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

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,03:57)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,09:50)

Mike said:

Quote

It would seem strange for God to say there were no other gods at all, and then mention many gods througout scripture.

Poor Mike! He just don't get it! The scriptures are replete with statements inwhich God said that the gods exist in the people's own imaginations. In other words, their existence is not real but only in the minds of men.

Paul said that they are “so called” gods (1 Corinthians 8).

the Roo

Hi Roo,

Do you think satan was not a literal created being but just 'created' in our imagination?

Poor try Kathi. Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Roo

August 16, 2010 at 8:53 pm#212362

http://equalitypress.wordpress.com/2009….the-son

Participant

Keith said:

Quote

The begetting must be understood as from eternity since the term “begetting” could be understood as something other than “Procreation”.

Keith,

The ancient “eternal generation” doctrine is the problem. Many modern trinitarians are dropping it for the “Economical Trinity” doctrine.

Ontological Trinity: The trinity as it exists of itself APART from its relations to the world.

Economical Trinity: The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation.

Quote

Theologically, it seems to me, the doctrine of the generation of the Logos from the Father cannot, despite assurances to the contrary, but diminish the status of the Son because He becomes an effect contingent upon the Father. Even if this eternal procession takes place necessarily and apart from the Father’s will, the Son is less than the Father because the Father alone exists in Himself, whereas the Son exists through another. Such derivative being is the same way in which created things exist. Despite protestations to the contrary, Nicene orthodoxy does not seem to have completely exorcised the spirit of subordinationism introduced into Christology by the Greek Apologists.

For these reasons evangelical theologians have tended to treat the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father with benign neglect. If we do decide to drop from our doctrine of the Trinity the eternal generation and procession of the Son and Spirit from the Father, how should we construe the intra-Trinitarian relations? Here I find it useful to distinguish between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity is the Trinity as it exists of itself apart from God’s relation to the world. The economic Trinity has reference to the different roles played by the persons of the Trinity in relation to the world and especially in the plan of salvation. In this economic Trinity there is subordination (or, perhaps better, submission) of one person to another, as the incarnate Son does the Father’s will and the Spirit speaks, not on His own account, but on behalf of the Son. The economic Trinity does not reflect ontological differences between the persons but rather is an expression of God’s loving condescension for the sake of our salvation. The error of Logos Christology lay in conflating the economic Trinity with the ontological Trinity, introducing subordination into the nature of the Godhead itself.

So I regard God the Father as neither ontologically nor causally prior to God the Son, and I view Augustine and the Damascene’s views as extra-biblical and unfortunate.

From this it is not clear whether there is an eternal subordination of the Son; only an eternal generation is denied. But many complementarian scholars seem to conflate the two thinking that the Son’s eternal generation is evidence (or perhaps better said, the explanation) of His eternal subordination. Still, Craig does not see the economic Trinity as reflecting the ontological Trinity, which is fundamental to the complementarian scheme.

The Word became Son for the sake of our salvation!

Jack

August 16, 2010 at 9:36 pm#212367

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,13:55)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,11:54)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 16 2010,01:04)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 14 2010,23:24)

So, I say the only begotten Son of God was begotten before the ages and the Son of Man was born in the world, during the ages.

Kathi

LOL, you agree with one point of the creed and pull it out of context to support your belief.

I have already explained what “begotten before the ages means”.

The Trintarians believed Jesus (the Word) always existed with the Father.

The context of the Athanasian creed does not allow for your definition of “God procreated another God equal to himself”, 2 Divine beings.

It is a true statement that he was begotten before the ages just as he was the lamb of God before the foundations of the world and foreordained to be the Lamb.

The definition of begotten does not always mean “procreate”.

Keith,
Are you saying that the begetting of the Son before the ages was in the sense of being foreordained before the ages?

What I am saying is the Trintiarians concept of “One Divine being” could not include the definiton that God procreated an equal God from himself and there were 2 co-equal, co-eternal beings, or two Gods kathi.

The Athanasian Creed would be a contradiction if that is what the Forefathers believed.

So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. **AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD**.

You do see that don't you Kathi?

The begetting must be understood as from eternity since the term “begetting” could be understood as something other than “Procreation”.

Keith,
Actually this phrase here is utterly confusing to me:

“So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. AND YET THEY ARE NOT THREE GODS, BUT ONE GOD”

I need to find out from history further clarification of what the heck that all means.

I can go along with the Apostle's Creed, The Nicene Creed but the Anathasian Creed I have not found in scriptures or I have not understood the meanings of these phrases. So therefore, I do not see that. What type of begetting from eternity do you say occured:
a foreordained begetting
a designated begetting
a coming forth from within type of begetting

What do you mean when you say the begetting was from eternity?

August 16, 2010 at 9:41 pm#212368

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,15:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,03:57)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,09:50)

Mike said:

Quote

It would seem strange for God to say there were no other gods at all, and then mention many gods througout scripture.

Paul said that they are “so called” gods (1 Corinthians 8).

the Roo

Hi Roo,

Do you think satan was not a literal created being but just 'created' in our imagination?

Poor try Kathi. Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Roo

Roo,
Who did satan usurp? And what is your definition of 'usurp?'

August 16, 2010 at 9:50 pm#212371

JustAskin

Participant

we live in amazing times.

Mikbolle is saying there are other Gods…phewweee…too much learning. It's like Anglican Bishops telling people that homosexuality is ok because Jesus said,” 'Love your fellow MAN'…and he meant it literally”.

Roo once again is right. There is onlh one God. All else are 'So Called gods'.

However, contextually, there are many 'gods'…translate…'mighty ones'. There are MANY 'Mighty Ones' but only ONE 'ALL Mighty One', 'Almighty One'.

!!! Stop deliberately misunderstanding !!!

Someone rewrite the bible and use different word for 'the one God', 'the most high God', YHVH, 'God Almighty','one who is the source of all power and authority'
… And 'mighty ones', 'one VESTED with power and authority', 'ones created and endowed with power by a higher one'.
Yes, the former is 'God' we write.
The latter is 'god' we write …
But who can rely in everyone always writing the appropriate 'title' in the appropriate place, context. And what if it goes through mechanical translation and transformation. The process has no knowledge of how and can change the 'propercase' into lowercase or vice versa.

Mike, please drop this nonesense argument over 'God' and 'gods'.
You lost the argument with Keith, not because you were wrong..you were right..but because you let Keith get under your skin and itch you…
I saw that and thought: “For he does not give aid to angels”
Because you lost, even thought you should have won, you let Satan pursuade you to dredge up this currently nonesense to try for disaster recovery…bad move. Grace would have been better. Give in, Mike, else you walk through Satan's open door, he does even need to draw you, you just walking straight inside.
Hey, yes, JA is trying to draw you away, and you despise him for trying to save you. Pity…one day, though.
Mike, you are rich in the ability to study and debate. But like many rich, and this is the test for the rich man, you abuse your 'gift'. Hey, ask for a tip of water while you there. Cool your burning desire, quench your thirst…oh, you can't…this poor man cannot reach across the divide!
What's that, 'warn others for you', sorry guy, no can do, if you didn't share your wealth when you could, how should you be able when you cannot?

August 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm#212373

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,08:41)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,15:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,03:57)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,09:50)

Mike said:

Quote

It would seem strange for God to say there were no other gods at all, and then mention many gods througout scripture.

Paul said that they are “so called” gods (1 Corinthians 8).

the Roo

Hi Roo,

Do you think satan was not a literal created being but just 'created' in our imagination?

Poor try Kathi. Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Roo

Roo,
Who did satan usurp? And what is your definition of 'usurp?'

Your being evasive Kathi. Satan was not created a god by God.

the Roo

August 16, 2010 at 10:29 pm#212380

Participant

TO ALL:

t8 has tentatively revoked my editing rights because I edited a couple of posts on this thread. I showed him that my editing did not change my argument in anyway and he said that he is fine with it. But I have to make the editing known to you before he can reinstate me. He said also that in the future I cannot edit after someone has posted after me and that I must post a retraction or correction separately. I will be sure to do this from now on.

My first edit was on page 7 the 8th post down. I had said that the NET Bible contains “cult” translation. Later on I was looking for something and saw the post and acquired a conscience about it because some here use the NET Bible. So I softened my statement to “unfaithful” in place of the word “cult.” I also deleted a single reference to the NWT because it was not really a part of the argument.

As I was looking for this something I saw another post inwhich I had given an incomplete citation of Isaiah 43:10. I had left out the word “before” in two places and edited including the word. This is found on page 10 the 7th post down.

The something I was looking for was an alleged statement by me saying that the Septuagint has the word “begotten.” I had thought that Mike said that the LXX said “begotten” so I attributed the statement to him. I had not payed attention that he was saying that I had said that. So he posted an objection accusing me and saying that I said that “begotten” was in the LXX. After that I scrolled up and down the pages to see if I had said that the word “begotten” was in the LXX (Is. 43:10). I did not say the word “begotten.” I had said “yinomai” (to come into being).

It was because of this that I had seen my “cult” speech and didn't like it so I softened it to “unfaithful.” After that I discovered that I had given an incomplete citation of Isaiah 43:10 leaving out the word “before.” So I included the word “before” as it appears in the scripture.

I realize now that editing after others have replied creates suspicion. I have assured t8 that it won't happen again.

I am hoping you all can appreciate that I made an attempt to clean up my act around here a little.

Sincerely,

the Roo

August 16, 2010 at 10:45 pm#212385

Baker

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 16 2010,05:17)

Quote (Baker @ Aug. 15 2010,06:04)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2010,07:43)

Quote (Baker @ Aug. 14 2010,15:34)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2010,07:20)

Quote (Baker @ Aug. 14 2010,15:08)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 15 2010,06:52)

Quote (Baker @ Aug. 14 2010,14:40)

You ask, “””Was God ever without his Word?”””
If you mean his son by, WORD, yes; you can read about his, the son's/word, beginning in Prov. 8:22-30.
Why did John refer to Jesus as the word? Here is the reason.

God was never without his Word.

There is no scripture that says Jesus who is called the “Word of God” was created.

Proverbs 8 is merely speculation because the “Word” or Jesus name is not in Prov 8.

I am surprised you didn't say, Pr. 8:22-31 was the beginning of wisdom; that is what I was told by some ministers.
What do you think those scriptures are saying, who do they refer to? have you actually read them?
Let me put them up for you.

Pro 8:22 “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

Pro 8:23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.

Pro 8:24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;

Pro 8:25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,

Pro 8:26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.

Pro 8:27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

Pro 8:28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

Pro 8:29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

Pro 8:30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

Pro 8:31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

I am trying to help you understand, nothing more.
If this doesn't show you the preexistence of Jesus, nothing else will.

Georg

George

I believe in the Preexistence of Jesus. But I do not believe Prov 8 is speaking of Jesus.

I think he is just talking about personified wisdom for all through Proverbs he speaks of wisdom.

It is merely conjecture to say this is the “Word” or “Jesus”. Why would Solomon give wisdom a female gender?

Like I said, you can believe what ever you want, but,…if this is speaking of wisdom, are you suggesting God had to create wisdom? if he had to create it, what gave him the wisdom to create it?
Pure nonsense.

What is you reason to refuse to believe truth?

Georg

George

Are you saying there was a time God did not have wisdom?

Pro 8:22 “The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

Pro 8:23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.

It says the Lord brought wisdom forth not created, and what does “appointed from eternity mean” unless wisdom was from eternity?

It is pure nonsense to say Jesus was created which would make him of the created order like everything else.

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him “nothing came into being that has come into being“. John 1:1-3

If “nothing came into being that has come into being” without him then he could not have been part of the created for he did not create himself.

What is your reason to believe that at some point from eternity God did not have wisdom?

“””Are you saying there was a time God did not have wisdom?”””
Did I say that? Where?

The Lord brought forth what, wisdom?
What do you mean by “brought forth”?
Explain how God “brought forth” wisdom, it says; “as the FIRST of his WORKS”.
Did wisdom have a beginning, v. 23?
Was wisdom given birth, v. 25?
Was wisdom the craftsman at God's side, v. 30?
Was wisdom always rejoicing in the presence of God, v. 30?
Was wisdom rejoicing in the whole world and delighting in mankind, v. 31?

“””What is your reason to believe that at some point from eternity God did not have wisdom?”””
This is what you ask me, my point is just the opposite; if you believe that all these scriptures refer to wisdom, than you must believe that wisdom had a beginning. YOU'RE RIGHT, PURE NONSENSE.

Georg

Hi Georg,
This thought about wisdom in Prov 8 that keeps coming to me is this:

If I had all the wisdom in the world but was on a deserted island it would be only useful when I put it to use. Maybe the wisdom in Prov 8 was God's wisdom being put to use in the Son for the first use of it by the Son.

It isn't wisdom till it is useful, in other words.

Kathi! Thank you for your post. Then it still is Jesus, because otherwise it simple does not make sense to me. Of course some will argue about this until the Cow's come home. Poetry, no…..How can wisdom be a craftsman, and on and on it goes…. Irene

August 17, 2010 at 12:45 am#212408

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,16:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,08:41)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,15:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,03:57)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,09:50)

Mike said:

Quote

It would seem strange for God to say there were no other gods at all, and then mention many gods througout scripture.

Paul said that they are “so called” gods (1 Corinthians 8).

the Roo

Hi Roo,

Do you think satan was not a literal created being but just 'created' in our imagination?

Poor try Kathi. Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Roo

Roo,
Who did satan usurp? And what is your definition of 'usurp?'

Your being evasive Kathi. Satan was not created a god by God.

the Roo

Roo,
Just answer the question.

you said:

Quote

Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Who did satan usurp? And what is your definition of 'usurp?'

August 17, 2010 at 12:51 am#212411

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,11:45)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,16:57)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,08:41)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,15:32)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,03:57)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,09:50)

Mike said:

Quote

It would seem strange for God to say there were no other gods at all, and then mention many gods througout scripture.

Paul said that they are “so called” gods (1 Corinthians 8).

the Roo

Hi Roo,

Do you think satan was not a literal created being but just 'created' in our imagination?

Poor try Kathi. Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Roo

Roo,
Who did satan usurp? And what is your definition of 'usurp?'

Your being evasive Kathi. Satan was not created a god by God.

the Roo

Roo,
Just answer the question.

you said:

Quote

Satan was a created being but a usurper god.

Who did satan usurp? And what is your definition of 'usurp?'

No Kathi,

Your'e being evasive. You do not need to be taught on this matter. God did NOT create satan a god.

Roo

August 17, 2010 at 12:56 am#212413

Participant

Roo,
Maybe you should come up with a different term than calling satan a 'usurper god.'

August 17, 2010 at 1:15 am#212416

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,11:56)

Roo,
Maybe you should come up with a different term than calling satan a 'usurper god.'

Satan is the only 'god' that has actual being. All other gods are 'so called' gods (Paul) and exist only in men's imaginations.

God did not create satan a god. Neither did God appoint satan to be a god. So how else did he become a 'god' if not by usurpation?

Your getting pretty desperate here Kathi.

the Roo

August 17, 2010 at 1:19 am#212418

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 16 2010,20:15)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 17 2010,11:56)

Roo,
Maybe you should come up with a different term than calling satan a 'usurper god.'

Satan is the only 'god' that has actual being. All other gods are 'so called' gods (Paul) and exist only in men's imaginations.

God did not create satan a god. Neither did God appoint satan to be a god. So how else did he become a 'god' if not by usurpation?

Your getting pretty desperate here Kathi.

the Roo

Roo,
So who gave satan his authority?

August 17, 2010 at 1:51 am#212421

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 17 2010,09:29)

The something I was looking for was an alleged statement by me saying that the Septuagint has the word “begotten.” I had thought that Mike said that the LXX said “begotten” so I attributed the statement to him. I had not payed attention that he was saying that I had said that. So he posted an objection accusing me and saying that I said that “begotten” was in the LXX. After that I scrolled up and down the pages to see if I had said that the word “begotten” was in the LXX (Is. 43:10). I did not say the word “begotten.” I had said “yinomai” (to come into being).

Hi Jack,

I wasn't able to find it in your edited post on page 7 where I could have sworn I'd seen it before you edited it. But I have no proof that you deleted it, and therefore have no choice but to accept your word as truth and apologize for the insinuation that you deleted that part of the post. I am sorry; I must have been mistaken.

I did, however, find another instance of it in “Born and Begotten”, page 72, second post. These are YOUR words:

Quote

Now please let's get back to scripture! Isaiah 43:10 says that no God came into being before or AFTER God. The LXX uses the word “ginomai” from which the word “gennao” (begotten) is derived. Therefore, there was no God begotten before or AFTER God!

Now that it's cleared up that you actually did say “begotten”, let's clear up the issue. You are correct that “ginomai” is the root word for both “gennao” and the genes part of “monogenes”. If Isaiah 43:10 actually did say “no gods were begotten AFTER God”, then John 1:18 would be a lie. It says,

John 1:18 NWT
No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

John 1:18 NASB
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Some translations play around with the words a little in an apparent effort to not have it say Jesus was begotten, but the Greek actually says “monogenes theos”, which means “only begotten god”.

Anyway, we do know that Jesus is “the only begotten god”. Psalm 2:7 has God saying “This day I have begotten you”.

The three J's say that Jesus was given the “title” or “position” of “begotten Son of God” after he was raised, based on the word “Today” in Psalm 2:7. So something has to give here. Jack, you can't be correct in saying Is 43:10 says no god was begotten after God AND STILL be correct in saying Jesus was “begotten” after he was raised.

So which one is it? You are the one that pointed out the “ginomai”. Now you must make a choice because of it……both of your assertions can't be right, can they?

peace and love,
mike

August 17, 2010 at 2:24 am#212422

Blocked

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 16 2010,21:35)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 16 2010,15:19)

Quote (shimmer @ Aug. 16 2010,10:11)

KangarooJack, We all have day's like that, my problem is I'm on the other side of the world than most people, so I miss out on all the conversations and only catch up later, when everyones gone. I think Mike need's some time out.

You know Shimmer,

I've have given you the benefit of the doubt so far. But your “opinions” without any substance to back them are wearing thin.

Did you not read the post where it was very clear I was talking about things that Jack has claimed that turned out to be false? Did you see where he took one of the things that HE claimed that I had just proven false and attributed it to me?

What you seem to do is to go through and read the “juicy” posts where Jack is all yelling and bolding and capitalizing words, and you don't actually check whether what he was yelling about even happened.

And then you make a snap judgement against ME?

To all, This begotten thing is taking over the whole forum ! lol,

Mike, as I said I was rushed I only saw what looked like JA and LU telling you that you needed to chill and needed time out, so as is supposed to be a Christian thing to do, I agreed that sometimes we get confused on these forums as I do, and I said time out often helps, your response to me upset me a bit, but fair enough, never mind. As I said Im done here. Im going to a church ! lol.

Hi Shimmer,

You said on page 12:

Quote

Mike, I havent read everything here today, only briefly because I'm not supposed to be here, I'm supposed to be cleaning the house lol, but if you are getting confused, take some time out, refocus, calm your mind down, pray, I know what it's like.

Which was fine, although in a later post I asked what made you think I was confused.

Then KJ said this in response to you on page 12:

Quote

It does seem that Mike is losing it a little today. He sent me a warning for unintentionally misquoting him when he also misquoted me.

I didn't “misquote” KJ, as my post on page 16 proves, but instead of even reading a little to see what was going on, you immediately replied to Jack on page 12:

Quote

Do you understand now why I responded the way I did? You didn't take the time to even see what Jack was up to before agreeing with him that I was “losing it” and offering up your unsubstantiated opinion that “I needed some time out”.

I knew exactly what Jack had said, and I knew how I planned to use his own words to show that he was scripturally incorrect. I wasn't “losing it” at all, and it angered me that you would agree with him without even checking to find out that it was just another of his “smear campaigns”.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but you also hurt mine. What's done is done, let's move on.

peace and love,
mike

August 17, 2010 at 2:30 am#212423

Blocked

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

August 17, 2010 at 2:47 am#212425

942767

Participant

Hi Mike:

What Greek manuscripts have “only begotten god” at John 1:18? The Greek intelinear that I have looked has the Greek “huios”, and YLT has it Son also. This would also be consistent with the rest of the scriptures such as John 3:16, & Matthew 16 for example.

There is no “begotten god”.

Love in Christ,
Marty

August 17, 2010 at 2:51 am#212426

Blocked

Hi JA,

You said:

Quote

The begotten one is raised up above his brethren in many fractal Scriptures,

I'm not aware of that in any scripture. Could you show me?

You said:

Quote

Roo once again is right. There is onlh one God. All else are 'So Called gods'.

Is Jesus a “so-called” god? John 1:18,

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

Is Satan? 2 Cor 4:4 says,

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Are these two just “so-called” mighty ones? Or are they REAL “mighty ones”?

You said:

Quote

Mike, please drop this nonesense argument over 'God' and 'gods'.
You lost the argument with Keith, not because you were wrong..you were right..but because you let Keith get under your skin and itch you…

What? I was wrong but I was right? When will you ever….. EVER show me where something I said is scripturally incorrect instead of just listing your beliefs over and over?

The first question I asked you above is the second time I've had to ask it. This is just one example of many things you claim as fact, but they are no where to be found in scripture JA. Another is “spirit can't beget spirit”. Where does scripture say that? Another is that Jesus was just one of the many “morning stars” in the beginning. Who was God's REAL firstborn then? What was the very first living creature after God?

First, you don't like to quote people's posts so we know to what you refer – which makes your posts confusing because you start off answering me and I'm not usually sure what the question even was anymore. And then instead of refuting scripture or thoughts with scripture, you just spew stuff you happen to think. I got news for ya brother, JA's thoughts are not said to be inspired of God like the scriptures. So please just stick to them from now on.

peace and love,
mike

August 17, 2010 at 3:10 am#212428