- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 17 2010,12:58) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,12:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:22) Well your friends here disagree with you. That is why they are silent! 
No, I just don't call Kathi up to say, “Let's go double team WJ! Maybe if we both yell nonsense at him at once, it'll make that nonsense seem more believable.” KJ has been a joke since I joined HN. But you used to be respectable. You are now just like him.
mike
MikeThe Joke is on you. You come here trying to push your Arian theology which has its roots in WatchTower and all you do is expose yourself more and more for who you really are.
WJ
Keith,Mike is acting silly today because he is embarrassed that I caught him and Kathi revising church history. Calvin CLEARLY taught the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
John Calvin on the phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born according to the seed of David” ( Romans 1:3)
Quote Divinity and humanity are the two requisites which we must look for in Christ if we are to find salvation in Him. His divinity contains power, righteousness, and life, which are communicated to us by His humanity Calvin on the statement “eternally blessed God” (Romans 9:5)
Quote We must further note that this ascription of praise belongs only to the the one eternal God. In another passage (1 Tim. 1:17) Paul states that there is one God to whom honor and and glory are due. To separate this clause from the rest of the of the context for the purpose of depriving Christ of this CLEAR WITNESS TO HIS DIVINITY, is an audacious attempt to create darkness where there is full light. The words are quite plain, 'CHRIST, who from the Jews according to the flesh, IS GOD BLESSED FOREVER'
Excerpts taken from Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, Romans and Thessalonians pages 15-16, 196, Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing CompanyBy the term “begotten before all ages” Calvin meant that the Son of God was eternal. No history revisionism on Kathi's and Mike's part can make Calvin a non-trinitairan. He CLEARLY believed in the divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
the Roo
Good points Jack!Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,04:52) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:36) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,12:29) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:22) Well your friends here disagree with you. That is why they are silent!
No, I just don't call Kathi up to say, “Let's go double team WJ! Maybe if we both yell nonsense at him at once, it'll make that nonsense seem more believable.” KJ has been a joke since I joined HN. But you used to be respectable. You are now just like him.
mike
MikeThe Joke is on you. You come here trying to push your Arian theology which has its roots in WatchTower and all you do is expose yourself more and more for who you really are.
WJ
Keith,Mike “amens” Kathi for posting fragments from Calvin. Then after I show what Calvin really taught he says “who cares what Calvin believed?” Yet he says that I am the joke. Mike is the court jester.
His hero is a man who signed a creed that anathematized his friends and who wrote them an aoplogy afterwards.
Jack
Hi Jack,I've said all along that I didn't expect anyone to agree with how Eusebius or Ignatius believed, ONLY to use them as an early Greek example of how the Biblical words were actually used closer to Jesus' time, right?
So, it would seem, you retain the court jester title after all.
mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,05:03) Hey Mike, When I whined as a child my grand dad would say to me, “Want a little cheese with your whine”?
Apparently you didn't get the point, because you are the whiningest person on this site. mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:32) Mike I don't have to, read the Psalm.
2:6 “I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.” 2:7 “THE KING SAYS, “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me: ‘You are my son! This very day I have become your father! 2:8 Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property. NET
Read the WHOLE Psalm, Keith.From start to finish, it is talking about Jesus, as is supported by Acts 4:25-27,
25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
” 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One. 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus,This Psalm is not about King David at all, but Jesus. And you keep capitalizing the “THE KING SAYS”, but the NET translation says about those words,
The words “the king says” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The speaker is the Lord’s chosen king.
So, those words aren't in the Hebrew at all, but are added by men later.
Try again Keith.
Yalad is the word, and Jesus is the one it is spoken about.mike
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,05:08) And Mike has admitted that scripture does not record that Jesus was begotten before His incarnation.
Show where I admitted that Jack.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,05:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:16) Hi All Mikes own words seem to change as he goes along.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why does he insist on trying to prove what he says he cannot prove?WJ
Typical Mikeboll flip flopping.
In our debate he said that my view that the Father ordained the creation and that Jesus did the actual work “fits well with scripture.” Then he flip flopped in the next rebuttal after that.
Jack
I'm surprised you even want to draw attention to that debate! 
mike
Mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,19:30) This Psalm is not about King David at all, but Jesus.
It sure is speaking of David as well as Jesus.Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,19:30) And you keep capitalizing the “THE KING SAYS”, but the NET translation says about those words, The words “the king says” are supplied in the translation for clarification. The speaker is the Lord’s chosen king.
And the NET also says…23tn Or “I will relate the decree. The Lord said to me” (in accordance with the Masoretic accentuation).
24sn ‘You are my son!’ The Davidic king was viewed as God’s “son” (see 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:26-27). The idiom reflects ancient Near Eastern adoption language associated with covenants of grant, by which a lord would reward a faithful subject by elevating him to special status, referred to as “sonship.” “Like a son, the faithful subject received an “inheritance,” viewed as an unconditional, eternal gift. Such gifts usually took the form of land and/or an enduring dynasty. See M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 184-203, for general discussion and some striking extra-biblical parallels.So I highlighted the part that is there…
2:6 “I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.” 2:7 “the King says, “I WILL ANNOUNCE THE LORD’S DECREE. “HE SAID TO ME: ‘YOU ARE MY SON! THIS VERY DAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER! 2:8 Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property. NET
Did David hear the decree before he was “born”?
Was the Apostle Paul an idiot for applying this scripture to Jesus after the resurrection? Heb 1:5 Heb 5:5.
Did Jesus hear the Father say this to him before he was so-called “born from the Fathers womb”?
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; “BUT HE THAT SAID UNTO HIM (JESUS), Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.:”. Heb 5:5
When did the Father say to Jesus “Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten (gennaō) thee”?
Jesus already existed when the Father said this to him didn't he Mike?
WJ
Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 17 2010,19:33) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 18 2010,05:13) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 18 2010,04:16) Hi All Mikes own words seem to change as he goes along.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 25 2010,22:22) I CANNOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO PROVING JESUS WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD PRIOR TO HIS COMING IN FLESH WITH ONLY THE FACT THAT HE WASN'T CALLED THAT UNTIL HE CAME IN THE FLESH. AND I WILLINGLY ADMIT THAT. THAT IS WHY I WON'T USE THIS INFO AS MY FOUNDATION – GET IT?
Why does he insist on trying to prove what he says he cannot prove?WJ
Typical Mikeboll flip flopping.In our debate he said that my view that the Father ordained the creation and that Jesus did the actual work “fits well with scripture.” Then he flip flopped in the next rebuttal after that.
Jack
I'm surprised you even want to draw attention to that debate! mike
Im Not!WJ
Hi all,
Calvin on the 'begotten' in Psalms 2:Quote On this account, we ought the more carefully to beware of wickedly refusing the edict which he publishes, Thou art my Son. David, indeed could with propriety be called the son of God on account of his royal dignity, just as we know that princes, because they are elevated above others, are called both gods and the sons of God. But here God, by the singularly high title with which he honors David, exalts him not only above all mortal men, but even above the angels. This the apostle (Hebrews 1:5) wisely and diligently considers when he tells us this language was never used with respect to any of the angels. David, individually considered, was inferior to the angels, but in so far as he represented the person of Christ, he is with very good reason preferred far above them. By the Son of God in this place we are therefore not to understand one son among many, but his only begotten Son, that he alone should have the pre-eminence both in heaven and on earth. When God says, I have begotten thee, it ought to be understood as referring to men’s understanding or knowledge of it; for David was begotten by God when the choice of him to be king was clearly manifested. The words this day, therefore, denote the time of this manifestation; for as soon as it became known that he was made king by divine appointment, he came forth as one who had been lately begotten of God, since so great an honor could not belong to a private person. The same explanation is to be given of the words as applied to Christ. He is not said to be begotten in any other sense than as the Father bore testimony to him as being his own Son. This passage, I am aware, has been explained by many as referring to the eternal generation of Christ; and from the words this day, they have reasoned ingeniously as if they denoted an eternal act without any relation to time. But Paul, who is a more faithful and a better qualified interpreter of this prophecy, in Acts 13:33, calls our attention to the manifestation of the heavenly glory of Christ of which I have spoken. This expression, to be begotten, does not therefore imply that he then began to be the Son of God, but that his being so was then made manifest to the world. Finally, this begetting ought not to be understood of the mutual love which exists between the Father and the Son; it only signifies that He who had been hidden from the beginning in the sacred bosom of the Father, and who afterwards had been obscurely shadowed forth under the law, was known to be the Son of God from the time when he came forth with authentic and evident marks of Sonship, according to what is said in John 1:14, “we have seen his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father.” We must, at the same time, however, bear in mind what Paul teaches, (Romans 1:4) that he was declared to be the Son of God with power when he rose again from the dead, and therefore what is here said has a principal allusion to the day of his resurrection. But to whatever particular time the allusion may be, the Holy Spirit here points out the solemn and proper time of his manifestation, just as he does afterwards in these words
“This is the day which the Lord hath made;
we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24)http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom08.viii.iii.html
I am enjoying learning about what Calvin thought.
This is VERY good too!
Here is Calvin comments on part of this passage;
34. And Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man? 35. And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God.Quote Therefore also the holy thing which shall be born This is a confirmation of the preceding clause: for the angel shows that Christ must not be born by ordinary generation,2929 “Christum opportere absque viri et mulieris coitu nasci.” that he may be holy, and that he may be the Son of God; that is, that in holiness and glory he may be high above all creatures, and may not hold an ordinary rank among men. Heretics, who imagine that he became the Son of God after his human generation, seize on the particle therefore as meaning that he would be called the Son of God, because he was conceived in a remarkable manner by the power of the Holy Spirit. But this is a false conclusion: for, though he was manifested to be the Son of God in the flesh, it does not follow that he was not the Word begotten of the Father before the ages. On the contrary, he who had been the Son of God in his eternal Godhead, appeared also as the Son of God in human flesh. This passage not only expresses a unity of person in Christ, but at the same time points out that, in clothing himself with human flesh, Christ is the Son of God. As the name, Son of God, belonged to the divine essence of Christ from the beginning, so now it is applied unitedly to both natures, because the secret and heavenly manner of generation has separated him from the ordinary rank of men. In other passages, indeed, with the view of asserting that he is truly man, he calls himself the Son of man, (John 5:27;) but the truth of his human nature is not inconsistent with his deriving peculiar honor above all others from his divine generation, having been conceived out of the ordinary way of nature by the Holy Spirit. This gives us good reason for growing confidence, that we may venture more freely to call God our Father, because his only Son, in order that we might have a Father in common with him, chose to be our brother. Quote (Lightenup @ July 17 2010,00:25) Hi all,
Here is what Calvin wrote about the Col 1 'firstborn':Quote The first-born of every creature. The reason of this appellation is immediately added — For in him all things are created, as he is, three verses afterwards, called the first-begotten from the dead, because by him we all rise again. Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having preceded all creatures in point of time, but because he was begotten by the Father, that they might be created by him, and that he might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things. It was then a foolish part that the Arians acted, who argued from this that he was, consequently, a creature. For what is here treated of is, not what he is in himself, but what he accomplishes in others.
found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom42.v.ii.iii.htmlI agree with Calvin here. Calvin knew that the Son was begotten before the ages.
I thought I would bump this for another look. One member missed the word “simply” in this quote and really distorted the truth here. I'm sure it was an accident though?Here is the part that has the word “simply” in it and that when it is left out, it gives a distorted impression of what Calvin said.
“Hence, he is not called the first-born, simply on the ground of his having preceded all creatures in point of time, but because he was begotten by the Father, that they might be created by him, and that he might be, as it were, the substance or foundation of all things.”
Christ was the firstborn in that He was the first of the actual sons of God to be born. He was born of Mary, begotten of the Father at that time. There is no Scriptural reference to the Word being created, but there is plenty of Scriptural reference to the Word being made flesh as the firstborn of the Father, who incidentally wasn't a father until Christ was born, hence Him (Jesus) being the firstborn.
Nick, you are a confused man. I don't know about you, but I was born into His kingdom on the 5th May 1978.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 18 2010,17:53) hi Oxy,
None of us was born of Mary.
We follow him into his rebirth at the Jordan.
We are born into His kingdom when we leave Egypt as represented by the Feast of Passover.The Feast of Pentecost is symbolic of us receiving the Holy Spirit.
The third major feast, the feast of Tabernacles is about us crossing the Jordan and entering into the Promised Land, ie, the Father's house, not to be confused with dying and going to Heaven, it is an earthly experience just as the previous two feasts are.
You see, each of the major feasts shows an encounter with God. Jesus came to reconcile us to the Father, the Holy Spirit was given to us to show us the way.
Quote (Oxy @ July 17 2010,23:39) Christ was the firstborn in that He was the first of the actual sons of God to be born. He was born of Mary, begotten of the Father at that time. There is no Scriptural reference to the Word being created, but there is plenty of Scriptural reference to the Word being made flesh as the firstborn of the Father, who incidentally wasn't a father until Christ was born, hence Him (Jesus) being the firstborn.
Hi Oxy,
Don't confuse the Son in the flesh with the firstborn Son that created the world. One was the root of David, the other the offspring of David.Quote (Lightenup @ July 14 2010,02:09) Quote (t8 @ July 13 2010,05:38) Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 13 2010,14:57) Quote (Nick Hassan @ July 13 2010,14:41) Hi MB,
Being in the form of God is not being God is it?
Not THE God Nick.But God is spirit, man is not. I take it to mean, “being in a spirit form, he emptied himself and became in a man's form”.
mike
Yes that is an obvious take. I tend to think this view is a contender.
t8,
Do you think that the angel's are also found in the form of God then?
If that form is spirit, then yes. But I am not sure it actually says anywhere that angels exist in the form of God, but it certainly says that they are spirits.Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,18:03) Hi Oxy,
Don't confuse the Son in the flesh with the firstborn Son that created the world. One was the root of David, the other the offspring of David.
In my experience, some here deny that there is any difference between root and offspring and even some Trinitarians do too, (which is weird). The Trinity Doctrine actually teaches that he was the son before coming in the flesh. The Trinitarians we find here, do not seem to concur with that part of their doctrine.Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,20:03) Quote (Oxy @ July 17 2010,23:39) Christ was the firstborn in that He was the first of the actual sons of God to be born. He was born of Mary, begotten of the Father at that time. There is no Scriptural reference to the Word being created, but there is plenty of Scriptural reference to the Word being made flesh as the firstborn of the Father, who incidentally wasn't a father until Christ was born, hence Him (Jesus) being the firstborn.
Hi Oxy,
Don't confuse the Son in the flesh with the firstborn Son that created the world. One was the root of David, the other the offspring of David.
Where is it written that the firstborn Son created the universe?I understand that the Word, whom created the universe preceeded David, but then that very same Word was made flesh and was called Jesus, thus the root of David became the offspring.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
