- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
So Jesus is the firstborn of all mankind after all! Note your words in blue below.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,17:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:17) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom [1Cor15]
Yes Nick,Now add that thought to 1 Cor 15 and you will begin to understand that Jesus is still the man who is mediator between us and God, but he is now clothed with a spiritual body.
mike
Mike,Very good! You once denied that Jesus is still a man. You said:
Quote If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart. How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”? Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures?
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80Now you correctly say that He is a man but with a spiritual body. So by your own logic in the quote above Jesus is the firsborn of all mankind.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,02:09) 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.
Did you ever hear the song “Arms Wide Open” by Creed? Dude finds out he is going to be a dad and imagines he will tell his child when born, “Welcome to this place, I'll show you everything.”JA also has trouble with this aspect. Imagine that God just begat Jesus. So here's this brand new being all wide eyed and filled with questions and wonder looking at his surroundings. Why is it so weird that God would immediately say to His brand new Son, “You are my Son. Today I have brought you into existence. Welcome to this place, I will now start to show and teach you everything.”
I just don't get why that's weird. Oh that's right, it's not. You guys just have to pretend it is to further your “begotten” doesn't really mean “begotten” crap.
Roo said:
Quote 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.
I have showed you that you are wrong on this Jack. The qal form also meant begotten in a childbirth way,(Qal) 1a1) to bear, bring forth 1a1a) of child birth 1a1b)
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,04:35) 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!
It is you that seems to have comprehension problems.Your own words imply that God and Jesus didn't have a relationship of love until Jesus died. Is that what scripture teaches?
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 11 2010,04:08) MIke,
do you see why i get upsetQuote Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. whether “of” precededs or not. it wouldnt matter
fact is Jesus is the Beginning.agh.
Dennison,Did you read the Elton John comparison? Explain to me why “Your Song” is anything other than the song Elton started with. And the “OF” is everything. Adam was the beginning OF the mankind creation OF God. Is Adam “THE BEGINNING” in the way that God is?
Aughh! yourself.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,04:11) Mike, So Jesus is the firstborn of all mankind after all! Note your words in blue below.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,17:27) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 10 2010,17:17) Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom [1Cor15]
Yes Nick,Now add that thought to 1 Cor 15 and you will begin to understand that Jesus is still the man who is mediator between us and God, but he is now clothed with a spiritual body.
mike
Mike,Very good! You once denied that Jesus is still a man. You said:
Quote If Jesus didn't receive the “position of firstborn” until he was raised, (when he was no longer a man), then your whole theory falls apart. How could he be the firstborn in relationship to man if he wasn't a man when he recieved the “title”? Wouldn't he be the firstborn in relationship to his own kind of spirit creatures?
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80Now you correctly say that He is a man but with a spiritual body. So by your own logic in the quote above Jesus is the firsborn of all mankind.
the Roo
Yes Roo,I should have said, (when he was no longer a FLESH AND BLOOD man)
Yes, Jesus is the firstborn of EVERY CREATURE, so that includes mankind also Roo. Unfortunately for you, it isn't LIMITED TO MANKIND.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 11 2010,04:32) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 10 2010,04:35) 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!
It is you that seems to have comprehension problems.Your own words imply that God and Jesus didn't have a relationship of love until Jesus died. Is that what scripture teaches?
mike
Mike,No my words do not imply that. Jesus said that the Father loved Him BECAUSE He lays down His life for the sheep. I said that the Father's love was “perfected” in raising Him from the dead.
Anyway, the word “yalad” in the Qal clearly has reference to figurative paternity. Jonah recounted his experience in the belly (womb) of the fish saying,
From the WOMB of sheol I cried (2:2).
Jesus being in sheol for three days was likened to Jonah's being in the WOMB of sheol. Therefore, Jesus was begotten at His resurrection the day He was brought forth from the WOMB of sheol.
33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, TODAY have I begotten thee. Acts 13:33
The Father begat Jesus from the WOMB of sheol Mike. Jesus became the fully investitured Son of God at His resurrection.
the Roo
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 10 2010,22:36) Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 11 2010,04:08) MIke,
do you see why i get upsetQuote Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. whether “of” precededs or not. it wouldnt matter
fact is Jesus is the Beginning.agh.
Dennison,Did you read the Elton John comparison? Explain to me why “Your Song” is anything other than the song Elton started with. And the “OF” is everything. Adam was the beginning OF the mankind creation OF God. Is Adam “THE BEGINNING” in the way that God is?
Aughh! yourself.
mike
Adam was the beginning of the mankind,not like christ
Christ who IS the beginning OF everything.
in other words he IS THE BEGINNING.AUGHH!!! YOU!!!!
You Said,
Quote JA also has trouble with this aspect. Imagine that God just begat Jesus. So here's this brand new being all wide eyed and filled with questions and wonder looking at his surroundings. Why is it so weird that God would immediately say to His brand new Son, “You are my Son. Today I have brought you into existence. Welcome to this place, I will now start to show and teach you everything.”
Are you serious? this is what you believe? or is it that God did this for mankind not Jesus.
He made a world for us, not for Jesus. what the heck?Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,04:51) Mike, No my words do not imply that. Jesus said that the Father loved Him BECAUSE He lays down His life for the sheep. I said that the Father's love was “perfected” in raising Him from the dead.
Anyway, the word “yalad” in the Qal clearly has reference to figurative paternity.
Hi Jack,John 17:24
“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.Did the Father have a “relationship of love” with Jesus “BEFORE the creation of the world” only because he would eventually lay his life down?
You said:
Quote Anyway, the word “yalad” in the Qal clearly has reference to figurative paternity. Face it Roo. The word “yalad” in the qal form DOES have to do with literal childbirth. And that's the word used in Psalm 2:7 and translated into “gennao” in Hebrews and elsewhere. Any opinions you might have about it meaning begotten in an only “figurative sense” in Psalm 2:7 is merely your unfounded and unproveable conjecture.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 11 2010,04:58) Christ who IS the beginning OF everything.
in other words he IS THE BEGINNING.
Hi Dennison,It doesn't matter how much you want it to be. It's just not there, man. He is the beginning OF God's creation. God is the only one given the title “THE BEGINNING”. Read the Elton John comparison and show me how “Your Song” is the creator of the songs of Elton John.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 11 2010,05:00) You Said, Quote JA also has trouble with this aspect. Imagine that God just begat Jesus. So here's this brand new being all wide eyed and filled with questions and wonder looking at his surroundings. Why is it so weird that God would immediately say to His brand new Son, “You are my Son. Today I have brought you into existence. Welcome to this place, I will now start to show and teach you everything.”
Are you serious? this is what you believe? or is it that God did this for mankind not Jesus.
He made a world for us, not for Jesus. what the heck?
This is a perfect example of why I don't answer some of your questions (apparently). I can't even tell what you are asking. What does this mean?or is it that God did this for mankind not Jesus.
What is the question here?
I can only go on what I THINK you are asking most of the time. And I'm stumped on this one, brother.mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 11 2010,05:09) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,04:51) Mike, No my words do not imply that. Jesus said that the Father loved Him BECAUSE He lays down His life for the sheep. I said that the Father's love was “perfected” in raising Him from the dead.
Anyway, the word “yalad” in the Qal clearly has reference to figurative paternity.
Hi Jack,John 17:24
“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.Did the Father have a “relationship of love” with Jesus “BEFORE the creation of the world” only because he would eventually lay his life down?
You said:
Quote Anyway, the word “yalad” in the Qal clearly has reference to figurative paternity. Face it Roo. The word “yalad” in the qal form DOES have to do with literal childbirth. And that's the word used in Psalm 2:7 and translated into “gennao” in Hebrews and elsewhere. Any opinions you might have about it meaning begotten in an only “figurative sense” in Psalm 2:7 is merely your unfounded and unproveable conjecture.
mike
But Jesus became a man and was on probation just like the first Adam. Sorry Mike! And yalad in the Qal has reference to figurative birth:4 Be ashamed, O Sidon, and you, O fortress of the sea,
for the sea has spoken:
“I have neither been in labor nor given birth (yalad);
I have neither reared sons nor brought up daughters.” Is. 23:4The sea “gave birth” sir!
Jonah was brought forth from the “womb” of sheol. So was Jesus at His resurrection. I'm still waiting for you to answer this one. Tick tock tick tock.
the Roo
Mikeboll said:
Quote Unfortunately for you, it isn't LIMITED TO MANKIND.
Now all you need to do is PROVE IT!Words that are repeatedly used in a given context retain the same meaning throughout that context. Verse 23 clearly indicates that “pasa ktisis” is LIMITED TO MANKIND. It means the same thing in verse 15 and you CANNOT disprove it.
At least you have stopped with your Eusebius rant (got my fingers crossed though).
the Roo
Mikeboll said:
Quote I should have said, (when he was no longer a FLESH AND BLOOD man) I am glad you made the adjustment. I am sincere in saying this.
Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,05:53) But Jesus became a man and was on probation just like the first Adam. Sorry Mike! And yalad in the Qal has reference to figurative birth: 4 Be ashamed, O Sidon, and you, O fortress of the sea,
for the sea has spoken:
“I have neither been in labor nor given birth (yalad);
I have neither reared sons nor brought up daughters.” Is. 23:4The sea “gave birth” sir!
Jonah was brought forth from the “womb” of sheol. So was Jesus at His resurrection. I'm still waiting for you to answer this one. Tick tock tick tock.
You're kidding, right? You own verse supports that it yalad (given birth) is the pre-requisite to “rearing sons and bringing up daughters”.That's like saying because God used the word “vomit” in an analogy about the land “vomiting” up the Israelites the actual word “vomit” is now to be only taken “figuratively”. Silliness!
You said:
Quote Jonah was brought forth from the “womb” of sheol. So was Jesus at His resurrection. I'm still waiting for you to answer this one. Tick tock tick tock. I'm sorry. Where is the word yalad in this verse?
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,05:59) Mikeboll said: Quote Unfortunately for you, it isn't LIMITED TO MANKIND.
Now all you need to do is PROVE IT!Words that are repeatedly used in a given context retain the same meaning throughout that context. Verse 23 clearly indicates that “pasa ktisis” is LIMITED TO MANKIND. It means the same thing in verse 15 and you CANNOT disprove it.
At least you have stopped with your Eusebius rant (got my fingers crossed though).
the Roo
While you are the one saying that words that actually mean “every creature” mean something else and so the burden of proof is on you, I'll give Rev 5 as my proof. “Every creature IN HEAVEN……” Mankind does not live IN HEAVEN, or IN THE SEA, or UNDER THE EARTH.And I didn't “stop” with Eusebius. In fact, just before I read this post I was seriously thinking, “Why do I let these guys lead me off from my original path with all of this nonsense?”
So, why didn't Eusebius “know” what you and WJ “know” about the hidden meaning of “pasa ktisis”?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 11 2010,08:05) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,05:53) But Jesus became a man and was on probation just like the first Adam. Sorry Mike! And yalad in the Qal has reference to figurative birth: 4 Be ashamed, O Sidon, and you, O fortress of the sea,
for the sea has spoken:
“I have neither been in labor nor given birth (yalad);
I have neither reared sons nor brought up daughters.” Is. 23:4The sea “gave birth” sir!
Jonah was brought forth from the “womb” of sheol. So was Jesus at His resurrection. I'm still waiting for you to answer this one. Tick tock tick tock.
You're kidding, right? You own verse supports that it yalad (given birth) is the pre-requisite to “rearing sons and bringing up daughters”.That's like saying because God used the word “vomit” in an analogy about the land “vomiting” up the Israelites the actual word “vomit” is now to be only taken “figuratively”. Silliness!
You said:
Quote Jonah was brought forth from the “womb” of sheol. So was Jesus at His resurrection. I'm still waiting for you to answer this one. Tick tock tick tock. I'm sorry. Where is the word yalad in this verse?
mike
No Mike you're kidding aren't you? It is THE SEA speaking saying that it “brought forth” and reared children.Is this not figurative?
Mike:Quote That's like saying because God used the word “vomit” in an analogy about the land “vomiting” up the Israelites the actual word “vomit” is now to be only taken “figuratively”.
So the sea literally gave birth to children. First they literally came from the wombs of women and then again they literally came from the womb of the sea and were also taught by the sea? You're sinking into the sea Mike!the Roo
Mikeboll said:
Quote Where is the word yalad in this verse?
You need to go to your nearest trinitarian bookstore and acquire the Strong's Concordance. The words “brought forth” in Is. 23:4 is the Hebrew “yalad” (Strong's# 3205).the Roo
Mikeboll said:
Quote While you are the one saying that words that actually mean “every creature” mean something else and so the burden of proof is on you, I'll give Rev 5 as my proof. “Every creature IN HEAVEN……” Mankind does not live IN HEAVEN, or IN THE SEA, or UNDER THE EARTH.
I have proved it Mike. Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “pasa ktisis.”Mikeboll said:
Quote I'll give Rev 5 as my proof. “Every creature IN HEAVEN……” Mankind does not live IN HEAVEN, or IN THE SEA, or UNDER THE EARTH.
Mankind does live in heaven. And the expression “under the earth” is a reference to hades where the souls of men went to await the resurrection. So men did live “under the earth.”The souls of some men went down to hades alive. Of course men don't live under the earth now because hades has been cast into the lake of fire since then.
Mike:
Quote So, why didn't Eusebius “know” what you and WJ “know” about the hidden meaning of “pasa ktisis”?
First, I don't care about what you think Eusebius believed. If you persist with Eusebius I will only post the language credentials of Arthur Custance. Why don't we just bore everyone to tears Mike?The “all mankind” meaning is “hidden” only to those who will not see.
the Roo
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 11 2010,10:23) So the sea literally gave birth to children. First they literally came from the wombs of women and then again they literally came from the womb of the sea and were also taught by the sea? You're sinking into the sea Mike!
So the land actually “vomitted out” people? Does the fact that God used a word that actually DOES mean “vomit” in a figurative way mean that vomit no longer literally means vomit?I'm sinking in the sea and you're sinking in vomit Jack!
Answer my question Jack. Does vomit no longer mean vomit?mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
