death. One more,

For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

YOU SPEAK HALF TRUTHS AND LIES!

thethinker said;

Quote

quote]The verb is aorist which indicates completed action in past time. God was not “giving” the Revelation to Jesus. He “GAVE” it to Him at His exaltation.

Mike replied:

Quote

So it couldn't mean yesterday while he was in heaven?     It has to mean it was at his exaltation?

Yes it has to mean at His exaltation and I will tell you why. Jesus said that the Father would send the Spirit of truth “IN MY NAME” (on MY AUTHORITY). The Father sent the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost Mike. THIS MEANS THAT JESUS WAS CALLING ALL THE SHOTS LONG BEFORE THE BOOK OF REVELATION WAS WRITTEN MIKE!

1. Jesus said that the Father would send the Spirit of truth “ON MY AUTHORITY.”

2. The Father sent the Spirit on Pentecost.

Conclusion: Jesus was calling all the shots by the time of Pentecost.

You and Martian misuse sources. Vine's Expository Dictionary indicates that Jesus manifested His power (glory) when He changed the water into wine. There is a vast difference between the meaning of a word in its vocabulary form and the way it is to be exegeted in a given context. This is why Vine's Dictionary is called an “expository” dictionary. You know nothing of Greek Exegesis.

And stop citing the TWOT out of context. The TWOT agrees with Strong's that the word “Adonay” (the plural adon) is a name for God ALONE. See TWOT page 13.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

What is the “elohim and echad” doing in our debate?

mike

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 22 2010,15:29)

Hi Thinker, What is the “elohim and echad” doing in our debate?   mike

Hi Mike,

Because it has two of the points of our debate which are plural unity and right hand. If we discuss these two points in echad and elohym then we should drop them here.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

I said:  There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “position” of the Son of God by a decree.

My answer is the same Mike.

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; this day have I begotten thee.

Mike:

Quote

I said:  There is NO SCRIPTURE ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE that says Jesus received the “title” of begotten Son of God.

My answer is the same Mike.

4Being 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, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

When I first said that Christ was appointed as firstborn Son you had a good response to it.

I originally said:

Quote

Look at Psalm 89: I have found David my servant;       with my sacred oil I have anointed him….He will call out to me, 'You are my Father,       my God, the Rock my Savior.'  I will also APPOINT him my firstborn,       the most exalted of the kings of the earth.       28 I will maintain my love to him forever,       and my covenant with him will never fail. Psalm 89:20-27 NIV Note that God said that “I have anointed” David and he will call out to me, “You are my father.” It was AFTER David was anointed that he was appointed as God's “firstborn” son. The name “firstborn” had reference to David's office and rank as God's supreme king (at that time). David was anointed and then appointed as God's “firstborn.” He became the “firstborn” when he took the throne as king. The appointment as God's “firstborn” was FUTURE from the anointing. “I have anointed… I will also appoint him.”

You replied:

Quote

I asked you to use Scripture and you did.  I'm impressed to see Scripture applied correctly instead of conjecture from you.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=50

There is a JW here who does to WJ what you are doing to me. WJ gives his answer and David keeps asking the question over and over again. I want you to show that the verses I give do not say that Christ was appointed as Son. Asking the same question again of me simply means that you don't like my answer.

Mike:

Quote

Not only doesn't it say the name he inherited was “son”,

It CLEARLY says that he inherited the name “Son.”

4Being 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, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

It CLEARLY says that Jesus inherited a name. The only name expounded upon in the text is the name  “Son.”

Mike:

Quote

…but your interpretation doesn't allow for him ALREADY BEING THE SON OF GOD WHILE ON EARTH.

He was a son but not a fully investitured son while on earth (Hebrews 5:5-11). He had to learn obedience  through suffering. When He completed His task He was begotten to the office of Son.

Mike:

Quote

Yes, he was decreed by his Father and his God to be His only begotten Son before he came to earth.  You get hung up on timing the Kingship with Jesus being the Son.

Paul said that Jesus was begotten as Son at His resurrection:

32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Paul CLEARLY said that the promise that was made to the fathers was fulfilled to the children when God raised Jesus again AS IT IS WRITTEN in the second Psalm,

Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee.

Mike:

Quote

But Jesus isn't actually our reigning King yet, is he?

Whoa! What's He doing at the right hand of God?

Mike:

Quote

…we also know from Jesus' own mouth that the “begotten part” happened BEFORE he came to earth.

Jesus never called Himself the “monogennatos” Son. He called Himself the “monogenes” Son which simply meant that He was the “only Son after God's kind.” The idea of origin in the word had been dropped before the new testament was written. The word by common usagesimply meant “one of a kind” or “unique.” This is how all the ancient translations rendered the word.

Mike:

Quote

What promise made to the fathers was fulfilled?  Please answer.  Hint: Read the previous verses.

Evasive! Fill in the blank. Insert any promises you desire. The promises were fulfilled when God raised up Jesus again. This was when Jesus was “begotten” (“gennao” not “genes”).

Mike:

Quote

Please don't avoid this again: 1.  Does “genes” and “gennao” come from the same root word?  Online Bible Tools shows “genes” as an adjective for begotten, and “gennao” as a verb for begotten.  And the Witnesses say “genes” comes from the root word “ginomai”, which means “to generate”. 2.  Is this information correct?

Look, I have an
swered you. It is you who is avoiding my points. The origin of a word don't mean squat if the meaning was dropped now does it? I have said that the idea of origin in the word “genes” had been dropped before the new testament was written. And “gennao” SPECIFICALLY means “to procreate by father and mother.” It indicates the HOW of a person coming into being. So you are forced by your method of reading scripture to conclude that Jesus was procreated by father and mother before creation. This would mean that He was not the first created being.

I have answered you several times. Your problem is that you must have everything stated in your own wording.

thethinker said:

Quote

So the term “firstborn” does not necessarily mean “first created.”

 

Mike replied:

Quote

Only if it says “the firstborn OF ALL CREATION”.

Okay I will try something else. Verse 6 says that the gospel produced fruit in “all the world.” The Greek for “world” is “kosmos” which means the “whole created order.” Did the gospel produce fruit to birds and rocks?

thethinker said:

Quote

Furthermore, the word “firstborn” ALWAYS REFERS TO A MAN! Was Jesus a man at the beginning of creation? Was Jesus created a man Mike?

Mike replied:

Quote

Even if it is referring to “the firstborn male goat”?

You know what I meant. Jesus as the “firstborn” is necessarily a man. But He was not the first man was He?

Mike:

Quote

I said:  Could it be like the “when it says 'everything', it is clear that this does not include God himself” verse?  It means that he HAD TO HAVE BEEN the first thing ever created, BECAUSE everything else was created through him.  All (other) things could not have come through him if he wasn't created before all (other) things.  You have to infer the (other), because unlike 1 Cor 15:27, Paul doesn't add the disclaimer, “when it says 'all things', it is clear that this does not include Jesus himself, therefore it means 'all OTHER things'”.  Paul was making it clear that God didn't create a few things, then create Jesus, then create other things through Jesus.  Jesus had to be the first in order that God could create everything (else) through His Son.

First, this fails because the Bible says that all things came into being BY HIM. This means that Jesus is the ONLY agent in creation. Your insertion of “other” is not valid.

Without Him not one thing came into being that has come into being.

Second, Jesus is expressly called the “radiance of His glory” (Heb. 1). This means that even if there were two agents implied both agents would be of EQUAL importance and necessity. Sun beams are the “radiance” of the sun. The sun gives heat and light necessarily “through” its beams. It is IN the beams that the earth has heat and light. John said, “IN Him (Jesus) was life.”

Third, God did not create a lesser god as a companion for Himself. WJ has hung you out to dry on this point. There were no gods formed before or after God. Period! The Word was the “only God after His kind” who was at God's side.

thethinker said:

Quote

Therefore, Jesus is either one with God as God or He is no god at all. It's that simple! You should take the side of those here who deny that Jesus us a god of any kind. That would be better than your constant double talk. A theology that is inconsistent cannot be correct.

Mike replied:

Quote

Please post the definitions for the word “god”.

So you are a Polytheist then? Define the word “god” however you want. Jehovah said that there were no gods formed before or after Him.

Mike:

Quote

If you overcome, will the new name Jesus writes on you be “Son of God”?

I marvel that you would suggest that the name “Son of God” is Christ's “new name” seeing that you believe He was always the Son of God. If Christ's “new name” is “Son of God”, then it would help my argument for I say that He inherited the name at His exaltation.

But we need not speculate about it because Jesus said that we will not know the new name until we receive it:

17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”’

Mike:

Quote

Will Jesus write “Son of God” on your forehead, Jack?

Again, if Christ's new name is “Son of God” then it helps me and not you. How can it be a “new” name if He had it all along? We will not know what the new name is until we receive it (2:17).

Mike:

Quote

Did John mean to say that no one knows it but himself AND JACK?

No one will know the new name until he receives it.

Mike:

Quote

How in the world could he inherit a name by being raised that he already had while he was on earth?  And before?

You assume that the new name is “Son of God.” It can't be the name Son of God or else we would know it now. We will not know it until we receive it (2:17).

I have no idea what you think all this is supposed to prove.

thethinker said:

Quote

And you also know from the authoritative Septuagint translation that “genes” did not have reference to coming into being. You also know that the idea of origin in the word “genes” was dropped before new testament times.

Mike replied:

Quote

I know nothing of the sort.  What I do know is that Strong's says the in the case of Jesus, monogenes means “THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD”

STRONG'S DOES NOT SAY THIS AT ALL. Even so, did Jesus and the apostles ever quote from James Strong? No! But they indeed quoted the Septuagint 67% of the time. The word “monogenes” as employed in the Septuagint did not mean what you say it means.

On another thread we had this exchange:

I said:

Quote

And stop citing the TWOT out of context. The TWOT agrees with Strong's that the word “Adonay” (the plural adon) is a name for God ALONE.

You replied:

Quote

Seems like Jesus and the NT writers didn't think it meant “God”.  Sorry, they win over TWOT.

Does the Septuagint win over Strong's regarding the word “monogenes?”

Strong's does not contradict the Septuagint. I was trying to show you your double standard.

thethinker said:

Quote

The whole Davidic line was APPOINTED. God said, “I will SET (appoint) my king upon My holy hill. I will declare the decree, 'You are My Son….' “

Mike replied:

Quote

Sorry, no sale.  You're reaching again.  Where does it say Jesus was APPOIONTED as God's Son?

Sorry, I am not reaching. You are in denial.

12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14I will be his father, and he shall be my son.
Note the word “set up” wwhich is the Hebrew “koom.” According to Strong's it means “to decree” or “ordain.” Oh You are going to have to accept Strong on this one because you put Strong's above the Septuagint.

Hebrews chapter one applies this to Jesus. Remember? That pesty little NWT says, “I shall BECOME His Father and He shall be My Son.” Yet the immediate reference is to Solomon. Therefore, the whole Davidic line was “ordained” to be God's representative Son.

I am “reaching” you say?

thethinker said:

Quote

It says that “firstborn” means “supreme.”

Mike replied:

Quote

Please post your translation of the Scripture so I can read those words for myself – they're not in my Bible.

Check out verses 15-18 from the various translations yourself.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage….ion=NIV

thethinker said:

Quote

Those were all types of Christ sir!

 

Mike answered:

Quote

I guess you're right, Christ means annointed one.  I think I'll run with this and start my own flawed man-made doctrine that states “the nation of Israel is the fourth person in the godhead”.  Will you support me?

More cut 'n paste I see. I said that the types were “shadows” which pointed to Christ.

I said:

Quote

Those were all types of Christ sir! All the apppointments of men or of nations to the position of “firstborn” were prophetic of the appointment of Christ to His position of “firstborn.” Those appointments were shadows of Christ's appointment. This means that they foretold Christ's appointment to Firstborn Son.

Christ is the reality to which the shadow pointed:

Therefore let no man judge YOU in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a sabbath; 17 for those things are a shadow of the things to come, but the reality belongs to the Christ. NWT

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

You said:

Quote

My answer is the same Mike. 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; this day have I begotten thee.

Isaiah 46:10 NIV
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.

For God, even the things in Rev and beyond have already happened.  You can not put a time line on this Psalm.  Nowhere does Scripture imply that “Son of God” is not birthright, but only a “position” or “title” that he was “appointed to.  You are the one who set out to prove what it clearly says means something different.  You have failed.  Do not bring it up again.  Your answer remains the same, and so does mine.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

My answer is the same Mike. 4Being 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, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

And I have showed you how ridiculous it is to think that “begotten Son of God” is the new NAME he inherited.  I showed you from Jesus' own words that he was already “the only begotten Son of God” while he was on earth and before.  And I showed you from Rev that no one knows the new name he has inherited.  Again, your OPINION is wrong.  My answer also stays the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

When I first said that Christ was appointed as firstborn Son you had a good response to it.

My response reflected the fact that I was happy you were actually using Scriptures to back your claims instead of OPINIONS – yours and your trinitarian scholars you quote.  If you give me Scriptures, I can read them in context and either agree with your interpretation or offer another based on other Scriptures.  I have disputed that these Scriptures imply that Jesus was “appointed” as “the only begotten Son of God”.
My answer is the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

I want you to show that the verses I give do not say that Christ was appointed as Son.

No.  You are the one saying what it says means something other than what it says.  YOU show me where Jesus was “appointed to the position of only begotten Son”.  A Scripture that says, “That's when Jesus was appointed to the position of only begotten Son.”
Since you cannot do that because none exists, my answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

It CLEARLY says that he inherited the name “Son.”

No, it CLEARLY says that NO ONE KNOWS the new name he inherited.  How could he possibly inherit a new name that people on earth had already known him by?  It's ridiculous.  Even more ridiculous is your opinion that by being raised back to his former equal God status, he inherited not the name God, but Son of God.  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

He was a son but not a fully investitured son while on earth (Hebrews 5:5-11). He had to learn obedience  through suffering. When He completed His task He was begotten to the office of Son.

Hebrews 5 actually says:

. 5 So too the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but [was glorified by him] who spoke with reference to him: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.” 6 Just as he says also in another place: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek.” 7 In the days of his flesh [Christ] offered up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and he was favorably heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; 9 and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10 because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek. 11 Concerning him we have much to say and hard to be explained, since YOU have become dull in YOUR hearing.

It says “although he WAS a Son”.  He did not inherit this “position” of Son.  He already was God's Son.  And now he is a High Priest. What is a priest, Jack?  Is it one who talks to God in behalf of mankind and visa versa, or is it God Himself?  Please answer this for me.

You said:

Quote

Paul said that Jesus was begotten as Son at His resurrection: 32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

What promise was fulfilled, Jack?  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

I said:  But Jesus isn't actually our reigning King yet, is he?

You said:

Quote

Whoa! What's He doing at the right hand of God?

He's WAITING for God to put his enemies under his feet.  Then he will reign for 1000 years.  Do you really think our world would be in such disarray if Jesus was our reigning King right now?  Satan is the god of this world for the time being.  And according to you, it's going to suck when God goes to place Jesus' enemies under his feet so he can subdue them.  Because right now, Jesus has “all power and authority” and God has none.  You've even blasphemed in one post by saying Jesus is actually MORE supreme than his God right now.  How in the world will God be able to place his enemies under his feet when He has no power?  Move on.

You said:

Quote

The idea of origin in the word had been dropped before the new testament was written. The word by common usagesimply meant “one of a kind” or “unique.” This is how all the ancient translations rendered the word.

Show me proof.  And explain how for hundreds of years it meant “only begotten”, but now all of a sudden, it doesn't.  Show me the ancient translations, and the explanation of ho
w, starting with the KJV, all the scholars have messed up the translation of “monogenes” until recently.

You said:

Quote

Evasive! Fill in the blank. Insert any promises you desire.

There is one specific promise that Paul spoke of.  The promise God made to send a Messiah.  Read the chapter.  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

And “gennao” SPECIFICALLY means “to procreate by father and mother.” It indicates the HOW of a person coming into being. So you are forced by your method of reading scripture to conclude that Jesus was procreated by father and mother before creation. This would mean that He was not the first created being.

Dictionary,com says;

be·get   /bɪˈgɛt/  Show Spelled[bih-get]  
–verb (used with object),be·got or (Archaic) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1.(esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2.to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.

—Synonyms
1. spawn, sire, breed, father.

Do you notice that it especially refers to the male parent.  Do you see the synonyms?  Sire and father?  Let's see what they say about procreate:

pro·cre·ate   /ˈproʊkriˌeɪt/  Show Spelled [proh-kree-eyt]  Show IPA verb,-at·ed, -at·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.to beget or generate (offspring).
2.to produce; bring into being.
–verb (used without object)
3.to beget offspring.
4.to produce; bring into being.

For most of the wordly creation, this involves a male and a female.  But do you hold God to the rules of worldly procreation?  It says nothing about a mother AND father, BTW.

You said:

Quote

Okay I will try something else. Verse 6 says that the gospel produced fruit in “all the world.” The Greek for “world” is “kosmos” which means the “whole created order.” Did the gospel produce fruit to birds and rocks?

While I can't answer that question with any authority because I do preach to birds and such, I would have to say it is an exaggeration, much like when Paul said the gospel had already been preached to “pasa ktisis”.  What's the point?  There is only one who is said to be “the firstborn of all creation”.  And it means what it says.  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

You know what I meant. Jesus as the “firstborn” is necessarily a man.

Why?  Because you say so?  Not good enough.  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

First, this fails because the Bible says that all things came into being BY HIM.

The Greek word is “dia” which has “through” as it's first definition.  It can also mean “by” or “by means of”.  (OBST)  So it doesn't “fail”.  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

Second, Jesus is expressly called the “radiance of His glory” (Heb. 1). This means that even if there were two agents implied both agents would be of EQUAL importance and necessity. Sun beams are the “radiance” of the sun. The sun gives heat and light necessarily “through” its beams.

Are the sunbeams actually “THE SUN ITSELF”?  Anyway, this is off topic.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

Third, God did not create a lesser god as a companion for Himself.

No.  God created a son.  That he is a “mighty one” and therfore a “god” is in line with Scripture.  Off topic.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

So you are a Polytheist then? Define the word “god” however you want. Jehovah said that there were no gods formed before or after Him.

      You trinitarians and your polytheist accusations crack me up.  I don't define “god” however I want.  I define it the same as the OT writers, the NT writers, and the modern Americans do.  By your reasoning, Satan is also God Almighty.  So the next time you call me a polytheist, I will call you a Devil Worshipper.  Sound fair?  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

I marvel that you would suggest that the name “Son of God” is Christ's “new name” seeing that you believe He was always the Son of God. If Christ's “new name” is “Son of God”, then it would help my argument for I say that He inherited the name at His exaltation.

My question was not literal.   You've made the point for me.  If his new name is “Son of God” as you think, then that is the name that will be written on your forehead.  It was sarcasm, Jack.  My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

But we need not speculate about it because Jesus said that we will not know the new name until we receive it: 17 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”’

This is exactly what I've been saying.  NO ONE KNOWS THE NEW NAME, THEREFORE IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE “SON OF GOD”.  THIS CANNOT POSSIBLY BE THE NAME HE INHERITED.  MOVE ON.

You said:

Quote

You assume that the new name is “Son of God.” It can&#39 ;t be the name Son of God or else we would know it now. We will not know it until we receive it (2:17). I have no idea what you think all this is supposed to prove

AAAHHHHH!!!!!!!  You are the one who says “Son of God” is the name he inherited!  You said in your last post:  It CLEARLY says that he inherited the name “Son.” Now you agree that it is not?  Good, Move on.

You said:

Quote

Check out verses 15-18 from the various translations yourself.

I have read them.  Nowhere does it say that “firstborn” doesn't really mean “the one born first”, but instead it only means “supreme”.  BECAUSE HE IS THE FIRSTBORN, HE IS THEREFORE SUPREME.  Move on.

You said:

Quote

Hebrews chapter one applies this to Jesus. Remember? That pesty little NWT says, “I shall BECOME His Father and He shall be My Son.” Yet the immediate reference is to Solomon. Therefore, the whole Davidic line was “ordained” to be God's representative Son.

Paul quotes Scripture, Jack.  Do you think that Paul didn't know that Jesus was the Son of God on earth?  The first goal in his ministry was to let people know that this Jesus they crucified WAS in fact the Son of God.  Never does he phrase it to say, “He is now the Son of God” as if he wasn't before.  My answer remains the same. MOVE ON!

You have now crossed into harrassment.  ANY POINT THAT HAS “MOVE ON” UNDER MY ANSWER MEANS I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS IT ANYMORE.  YOU BRING NOTHING NEW TO THE TABLE, ONLY THE SAME OPINIONS I'VE DISAGREED WITH FROM THE START OF THIS DEBATE.  YOU HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE, ONLY SCRIPTURES THAT YOU THINK ARE EVIDENCE.  I DO NOT INTERPRET THEM THE SAME AS YOU, AND I HAVE SHOWED MOUNTAINS OF SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE THAT REFUTES WHAT YOU THINK THEY SAY.  MOVE ON! MOVE ON! MOVE ON!

Show me how right hand means eqaulity.  I am done with begotten and firstborn.  This has been months now.  Move on to “right hand”, or admit you're scared to.  Because I know that's why you won't move on.  The Scriptures will destroy your whole trinity when you finally answer to the “right hand” question, and you know it.

MOVE ON!,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

I just clipped this from a post by Lightenup to Nick.

NET © Notes
1 sn Appointed the Son-of-God-in-power. Most translations render the Greek participle ὁρισθέντος (Jorisqentos, from ὁρίζω, Jorizw) “declared” or “designated” in order to avoid the possible interpretation that Jesus was appointed the Son of God by the resurrection. However, the Greek term ὁρίζω is used eight times in the NT, and it always has the meaning “to determine, appoint.” Paul is not saying that Jesus was appointed the “Son of God by the resurrection” but “Son-of-God-in-power by the resurrection,” as indicated by the hyphenation. He was born in weakness in human flesh (with respect to the flesh, v. 3) and he was raised with power. This is similar to Matt 28:18 where Jesus told his disciples after the resurrection, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

I am not alone!

peace and love,
mike

[Author]

Posts