Mikeboll64 vs. the thinker (Kangaroo Jack)

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

For God, even the things in Rev and beyond have already happened.  You can not put a time line on this Psalm.

Nonsense! Paul said that God calls into being things that are not yet as though they were (Rom. 4:15-17). Note that he said “as though” they exist. The prophecies still had to be fulfilled. Jesus was begotten (“gennao”) at His resurrection. If I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on his resurrection. Again, your argument is nonsense!

Prophecy must be fulfilled Mike! When God decrees something it is as though it has happened. But the Scripture “must needs be fulfilled” (Acts 1:16). “MUST-NEEDS-BE-FULFILLED!”

I repeat, if I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on His resurrection for He was begotten at His resurrection. Your argument is totally absurd!

Mike:

Quote

Nowhere does Scripture imply that “Son of God” is not birthright, but only a “position” or “title” that he was “appointed to.

You are blind! Jesus was the son of God because He was the son of David. The Davidic line was the appointed King-Son line.

1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2(Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

4And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

There it is Mike! Jesus was the Son of God because He was “made of the seed of David.” He was appointed God's Son just as His fathers David and Solomon before Him. Explain why Christ's fathers were appointed as God's sons but He Himself was not.

At best you can prove only that Jesus became the Son of God at His incarnation. There is no scriptural evidence at all for the idea that Jesus was “begotten as Son” before creation. Neither does the old testament speak about any acts of Him as God's Son. In the old testament He acts as “the Messenger of Jehovah.”

Why is the old testament silent about His acting as God's Son? Why does the old testament record say that “the Messenger of Jehovah” did this or that? All references to Him as “Son” in the old testament are prophetic.

AGAIN, Jesus is the Son of God because He is the Son of David.

Mike:

Quote

Do not bring it up again.  Your answer remains the same, and so does mine.  Move on.

Then stop asking me the same questions over and over again.

Mike:

Quote

I have showed you how ridiculous it is to think that “begotten Son of God” is the new NAME he inherited.

We agree that the name “Son of God” is not His new name. Know one knows His new name until he receives it. Therefore, there is no connection between the name He inherited in Hebrews 1 and the “new name” in the Revelation. Your arguments get more lame every day.

Mike:

Quote

I showed you from Jesus' own words that he was already “the only begotten Son of God” while he was on earth and before.

You have shown me nothing. Jesus claimed that He was the “monogenes” Son which means that He was the “only Son after God's kind.” He never said that He was the “monogennatos” (generated) Son. Such nonsense never came from His lips.

Mike:

Quote

My answer also stays the same.  Move on.

Then stop asking me the same questions over and over again. If you don't like my answers then move on.

Mike:

Quote

I have disputed that these Scriptures imply that Jesus was “appointed” as “the only begotten Son of God”.

You disputings are weak. Why would Christ's fathers David and Solomon be apppointed as God's sons and not Christ Himself?

Mike:

Quote

My answer is the same.  Move on.

Then stop asking me the same questions over and over again.

Mike:

Quote

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.”

There is no scripture which says that He was “begotten” in the sense you think. Jesus never said that He was God's “monogennatos” Son. He was begotten (gennao) at His resurrection when He assumed His office as King-Son.

thethinker said:

Quote

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

Mike replied:

Quote

No, it CLEARLY says that NO ONE KNOWS the new name he inherited.

Please explain this scripture:

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?

Show that the “new name” in the Revelation disputes that he inherited the name “Son of God.”

Mike:

Quote

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.

Jesus inherited both the names “God” and “Son” at His exaltation.

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?

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

7And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

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.

So He inherited both the name “God” and “Son.”

Mike:

Quote

My answer remains the same.  Move on.

You're being obnoxious. Stop asking me the same questions over and over again and move on.

Mike:

Quote

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 twisted what I said. I did not say that Jesus was no son at all. I said that He was “a Son.” but not a “fully investitured” son. Here is what I 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.

Mike:

Quote

He already was God's Son.  And now he is a High Priest. What is a priest, Jack?

First, Jesus was as a “child Son.” He was not fully investitured.

Second, you can't see the forest through the trees. It CLEARLY says that Jesus became High Priest when He was begotten as Son:

5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

There it is! He became High Priest WHEN He was begotten as Son!

Mike:

Quote

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

Insert any promises you want. They were fulfilled at the resurrection when Jesus was begotten as Son.  

Mike:

Quote

Move on.

Stop asking the same questions over and over again.

thethinker said:

Quote

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

Mike replied:

Quote

He's WAITING for God to put his enemies under his feet.

Explain Paul's statement:

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

It CLEARLY says that Jesus “must reign” until He puts all enemies under His feet. Yet you say He is “waiting for God.”

You are unraveling right before our eyes. You said that God made Jesus your Lord but not your God. But how is Jesus your “Lord” if He does not reign?

Mike:

Quote

You've even blasphemed in one post by saying Jesus is actually MORE supreme than his God right now.

I said that the word “firstborn” means “supreme” and that it applies to Jesus alone. I said that the firstborn son reigned in the place of his father but this does not mean that he is above his father.

Mike:

Quote

Move on.

You're being obnoxious. Stop asking me the same questions over and over again and move on.

thethinker said:

Quote

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

Mike replied:

Quote

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 how, starting with the KJV, all the scholars have messed up the translation of “monogenes” until recently

First, I gave you the “proof” already. You will need to revisit my posts here and review the sources I posted. I gave you the Septuagint also which was done by the Seventy Hebrew and Greek scholars. Jesus and the apostles quoted from the Septuagint. This highly elevates the scholarship of the Seventy. In no instance in the Septuagint does “monogenes” mean “begotten.”

Second, you have the history backwards. The KJV went against all the ancient translations which rendered “monogenes” as “unique” or “only.” It is the fault of the KJV translators that we are having this argument.

Mi
ke:

Quote

Show me the ancient translations, and the explanation of how, starting with the KJV, all the scholars have messed up the translation of “monogenes” until recently

I mentioned them already. But here it is copied and pasted with the link at the end. Note the excerpts I bolded:

Quote

Ancient  Translations Next a check of ancient Bible translations will be helpful. How bilingual near-contemporaries of the New Testament understood words is likely to be a valuable guide to the meaning of such words.  Consultation of multiple diverse versions will serve as a cross-check on interpretation and understanding.  If unrelated versions in unrelated languages agree on the meaning of a word, the likelihood of that being the correct understanding is strengthened.  First, the Latin versions will be considered, then the Syriac. Latin Versions In the Old Latin, there was apparently a uniform rendering of monogenes by unicus [7] which means, “only, sole; singular, unparalled, unique” [8] and from which, most obviously, comes our English word “unique.” The Old Latin part of manuscript D (Codex Bezae) has unicus (in various cases) for monogenes at Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; and John 3:16, 18 (it is defective in the Old Latin part at John 1:14, 18; I John 4:9). The manuscript never contained the book of Hebrews. [9]  The meaning “unique” fits nicely in every New Testament example: the son of the widow of Nain was her only/unique son.  So, too, of the daughter of Jairus: she was his only child.  Likewise with the man in Luke 9: his son was without siblings, in short, unique.  With reference to Isaac, while we recognize that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, his relationship to Abraham was nevertheless unique, since Isaac alone was born “according to promise,” that is, in fulfillment of a Divine promise.  It seems that in all these cases, the very uniqueness of the relationship of parent and child would also carry a strong measure of endearment, preciousness, and love.  Unicus carries no hint of the notion of begetting or fathering.  Even the references to Christ fit nicely with the meaning unique.  While there are many “sons of God,” he is the Son of God in a unique sense, that of eternal relationship, not as with us a relationship established in time on the basis of grace through faith.  So even here, following the lead of the Old Latin versions of the NT, unique seems entirely appropriate and adequate as a translation of monogenes. However, in the revised Latin version of Jerome, commonly called the Vulgate, while the translation of monogenes by unicus in Luke is left unchanged, in every case where the term is applied to Christ, as well as the singular reference to Isaac, the translation is altered to unigenitus, [10] literally “only-begotten.”  It was from this translation in the Latin Vulgate that this sense and meaning imputed to monogenes passed into the Reformation vernacular versions of Europe (eingeborenen in German, unigenito in Spanish, only begotten in English, etc.).  What motivated Jerome to make this revision? Dale Moody informs us that Jerome was influenced in his thinking by attendance at a series of lectures by Gregory of Nazianzus, in which he discussed the eternal relationship of the Persons of the Trinity, speaking of God the Father as the begetter (gennetor) and God the Son as the one begotten (gennema). [11]  This led to or was based on the presumed etymology of monogenes as from gennao instead of the correct genos.  Jerome’s substitution of unigenitus for the Old Latin’s unicus in six of the nine New Testament occurrences (all those which refer to Christ, and the one reference to Isaac–because he is a “type” of Christ?), was based on theological considerations, which in turn seem founded on etymological speculations, speculations which happened to be entirely false and misleading.  As a result, Jerome’s revision introduced into the New Testament a much less accurate, in fact, positively misleading and erroneous translation. The influence of the Vulgate on Western vernacular translations preserved and propagated the error. The Peshitta Syriac Turning to the Peshitta Syriac version of the New Testament, we find that in all occurrences of monogenes in Luke, John and I John, the Syriac has yichidaia’ [12]; in Hebrews 11:17, the related word yichida’ is employed, both adjectives from the same root, ychd, having the basic idea of singleness, aloneness. [13]  As with the Old Latin, the Syriac version found no sufficient grounds for translating monogenes in any way connecting it with the idea of procreating, fathering, or begetting, nor did it draw a distinction between the use of the word with reference to Christ on the one hand, and with reference to ordinary human children on the other. Greek Old Testament Translations It is important to take a look at the broader usage of monogenes outside the New Testament, including the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and early Christian writers.  Monogenes is found a number of times in the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, along with the 2nd century A.D. Jewish Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as the most common translation of the Hebrew adjective yachid.  It is so used in the LXX at Judges 11:34 of Jephthah’s only daughter (a usage identical with all three Lucan usages), and is employed in the LXX in Psalm 22:20 and 35:17 where yachid is used in parallel with “my soul”–resultant meaning being “my life” or some such idea.  In Psalm 25:16, yachid / monogenes are adjectival, meaning “alone.”  Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion have monogenes at Proverbs 4:3, of a mother’s only son (LXX has agapomenos, literally, “one who is loved”); likewise Aquila and Symmachus have monogenes at Jeremiah 6:26 of an only son. [14]  There, as well as in Amos 8:10 and Zechariah 12:10, the LXX translates yachid by agapetos (“dear,” “beloved”).  Genesis 22, where yachid is used three times of Isaac (vv. 2, 12, 16), is a most notable case.  In all three instances, the LXX has agapetos, while Aquila translated the first occurrence and Symmachus the second by monogenes. [15]  Furthermore, Josephus describes Isaac, with reference to this passage, as Abraham’s monogenes, [16] as did the writer of Hebrews, in spite of his dependence on the LXX).  Philo wrote of Isaac as agapetos kai monos (literally, “dear and only”). [17] It seems evident from this text and their common interchange as Greek translations of yachid that agapetos and monogenes are close synonyms.  This would explain why monogenes is absent as a term for Christ in the Synoptic Gospels, who use agapetos of Christ (and only of Christ) nine times: Matthew 3:17; 12:18 [18]; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; 12:6; Luke 3:22; 9:35; 20:13.  This instead of monogenes was, perhaps, their chosen translation of an ostensibly original (Aramaic) yichidaia’ spoken by God the Father at the baptism of Jesus and on the Mount (or, if spoken in Hebrew, yachid), and by Jesus in parables about Himself. [19] Apocrypha In the Apocrypha, monogenes is employed in five passages (Tobit 3:15; 6:10 [ms. A, not Aleph or B]; 6:14 [ms. Aleph; A and B have monos]; 8:17; and Baruch 4:16 [mss. A and R; Aleph and B have monos]), all used of the only child of parents, as in Judges 11:34, and Luke 7, 8, and 9.  Since the Greek of these passages is a translation of unknown and unavailable Aramaic (or Hebrew) t exts, it is impossible to know with certainty what the original word(s) was. Apostolic Fathers In the Apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome (and later Origen, Cyril and others) employs monogenes  to describe the Phoenix, a bird reported to live 500 years–a unique bird, in a class by itself. [20]  The usage here is strictly in the literal sense of the word–”unique, one of a kind”–with no thought of endearment or preciousness as commonly found in New Testament and Greek Old Testament usages. At the very least, it reveals with certainty that monogenes has nothing per se to do with “begetting.”]

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/monogene.htm

Mike:

Quote

:Show me the ancient translations, and the explanation of how, starting with the KJV, all the scholars have messed up the translation of “monogenes” until recently

That part of your statement I bolded is not relevant because the ancient translations are in agreement with the Septuagint and the KJV is not. The Septuagint was regarded as Scripture to Jesus.

*****So the burden is on you to offer an explanation as to how the KJV translators would go against the Septuagint and all the ancient translations.*****

***** I REPEAT: THE BURDEN IS ON YOU*****

thethinker 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.

Mike replied:

Quote

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.

SO YOU GO WITH STRONG'S FOR “GENES” BUT NOT FOR “GENNAO.”

STRONG'S INWHICH YOU TRUST SAYS THAT “GENNAO” MEANS “TO PROCREATE BY FATHER AND BY EXTENSION A MOTHER.” THEREFORE, BY YOUR METHOD OF READING SCRIPTURE CHRIST'S FATHER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A FEMALE GOD.

YOU DEPART FROM STRONG'S WHEN IT IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU. THIS REFLECTS THE ZENITH OF YOUR INSINCERITY MIKE!

Mike:

Quote

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,

Then Paul exaggaerated when he said that Christ was the firstborn of “all” creation.” If the “all” is exaggeration in verse 6, then it is exaggeration in verse 15. I will not consider your equivocation. Paul said that the gospel had produced fruit in “all the world” (all mankind). He said that Jesus was the firstborn of “all creation” (all mankind). He said that the gospel had been preached to “all creation” (all mankind). The word “ALL” means the same thing throughout. So if it is hyperbole in verse 6, then it is hyperbole in verse 15 and Paul did not mean that Christ was the firstborn of “ALL” creation.

Mike:

Quote

The Greek word is “dia” which has “through” as it's first definition. It can also mean “by” or “by means of”.

First, John 1:1-3 mentions no other agent in creation. So “dia” would mean “by” or “by means of.” Second, the Father himself credited the creation to the SON'S HANDS (Heb. 1:10).

Mike:

Quote

Are the sunbeams actually “THE SUN ITSELF”?

Qualitatively yes!

thethinker said:

Quote

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

Mike replied:

Quote

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

No! God procreated a son. Your own method to reading scripture requires that God had sex.  

Mike:

Quote

Move on.

Mike:

Quote

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.

Satan is no god at all. You take Paul out of context. WJ has shown you that satan is a usurper god.

Did God create satan a god?

Mike:

Quote

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.

This is ridiculous! Hebrews 1 CLEARLY says that Jesus inherited the name “”begotten (gennao) Son.” It is a name that is above the angels. It says,

“to which of the angels did He ever say,
'You are My Son, today I have begotten You.' “

He was lower than the angels before Mike (2:7)! It's His name as “begotten son” that makes Him superior to them now Mike!The name He inherited and the 'new' name He has are apples and oranges Mike.

Mike:

Quote

Move on

Mike:

Quote

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.

What bible are you reading Mike? It says that He is the firstborn “THAT in all things He might have the SUPREMACY.” The word “that” is “hina” which means “on order that.” Paul said that He is the firstborn “in order that He might have the supremacy.”

The word “firstborn” does not mean “first created” Mike. If taken literally it means the first to be procreated Mike. Jesus was not the first to be procreated was He Mike?

Mike:

Quote

Move on

thethinker 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.

Mike replied:

Quote

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 did not answer my point. David was appointed as God's firstborn [son] (Ps. 89:20-27). Solomon was appointed God's son after David (2 Samuel 7). The part about Solomon being appointed as God's Son was also applied to Christ (Heb. 1).

Therefore, the whole Davidic line was appointed to be God's representative Son. David was God's “firstborn” [son] in His own time; Solomon was God's appointed son in his own dispensation: and Jesus is the final appointed son of God for the new covenant age.

Jesus was the Son of God because He was the son of David

NOW ANSWER THE POINT DIRECTLY!

Mike:

Quote

You have now crossed into harrassment.  ANY POINT THAT HAS “MOVE ON” UNDER MY ANSWER MEANS I DO NOT WANT TO DISCUSS IT ANYMORE.

Then why do you reply? Why keep posting on this subject? Why did you ask me for the ancient translations? Why didn't you just say, “I don't want to discuss these things anymore?

Mike:

Quote

Show me how right hand means eqaulity.

I brought our discussion from echad and elohym over here so we could. I even sent you a pm telling you why saying that I did not want to discuss it both here and there. I told you that i wanted to discuss it without interruptions. We have been discussing right hand over there and when I invited you to bring it here you kept it in echad and elohym.

If you want to discuss it now then bring it here yourself.

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2010,17:15)

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

Mike,

First, the source above fails to recognize Paul's satatment that Christ was begotten at His resurrection (Acts 13:13).

Second, the source above fails to prove that Christ was the Son of God before creation.

Third, the expression “in power” refers to the decree itself. In other words, it was the decree that went forth “in power.” The decree was fulfilled at Christ's resurrection.

Fourth, the source above agrees with me that Jesus was “APPOINTED” the Son of God. Read it carefully. So you are still alone.

Jesus was not “created” the Son of God. He was “appointed” to be the Son of God because He was the Son of David. The Davidic line was the appointed King-Son line.

The Eternal Word became the Son of God by divine appointment through the line of David.

thinker

p.s. The reason I am insisting that you bring the right hand discussion from echad and elohym here is because I had asked you to honor our agreement and not engage with me there. You did not honor the agreement but put me in the position of having to reply to you. Due to this debate I have fallen behind on yard work and home improvement projects. So I am not willing to start all over again on the subject. So you must copy and paste over here our last posts to each other from echad and elohym. Then we will discuss the right hand. But be advised that I will reply to anything you have to say about my arguments in this post.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

I'm only going to hit the points you flawed and the new points you bring up.

You said:

Quote

In the old testament He acts as “the Messenger of Jehovah.”

And in John, Jesus says, John 13:16 NIV
I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.

It says “greater”, but you and I know what is implied is “as great as”.  So as God's messenger, was Jesus an equal member of God?

You said:

Quote

Show that the “new name” in the Revelation disputes that he inherited the name “Son of God.”

Did Paul say he had inherited new NAMES?  Son, God, Christ, the one in Rev.  Why didn't Paul say NAMES?

You said:

Quote

You twisted what I said. I did not say that Jesus was no son at all. I said that He was “a Son.” but not a “fully investitured” son.

So one of the many new names he inherited was “fully investitured son”?  Since he already was “a son”, he could not have inherited that name by being raised.

You said:

Quote

There it is! He became High Priest WHEN He was begotten as Son!

You mean “fully investitured son”, don't you?   And twice you didn't answer my question, “What is a priest”?  So I'll answer it for you.  Wiki says,

WikiAnswers – What is the role of a priest?  
A priest fulfills the role of mediator between God and man.

How can a priest who mediates BETWEEN God and man also be God Himself?

You said again:

Quote

Insert any promises you want. They were fulfilled at the resurrection when Jesus was begotten as Son.

Only one promise, Jack.  The promise of a Messiah.

You said:

Quote

It CLEARLY says that Jesus “must reign” until He puts all enemies under His feet. Yet you say He is “waiting for God.”

And this Scripture explains it is not Jesus who puts his enemies as a footstool,  12 But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.

And these ones explain who it is that does it:  

Psalm 110 The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is:
“Sit at my right hand
Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

Acts 2 34 Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”’

Luke 20 41 In turn he said to them: “How is it they say that the Christ is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand 43 until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.’ 44 David, therefore, calls him ‘Lord’; so how is he his son?”

Are you starting to get the picture that it is Jehovah who puts Jesus' enemies as a footstool?

You said:

Quote

I said that the word “firstborn” means “supreme” and that it applies to Jesus alone. I said that the firstborn son reigned in the place of his father but this does not mean that he is above his father.

No, you actually said that right now Jesus is in fact more supreme than the Father.  WJ agreed, and both JA and I called you out for blaspheming.  I don't have the time to find the exact post, but it happened.  Anyway, it's irrelevant.

Your source says, The Old Latin part of manuscript D (Codex Bezae) has unicus (in various cases) for monogenes at Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; and John 3:16, 18 (it is defective in the Old Latin part at John 1:14, 18; I John 4:9). The manuscript never contained the book of Hebrews. [9]  The meaning “unique” fits nicely in every New Testament example: the son of the widow of Nain was her only/unique son.

All the Scriptures I bolded actually mean “only begotten”!  To say that the meaning “unique” fits nicely is moot.  The meanings “only breathing” or “only two-legged” would fit nicely too, but that's not what the word means.

With reference to Isaac, while we recognize that Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, his relationship to Abraham was nevertheless unique, since Isaac alone was born “according to promise,” that is, in fulfillment of a Divine promise.

And what about Ishmael?  Wasn't he also “unique” in that he was the only son by Abraham and Hagar?

However, in the revised Latin version of Jerome, commonly called the Vulgate, while the translation of monogenes by unicus in Luke is left unchanged, in every case where the term is applied to Christ, as well as the singular reference to Isaac, the translation is altered to unigenitus, [10] literally “only-begotten.”

So much for your claim that ALL the old manuscripts agree on this.

In the Apocrypha, monogenes is employed in five passages (Tobit 3:15; 6:10 [ms. A, not Aleph or B]; 6:14 [ms. Aleph; A and B have monos]; 8:17; and Baruch 4:16 [mss. A and R; Aleph and B have monos]), all used of the only child of parents, as in Judges 11:34, and Luke 7, 8, and 9.

That “ALL” keeps getting slimmer.  Let's look at you buddy WJ's hero translations to see how they translate monogenes in John 3:16,

New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.  (one and only with a footnote saying, “or only begotten”)
King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.  (only begotten)
New King James Version – 119 scholars.  (only begotten)
New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars  (only begotten)
Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars  (only)
English Standard Version – 100+ scholars  (only)

So 4 out of 6 of the translations he just bragged about in a post use “only begotten”.  And my favorite, the NWT has “only begotten”.  How about your favorite?

John 3:16
Young's Literal Translation
for God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

Hmmm, seems the “only begottens” win.

You said:

Quote

*****So the burden is on you to offer an explanation as to how the KJV translators would go against the Septuagint and all the ancient translations.*****

Go against the Septuagint?  Are you saying the word “monogenes” is not in the Septuagint?  No, you are actually saying that your new trinitarians scholars are trying their hardest to say that when it is used in the Septuagint, it doesn't mean only begotten.  Even though that's been the definition accepted by 100's of scholars to date.

You said:

Quote

First, John 1:1-3 mentions no other agent in creation. So “dia” would mean “by” or “by means of.”

Are you saying that the verse cannot possibly read, . 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.?

Did you really get all involved with the right hand in echad and elohim?  You said, “all power” means equal, so there.   And no, I'm not bringing a post that was in the open forum to our debate.  If you spent so much time on your position of the “right hand” debate in the echad thread, cut and paste it yourself.  Otherwise concede that “right hand” does not mean equality and we'll move on.  Stop being a baby who always has to have things your own way.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike originally said:

Quote

For God, even the things in Rev and beyond have already happened.  You can not put a time line on this Psalm.

thethinker replied:

Quote

Nonsense! Paul said that God calls into being things that are not yet as though they were (Rom. 4:15-17). Note that he said “as though” they exist. The prophecies still had to be fulfilled. Jesus was begotten (“gennao”) at His resurrection. If I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on his resurrection. Again, your argument is nonsense! Prophecy must be fulfilled Mike! When God decrees something it is as though it has happened. But the Scripture “must needs be fulfilled” (Acts 1:16). “MUST-NEEDS-BE-FULFILLED!” I repeat, if I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on His resurrection for He was begotten at His resurrection. Your argument is totally absurd!

MIKE HAD NO ANSWER!

Mike said:

Quote

And in John, Jesus says, John 13:16 NIV I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. It says “greater”, but you and I know what is implied is “as great as”.  So as God's messenger, was Jesus an equal member of God?

Show where the Messenger is called God's servant. The Messenger Himself claimed that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exodus 3:1-6). Then He said of Himself, “I am that I am” (vs. 14). In Exodus 23 Jehovah Himself called the Messenger “Jehovah your God”

In Exodus 23:20-25 Jehovah said that He will send His Messenger to bring the people into the land that He has prepared for them. Then in verse 25 Jehovah Himself calls His Messenger by the name “Jehovah.” He said,

Quote

20 “Behold, I send My Messenger before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Messenger will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars. 25 “So you shall serve Jehovah your God, and HE will bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you.

Jehovah refers to His Messenger by the same name saying, “serve Jehovah your God and HE will bless you.” Then He switches to the first person and says, “And I will take away your sickness.”

Note these three points:

1. Jehovah said that His Messenger has His name. (vs. 21)

2. The people shall not serve false gods but shall serve Jehovah's Messenger (vs.24-25).

3. Note the first and third persons “HE will bless you” and, “I will heal you.” Then note that Jehovah the first person called the third person, “Jehovah your God.”

Mike:

Quote

Did Paul say he had inherited new NAMES?  Son, God, Christ, the one in Rev.  Why didn't Paul say NAMES?

Oh here we go again with your asking the same questions over and over again. I said already that the name Jesus inherited and the new name in Revelation are apples and oranges. You are not coming to terms with what is explicitly stated in the Hebrews text. It CLEARLY says that He by inheritance obtained a name that is superior to the angels. That name is then identified as “begotten son” and “firstborn.”

Mike:

Quote

Since he already was “a son”, he could not have inherited that name by being raised.

Says who? He was as the child son before His resurrection. As the “child son” He was a servant. But the  name “Son” now means that He is Lord over all.

Quote

The term [only begotten Son] as Calvin suggests, and as maintained by Prof. Alexander, refers here only to His being constituted King – to the act of coronation (Barnes Notes on Psalms, vol1. p. 20)

Was Jesus King-Son before His exaltation Mike? Answer: NO!

thethinker said:

Quote

There it is! He became High Priest WHEN He was begotten as Son!

Mike:

Quote

You mean “fully investitured son”, don't you?    And twice you didn't answer my question, “What is a priest”?  So I'll answer it for you.

More diversionary tactics by you. My point was that He became High priest at the same time He was begotten as Son. This is what the text plainly says. So you may define the word “priest” as you like. The apostle says that Jesus becamse High priest SIMULTANEOUSLY with His being begotten as Son.

5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

6As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

It's clear dude! Jesus assumed the TWO offices of Priest and Son AT THE SAME TIME.

Mike:

Quote

Only one promise, Jack.  The promise of a Messiah.

You're being evasive. When was the promise fulfilled? The answer is plainly stated in the text.

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 hat
h raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

The “promise” was fulfilled at His resurrection “AS IT IS WRITTEN” in the second Psalm, “You are My son, TODAY I have begotten You.”

Mike:

Quote

How can a priest who mediates BETWEEN God and man also be God Himself?

This is one of the points we are yet to discuss:

4. CAN JESUS BE THE MEDIATOR AND GOD ALMIGHTY?

You will need to bone up on Hebrews 7-9.

Mike:

Quote

It CLEARLY says that Jesus “must reign” until He puts all enemies under His feet. Yet you say He is “waiting for God.” And this Scripture explains it is not Jesus who puts his enemies as a footstool,

First, you are being evasive again. You said that Jesus does not reign now. But Paul said, “He must reign” until His enemies are made His footstool.” Reconcile your theory that Jesus does not reign with Paul's statement.

Second, the point you do address is also a separate topic:

1. SITTING AT RIGHT HAND MEANS EQUALITY

Mike:

Quote

Are you starting to get the picture that it is Jehovah who puts Jesus' enemies as a footstool?

Half truth! See Philippians 3:21. This is all I will say about this for now.

thethinker said:

Quote

I said that the word “firstborn” means “supreme” and that it applies to Jesus alone. I said that the firstborn son reigned in the place of his father but this does not mean that he is above his father.

Mike replied:

Quote

No, you actually said that right now Jesus is in fact more supreme than the Father.  WJ agreed, and both JA and I called you out for blaspheming.  I don't have the time to find the exact post, but it happened.  Anyway, it's irrelevant.

You and JA both tell untruths. JA has accused me of this before and I have asked him for the post and he cannot produce it just as you cannot now. I copy and paste the beginning of our debate when you FALSELY accused me then:

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 28 2010,11:28)

Hi All, It is frustrating to me when I ask a question to TT or WJ, and by the time I get back online there are many new pages in that topic and everyone's thoughts get blended together.  That has the undesired effect of giving TT and WJ the option to only answer the questions they choose.  All I want is truth.  I am not a Bible scholar.  My theocratic knowledge is based only on this:  I have read the NWT word for word once, I have read the NIV word for word once, and I am in Psalms right now in the CEV.  I plan to keep reading different translations until the day I die, God willing. I have never read anything in the Bible that leads me to believe in a trinity, but I have to acknowledge that many, many people do believe in one.  And I even admit that some of TT and WJ's points seem to make sense, on the surface.  I can understand how ideas taught from a young age can remain with a person throughout their life, but I can't seem to get closure on any of my questions. So please respect my wishes to not post here unless you're thethinker. peace and love to all of you, mike Hi Thinker, You posted the following: Quote Rom 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.   The English word “over” is the same Greek word “epi” in both verses. * The Father is “over (epi) all.” * Christ is “over (epi) all.” Therefore, God and Christ are EQUAL in authority. Does anyone else here want to go for it? thinker My first response is that of Paul in 1 Cor 15:27: Quote For he “has put everything under his feet.” [ Psalm 8:6] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. It seems to me that if Paul were here to ask, he would follow the same simple logic that if it says the Christ is “over all”, it is clear that this does not include over God himself, who put Christ “over all.”  And it follows that if it is God who has the power to put Christ “over all”, then God is obviously the greater. Do you agree, TT? peace and love, mike

Quote

Mike, First, I was not taught scripture from my youth. I was brought up in a non-Christian home and we never went to church. I converted to Christianity in my early 20's. Second, show where I said that Christ was over all above the Father. I said that they had “equal” authority. So you have lost the debate already because you misread what I said. Debate over. thinker

DOES YOUR GOD APPROVE OF BEARING FALSE WITNESS MIKE? MY GOD HATES IT!

Mike:

Quote

All the Scriptures I bolded actually mean “only begotten”!  To say that the meaning “unique” fits nicely is moot.  The meanings “only breathing” or “only two-legged” would fit nicely too, but that's not what the word means.

The scriptures you bolded do not mean “begotten.” They mean “only.” The idea of origin had been dropped before the new testamant was written.

Mike:

Quote

And what about Ishmael?  Wasn't he also “unique” in that he was the only son by Abraham and Hagar?

Ishamel had been cast out of the covenant. God no longer regarded him as a son of Abraham. This explains why God commmanded Abraham to offer Isaac his “only” son (Gen. 22:12).

The word used for Isaac in Genesis 22:12 is not “yachid” but “yachad” which means “the only one ALIKE” (Strong's# 3162). Note that Hebrews 11:17 says “mono
genes.”

There you go Mike! The Hebrew “yachad” means “the only ALIKE son” and the apostle to the Hebrews uses “monogenes” which means “the only son after Abraham's KIND.”

You have lost the “monogenes” argument Mike! Give it up! You need to find another argument Mike!

Mike:

Quote

So much for your claim that ALL the old manuscripts agree on this.

Read it again Mike. It is only in one verse where the variation is found. You're reaching man!

Mike:

Quote

That “ALL” keeps getting slimmer.  Let's look at you buddy WJ's hero translations to see how they translate monogenes in John 3:16, New International Version Bible – translation committee of 115 scholars.  (one and only with a footnote saying, “or only begotten”) King James Version – translation committee of 54 scholars.  (only begotten) New King James Version – 119 scholars.  (only begotten) New American Standard Bible – 54 scholars  (only begotten) Contemporary English Version – 100+ scholars  (only) English Standard Version – 100+ scholars  (only) So 4 out of 6 of the translations he just bragged about in a post use “only begotten”.  And my favorite, the NWT has “only begotten”.  How about your favorite?

Huh? Are you debating me here or WJ?

Mike:

Quote

John 3:16 Young's Literal Translation for God did so love the world, that His Son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during. Hmmm, seems the “only begottens” win

**First, did Jesus and the apostles quote Young Mike? NO! They quoted the Septuagint which did not translate the word “monogenes” as “begotten.” Are you exalting Young over the Seventy Jewish scholars which Jesus and the apostles elevated Mike? When are you going to deal with the Septuagint Mike?

YOU HAVE AVOIDED THE SEPTUAGINT LIKE THE PLAGUE MIKE. YOU CANNOT WIN THE ARGUMENT ON “MONOGENES” WITHOUT DEALING WITH THE SEPTUAGINT SIR!

**Second, Young in his Analytical Concordance says that “monogenes” also means “chief.”

**Third, in His Concise Commentary of the Bible Young says that the word “firstborn” means “heir.” He agrees with you that “pasa ktisis” means “all created things.” But he says that Jesus is the “firstborn”, that is, the “heir” of all created things.

See his Commentary on Colossians 1:15 it will take a while to load up:

http://books.google.com/books?i….f=false

SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT MIKE! YOUNG SAID THAT THE WORD “MONOGENES” ALSO MEANS “CHIEF.” AND HE SAID THAT “FIRSTBORN” MEANS “HEIR”.

And while you're getting your facts straight answer my point that in Genesis 22:12 God referred to Isaac as Abraham's “yachad” which means “only ALIKE son” and Hebrews 11:17 uses “monogenes.” Therefore, it is without dispute that “monogenes” in Hebrews 11:17 means that Isaac was the only son that was ALIKE to Abraham, that is, he was Abraham's KIND.

You dispute the undisputable my friend!

**Fourth, Young's Literal Translation was done in the 1800's. We have learned a whole lot more  about “monogenes” since then.

Mike:

Quote

Go against the Septuagint?  Are you saying the word “monogenes” is not in the Septuagint?  No, you are actually saying that your new trinitarians scholars are trying their hardest to say that when it is used in the Septuagint, it doesn't mean only begotten.  Even though that's been the definition accepted by 100's of scholars to date.

Now you're falsely accusing me of saying that “monogenes” is not in the Septuagint when I have argued from the Septuagint's use of “monogenes” many times.  Do you drink a six pack before posting? You seem incoherent.

The KJV translators went against the Septuagint's way of translating the word. Deal with the Septuagint Mike. The word “monogenes” is not translated as “begotten” in the Septuagint Mike.

Psalm 25:16:

16 Turn to me and be gracious to me,
      for I am lonely and afflicted.

The word “lonely” is the Greek “monogenes” in the Septuagint. Where do you see the idea of “begetting” in that verse Mike?

I want you to face the Septuagint head on. So far you have made only one super lame remark about the Septuagint saying that the translators “misused” words. Translated this means you have no argument.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Mike's lame argument:

Quote

And Acts 20:28 literally says, “with the blood of his own.” The Greek words τοῦ ἰδίου (tou i‧di′ou) follow the phrase “with the blood.” The entire expression could be translated “with the blood of his own.” – Watchtower

 

WJ's astute reply:

Quote

Or it also could say “with his own blood”, and compare that with this… while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, “WHO GAVE HIMSELF FOR US” to redeem us from all wickedness and “TO PURIFY FOR HIMSELF A PEOPLE THAT ARE HIS VERY OWN”, eager to do what is good. Titus 2:13, 14

WJ wins by a knock out!

Mike,

Your argument above is gotta be the most lame argument I have ever heard. I work by the sweat of my own brow. Or I work by the sweat by the brow of my own.

When will you come up with a substantive argument instead of these childish little word games?

Please note my long post entered today.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Is this a debate between you and I, or a place to post childish taunts? We are getting nowhere. Just answer to this post only. Then maybe we'll finally finish this part.

You said:

Quote

Show where the Messenger is called God's servant.

Is a messenger of God a servant of God? Yes or no?

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said to WJ:

Quote

As far as the “lie”, I couldn't find it and am tired of looking.

You can't find it cause it ain't there. You lied when you started this debate with me. You said that I said that Christ is above His Father when I CLEARLY said that He is EQUAL to His Father. Read the first few posts to this thread.

When I say something you “hear” something different from what I say.

How do you think it helps you by posting false accusations you can't substantiate? Just stick to the issues and abandon this evil diversionary tactic.

You have already lost the “right hand” issue. You lost it when you said that Christ has not yet reigned at His Father's right hand. You said that He is “waiting” for God to subdue His enemies.

I hate to have to be the one to tell you but Christ is at the right hand of God revealing His Father to men EVERY DAY.

27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Matthew 11:27

Jesus chose to reveal His Father to you and you reply by dethroning Him in your heart and in your speech. You should be ashamed.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Let me say that I agree about the time spent on this debate.  While I love doing it, it's hard to come home after 12 hours at work and have 1000 words from you, 2000 from WJ and three other threads to read through to keep up with the posts.  That's why I only asked one question last night.  We'll get there point by point.  What's the hurry?  Do some yardwork already.

I said:

Quote

As far as the “lie”, I couldn't find it and am tired of looking.

You said:

Quote

You can't find it cause it ain't there. You lied when you started this debate with me. You said that I said that Christ is above His Father when I CLEARLY said that He is EQUAL to His Father. Read the first few posts to this thread. When I say something you “hear” something different from what I say.

Here is the original post from Trinity part 2, page 388.  (Thanks JA! )

Quote

Group: Regular Members Posts: 5598 Joined: Jan. 2009  Posted: Feb. 11 2010,03:20   ——————————————————————————– Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2010,09:58) Hi WJ, Indeed Jesus perfectly showed God in nature and power. God was in him But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker

And here's what WJ said in response:

Quote

WorshippingJesus Group: Regular Members Posts: 8860 Joined: Oct. 2006  Posted: Feb. 11 2010,03:31   ——————————————————————————– Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 10 2010,11:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2010,09:58) Hi WJ, Indeed Jesus perfectly showed God in nature and power. God was in him But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker Jack It is amazing how they now “REDUCE” the Love of Jesus to less than the Fathers Love when he had the Spirit without measure and he was the one who “Willingly” gave his own life for us. It never ceases the excuses for not giving the Son the same honour as the Father! Blessings WJ Edited by WorshippingJesus on Feb. 11 2010,03:32

And here is what I said:

Quote

mikeboll64 Group: Members Posts: 465 Joined: Feb. 2010  Posted: Mar. 14 2010,08:49   ——————————————————————————– Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 11 2010,03:31) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 10 2010,11:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2010,09:58) Hi WJ, Indeed Jesus perfectly showed God in nature and power. God was in him But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker Jack It is amazing how they now “REDUCE” the Love of Jesus to less than the Fathers Love when he had the Spirit without measure and he was the one who “Willingly” gave his own life for us. It never ceases the excuses for not giving the Son the same honour as the Father! Blessings WJ Thinker and WJ, You should both be ashamed of yourselves!  The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love?   There is only ONE in existence that ever sacrificed something that was His own.  EVERYTHING belongs to Jehovah.  He is the one who made the sacrifice.  How could anyone (including Jesus) ever truly sacrifice something of their own?  God owns EVERYTHING!  That includes your life and Jesus' life. I pray you may receive understanding and forgiveness for this blasphemy mike

I was mistaken when I said supremacy instead of love.  For that I am sorry.  And while WJ did not actually say what you did, he also did not correct you, but instead gave you a pat on the back.  It is still blasphemy and you have never owned up to it or apologized.

You said:

Quote

You have already lost the “right hand” issue. You lost it when you said that Christ has not yet reigned at His Father's right hand. You said that He is “waiting” for God to subdue His enemies.

I said waiting for God to place his enemies at his feet so he can subdue them, just as the Scriptures say:

12 But this [man] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.

I only asked you one question last night, but you failed to answer it.

Is a messenger of God a servant of God?  Yes or no?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

I just cut this from a WJ topic.

It has been claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea, c. 263–339 had an original copy of Matthew which did not contain the verse. However there is no such evidence and can only be considered as a fabrication made by the ATs. It would also contradict the fact that Eusebius was a prominent figure at the Council of Nicene. Not to mention his own confession in his personal Letter to the Church of Cesarea…

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.21 (emphasis mine) Source

So many points to make.

1.  There is one God, and He is the Father only.
2.  He is Almighty, which means there is none as high or higher.
3.  I bet that first “only begotten” is the word “monogenes”, and the second “begotten” is “genao”.  Are you sure the “only begotten” meaning was gone by the time of the NT?
4.  He is God FROM God.  Does the Almighty come FROM another God?
5.  The last part I bolded clearly states that God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ are two separate entities, and only one of them is God.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike,

I will get to you next week. I am getting ready to go on a trip and have a lot of things to do. I can only do quickie posts on the threads. In the Truth or Tradition forum I answered your question on the reading “Jesus” in Jude 5.

Don't you ever take a break?

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Hi thinker,

Take your time. Take a break? I don't even turn on my tv anymore. I'm learning the Scriptures here, man.

peace and love,
mike

ps I'll look into Jude, and see what the “experts” say. Good point, though.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Thinker,

Online Bible Study Tools has “kurios” in Jude 5.  It says:

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance , though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
JUpomnh'sai {V-AAN} de; {CONJ} uJma'? {P-2AP} bouvlomai, {V-PNI-1S} eijdovta? {V-RAP-APM} uJma'? {P-2AP} pavnta, {A-APN} o&ti {CONJ} ?oJ? {T-NSM} kuvrio? {N-NSM} a&pax lao;n {N-ASM} ejk {PREP} gh'? {N-GSF} Aijguvptou {N-GSF} swvsa? {V-AAP-NSM} to; {T-NSN} deuvteron {A-NSN} tou;? {T-APM} mh; {PRT} pisteuvsanta? {V-AAP-APM} ajpwvlesen, {V-AAI-3S}

I don't know what to tell ya.

peace and love,
mike

[KangarooJack]

Mike said:

Quote

Hi Thinker, Online Bible Study Tools has “kurios” in Jude 5.  It says: 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance , though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. JUpomnh'sai {V-AAN} de; {CONJ} uJma'? {P-2AP} bouvlomai, {V-PNI-1S} eijdovta? {V-RAP-APM} uJma'? {P-2AP} pavnta, {A-APN} o&ti {CONJ} ?oJ? {T-NSM} kuvrio? {N-NSM} a&pax lao;n {N-ASM} ejk {PREP} gh'? {N-GSF} Aijguvptou {N-GSF} swvsa? {V-AAP-NSM} to; {T-NSN} deuvteron {A-NSN} tou;? {T-APM} mh; {PRT} pisteuvsanta? {V-AAP-APM} ajpwvlesen, {V-AAI-3S} I don't know what to tell ya. peace and love, mike

It doesn't matter. The “Lord” is Jesus Christ (vs. 4). The oldest Greek manuscripts read “Jesus” in verse 5. And Paul Himself said that Christ was the “rock” which guided them (1 Corinthians 10:4). He said that it was Christ whom the people tested (vs. 9).

thinker

[Worshipping Jesus]

OOPs!

Wrong thread. Sorry!

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Mike copied and pasted my statement below to Nick as “proof” that I said that Christ is superior to the Father:

Quote

But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker

 

Mike,

You and JA have copied and pasted me out of context. Note the section of my statement in blue bold above. My argument was that IF Jesus was not God, then God did not love the way Jesus did. I was showing that anti-trinitarianism implies that God did not love the way Jesus did. Nick says that God could not lay down His life. If God cannot not lay down His life, then He cannot love the way Jesus did. I have already answered this false charge.

Below is EVERYTHING I said that day in relation to this statement.

Nick:

Quote

Hi WJ, Indeed Jesus perfectly showed God in nature and power. God was in him

thethinker:

Quote

But God Himself could not love the way Jesus did. The greatest love is to lay down one's own life for another which you say God cannot do. Ergo, Jesus did not show the love of God “perfectly.” The love of Jesus SURPASSED God's love. thinker

 

JustAskin:

Quote

TT, “Love”, He did that through his SON – you know the scriptures – why are you belittling your knowledge?

thethinker:

Quote

Hush up! You're no match for me! Your logic infers that the love of Jesus was greater than God's love. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his own life for another.” So the only way God's love can match the love of Jesus is if Jesus was God in the flesh. For it was Jesus who loved the greatest by laying down HIS OWN LIFE. If you reject that Jesus was God in the flesh then God's love was inferior to the love of Jesus. Quite a conundrum for you isn't it? thinker

NOTE: I SAID, “IF YOU REJECT THAT JESUS WAS GOD IN THE FLESH THEN GOD'S LOVE WAS INFERIOR TO THE LOVE OF JESUS.”

JustAskin:

Quote

What is wrong with you: “For God so loved the World [           ]”  – fill in the blank space.

thethinker:

Quote

More half truths. The fact is that Jesus did the greatest act of love because He laid down HIS OWN LIFE. So if He was not God in the flesh then His love is greater than God's love. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down His own life for another.” Either Jesus was God in the flesh or His love was greater than God's love. You haven't solved your conundrum. thinker

JustAskin:

Quote

You are beyond hope. Since God contains everything how can something within him be greater than or even equal to him. Can a part (amongst many parts) be equal to the whole?

thethinker:

Quote

JA, You minimize the love of Jesus just like all other anti-trinitarians here. He EXPLICITLY said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his own life for another.” If Jesus was not God in the flesh , then His love surpassed the love of God. God only “so loved” while Christ loved in the highest sense possible. If you confess the truth that Christ was God in the flesh, then your conundrum disappears and the love of God becomes equal to the love of Christ.

THERE IT IS MIKE! I SAID, “IF YOU CONFESS THE TRUTH THAT CHRIST WAS GOD IN THE FLESH, THEN YOUR CONUNDRUM DISAPPEARS AND THE LOVE OF GOD BECOMES EQUAL TO THE LOVE OF CHRIST.”

*****The next time this kind of misrepresentation happens I will ask the technical administrator to close this debate*****

I was clearly showing the logical conclusion that comes from denying that Jesus is God. If Jesus is not God, then His love surpased the love of God.

See pages 383- 385 of the Trinity 2 thread.

I will reply to the issues in your post soon. Being off for a few days I find it hard to get back in to the full swing of it. It's that law of inertia thing.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Worshippingjesus said to Mike:

Quote

Read your passage in its context Mike… ”THAT WAS THE TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not”.  He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12 John says Jesus was the “True Light” which lights everyman, which also means that John believes he was “True Theos”, not to mention the fact that in verse 3 John says that “nothing came into being without him”. This would be in complete opposition to the Hebrew scriptures that clearly says YHWH “alone”, “by Himself” with none other created all things… In the beginning “God” created the heavens and the earth! Gen 1:1 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *BY MYSELF*; Isa 44:24 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; *GOD HIMSELF* that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is NONE ELSE*.  Isa 45:18 Even your precious NWT reads as follows… This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens “BY MYSELF”, laying out the earth. “WHO WAS WITH ME?” Isa 44:24 Was John ignorant of these scriptures and how do you explain this conundrum you have Mike? There are several things to take note in the beginning of John’s prologue. 1. IN THE BEGINNING the Word that was with God and was God is the one by which all things were created and nothing came into being without him. John 1:1-3 And of course John knew this verse… IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1 2. Jesus is the life and the “True light” of men which also means that he is the source of life and that he is “True God”. John 1:4-7 John 14:6 3. The world was made by him and the world knew him not, and he came unto HIS OWN and they received him not. John claims that the children of Israel were his own which he created. John 1:10, 11 4. To as many as received him (not God the Father) and to those that believed in “HIS NAME” (not God the Fathers) to them (he Jesus) gave the authority to become (ginomai) sons of God. Jesus was the one who gives “eternal life” to as many as receive and believe on him.

Attention ladies and gentlemen. The winner by a knock out and still the champion is…WORSHIPPINGJESUS!

Mike, see my two posts today above.

thinker

[mikeboll64]

Quote (thethinker @ May 12 2010,05:15)

THERE IT IS MIKE! I SAID, “IF YOU CONFESS THE TRUTH THAT CHRIST WAS GOD IN THE FLESH, THEN YOUR CONUNDRUM DISAPPEARS AND THE LOVE OF GOD BECOMES EQUAL TO THE LOVE OF CHRIST.” *****The next time this kind of misrepresentation happens I will ask the technical administrator to close this debate*****

Hi Thinker,

And what of the ones of us who know that Jesus was never God in the flesh? Your blasphemy still stands? You are in essence saying, “believe the trinity, or the love of Jesus SURPASSED the love of God”.

I don't believe in a trinity. Therefore, to me and others on this site, your comment is blasphemy.

Let it go, man. You said it. I brought it up later. You denied saying it. I proved that you in fact did say it. End of story.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (thethinker @ May 12 2010,05:54)

Worshippingjesus said to Mike: Quote Read your passage in its context Mike… ”THAT WAS THE TRUE LIGHT, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the world knew him not”.  He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:9-12 John says Jesus was the “True Light” which lights everyman, which also means that John believes he was “True Theos”, not to mention the fact that in verse 3 John says that “nothing came into being without him”. This would be in complete opposition to the Hebrew scriptures that clearly says YHWH “alone”, “by Himself” with none other created all things… In the beginning “God” created the heavens and the earth! Gen 1:1 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; *that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE*; that spreadeth abroad the earth *BY MYSELF*; Isa 44:24 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; *GOD HIMSELF* that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: *I am the LORD; and there is NONE ELSE*.  Isa 45:18 Even your precious NWT reads as follows… This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens “BY MYSELF”, laying out the earth. “WHO WAS WITH ME?” Isa 44:24 Was John ignorant of these scriptures and how do you explain this conundrum you have Mike? There are several things to take note in the beginning of John’s prologue. 1. IN THE BEGINNING the Word that was with God and was God is the one by which all things were created and nothing came into being without him. John 1:1-3 And of course John knew this verse… IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1 2. Jesus is the life and the “True light” of men which also means that he is the source of life and that he is “True God”. John 1:4-7 John 14:6 3. The world was made by him and the world knew him not, and he came unto HIS OWN and they received him not. John claims that the children of Israel were his own which he created. John 1:10, 11 4. To as many as received him (not God the Father) and to those that believed in “HIS NAME” (not God the Fathers) to them (he Jesus) gave the authority to become (ginomai) sons of God. Jesus was the one who gives “eternal life” to as many as receive and believe on him. Attention ladies and gentlemen. The winner by a knock out and still the champion is…WORSHIPPINGJESUS! Mike, see my two posts today above. thinker

Really Jack? Do you dress up in a skirt and swing pom pons when your cheerlead fro Keith?

mike

[KangarooJack]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 20 2010,15:30)

Quote (thethinker @ May 16 2010,09:58) I can't decide if I will continue discoursing with Mike or not. He lost the argument when he said that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” that satan is a god. I have never heard this one, not even from the most ardent Arian here. Mike's statement is totally anathema! He also lost the right hand argument when he said that Jesus does not reign now but is “waiting” for God to do something. Hi Thinker or Kangaroo or whoever, Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. The devil exists.  He is a god, but not God. Jesus exists.  He is a god, but not God.  It's what the scriptures teach, if you don't like it, stop discoursing with them. And I'm still waiting for you to finally address the right hand argument.  I know you're scared by the way you go from post to post inserting “you already lost the argument” when we haven't even started it yet.  And it's sure not because of me, I've been almost begging you to respond in our debate for months.  Maybe this week? peace and love, mike

Mike,
Anathema! Jesus is not a god in the “same sense” that Jesus is a god. Satan is a usurper. Jesus was the Eternal Word at God's side. Even if Jesus was a lesser “god” He is YOUR “god” Mike. Satan is not your god.

You are a heretic Mike. Since I have been here no anti-trinitarian here has said that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. Thrice anathema!

I won't be replying to you that much. Your blasphemy is too much for me to bear.

Even Is. 1:18  (Paul) PMed me twice and asked me why I continue to debate with you. It was after his PM's that I started to hesitate. Who wants to spend so much time debating an obnoxious person who is so unteachable that he has to say that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. You say this because you must and not because you really believe it. Only an obnoxious and unreasonable person would say that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” that satan is a god.

The Father said that all men should honor the Son EVEN AS they honor the Father. This means that you are in deep doo doo with the Father for comparing His Son to satan. DEEEEEP doo doo Mike!

You're just a trouble maker Mike. If you had a full and meaningful life you would not be here so much stirring up trouble. You tipped me off to this by your reply to me after I asked you if you ever take a break. You said that this board replaces TV. This means you have nothing to do Mike. So you come here to stir up trouble.

Unlike you WJ and I have lives outside this board. I am not sure I want to waste my time with an obnoxious person such as you.

Jack

t8: Please close this thread. I am allowing Mike to have the last word. He may even boast and claim victory if he is so inclined.

Jack

[KangarooJack]

Mike,

My words to you above are pasted from Scripture and Biblical Doctrine. So if t8 closes this thread you can reply over there.

Jack

t8: Please close this thread.

Jack

[mikeboll64]

Hi Jack,

You know what I think?  I think you've stalled and avoided moving on to the “right hand” issue until you could come up with an “excuse” to bail out for good.   That's okay, I'll just bring it up in a new topic.  So what have we both learned from our extremely long debate on “begotten” and “all creation”?

I hold that “monogenes” means “only begotten” or “caused to exist”.  You hold that “begotten” is just a title or position that Jesus was given after he was raised from the dead.  Strong's agrees with me.  So does Eusebius.  So does the KJV, the NIV, the NWT and many other translations.  Even the people you quoted against me don't agree with you that “the Son with power” means that's when Jesus became the “only begotten Son of God”.

You have asserted that “all creation” means only mankind, yet you have failed to prove that assertion.  The words “pasa ktisis” definitely mean “all creation”.

In this whole time consuming debate, you've offered only conjecture – both yours and trinitarians who are recently trying to change the meaning of long accepted definitions.  You have tried to insert your beliefs into Scripture and make the Scripture say what you think it should.  But that has failed simply because it is NOT what the Scripture says.

We had like 25 topics we were going to discuss and couldn't even move to my first choice because you would not “agree to disagree” on your first choice.  I had my doubts when I first challenged you in an attempt to eliminate your running away.  But alas, you have escaped indeed.  So sad.

Keep running Jack.  Just like you did from Nick's question about Legion and so many others like it.

peace and love,
mike

[Author]

Posts