- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,22:58) Quote (JustAskin @ July 08 2010,11:41) EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO PROVE SCRIPTURES … is in Scriptures.
Good JA,Then practice what you preach. Scripture says Jesus is the FIRSTBORN OF EVERY CREATURE. That means before Satan.
But you need unambiguous proof that is what the word “firstborn” in relation to Jesus means.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,22:58) Scripture says Jesus was BEGOTTEN BY GOD IN PSALM 2:7. THE HEBREW WORD “YALAD” MEANS to bear, bring forth, beget, of child birth, to beget (a child)
What it DOESN'T mean is to appoint someone to a postition or title or anoint them with holy spirit
Says who? The context of Psalm 2:7 which are quoted in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 and Heb 5:5 are speaking of Jesus after the resurrection.”YET HAVE I SET MY KING UPON MY HOLY HILL OF ZION”. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee“. Pss 2:7
What does “declare the decree” mean Mike? Did Jesus hear the Father say “Thou art my son” before he was supposedly born from the Father?
“THE LORD HAD SAID UNTO ME!” When did the Lord say unto him? Read Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 and 5:5 and you will see.
The word for begotten is “gennaō” which means;
1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born
b) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workDo you see the highlighted parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”!
It’s the same word used for the “begetting” of the saints which already exist…
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
Paul blows your theory to smithereens!
Jack has been over this time and time again with you, and you have got to be the most stubborn man alive to keep pushing this issue without scriptural proof.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,22:58)
Scripture says Jesus is THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF GOD.
Yes and it has been brought to your attention time and time again that the Greek word for beginning is “archē” which means;1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
a) of angels and demonsBut to show your hypocrisy, you say that Rev 1:8 is the Father which states…
I am Alpha and Omega, the “beginning (archē)” and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Rev 1:8
Did the Father have a beginning? So what about Rev 3:14 – 21:6 – 22:13 that are speaking of Jesus as the beginning?
We are looking for scriptural facts Mike, not your conjecture!
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 07 2010,22:58) It's when people such as you and Roo start claiming the actual Greek words don't mean what they clearly DO mean that I have to enlist other sources just to prove to you guys that they DO ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY. But when you see that proof, you claim “everything you need is in scripture” so you don't have to actually deal with it.
You are the one not comparing scripture with scripture Mike. You claim that Greek words have a single meaning, your meaning that is…
WJ
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote It’s the same word used for the “begetting” of the saints which already exist… For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
Keith,Absolutely! The words “gennao” and “ginomai” quite often have reference to a becoming in one's supposed existence.
WJ:
Quote You are the one not comparing scripture with scripture Mike.
Exactly! Mike is interested only is his own personal views and in his sources which he thinks support his views even to the exclusion of scripture.WJ:
Quote You claim that Greek words have a single meaning, your meaning that is…
Right again! I have informed Mike more than once that Strong indicates that the Greek word “ginomai” has a “great latitude” of meaning and may also mean, “to be ordained to be.” Of course Mike was not interested.Jack
Quote (Lightenup @ July 08 2010,16:03) Hi Mike,
Do you think that the earth, created by God, was made out of something that always existed? How about the Son, was He made out of something that always existed?
Just wondering what you think here. Thanks!
I don't know, Kathi.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 09 2010,02:45) JA, I agree with you. I am just giving Mike what he wants. Every time I show him from scripture that “pasa ktisis” is a Hebraism for “all mankind” he gives me Eusebius in reply. So I thought if I posted the language credentials of my source Mike might stop ranting about Eusebius.
Hopefully Mike will now limit our discussions to “what saith the scriptures.”
Hi Jack,You say pasa ktisis is a “Hebraism”. But pasa and ktisis are Greek words written by Jews. So what do you mean?
But if you're implying that pasa ktisis, although actually meaning “every creature”, was some kind of Greek “slang” for “all of mankind”, then you must prove that. Show me how Revelation 5:13 supports your view when it says “every creature IN HEAVEN, IN THE SEA, UNDER THE EARTH”, etc. How many of “mankind” do you think are in heaven? I thought flesh and blood couldn't enter God's Kingdom in heaven. Are rotting flesh and dried up bones “under the earth” still considered as “mankind”? How many of “mankind” reside “in the sea”?
At the very least, you should be able to show me some early Greek writings where your view is supported. So far, I have only delved a little bit into Ignatius and Eusebius, and neither of them shared your view.
You want to limit it to scriptures? Fine. Show me from scripture that is was common knowledge in NT times that pasa ktisis only referred to mankind.
See, here's what you offer: pasa ktisis only refers to mankind.
I say: Well, Jesus WASN'T the firstborn of mankind.
You say: Well, that's because “firstborn” is a title or position meaning “preeminent”.
And it goes on and on. When scripture clearly contradicts your claims, you change the definitions of the scriptural words to your liking. You trinitarians have had almost 2000 years to perfect your story, yet someone of average intelligence who read the Bible for the first time only 2 years ago can almost immediately see the flaws in your production.
So when I show you early church fathers who were widely renowned for their expertise in scripture who disagree with you, you attack them and me. But you have NEVER given an answer to why you think Eusebius wasn't hip to the “Hebraism” of pasa ktisis referring to mankind only.
Instead, you offer a trinitarian scholar with the 3rd grade argument that “Surely Jesus couldn't be firstborn among plants and animals”. That is an asinine statement. Since Jesus is the firstborn of every creature, he is most definitely within the group of “things God caused to exist” which includes plants and animals. You are a created man, Jack. Are you not also within the group of “things God caused to exist”? Well, the group that you, a man, belong to includes plants and animals – so your “scholar” hasn't really thought things through, has he?
Answer the question, Jack. Why didn't Eusebius “know” what you “know”? Why didn't Ignatius?
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 09 2010,03:03) Exactly! Conjecture seems to be the way Mike likes to work, i.e. “There is no water in the glass”, mikes response, “but just because there is no water in the glass doesn't mean there wasn't any water in the glass”. Duh, that is not the contention, the fact is there is no water in the glass.
But that is not enough for this guy!
Endless speculation. Mike should have been a magician or a politician IMO.
Mike has no scriptural facts to backup his theorys, even his Arian brothers disagree with him, yet he constantly is building straw man houses!
WJ
Hi WJ,Do you know what's amusing to me? Whenever anyone on HN sees the parade of insults to my intelligence followed by mutual backslapping between you and KJ instead of answers to my questions, they, like me, know this is your only recourse for you can't think of anything to refute what I've just said.
peace and love,
mikeWJ,
You said:
Quote But you need unambiguous proof that is what the word “firstborn” in relation to Jesus means. Why would the understanding and statement of a noted expert on the scriptures that you yourself touted as a prominent figure in the early church be considered ambiguous? Because he disagrees with you?
He seemed pretty sure of his beliefs to me. While gennao means “to be born” along with some other things, yalad does not have in it's definition these three:
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workSo since Paul was quoting “yalad”, it is reasonable to assume it is the “to be born” definition that applies here, not one of the others, no?
You said:
Quote Did the Father have a beginning? So what about Rev 3:14 – 21:6 – 22:13 that are speaking of Jesus as the beginning? Really? I didn't read it as saying “I HAD a beginning”. The Father IS the beginning. That doesn't say or even imply He HAD a beginning. He is the origin of all things – He is THE BEGINNING of everything we know. 3:14 doesn't say Jesus is the beginning, period. It says he is the beginning OF THE CREATION…….(of who, Keith?)……OF GOD. Wouldn't it seem a little silly for God to say, I am the beginning of the creation of God? Why distinguish Himself from Himself? So therefore, whether you use the word beginning or ruler, it is clear that Jesus is NOT God, but the beginning or ruler of God's creation. Not his own, but God's – get it?
And 21:6 and 22:13 are clearly God talking.
You said:
Quote You claim that Greek words have a single meaning, your meaning that is. Yes. And it just so happens that “my meaning” is inline with scripture, Eusebius, Ignatius, Vine, and Strong. Yours is not.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 09 2010,04:40) WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote It’s the same word used for the “begetting” of the saints which already exist… For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
Keith,Absolutely! The words “gennao” and “ginomai” quite often have reference to a becoming in one's supposed existence.
WJ:
Quote You are the one not comparing scripture with scripture Mike.
Exactly! Mike is interested only is his own personal views and in his sources which he thinks support his views even to the exclusion of scripture.WJ:
Quote You claim that Greek words have a single meaning, your meaning that is…
Right again! I have informed Mike more than once that Strong indicates that the Greek word “ginomai” has a “great latitude” of meaning and may also mean, “to be ordained to be.” Of course Mike was not interested.Jack
Hey Jack,How much “latitude” does the Hebrew word “yalad” have? That's the word Paul was quoting.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2010,10:42) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 09 2010,04:40) WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote It’s the same word used for the “begetting” of the saints which already exist… For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
Keith,Absolutely! The words “gennao” and “ginomai” quite often have reference to a becoming in one's supposed existence.
WJ:
Quote You are the one not comparing scripture with scripture Mike.
Exactly! Mike is interested only is his own personal views and in his sources which he thinks support his views even to the exclusion of scripture.WJ:
Quote You claim that Greek words have a single meaning, your meaning that is…
Right again! I have informed Mike more than once that Strong indicates that the Greek word “ginomai” has a “great latitude” of meaning and may also mean, “to be ordained to be.” Of course Mike was not interested.Jack
Hey Jack,How much “latitude” does the Hebrew word “yalad” have? That's the word Paul was quoting.
mike
Hey Mike,Once in a while you show a sincere interest in truth. According to the TWOT the word “yalad” when written in different forms means different things. The Hiphil form indicates actual paternity. But the Qal form simply indicates a relationship of love.
“Thus Ps. 2:7 is not causative, but refers to a relationship of love.” TWOT vol. 1 page 379
I am REEEEELY glad you asked this question. The word “yalad” is written in the Qal form and is not causative and therefore has nothing to do with God giving birth; an idea that is totally based in Greek mythology.
Check out the TWOT online and see for yourself.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 09 2010,11:01) Hey Mike, Once in a while you show a sincere interest in truth. According to the TWOT the word “yalad” when written in different forms means different things. The Hiphil form indicates actual paternity. But the Qal form simply indicates a relationship of love.
“Thus Ps. 2:7 is not causative, but refers to a relationship of love.” TWOT vol. 1 page 379
I am REEEEELY glad you asked this question. The word “yalad” is written in the Qal form and is not causative and therefore has nothing to do with God giving birth; an idea that is totally based in Greek mythology.
Check out the TWOT online and see for yourself.
Jack
Hey Jack,Online Bible Study Tools, which incorporates info from TWOT, Strong and various Greek Lexicons says:
The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 03205
Original Word Word Origin
dly a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yalad TWOT – 867
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yaw-lad' VerbDefinition
to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
(Qal)
to bear, bring forth 1a
of child birth 1a
of distress (simile) 1a
of wicked (behaviour)
to beget
(Niphal) to be born
(Piel)
to cause or help to bring forth
to assist or tend as a midwife
midwife (participle)
(Pual) to be born
(Hiphil)
to beget (a child)
to bear (fig. – of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
(Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
(Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)I do notice that it means beget, bear a child or bring forth (as into existence) in it's Qal form. But I don't notice the “relationship of love” definition in any form.
But think about this, Jack. If it meant “relationship of love”, then in your view, when Jesus was raised he became “loved by God”, not gennao in any sense of the word. It also means that Jesus told Nicodemus that he was the “only loved” son of God. Hmmmm….
Back to the drawing board, I guess. Maybe it simply means begotten, Jack. Did you ever think of that?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:09) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 09 2010,03:03) Exactly! Conjecture seems to be the way Mike likes to work, i.e. “There is no water in the glass”, mikes response, “but just because there is no water in the glass doesn't mean there wasn't any water in the glass”. Duh, that is not the contention, the fact is there is no water in the glass.
But that is not enough for this guy!
Endless speculation. Mike should have been a magician or a politician IMO.
Mike has no scriptural facts to backup his theorys, even his Arian brothers disagree with him, yet he constantly is building straw man houses!
WJ
Hi WJ,Do you know what's amusing to me? Whenever anyone on HN sees the parade of insults to my intelligence followed by mutual backslapping between you and KJ instead of answers to my questions, they, like me, know this is your only recourse for you can't think of anything to refute what I've just said.
peace and love,
mike
MikeThats a Joke because I just refuted what you said, and have been doing that since you came here!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) Why would the understanding and statement of a noted expert on the scriptures that you yourself touted as a prominent figure in the early church be considered ambiguous? Because he disagrees with you? Mike, because we are dealing with scriptures and not merely the opinion of a third century figure.
Did you forget this part?…
The context of Psalm 2:7 which are quoted in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 and Heb 5:5 are speaking of Jesus after the resurrection.
”YET HAVE I SET MY KING UPON MY HOLY HILL OF ZION”. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee“. Pss 2:7
What does “declare the decree” mean Mike? Did Jesus hear the Father say “Thou art my son” before he was supposedly born from the Father?
“THE LORD HAD SAID UNTO ME!” When did the Lord say unto him? Read Acts 13:33 and Heb 1:5 and 5:5 and you will see.
The word for begotten is “gennaō” which means;
1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born
b) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to children
2) metaph.
a) to engender, cause to arise, excite
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workContext Mike. Psalm 2:7 – Acts 13:33 – Heb 1:5 Heb 5:5 is after his resurrection.
But you keep putting your head in the sand.
Do you see the highlighted parts Mike? This is proof that the word “Begotten, gennaō” does not always mean “to be born”!
It’s the same word used for the “begetting” of the saints which already exist…
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have “begotten (gennaō)” you through the gospel. 1 Cor 4:15
Paul blows your theory to smithereens!
Jack has been over this time and time again with you, and you have got to be the most stubborn man alive to keep pushing this issue without scriptural proof.
WJ, did YOU forget THIS part?
While gennao means “to be born” along with some other things, yalad does not have in it's definition these three:
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workSo since Paul was quoting “yalad”, it is reasonable to assume it is the “to be born” definition that applies here, not one of the others, no?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) Really? I didn't read it as saying “I HAD a beginning”.
And I didn’t read Rev 3:14 as Jesus saying he had a beginning, did you?Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) The Father IS the beginning.
The Father is the beginning of what Mike? HMMM, could it be “the creation of God”?Oh, but wait, that is exactly what Jesus said…
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, “the beginning of the creation of God”; Rev 3:14
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) That doesn't say or even imply He HAD a beginning.
Exactly, and neither does Rev 3:14!Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) He is the origin of all things – He is THE BEGINNING of everything we know.
Exactly and that’s what Rev 3:14 and John 1:3 says Jesus is.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) 3:14 doesn't say Jesus is the beginning, period. It says he is the beginning OF THE CREATION…….(of who, Keith?)……OF GOD.
If he is the beginning of the creation then that means he is the beginning, “archē” which means;1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active causeCome on Mike, you can do better than that!
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2010,00:26) WJ, did YOU forget THIS part? While gennao means “to be born” along with some other things, yalad does not have in it's definition these three:
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workSo since Paul was quoting “yalad”, it is reasonable to assume it is the “to be born” definition that applies here, not one of the others, no?
mike
MikeI don't see the words “born” “birth” in b, c and d.
None of those definitions means to “be born”, for they all imply a begetting of men already existing!
Paul and the Apostles didn't use the word “Yalad” did they?
WJ
WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:
Quote Did Jesus hear the Father say “Thou art my son” before he was supposedly born from the Father? Excellent point Keith! The problem is that Mike does like common sense interpretation. The TWOT says that the Qal form of “yalad” in Ps. 2:7 simply refers to a relationship of love without reference to actual paternity.
Then there is the fact that the new testament REPEATEDLY applies Ps. 2:7 to Jesus' resurrection and exaltation when He became “begotten” in the sense of the FULLY INVESTITURED Son of God.
Jack
WJ said to Mike:
Quote Jack has been over this time and time again with you, and you have got to be the most stubborn man alive to keep pushing this issue without scriptural proof.
Keith,Mike knows he has lost the argument scripturally.
Jack
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2010,11:18) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 09 2010,11:01) Hey Mike, Once in a while you show a sincere interest in truth. According to the TWOT the word “yalad” when written in different forms means different things. The Hiphil form indicates actual paternity. But the Qal form simply indicates a relationship of love.
“Thus Ps. 2:7 is not causative, but refers to a relationship of love.” TWOT vol. 1 page 379
I am REEEEELY glad you asked this question. The word “yalad” is written in the Qal form and is not causative and therefore has nothing to do with God giving birth; an idea that is totally based in Greek mythology.
Check out the TWOT online and see for yourself.
Jack
Hey Jack,Online Bible Study Tools, which incorporates info from TWOT, Strong and various Greek Lexicons says:
The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 03205
Original Word Word Origin
dly a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yalad TWOT – 867
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yaw-lad' VerbDefinition
to bear, bring forth, beget, gender, travail
(Qal)
to bear, bring forth 1a
of child birth 1a
of distress (simile) 1a
of wicked (behaviour)
to beget
(Niphal) to be born
(Piel)
to cause or help to bring forth
to assist or tend as a midwife
midwife (participle)
(Pual) to be born
(Hiphil)
to beget (a child)
to bear (fig. – of wicked bringing forth iniquity)
(Hophal) day of birth, birthday (infinitive)
(Hithpael) to declare one's birth (pedigree)I do notice that it means beget, bear a child or bring forth (as into existence) in it's Qal form. But I don't notice the “relationship of love” definition in any form.
But think about this, Jack. If it meant “relationship of love”, then in your view, when Jesus was raised he became “loved by God”, not gennao in any sense of the word. It also means that Jesus told Nicodemus that he was the “only loved” son of God. Hmmmm….
Back to the drawing board, I guess. Maybe it simply means begotten, Jack. Did you ever think of that?
mike
Mike,When will you train yourself to pay close attention to what you read? Note that I said that the TWOT says that the Hiphel form of “yalad” refers to actual paternity. This does not mean that there is no idea of paternity at all in the Qal form. But it is not a literal paternity. The Qal form refers to a relationship of love. This is paternity in a figurative sense. It is saying that the Qal does not refer to actual paternity.
Quote In most every instance actual paternity is represented by the Hiphel. TWOT page 379. Then it says,
Quote The word is often used in a figurative sense. Thus it may refer to a city or a nation as having given birth to its inhabitants (e.g. Isa. 23:4; 51:18; Ezk. 16:20). It may refer to the wicked as having brought forth evil, lies or stubble (e.g. Job 15:35; Ps. 7:15; Isa. 33:11) page 379 Yalad in the Hiphel = actual paternity
Yalad in the Qal = a relationship of love, that is, figurative paternity.
So you prove nothing my friend! The new testament solidifies what I am saying for it says that Jesus was begotten (gennao/yalad) at His resurrection. He did not come from the Father's “womb” at His resurrection. He came from the “womb” of sheol, that is, hades.
Jonah's being in the belly of the whale was likened to being in the “womb” of sheol (hades).
“Out of the WOMB of sheol I cried” (Jonah 2:2)
Jesus said that His being in the heart of the earth (sheol) for three days was like Jonah's being in the belly of the fish, that is the womb of sheol.
As Jonah's being vomited out of the belly of the fish was likened to his being begotten from the “womb” of sheol, so Jesus was begotten from the “womb” of sheol at His resurrection.
IT'S FIGURATIVE MIKE! Yalad in the Qal speaks of figurative paternity Mike!
Your view that God has a womb is thoroughly pagan Mike!
At His resurrection Jesus was begotten from the “womb” of sheol Mike!
Psalm 2:7 is about Christ's resurrection Mike!
Come out of your pagan stupor Mike!
Mike:
Quote If it meant “relationship of love”, then in your view, when Jesus was raised he became “loved by God”,
Absolutely! Jesus said that His Father loved Him because He layed down His life for the sheep (John 10:17). The Father's love was perfected by raising Him from the dead.You have reading comprehension problems Mike. Back to the ole drawing board for you Mike!
the Roo
Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote And I didn’t read Rev 3:14 as Jesus saying he had a beginning, did you? Well, only if the creation of God had a beginning. Because Jesus was the first. Did the creation of God have a beginning WJ?
You said:
Quote Oh, but wait, that is exactly what Jesus said… And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, “the beginning of the creation of God”; Rev 3:14
Read it again. “the beginning OF THE CREATION OF GOD”. Think man, think! You say Jesus IS God. You say “arche” means “source” in this verse. So to you the verse says, “God is the source of the creation of God”. Well, duh! Of course He is, so why would that need to be said? But since we know that Jesus is still a servant OF God and calls God “my God” the verse actually says Jesus – (someone other than God) is the beginning of the creation OF God – (someone other than the one who is the beginning of His creation).
Quote Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 08 2010,18:40) That doesn't say or even imply He HAD a beginning.
Exactly, and neither does Rev 3:14!“Your Song” is the beginning of the hits OF Elton John. Do you read that to say “Your Song” is the “source” of Elton John's hit songs? Did the song “Your Song” create the songs OF Elton John? This is how silly you must make yourself sound when you try to prove a point that is non-existent.
Let's try them side by side using the word “creation” to signify the group of hit songs Elton John has had.Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God.
“Your Song” is the beginning of the creation of Elton John.
Do you see how silly your argument is?
You said:
Quote If he is the beginning of the creation then that means he is the beginning, “archē” which means; 1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active causeOrigin can mean more than one thing Keith,
or·i·gin /ˈɔrɪdʒɪn, ˈɒr-/ Show Spelled[awr-i-jin, or-] Show IPA
–noun
1. something from which anything arises or is derived; source; fountainhead: to follow a stream to its origin.
2. rise or derivation from a particular source: the origin of a word.
3. the first stage of existence; beginning: the origin of Quakerism in America.So Strong's #1 means origin as in beginning and his #3 means origin as in source. Which one is meant by Rev 3:14? Look at the Elton John comparison again to find the answer. If you cannot logically insert “source” here,
“Your Song” is the beginning of the creation of Elton John.
then you also cannot logically insert it here,
Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 09 2010,16:31) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 09 2010,00:26) WJ, did YOU forget THIS part? While gennao means “to be born” along with some other things, yalad does not have in it's definition these three:
b) in a Jewish sense, of one who brings others over to his way of life, to convert someone
c) of God making Christ his son
d) of God making men his sons through faith in Christ's workSo since Paul was quoting “yalad”, it is reasonable to assume it is the “to be born” definition that applies here, not one of the others, no?
mike
MikeI don't see the words “born” “birth” in b, c and d.
None of those definitions means to “be born”, for they all imply a begetting of men already existing!
Paul and the Apostles didn't use the word “Yalad” did they?
WJ
Hi WJ,You said:
Quote I don't see the words “born” “birth” in b, c and d.
Of course you don't. These are things that the word “yalad” did NOT mean.You said:
Quote Paul and the Apostles didn't use the word “Yalad” did they?
Really WJ? Paul was directly quoting the word “yalad” in Hebrews 1 and elsewhere. Since Paul as a Hebrew speaking person knew that “yalad” meant “caused to exist”, when he translated it into “gennao”, it must have been the “caused to exist” meaning of “gennao” that he meant.mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
