- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 19 2010,09:54) It never ceases to amaze me how many explanations the Arians can come up with. Thomas clearly addressed Jesus Himself saying, “My Lord and my God.” Jesus told Thomas that he was “blessed” for his confession. John 20:28
Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hands and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God' “The Greek reads,
ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou
Transliterated from Greek to English it reads:
“Answered Thomas and he said to him, the Lord of me and the God of me”
Considering the grammar it's immediately apparent that this was an address made to Yeshua by Thomas (the nominative used for the vocative). Considering the context of this passage, and more broadly the gospel of John, it becomes apparent why he spoke the way he did.
Yahshua had earlier claimed that he would raise Himself from the dead:
John 2:18-22
18 The Jews then said to Him, “What sign do You show us as your authority for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.John 10:17-18
17 “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18 ” No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again This commandment I received from My Father.”A claim that was remembered and repeated by others:
Matthew 26:61
and said, “This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'”Matthew 27:40
and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”Mark 14:58
“We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'”Mark 15:29
Those passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads, and saying, “Ha! You who are going to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,And of course Yeshua followed through on His claim, appearing to an astonished Thomas. Thomas immediately recognised the implication of the prophecy and fulfillment, was utterly persuaded of His deity and did not hesitate to address the risen Yahshua as his Lord and God.
Hi Is1.18,
Do you not know the Spirit of Christ?
We no longer speak of him according to the flesh.[2Cor5]But folks want to idolise this man who revealed the nature and powers of His God. Why?
Hi Paul,
You said:
Quote There is only one one issue to address here Mike – did Paul's use of the term “so-called” carry a different connotation to the every day parlance? Not at all. I thought I answered this. Maybe it was in the post that got lost? And guess who's included in those so-called “gods”? Men, angels, Satan AND Jesus. Before Roo starts crying again, let me clarify. His whole point of this statement was to say that even though others are “mighty ones” and can be called “gods”, there is ONLY one who is our Almighty God. AND Jesus is not our ONLY Almighty God, but our Lord. The writer CLEARLY contrasts our ONLY God, the Father with Jesus, someone OTHER THAN our ONLY God. So like I said, you can be a so-called “president” by heading up the big word user's club, but for us Americans, there is but ONE President.
You said:
Quote Have you proven yet that only the Father is called El shaddai? No. When you do this will be a valid line of reasoning. Like I said before, when you prove that any mention of El Shadday is NOT the Father, let me know. Until then, I will use the default. In the meantime, you go ahead and worship the one who says his God is the same person as our God. And I'll keep worshipping the One he calls the only true God and “my God”, okay? I strive to be like Jesus in every way. I know that it is not possible for me to be just like him, but by believing that MY God is the same one he calls “my God”, that's at least one way I can emulate him.
You said:
Quote Did you check the interlinear I linked yo to? Might pay to. I was right and wrong. I didn't look up John because I KNEW he said “my God”, not “the God”. But I forgot that the Greek says “THE God of me”. But get ready for this one…..
Titus 2:13 Greek Interlinear
awaiting the happy hope and manifestation of the glory of the great god AND OF savior of us of christ jesusDo you see the AND after god? Do you see that “savior” is genative? Let's translate it correctly:
13 while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God AND OF [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,
It's the same thing with the 2 Peter verse you guys like so much. Sometime, check out Ephesians 1:1, and you'll see it is almost the same wording, except this time Paul adds the word “Father”. Similarly in Titus 1:4 and other places.
You said:
Quote Incorrect. Here is a quick synopsis:
- The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
Yes, THROUGH Jesus FROM God.
Quote He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3) Yes. Why wouldn't God's first and best creation radiate His glory?
Quote He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3) Yes. And if I Zerox page 52 of my Bible, it is also and exact representation, but still not page 52 of my Bible. And in response to Roo's “charakter” point, this is the origin of the word:
Origin:
1275–1325; < L < Gk charaktḗr graving tool, its mark, equiv. to charak- (base of charáttein to engrave) + -tēr agent suffix; r. ME caractere < MF < L, as aboveThe charakter was the indentation left on the metal surface from the graving tool. The mark left behind is NOT THE TOOL ITSELF, but a representation of the letter, number or whatever on that tool.
You said:
Quote He “upholds [sustains] all things by His power” Yes, he has been given a lot of power by his God, hasn't he?
Quote The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] The angels will bow just as “all knees will bow”. Just as people bowed down before King David. JA is right, it's called “doing” or “giving obeisance”.
Quote He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father I'm ingnorant on this “O” thing right now. I'll second JA's point in asking if “O” is the same as the definite article “the”.
Quote He is credited with the role of Creator of the heavens and earth (v 10) Yes. Jesus was the master craftman who followed his God's wishes to the “t”. All things were created through him.
Quote He is contrasted from false gods (v 11) While he is not a false “mighty one”, I fail to see your point in verse 11. It talks of heaven and earth fading away, but not Jesus.
Quote Is said to be immutable, a sole attribute of YHWH [e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12) Again, that is not what is said. Immutable is contributed ONLY to JHVH as you so soundly point out. I hope you will remember that in later discussions.
Paul says in Romans 6:9, “For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again…” NOW Jesus will remain the same. He obviousl
y didn't start out “immutable” OR immortal, did he? He changed, and changed, and changed and changed. But I think he is done now. Fairly good job Paul, but you left out a couple of points:
1. Verse 1 says God spoke in the past through prophets (beings other than God). Verse 2 says recently He spoke to us through His Son (again, someone other than God that God spoke THROUGH).
2. Verse 2 also clarifies again that it is God who made the universe THROUGH His Son.
3. Verse 3 has Jesus sitting at the right hand of God – NOT a place of equality.
4. Verse 6 supports that Jesus is God's firstborn. And since it is not accompanied by any explanation of Jesus being “appointed”, the default of “the one born first” applies.
5. Verse 9 points out, that even as Jesus is called god, it is HIS God who has put him in a high position.
6. Verse 13 reenforces that it is Jesus' God who will place his enemies under him.
You said about the Son of Man:
Quote You're grasping at straws. EXACTLY!!!
NOW you are getting a taste of what it feels like to debate a trinitarian! That was the whole hidden agenda of the “Son of Man” exercise.peace and love,
mikeQuote (Is 1:18 @ June 18 2010,16:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,15:34) goodnight pagan,
What!
Did you not know that triune gods are pagan in origin? They are not of Judeao-Christian origin, Paul.Quote (t8 @ June 18 2010,17:00) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 18 2010,15:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,14:41) I spent an hour answering this already, then when I went to preview, I lost everything. So this is the slimmed-down “I'm angry” version.
This is super-annoying. I sympathise with you here.
That has never happened to me and I can't think of why it would happen. Maybe you could post into Wordpad or something so you can save it periodically, and then paste the post. If you use a Word Processor with a spell checker, then that would kill 2 birds with one stone.Perhaps it happened because you lost your connection at that moment, although hitting the back button should preserve the post in the posting window.
Yeah, it said the webpage cannot be displayed. When I arrowed back, Paul's quote was intact, but my post screen was empty.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:41) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 18 2010,16:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,15:34) goodnight pagan,
What!
Did you not know that triune gods are pagan in origin? They are not of Judeao-Christian origin, Paul.
Who copied who?….Quote (t8 @ June 18 2010,17:01) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 18 2010,15:38) Hi MB,
Don't play in their playground where they can trip you up.
Also, beware of the devil in the details.
Hi t8 and Nick,It might seem like I'm giving them to much edge so they can counter with good points. JA has pm'd me about doing this. But I look at it this way: I will boldly state what I came to believe from scripture, and if God is truly ONE, then how can any amount of ammo I give them refute this?
If, on the other hand, I am wrong, then I definitely want to be shown the truth.
t8, I don't believe the devil is in the details of scripture. The Bible is the exception to that rule, right?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:37) Hi Paul, You said:
Quote There is only one one issue to address here Mike – did Paul's use of the term “so-called” carry a different connotation to the every day parlance? Not at all. I thought I answered this. Maybe it was in the post that got lost? And guess who's included in those so-called “gods”? Men, angels, Satan AND Jesus. Before Roo starts crying again, let me clarify. His whole point of this statement was to say that even though others are “mighty ones” and can be called “gods”, there is ONLY one who is our Almighty God. AND Jesus is not our ONLY Almighty God, but our Lord. The writer CLEARLY contrasts our ONLY God, the Father with Jesus, someone OTHER THAN our ONLY God. So like I said, you can be a so-called “president” by heading up the big word user's club, but for us Americans, there is but ONE President.
You said:
Quote Have you proven yet that only the Father is called El shaddai? No. When you do this will be a valid line of reasoning. Like I said before, when you prove that any mention of El Shadday is NOT the Father, let me know. Until then, I will use the default. In the meantime, you go ahead and worship the one who says his God is the same person as our God. And I'll keep worshipping the One he calls the only true God and “my God”, okay? I strive to be like Jesus in every way. I know that it is not possible for me to be just like him, but by believing that MY God is the same one he calls “my God”, that's at least one way I can emulate him.
You said:
Quote Did you check the interlinear I linked yo to? Might pay to. I was right and wrong. I didn't look up John because I KNEW he said “my God”, not “the God”. But I forgot that the Greek says “THE God of me”. But get ready for this one…..
Titus 2:13 Greek Interlinear
awaiting the happy hope and manifestation of the glory of the great god AND OF savior of us of christ jesusDo you see the AND after god? Do you see that “savior” is genative? Let's translate it correctly:
13 while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God AND OF [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus,
It's the same thing with the 2 Peter verse you guys like so much. Sometime, check out Ephesians 1:1, and you'll see it is almost the same wording, except this time Paul adds the word “Father”. Similarly in Titus 1:4 and other places.
You said:
Quote Incorrect. Here is a quick synopsis:
- The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
Yes, THROUGH Jesus FROM God.
Quote He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3) Yes. Why wouldn't God's first and best creation radiate His glory?
Quote He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3) Yes. And if I Zerox page 52 of my Bible, it is also and exact representation, but still not page 52 of my Bible. And in response to Roo's “charakter” point, this is the origin of the word:
Origin:
1275–1325; < L < Gk charaktḗr graving tool, its mark, equiv. to charak- (base of charáttein to engrave) + -tēr agent suffix; r. ME caractere < MF < L, as aboveThe charakter was the indentation left on the metal surface from the graving tool. The mark left behind is NOT THE TOOL ITSELF, but a representation of the letter, number or whatever on that tool.
You said:
Quote He “upholds [sustains] all things by His power” Yes, he has been given a lot of power by his God, hasn't he?
Quote The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] The angels will bow just as “all knees will bow”. Just as people bowed down before King David. JA is right, it's called “doing” or “giving obeisance”.
Quote He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father I'm ingnorant on this “O” thing right now. I'll second JA's point in asking if “O” is the same as the definite article “the”.
Quote He is credited with the role of Creator of the heavens and earth (v 10) Yes. Jesus was the master craftman who followed his God's wishes to the “t”. All things were created through him.
Quote He is contrasted from false gods (v 11) While he is not a false “mighty one”, I fail to see your point in verse 11. It talks of heaven and earth fading away, but not Jesus.
Quote Is said to be immutable, a sole attribute of YHWH [e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12) Again, that is not what is said. Immutable is contributed ONLY to JHVH as you so soundly point out. I hope you will remember that in later discussions.
Paul says in Romans 6:9, “For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again…” NOW Jesus will remain the same. He obviously didn't start out “immutable” OR immortal, did he? He changed, and changed, and changed and changed. But I think he is done now.
Fairly good job Paul, but you left out a couple of points:
1. Verse 1 says God spoke in the past through prophets (beings other than God). Verse 2 says recently He spoke to us through His Son (again, someone other than God that God spoke THROUGH).
2. Verse 2 also clarifies again that it is God who made the universe THROUGH His Son.
3. Verse 3 has Jesus sitting at the right hand of God – NOT a place of equality.
4. Verse 6 supports that Jesus is God's firstborn. And since it is not accompanied by any explanation of Jesus being “appointed”, the default of “the one born first” applies.
5. Verse 9 points out, that even as Jesus is called god, it is HIS God who has put him in a high position.
6. Verse 13 reenforces that it is Jesus' God who will place his enemies under him.
You said about the Son of Man:
Quote You're grasping at straws. EXACTLY!!!
NOW you are getting a taste of what it feels like to debate a trinitarian! That was the whole hidden agenda of the “Son of Man” exercise.peace and love,
mike
I'm going to decline replying to this post to show you it's possible to let someone else have the final say Mike.
I feel like I've written enough to make the points I wanted to make and I'm moving on.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,11:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:41) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 18 2010,16:52) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,15:34) goodnight pagan,
What!
Did you not know that triune gods are pagan in origin? They are not of Judeao-Christian origin, Paul.
Who copied who?….
One God the Father came first and some false gods followed.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,11:52) I'm going to decline replying to this post to show you it's possible to let someone else have the final say Mike. I feel like I've written enough to make the points I wanted to make and I'm moving on.
Of course you are, Paul. “Moving on”? I call it running away. In fact, I like the term I came up with for Roo – Hit and run.You pour out all of your thoughts, which I take my time to answer, (hit) and then you refuse to answer my points that refute yours down to the point of drivel (run).
Like I told you the last time you quit our discussion of Heb 1, don't start what you're not prepared to finish.
What a disappointment.
mike
Quote Of course you are, Paul. “Moving on”? I call it running away. In fact, I like the term I came up with for Roo – Hit and run. You pour out all of your thoughts, which I take my time to answer, (hit) and then you refuse to answer my points that refute yours down to the point of drivel (run).
Like I told you the last time you quit our discussion of Heb 1, don't start what you're not prepared to finish.
What a disappointment.
Predictable response from you Mike……
Bump for WJ, Roo and Paul
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 19 2010,11:49) t8, I don't believe the devil is in the details of scripture. The Bible is the exception to that rule, right?
What I mean by that statement is that our yes is yes and our no is no.Some people here have to justify their doctrine with other details.
e.g., scripture says that for us, there is one God the Father. Instead of taking that at face value, they build details around it one step at a time, and before you know it, they have changed that truth to, “there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit”, or “there are 3 that are God”.
Beware their details. Their yes is not yes and their no is not no. It is “Yes but…”, or “no but…”.
Also, when they can't find fault in the truth you teach, they will then turn and try and find fault in you as a person to defame you. This is what happened to Jesus, so it will happen to you too.
Just be prepared for it and don't let them get you down. Remember, you will suffer as Jesus suffered and that is a privileged because you will also be rewarded too.
Suffer now with your vision on the glory that God has waiting for you.
Bump for WJ and Paul. Roo, you're excused because you keep thinking I quoted Eusebius here.
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 (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:49) t8, I don't believe the devil is in the details of scripture. The Bible is the exception to that rule, right?
What I mean by that statement is that our yes is yes and our no is no.Some people here have to justify their doctrine with other details.
e.g., scripture says that for us, there is one God the Father. Instead of taking that at face value, they build details around it one step at a time, and before you know it, they have changed that truth to, “there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit”, or “there are 3 that are God”.
Beware their details. Their yes is not yes and their no is not no. It is “Yes but…”, or “no but…”.
Also, when they can't find fault in the truth you teach, they will then turn and try and find fault in you as a person to defame you. This is what happened to Jesus, so it will happen to you too.
Just be prepared for it and don't let them get you down. Remember, you will suffer as Jesus suffered and that is a privileged because you will also be rewarded too.
Suffer now with your vision on the glory that God has waiting for you.
Amen to that!I know who God is. My God is the same person as Jesus' God.
And they only get me down when they bring up a point or some great scholar that we should all believe, and then when I use that same scholars own words against them, all of a sudden he is a loser and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Is 1:18 @ June 19 2010,12:06) Quote Of course you are, Paul. “Moving on”? I call it running away. In fact, I like the term I came up with for Roo – Hit and run. You pour out all of your thoughts, which I take my time to answer, (hit) and then you refuse to answer my points that refute yours down to the point of drivel (run).
Like I told you the last time you quit our discussion of Heb 1, don't start what you're not prepared to finish.
What a disappointment.
Predictable response from you Mike……
You should have predicted it, Paul. It is the same thing I told you after you quit our debate and then wanted to start discussing it again.Hi Mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) Was the term “Monogenes” ever given to Jesus before his natural birth? Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Not that scripture records.
Thank you. Then end of discussion right? Your confession here now means that anytime you say that the word Monogenes applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture on you part.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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?
We have but you are not listening! It doesn’t matter if you say that Jesus was “begotten” before Jesus came in the flesh or not, for three reasons…1. As you just admitted, “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus before he came in the flesh.
2. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a beginning but in fact says that he was there in the beginning with the Father which means he was there before time. Time, Space and matter are part of the all things that came into existence by him. John 1:3.
What is before time Mike? Its called eternity!
3. The church Fathers including the earliest and most credible, “Ignatius” never speaks of Jesus having a beginning and in fact as I have shown Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh! I think Ignatius knows more than Eusebius about Jesus origin since he is close to John who wrote John 1:1, don't you?
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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?
Exactly Mike! Can you see it? Jesus had not yet existed as the “Monogenes” Son until he came into existence (ginomai) in the flesh and was found in fashion as a man. John 1:14 – Phil 2:6-8Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) 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.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Why not?
Why not? Because Rom 8:29 deals with us being brothers with Jesus after he comes in the flesh as a man and not before. So the word “firstborn” (prōtotokos) here does not mean that Jesus was “procreated” but rather that he is first, the prototype by whom we will become like, and Paul’s use of the word in Col 1:15 doesn’t mean God beget a god either!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Jesus was begotten by God before all the ages.
The word is “Monogenes” which does not mean “to come into existence”, but you insist on viewing the word “ginomai” and “monogenes” as having the same meaning!Monogenes: 1) single of its kind, only
You have absolutely no evidence at all that Jesus had a beginning even if you say he was the “begotten Son” before the ages (meaning time).
Please quit equivocating and give ONE shred of evidence that says Jesus had a beginning. Time and Time again Jack an I have shown you that the early Fathers did not view the words “firstborn” or “begotten” as meaning Jesus had a beginning. In fact that was the whole reason of the creeds, to refute Arius and the Arians concept that there was a time that Jesus did not exist. Eusebius signed off on it. But you insist on going down rabbit trails and endless discussion to prove your false theory.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) He was born of Mary as flesh.
No, he was the Word that was with God and was God who took on the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man. John 1:1, 14 – Phil 2:6-8Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Then he was the firstborn FROM the dead, not the ONLY-born from the dead, because many will follow. Do you see the difference?
No, because again the “firstborn from the dead” does not mean that Jesus was “born again” by some procreative act. In Spirit Jesus was alive. Firstborn again means that he has the preeminence over all that are raised from the dead because all that are raised will be by him. Was Jesus the “first” to be raised from the dead? If not then your meaning cannot be true.Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God, but merely the FIRSTborn from the dead.
But if we are “Sons of God” also, then in what sense is Jesus the “Only Monogenes” Son?Could it be that it is because he is “unique” and the “Only” one that was with God and was God and who was born of a
virgin and appeared to men in the flesh? Yep, that’s scriptural alright!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) 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 17 2010,20:45) 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.
There you go equivocating again Mike! The word “ginomai” does not apply to Jesus until the incarnation and it is not the same word as begotten!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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.
Please, this is pure conjecture and fact less diatribe! Monogenes doesn’t mean come into existence or born Mike!Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) 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! Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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.
So what does that tell you about the word “Firstborn”? Are those who are resurrected “IN CHRIST” not the same person that already preexisted their death? So “Firstborn” in relation to Jesus cannot mean procreated or came into existence, can it?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,10:39) You and Kathi are simply grasping straws by reinventing the terms “firstborn” and “Begotten” in reference to Jesus Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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.
I noticed you threw in Ignatius, but you are wrong Mike and you know it. We have shown you how men can be appointed to be the “firstborn” without being born the firstborn. We have also shown you how Monogenes simply means “Only Unique” and how the word is applied to Isaac as the Only Son of the promise though he was not the firstborn!Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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)?
Are you getting Ignatius and Eusebius words mixed up?Nevertheless, I have said before, and will say it again, the only time the scriptures speak of Jesus as the Monogenes Son is after he came in the flesh. So they are referring to the person Jesus as the “Begotten Son” who was always with the Father.
Ignatius as well as many of the Fathers did not believe that Jesus had a beginning therefore your forced understanding of what they wrote is contradicting and false.
Ignatius said…
There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2
Was he contradicting himself? He also said…
To the Magnesians
The ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father “before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. (VI).Before time is eternity Mike, this is how they understood Jesus as being always existing with the Father. The Word that was with God and was God!
This is what the Creed of the first Council of Nicea (325) read (emphasis mine)…
“But those who say: THERE WAS A TIME WHEN HE WAS NOT“; and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 17 2010,20:45) 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”?
Can you show me the evidence that the word “genao” is used in Ignatius quotes in referring to Jesus before time?WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,20:15) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:49) t8, I don't believe the devil is in the details of scripture. The Bible is the exception to that rule, right?
What I mean by that statement is that our yes is yes and our no is no.Some people here have to justify their doctrine with other details.
e.g., scripture says that for us, there is one God the Father. Instead of taking that at face value, they build details around it one step at a time, and before you know it, they have changed that truth to, “there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit”, or “there are 3 that are God”.
Beware their details. Their yes is not yes and their no is not no. It is “Yes but…”, or “no but…”.
Also, when they can't find fault in the truth you teach, they will then turn and try and find fault in you as a person to defame you. This is what happened to Jesus, so it will happen to you too.
Just be prepared for it and don't let them get you down. Remember, you will suffer as Jesus suffered and that is a privileged because you will also be rewarded too.
Suffer now with your vision on the glory that God has waiting for you.
Amen to that!I know who God is. My God is the same person as Jesus' God.
And they only get me down when they bring up a point or some great scholar that we should all believe, and then when I use that same scholars own words against them, all of a sudden he is a loser and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
peace and love,
mike Quote (Ed J @ June 16 2010,23:26) . Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,19:17) Quote “I am” is not the translation of YHVH. Did Jesus ever say he was the “I will be who I will be”?
“I will be who I will be”” is not used in the NT at all, so your point is not a cogent one. “I am” is an appelative used of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. It's rendered “ego eimi” in the LXX.Quote
Pay attention to the details:Revelation 22:20 records:
“He who (testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly ” Amen Come, Lord Jesus.Hi Isaiah 1:18,
Obviously you don't pay attention to the details.
Rev.22:20: He which testifieth these things saith,
Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I God: I “will be”=63
exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.JEHOVAH Son=117
Rev.21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and
I(YHVH=63) “will be”=63 his God, and he shall be my son.“YHVH is GOD”=117
PSALM 117 is [The Bible's Center Chapter], and
the [smallest chapter] of the [LARGEST BOOK]!Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for Isaiah 1:18Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:15) Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
When people do not answer, it is often because they cannot. Be encouraged by that because if they were true, they would show you the truth that would set you straight. But if they have nothing, it doesn't prove that you are true, but it does prove that they can't disprove you.- The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
