Psalms 2:7 this day i have begotten you&#33;

http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin….nogenes

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,09:17)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 17 2010,17:13)

I'm still waiting for the link to where Strong says “monogenes” means “one of a kind”.

1) single of its kind, only

a)used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)

b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

Source

So where is the link to your source?

First, your own definition says it means Jesus was begotten as the only son of God.

Second, from that same exact site, here's what Strong's actually says:

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “monogenes”:
3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096;
only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

So what's the big denial all about Keith? Everything says Jesus was begotten of God. We have the Hebrew word “yalad”, the Greek words “gennao” and “monogenes”, the actual context of the scriptures, the other scriptures like Micah, Proverbs, Colossians and Revelation that speak of Jesus' origins, and the early writings of the church fathers to confirm all of it.

I don't get it. You are staring all of this evidence in the face and still insisting it didn't mean Jesus had a beginning.

You are doing exactly what Marty is. He now knows scripture calls Jesus the “only begotten god”, but would rather just pretend he didn't know so he can stay safe and sound inside his flawed understanding of a non-preexistent, exactly like him human Christ.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I don't know what else to do here. Your arguments are weak and unsubstantiated. In fact, all you have is that “gennao” was later used by Paul in a metaphorical way, and the word “today”, which I've showed you also has the definition of “time period”.

mike

August 17, 2010 at 10:44 pm#212599

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,09:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,21:30)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,17:14)

And the Net also says…

Heb “and after me, there will not be”; NASB “there will be none after Me.”

I'm sorry WJ,

Which one of those translations say “no god will come into being after me”?

mike

Mike

What does “there will be none after me” mean?

It's very simple WJ. There were no gods before God……he is the first/beginning. And there will be no gods after God……he is the last/end.

mike

August 17, 2010 at 10:45 pm#212600

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,09:44)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,09:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,21:30)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,17:14)

And the Net also says…

Heb “and after me, there will not be”; NASB “there will be none after Me.”

I'm sorry WJ,

Which one of those translations say “no god will come into being after me”?

mike

Mike

What does “there will be none after me” mean?

It's very simple WJ. There were no gods before God……he is the first/beginning. And there will be no gods after God……he is the last/end.

mike

And Jesus is the First and the Last.

the Roo

August 17, 2010 at 11:01 pm#212610

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 18 2010,09:30)

HA Ha

Of course you do not have time because you have to deal with the truth. You fight battles for things that you don't even believe.

What are you talking about? I just answered your word game for the hundreth time in that same post.

I can call the pastor at my church “my Father” without anyone ever suspecting I was talking about “MY FATHER in heaven”.

In those days, people could call David, Moses, angels, Jesus and Satan “god” without anyone ever suspecting they were talking about their GOD IN HEAVEN.

You guys are creating a scriptural monster here. The more senseless crap you throw out there, the more I have to research. And the more I research, the more it becomes clear that your claims are really only supported by…….YOUR CLAIMS. Are you aware of that Keith? The great “evidence” you and Jack have about Jesus' origins is the fact that YOU CLAIM “monogenes” and “yalad” mean something else in referrence to Jesus. That's it. You two post back to back at the same time in many threads reinforcing your “evidence”. But it all just boils down to you two CLAIMING this word means something other than what the scriptures, lexicons and early Christians say it does.

You claim it. Jack says, “I know….why can't they see that's what it means?”. And then you say, “I know….they just don't get it.” And then Jack says, “Mike thinks the sea beget someone “. And then you say, “I know. That guy needs mental help”. And then Jack says, “Yeah, he's got some real problems.” And so on, and so on.

But at the end of the day, did either one of you ever show any reason we should consider “yalad” and “monogenes” and “gennao” to mean something other than their default meaning in referrence to Jesus? NO. You just spent the day slamming me, Kathi, and whoever else got in your way. All while showing that your only proof is Jack's acknowledgement and Jack's only proof is yours.

mike

August 17, 2010 at 11:05 pm#212615

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,09:45)

And Jesus is the First and the Last.

the Roo

Well, scriptures say he is the first of many things. But if you're referring to Rev saying Jesus is the first and the last, you're mistaken. And there's an Alpha and Omega thread going on, so take it there.

Btw, you didn't seem to disagree with my interpretation of Is 43.

mike

August 17, 2010 at 11:15 pm#212624

Participant

Mike said:

Quote

First, your own definition says it means Jesus was begotten as the only son of God.

Second, from that same exact site, here's what Strong's actually says:

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “monogenes”:
3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096;
only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

TO ALL:

Jesus and the apostles did NOT cite James Strong. They cited the LXX inwhich “monogenes” is used as the equivalent of the Hebrew “yachid” which means “only.” This fact means that Mike will never be able to prove his case.

Mike knows this from our first debate but he ignores it.

the Roo

August 17, 2010 at 11:21 pm#212625

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,10:05)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,09:45)

And Jesus is the First and the Last.

the Roo

Btw, you didn't seem to disagree with my interpretation of Is 43.

mike

Isaiah 44 says that the First and the last is “God.” Then it says that the First and the last is the only “Rock.” According to Paul Jesus is the “Rock” (1 Corinthians 10).

The First and the Last is God
The First and the Last is the only Rock
Jesus is the First and the Last
Jesus is the Rock
Therefore, Jesus is God

Logic 101

the Roo

August 18, 2010 at 12:02 am#212639

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,10:15)

Mike said:

Quote

First, your own definition says it means Jesus was begotten as the only son of God.

Second, from that same exact site, here's what Strong's actually says:

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “monogenes”:
3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096;
only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

TO ALL:

Mike knows this from our first debate but he ignores it.

the Roo

Jack, Jack, Jack,

While it's funny that you now run from Strong after months of boasting of his greatness with the “one and only” defintition that proved not to be his at all, this is from NETBible:

yachiyd adj
1) only, only one, solitary, one
1a) only, unique, one
1b) solitary
1c) (TWOT) only begotten son subst
2) one

In NET (12) : only son 4, only child 3, alone 1, deserted 1, only 1, life 1

Aren't you always quoting TWOT? They say “only begotten son”. And look how it's translated in NET: 4 times as “only son” and 3 times as “only child”.

Maybe the LXX writers thought that passage meant “I am an only begotten and desparate”. Look at all the other times it meant “only child” or “only son”. I'd say “monogenes” fits right in….what else ya got? This can't be all, can it? One out of the ordinary use of “monogenes” in the scriptures? And not even the Greek Scriptures, but a Greek translation of the Hebrew ones? Come on Jack……you can do better.

mike

August 18, 2010 at 12:03 am#212640

Participant

WJ,

Concerning 'defining God' : Perfectly correct – short and simple. ok, there is actually more depth to it but none the less – concise and to the point as 94 stated also.

“God” is a TITLE…. as is “King”, “Son”, “Father”, “SATAN”….etc…

They can be attributed to many individuals in an APPROPRIATE manner with and APPROPRIATE meaning linked to STATUS and CAUSE.

“God” is “One who holds Power and Authority”. Therefore, contextually, a “Judge” (another title) “One who is EMPOWERED by an AUTHORISING Body of, similar or higher, persons of “Power and authority” to perform acts of Judgement, to Cause a Ruling to be committed and effected, can be called “a God” (and note the indefinite article) but could never be called “The God” (with the definite article) as there is only ONE from whom, ultimately – the EMPOWERMENT comes and that ONE is called “THE (definite article) God”

hence, in everyday usage the word “God” has only one owner: “YHVH GOD”, “The ONE God”, “The MOST HIGH God” and by way of English sentential writing we write “God” even without qualification of the definite article.

What need is there for God to have a name if there is ONLY ONE of HIM – Ah, when man began calling other created things 'God'!
Then [the] God gave himself the most beautiful and all encompassing everlasting name “I AM” …nothing can describe Him better in such a short and succinct way.
“I AM”
Just that : I AM…. I am what I am and what I am needs no explaining: I have ALWAYS BEEN WHAT I AM – I WILL ALWAYS BE WHAT I AM – because – I AM.

God Almighty. The source of ALL MIGHTY POWER and Authority – All other powers and authority stem from Him.

“God is not partial” – hence He gives Power and Authority to the Wicked as well as the Righteous so no one can say “If the wicked had P&A they would become righteous”.

“God is not partial” – hence He takes away Power and Authority from the Wicked as well as from the Righteous so no one can say “If the Righteous had no p&a they too would become wicked”

Hence, “the God” give P&A to another and that one too becomes “a gods” – a god ONLY on his own level, in his own dimension, among his own kind, lest he has CAUSE to try and take on the title of a SATAN – become an opposer to the one who [loaned] him the P&A.

“Begotten God” – step off! It is UNSAFE to use the term “God” of anyone other than “The God” without qualification.
“Begotten God” – Begotten Mighty One -Begotten one of High Power and Authority – Yes! “a Begotten god”, yes, impartially.
“Begotten God” – Say rather: “Begotten of God”
“Begotten God” – Remember that Scripture states that Mankind that overcomes will also become “Begotten [of] God” as Jesus did.
(How many Gods are there to be: 144,000? 144,000 “Mighty Ones”, yes – so Scriptures states)

August 18, 2010 at 12:09 am#212644

Participant

Oh, and “The God of this World”, “The God of this courtroom”, “The God of this system of things”….
“The God” is qualified to a Status “This World”, “This Courtroom”, “This system of things” by which the exact position of that one being called “God” is DEFINITEly qualified on the level, in the dimension, within the kind obviating any possible ambiguity.

August 18, 2010 at 12:11 am#212648

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,10:21)

The First and the Last is God
The First and the Last is the only Rock
Jesus is the First and the Last
Jesus is the Rock
Therefore, Jesus is God

Logic 101

the Roo

God is eternal.
Jehovah our God is One.
God begot a Son.
The Son died, showing he was not originally eternal.
The Son said our God was the same as his God.
The Son is a servant of our God just like us.
The Son still calls our God and his God “my God”.
The Son cannot be the same God that begot him.
The Son cannot be God since he died.
The Son cannot be a servant of himself.
The Son cannot be the God he calls “my God” for God calls no one “my God”.
Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

Logic 101

mike

August 18, 2010 at 12:14 am#212651

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,11:03)

Begotten God” – Remember that Scripture states that Mankind that overcomes will also become “Begotten [of] God” as Jesus did.

Which scripture says that JA?

mike

August 18, 2010 at 12:23 am#212657

Participant

Ah, Mike, i see you taking the same hallucinary drug as your begotten.

You gonna ask me for Scriptural proof for basic tenets. You ask me for a “sign”… but no sign shall be given you for as the eagle flies from the east to the west, so shall you read the Scriptures read from the front to the back and find these things yourself.

You study so much, a scholar without qualifications, indeed. Your Concordances, NetBibles, The theologians, the Church fathers, so indepth in them you know their very hearts and intentions – analysis of the greatest imports – YET, the VERY Thing that is of IMPORTANCE, the very Basics of Scriptures Truth and the line of Righteousness learning – you do not know — How weird!

Mike, Here's a puzzle for you? How do you keep someone in suspense?

August 18, 2010 at 12:24 am#212658

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 18 2010,11:02)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,10:15)

Mike said:

Quote

First, your own definition says it means Jesus was begotten as the only son of God.

Second, from that same exact site, here's what Strong's actually says:

Strong's Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “monogenes”:
3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096;
only-born, i.e. sole:–only (begotten, child).

TO ALL:

Mike knows this from our first debate but he ignores it.

the Roo

Jack, Jack, Jack,

While it's funny that you now run from Strong after months of boasting of his greatness with the “one and only” defintition that proved not to be his at all, this is from NETBible:

yachiyd adj
1) only, only one, solitary, one
1a) only, unique, one
1b) solitary
1c) (TWOT) only begotten son subst
2) one

In NET (12) : only son 4, only child 3, alone 1, deserted 1, only 1, life 1

Aren't you always quoting TWOT? They say “only begotten son”. And look how it's translated in NET: 4 times as “only son” and 3 times as “only child”.

mike

Mike,

Show where I have boasted of Strong's greatness. I have invoked him when I think he is right. That's all. You have a poor memory Mike. I told you in our first debate when you cited modern sources that I go with the usus loquendi of the word in Biblical times and not the literal meaning. Remember now Mike?

The usus loquendi has to do with the way a word was commonly used as opposed to its literal meaning.

Face it Mike. The fact that the LXX uses “monogenes” as the equivalent of the Hebrew “yachid” (only) means that your conclusions will forever be inconclusive.

So it doesn't matter which text you endorse of John 1:18 whether it be “monogenes huios” or “monogenes theos.” It means “only Son” or “only God” for the usus loquendi of the word “monogenes” IN BIBLICAL TIMES simply meant “only.”

That pesty LXX will always be the monkey on your back.

the Roo

August 18, 2010 at 2:43 am#212717

Blocked

Quote (JustAskin @ Aug. 18 2010,11:23)

You gonna ask me for Scriptural proof for basic tenets.

Yep, sure am.

You keep claiming it, but you haven't produced a scripture that says it. If there is one, I would sure like to read it.

Thanks in advance for the scripture.

mike

August 18, 2010 at 3:09 am#212721

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 18 2010,11:24)

The usus loquendi has to do with the way a word was commonly used as opposed to its literal meaning.

Face it Mike. The fact that the LXX uses “monogenes” as the equivalent of the Hebrew “yachid” (only) means that your conclusions will forever be inconclusive.

So it doesn't matter which text you endorse of John 1:18 whether it be “monogenes huios” or “monogenes theos.” It means “only Son” or “only God” for the usus loquendi of the word “monogenes” IN BIBLICAL TIMES simply meant “only.”

That pesty LXX will always be the monkey on your back.

the Roo

Oh poor Jack,

Yes, you got me. That one example where some Greek writers were translating Hebrew will be the bane of my existence. Because of that one translation, I will now have to ignore the rest of the scriptures, the early Christian theologians, and the modern lexicons. :laugh:

You say you take the words as they were used back then? Okay, then why do you refute what the early Christians wrote? Ignatius knew the words and their meaning straight from one of the Bible writer's own mouth. Isn't that pretty solid evidence?

Give it up Jack. You have been reduced to one little scripture in the LXX that wasn't ever quoted by anyone speaking in the NT. And considering the word “yachiyd” is translated as only child or only son 7 of the 12 times it is in scripture by NET, that one translation doesn't really leave you a leg to stand on.

Can you feel the trinity falling down around you yet? It's coming.

You said:

Quote

So, according to you, John 1:18 reads,

No one has ever understood God, but the Only God, who is at the Father's side, has explained God.

Is that about right?

mike

August 18, 2010 at 3:11 am#212722

942767

Participant

Hi Mike:

Just noticed something in the following scripture:

Quote

John 1:14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

That in paranthesis indicates that this is speaking of “the glory as of the “only begotten of the Father” when the Word was made flesh, that is this is looking a him as begotten as man, and not as someone begotten of God prior to being born into this world from the womb of the virgin Mary.

Mike, there is no begotten god. This is not consistent with the rest of the scriptures. The Word that was spoken through Jesus was God speaking through him and so of course it shows his attributes and is made manifest through the works that Jesus did in obedience to that same Word. Jesus is the “express image of His, God's person”.

And the Logos was with God in the beginning that is what the scripture state, but I do not see any scripture that states that the Logos was a sentient person.

We all who are born again should be displaying that same spirit of Love through obedience to the Word of God. God is a Spirit and they that worship must worship him in that same spirit and in truth.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 18, 2010 at 3:11 am#212723