- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Mike
Quote (JustAskin @ June 16 2010,17:00) Is this concept repeated elsewhere in Scriptures?
Can anyone, someone give one other example, please?Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:32) Hi JA, It's repeated many times. But what you fail to understand, even though it's been pointed out very clearly by Kathi, is that EVERY time this is the case, it's no secret. The scripture plainly explain that so-and-so, who was APPOINTED the firstborn or chief, was APPOINTED such BECAUSE the actual firstborn messed up or for whatever other reason.
a. Is it EVER said that Jesus was APPOINTED the only begotten Son of God?
Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth?Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:32) b. Is it EVER said that Jesus was APPOINTED as the firstborn (prōtotokos) of anything?
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, “that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokos) among many brothers“. Rom 8:29The term “might be the firstborn” is in the present tense, and cannot mean that Jesus is the first to be born by a procreative act from the Father and then we follow after him as the second born, third born, etc.
This is another reason why your logic is flawed. Because if Jesus being the firstborn from the Father means he is literally a product of Gods procreative power then the term firstborn would be meaningless because we know there will never be “another”, second or third “Monogenes” Son.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:32) Like Kathi has so clearly asserted, in cases where there is no evidence of a “real” firstborn being replaced by the APPOINTED one, then the default definition must hold true. And the default definition of “firstborn” is “the one born first”.
Again, the default meaning is a Father and a Mother brings birth to a son.And again, Jesus could not be the “firstborn” of many brethren through the procreative process since he is the “Only Begotten” or “Monogenes” (Unique) Son of God!
This took place at his incarnation!
You and Kathi are simply grasping straws by reinventing the terms “firstborn” and “Begotten” in reference to Jesus
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:35) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,05:44) What is being disputed is Mike and Kathi insist that the words “firstborn” (prōtotokos) and “begotten” (monogenes) in reference to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning or better yet that an asexual God brings birth to a god!
Hi WJ,And isn't it funny how the “early experts” that you guys keep posting quotes from agree with me and Kathi?
mike
Wrong, you mean “One expert”?What about Ignatius and the rest?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:51) Quote (JustAskin @ June 17 2010,06:17) Thanks for that – I do think that it is time that these “blocking” issues are put to bed.
Even if Jesus was speaking in some kind of a prophetic past tense,(which would seem weird since he also told Nicodemus that the Son of Man WOULD BE lifted up), you have to figure out how, after Jesus was raised, God “GAVE” him.Stop “blocking” guys. Read “For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son” and understand how clearly and simply the scripture tells us that Jesus was ALREADY God's only begotten Son, and therefore He gave him as a sacrifice for our sins. God never “GAVE” Jesus AFTER he was raised.
MikeAnd when did he become the “Monogenes” Son of God?
The same John who penned these words spoke of the Word that was with God and was God who became (ginomai-came into being) flesh just 2 chapters earlier!
It doesn't say the “monogenes” (Begotten Son) became flesh does it?
The word “Monogenes” is not applied to Jesus until after his incarnation.
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,02:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:51) Quote (JustAskin @ June 17 2010,06:17) Thanks for that – I do think that it is time that these “blocking” issues are put to bed.
Even if Jesus was speaking in some kind of a prophetic past tense,(which would seem weird since he also told Nicodemus that the Son of Man WOULD BE lifted up), you have to figure out how, after Jesus was raised, God “GAVE” him.Stop “blocking” guys. Read “For God so loved the world that He GAVE His only begotten Son” and understand how clearly and simply the scripture tells us that Jesus was ALREADY God's only begotten Son, and therefore He gave him as a sacrifice for our sins. God never “GAVE” Jesus AFTER he was raised.
MikeAnd when did he become the “Monogenes” Son of God?
The same John who penned these words spoke of the Word that was with God and was God who became (ginomai-came into being) flesh just 2 chapters earlier!
It doesn't say the “monogenes” (Begotten Son) became flesh does it?
The word “Monogenes” is not applied to Jesus until after his incarnation.
WJ
Keith,Exactly! It does not say that the monogenes Son became flesh. It says that the Word became flesh.
There is not one example in the old testament when a Firstborn Son of God was not already a member of the human race. Not one! Jesus is no exception. He was chosen to be God's Firstborn Son just as His fathers David and Solomon before Him.
Jack
Hi KJ,
The reason we have concordances is so we can see the various meanings words can have.
Choosing one you like is never going to be correct spirituallyQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2010,07:54) Hi KJ,
The reason we have concordances is so we can see the various meanings words can have.
Choosing one you like is never going to be correct spiritually
Nick,What has this to do with what I said? All those God called His “firstborn” in the old testament were already members of the human race. Jesus was no exception. I thought you believed that Jesus became the Son of God at the Jordan?
KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,02:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:35) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,05:44) What is being disputed is Mike and Kathi insist that the words “firstborn” (prōtotokos) and “begotten” (monogenes) in reference to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning or better yet that an asexual God brings birth to a god!
Hi WJ,And isn't it funny how the “early experts” that you guys keep posting quotes from agree with me and Kathi?
mike
Wrong, you mean “One expert”?What about Ignatius and the rest?
WJ
TO ALL:From the Jodi Lee thread:
Keith,
IF Mike has interpreted fragmented qoutes from Eusebius correctly, then it is clear that Eusebius did not stand by what he believed. For he signed the Nicean Creed which condemned Arianism and resulted in his friend Arius being anathematized and going into exile.
Is this Mike's idea of a worthy source and a hero?
To MIKE:
Your “expert” did not stand for what he believes assuming that you have interpreted fragmented quotes from Eusebius correctly.
Is this your idea of “expert” testimony Mike? One who says one thing then when the heat is turned up he signs a document that results in his personal friend being anathematized and his going into exile?
the Roo
Quote (JustAskin @ June 17 2010,17:53) Kathi, KJ, all, Know this and understand this:
Anyone, everyone who is without sin, in the eyes of the Father, is a 'Son of God'.
Adam was the firstborn/begotten human Son of God, then he sinned and thereby losing the 'firstborn: first in rank order' (but not first born by human birth)
Jesus was born/ begotten Sinless and was therefore 'Son of God', in fact, 'the Only Begotten [Human] Son of God', as no other was sinless.
In the fullness of time, those of whom it is predestined and hold to the testament of Christ, will also be 'Begotten Sons of God', 'set apart' as God's special human Sons in the Spirit, 'firstfriut of Christ'.
Hi JA,Don't these two statements sort of conflict each other?
You said:
Quote Anyone, everyone who is without sin, in the eyes of the Father, is a 'Son of God'. Then you said:
Quote Jesus was born/ begotten Sinless and was therefore 'Son of God', in fact, 'the Only Begotten [Human] Son of God', as no other was sinless. If there are no others who are sinless, then in you opinion Jesus is the only son of God.
The fact is that both angels and men are all the sons of God. NONE of them are said to be begotten by God except for Jesus.
And the fact is that all “mighty ones” are “gods” in the word usage of Biblical times. But here's the catch: There is only One called THE God, and there is only one called THE Son of God and THE Son of Man and THE ONLY begotten Son of God.
peace and love,
mikeHi MB
“For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, “that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokos) among many brothers”. Rom 8:29We are conformed to the likeness of the Son by the Spirit of Christ.
Our brotherhood with him to is by this Spirit
We follow him to become like him.Hi WJ,
You said:
Quote Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? Not that scripture records. But John says he is the “only begotten god”. And your buddy Ignatius says the Father is “unbegotten” and the Son was begotten by the Father before the worlds. And Jesus says the Father GAVE His only begotten Son and SENT him INTO THE WORLD. Why won't anyone answer my questions?
In what way did God GIVE His only begotten Son AFTER he was raised? And when did God SEND His Son into the world “to save it through His Son” AFTER he was raised? And what does this mean? “but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son.” How can anyone STAND CONDEMNED ALREADY for having not ALREADY BELIEVED in the name of someone who didn't yet exist according to you?
You said:
Quote For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, “that he might be the firstborn (prōtotokos) among many brothers“. Rom 8:29 The term “might be the firstborn” is in the present tense, and cannot mean that Jesus is the first to be born by a procreative act from the Father and then we follow after him as the second born, third born, etc.
Why not? Jesus was begotten by God before all the ages. He was born of Mary as flesh. Then he was the firstborn FROM the dead, not the ONLY-born from the dead, because many will follow. Do you see the difference? Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God, but merely the FIRSTborn from the dead.
You said:
Quote This is another reason why your logic is flawed. Because if Jesus being the firstborn from the Father means he is literally a product of Gods procreative power then the term firstborn would be meaningless because we know there will never be “another”, second or third “Monogenes” Son. Yes, that is correct. There will NEVER be another BEGOTTEN Son of God. Jesus is the ONLY one. The fact that Jesus was also the firstborn of all creation only means he is the first thing God ever caused to exist. It doesn't negate that he is the ONLY thing God caused to exist through BEGETTING. Jesus will alone hold that title forever. For God made Jesus directly, or begat him, then everything else that was made was made FROM God, THROUGH Jesus.
You said:
Quote And again, Jesus could not be the “firstborn” of many brethren through the procreative process since he is the “Only Begotten” or “Monogenes” (Unique) Son of God! And again, when is Jesus ever called the ONLY one born from the dead? He is only the FIRST of many to come. And when is anyone else said to be BEGOTTEN by God? There is only Jesus.
You said:
Quote You and Kathi are simply grasping straws by reinventing the terms “firstborn” and “Begotten” in reference to Jesus Boy, if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, then I don't know what is.
Me, Kathi, Ignatius, Eusebius and the JW's seem to be the only ones reading the scriptures as they are written. It is the rest of you guys who are reading things into the scriptures and re-inventing terms. Please answer my above bolded questions, and this one:Why did Ignatius, who lived in the era, naturally spoke the language, and studied under the Apostle John think the Father was the ONLY “unbegotten” and Jesus was the only begotten Son of God (monogenes) backed up with “begotten from the Father before all worlds” (genao)?
It doesn't take a lot of end runs about how Ignatius=trinity and blah, blah, blah to answer this question. Just answer what he meant when he said the Father was “unbegotten” and Jesus was “begotten by the Father”. Don't avoid the fact that the word here is “genao”, not “monogenes”. And why did he add the “before all worlds”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,11:57) And the fact is that all “mighty ones” are “gods” in the word usage of Biblical times.
A question for you…“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords (1 Corinthians 8:5)
Why does Paul use the prase “so-called” in reference to gods here? If they were real gods (which is your contention) doesn't Paul's choice of phrase refute this? Seems to me it does.
Quote There is only One called THE God
Yeshua is called God with the definite article in John 20:28, Titus 2:13 and Hebrews 1:8.Quote and there is only one called THE Son of God
Are the terms “God” and “Son of God” antithetical?“Man” and “Son of Man” aren't. They are synonymous.
Quote and THE Son of Man
I thought this was unprovable.
Quote and THE ONLY begotten Son of God.
Yes, he is indeed unique.Is.1:18 said to Mikeboll:
Quote Why does Paul use the prase “so-called” in reference to gods here? If they were real gods (which is your contention) doesn't Paul's choice of phrase refute this? Ooooh that smarts!
KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,02:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:35) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,05:44) What is being disputed is Mike and Kathi insist that the words “firstborn” (prōtotokos) and “begotten” (monogenes) in reference to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning or better yet that an asexual God brings birth to a god!
Hi WJ,And isn't it funny how the “early experts” that you guys keep posting quotes from agree with me and Kathi?
mike
Wrong, you mean “One expert”?What about Ignatius and the rest?
WJ
Do you mean the Ignatius who wrote the following?Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son,
But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,
For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father,
I can't help but wonder if by “unbegotten”, Ignatius meant the Father was “un-unique”.
I am also having trouble figuring out what he meant when he said the Father was the “begetter of the only begotten Son”. Did he mean the Father was the “unique-er”? Maybe the “only one after his own kind-er”? Perhaps it was Jack's favorite: the “lonely-er” of the “lonely Son”?
Again, there is no need for end runs. Just answer with what you think he meant by these words, please.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,02:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:35) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,05:44) What is being disputed is Mike and Kathi insist that the words “firstborn” (prōtotokos) and “begotten” (monogenes) in reference to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning or better yet that an asexual God brings birth to a god!
Hi WJ,And isn't it funny how the “early experts” that you guys keep posting quotes from agree with me and Kathi?
mike
Wrong, you mean “One expert”?What about Ignatius and the rest?
WJ
Do you mean the Ignatius who wrote the following?Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son,
But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,
For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father,
I can't help but wonder if by “unbegotten”, Ignatius meant the Father was “un-unique”.
I am also having trouble figuring out what he meant when he said the Father was the “begetter of the only begotten Son”. Did he mean the Father was the “unique-er”? Maybe the “only one after his own kind-er”? Perhaps it was Jack's favorite: the “lonely-er” of the “lonely Son”?
Again, there is no need for end runs. Just answer with what you think he meant by these words, please.
peace and love,
mike
Let's see. Eusebius signed the Nicean Creed which resulted in Arianism being condemned and Arias Eusebius' own friend being anathematized and exiled. Yet Eusebius is Mike's hero even though he did not stand for what he believed?KJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,02:56) The same John who penned these words spoke of the Word that was with God and was God who became (ginomai-came into being) flesh just 2 chapters earlier!
And he did become flesh, WJ. Let's refer to your hero Ignatius again for this one.Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary;
So yes, he was also born of flesh. Tell me, how does that fact negate that God SENT His only begotten Son INTO THE WORLD? How does that fact negate that God GAVE His only begotten Son?
I'll await your honest and direct answers to these questions in my other post.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 18 2010,13:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,13:01) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 18 2010,02:41) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,22:35) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,05:44) What is being disputed is Mike and Kathi insist that the words “firstborn” (prōtotokos) and “begotten” (monogenes) in reference to Jesus is proof that he had a beginning or better yet that an asexual God brings birth to a god!
Hi WJ,And isn't it funny how the “early experts” that you guys keep posting quotes from agree with me and Kathi?
mike
Wrong, you mean “One expert”?What about Ignatius and the rest?
WJ
Do you mean the Ignatius who wrote the following?Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom, that He was the Son of God, “the first-born of every creature,” God the Word, the only-begotten Son,
But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,
For the Son of God, who was begotten before time began, and established all things according to the will of the Father,
I can't help but wonder if by “unbegotten”, Ignatius meant the Father was “un-unique”.
I am also having trouble figuring out what he meant when he said the Father was the “begetter of the only begotten Son”. Did he mean the Father was the “unique-er”? Maybe the “only one after his own kind-er”? Perhaps it was Jack's favorite: the “lonely-er” of the “lonely Son”?
Again, there is no need for end runs. Just answer with what you think he meant by these words, please.
peace and love,
mike
Let's see. Eusebius signed the Nicean Creed which resulted in Arianism being condemned and Arias Eusebius' own friend being anathematized and exiled. Yet Eusebius is Mike's hero even though he did not stand for what he believed?KJ
Uh, this post quotes Ignatius, not Eusebius Jack.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,05:50) Kathi said: Quote The Son didn't stop being a son to become a son in the flesh.
It was by becoming flesh that Jesus became a Son. Paul said that he was “born according to the seed of David and decreed to be the Son of God” (Rom. 1).Jesus could not have neen God's Son before becoming flesh because ONLY MEN ARE SONS OF GOD.
the Roo
Hey Roo.Galatians 3:26
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,Except if you are female that is.
Do you really believe that?
Mikeboll said:
Quote I am also having trouble figuring out what he meant when he said the Father was the “begetter of the only begotten Son”. Mike,
Eusebius was struggling in his Christology. My textbook sources indicate that he was very concerned about being a peacemaker of Trinitarians and Arians. He wanted them to get along. And I have seen men who want peace use terminology that pleases all parties.
In the end Eusebius signed the Nicean Creed which resulted in his personal friend Arius being anathematized and exiled. So if you are correct in your interpretations of his fragmented quotes, then Eusebius was clearly a man who did not stand up for what he believed.
Is this your idea of a noteworthy source and a champiom apologist?
the Roo
If
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 15 2010,08:01) There is only “One Spirit” and “One God” that lives in his people!
Are we making progress?God the Father is the true God and he is Spirit.
But what do you make of angels. Are they not spirits?
Are they false spirits as you would say when arguing the usage of gods/theos.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
