The son begotten when?

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Nov. 18 2010,17:47)

JA,
I believe that firstborn means first to be born, not first over all created beings. The Hebrews understood a firstborn as one that was the first of the Father's procreative strength.

Kathi

you like to change scriptures the way you like them to sound,

you are not alone many false teachers do that same thing,

Pierre

November 19, 2010 at 8:48 pm#225661

Participant

Lightenup,

The Spirit moved me to consider what you wrote and so I checked what the King James version translation states.

Palms 110:3(KJV) reads:

Quote

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

God then moved me to consider the English use of commas and the lack of a conjunction seems to clearly indicate this is not a list but rather a description of “the day of thy power”. That would mean it is not speaking of the Messiah being born. The colon indicates the following either explains, proves, or provides elements of what goes before. I believe it is providing elements of the description of “the day of thy power”. I had to look up the later as I have trouble with punctuation use. Feel welcome to check me and let me know if I made any errors.

November 19, 2010 at 8:51 pm#225662

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 20 2010,13:48)

Lightenup,

The Spirit moved me to consider what you wrote and so I checked what the King James version translation states.

Palms 110:3(KJV) reads:

Quote

Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Kerwin

God did not move you ,it was the grammar you have learn in school,your intellect,and you reasoning on those things

God does not work that way,

wake up

Pierre

November 19, 2010 at 11:27 pm#225676

Participant

Pierre,

God works in many ways. I can do nothing without God as in him I have my life and being and without him I have nothing.

November 19, 2010 at 11:37 pm#225678

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 20 2010,16:27)

Pierre,

God works in many ways. I can do nothing without God as in him I have my life and being and without him I have nothing.

Kerwin

we are free to move ,Kerwin,if you would do everything in God you would see the truth in Gods word ,what obviously you do not ,

so you can do what you can according to your understanding,
that would more closer to the truth of our situation.

no lies can be found in the righteous man,

Pierre

November 20, 2010 at 5:37 am#225715

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2010,06:22)

Lightenup,

In regards to your post that started this thread, I do not see a connection between the word “morning” in Psalms 110:3 and the “morning” in Genesis 1:5. How do you come to the conclusion there is?

If you read Psalms 110:2 you will see the words “The Lord will” as in the future. In the NIV version of scripture which I use verse 3 states “Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy majesty from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth. An alternative translation is “Your young men will come to you like the dew”. Offhand the alternative sounds better but I am not sure.

There may be a difference in translations or I may not understand the antique language of the version of scripture you chose to employ. Would you please let me know what version it is? Thank you. I also believe this is a good time to consult a lexicon and listen to alternative translations to see what holds best to the context of the passage and of scripture in general.

Where is day-star mentioned?

Hi Kerwin,
This verse in question is written in many ways I have discovered. The first post in this thread used the Septuagint and I recently found this version of that verse (it is found in chapter 109 instead of 110 in this version:

[Psalm 109] (110)
{109:1} A Psalm of David. The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
{109:2} The Lord will send forth the scepter of your virtue from Zion. Rule in the midst of your enemies.
{109:3} It is with you from the beginning, in the day of your virtue, in the splendor of the saints. From conception, before the light-bearer, I begot you.
{109:4} The Lord has sworn, and he will not repent: “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.”
{109:5} The Lord is at your right hand. He has broken kings in the day of his wrath.
{109:6} He will judge between the nations; he will fill up ruination. He will shatter heads in the land of the many.
{109:7} He will drink from the torrent on the way. Because of this, he will exalt the head.

from here:
http://www.sacredbible.org/catholic/OT-21_Psalms.htm#110

There are conflicting commentaries on what that verse means. I just wanted to offer up a possible relationship to the Light which was spoken about in day one which was 'born' before the first morning. I think that Light could be the begotten Son, begotten at that instant possibly. Light could be the firstborn of all creation. It is a theory that I feel God initiated within me and I even found Tertullian indicated that same thing.

November 20, 2010 at 7:58 am#225720

Participant

Pierre,

We do move freely in God but never the less we move in him, Acts 17:28. As Acts 17:28 is true it follows we can neither have life, movement or being outside of God.

And as to my knowledge skills being from God see Daniel 1:17. It is the Spirit of God that gives such gifts to each of us as God apportions.

I stated I was lead by the spirit as I was led to seek the truth of the matter in question and it is the Spirit of God that leads one to discover the truth of his word to use it for good.

Are you envious? You should not be as God apportions gifts to you as well.

November 20, 2010 at 8:05 am#225721

Participant

Lightenup,

It certainly looks like the experts debate over what the words of Psalms 110:3 are I would at most be one more voice is a bable of voices. Each of us would most likely be lead to select those translation which best fit what we already believe. Verses such as this because of the debate they cause are not the type to base our beliefs on.

November 20, 2010 at 11:50 am#225765

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 21 2010,00:58)

Pierre,

We do move freely in God but never the less we move in him, Acts 17:28. As Acts 17:28 is true it follows we can neither have life, movement or being outside of God.

And as to my knowledge skills being from God see Daniel 1:17. It is the Spirit of God that gives such gifts to each of us as God apportions.

I stated I was lead by the spirit as I was led to seek the truth of the matter in question and it is the Spirit of God that leads one to discover the truth of his word to use it for good.

Are you envious? You should not be as God apportions gifts to you as well.

kerwin

you are not Daniel,and you have many men's opinions what is not related to the spirit of God or Christ,

it is only wen you are filled with the truth of God that someone become guided by God.this is not your case,base on what can be seen

Pierre

November 20, 2010 at 6:05 pm#225796

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 20 2010,02:05)

Lightenup,

Hi Kerwin,
Yes, there are quite a variety of opinions but there was a true meaning to it and it is something to keep in mind anyway. Thanks for looking into it.

January 7, 2011 at 1:31 am#232225

Participant

A message to Istari, (JA) in response to something he said to me in the “Do Spirits have Bodies” thread.

Istari,
I never said God was a woman. In fact I said God was neither a man or a woman. That was a false conclusion. My point was to demonstrate that a parent is a parent even while the child is inside the mom. They do not just become a parent the moment the child is born. In fact you did agree the possibility of that by conceding the point. The way you talk now is that you missed the point altogether.

I was suggesting from that truth that the Father could always have been a Father before begetting the Son if the Son was always within Him (not in an 'incubating' way necessarily) before being begotten. The Father is self-sufficient to make us and save us if everything He needed to do that was always within Him, including His Son and Spirit. If He needed to create something/someone unlike Himself to help Him create and then save mankind, then the Father would not be self-sufficient but dependent on creation to be its own God.

January 7, 2011 at 2:19 am#232234

Participant

Kathi,
My conceding is not agreeing.
It is saying the argument is moot. I do not wish to pursue it.

But see, even as you try to justify yourself you again say, inside Mom. Kathi, God is not a woman AND Kathi, A Spirit does not Procreate. So you are wrong on both scores.

But my point is that you take a human concept and BACKWARDS apply it to God. Kathi, that is sinful.
You have brought God down to the level of a woman. That is incredibly sinful!

WJ suggested that God could be a worm! Kathi, look at WJ now. Kathi, see how WJ is now! Do you want to become like him?

Kathi, what you said doesn't even make sense. God incubates Jesus before he is born then begets him. Kathi, sheer codswallop nonsense.
All this is born out of sentimental view of the Son.
You want to think of Jesus as your own Son. Kathi, that is wrong wrong wrong!
Son of God is ANYONE who walks in the way of God.
But even so, Jesus is the pre-eminent Son because he first overcame sin.

In the beginning, God created many Sons, of whom Jesus was, again the preEminent in that he as more righteous than the rest. Scriptures does not go into detail about preJesus because God does not want anything he did to foreshadow what he was to do later, which was greater than anything he could have done before.

Kathi, some say that Jesus was God, is God, that's what this latter discussion was about that we got drawn away from.

WJ is turning into a lunatic from all his unscriptural postings attacking me for things someone else said to him and being devious and deceptive in response to anything put to him because he cannot answer using any kind of Trinity wordings or theory.
He has exhausted all avenues of twisted trinity truth and so flails out his guts to hide his embarrassment. I can't help but laugh at his futile posts that flings some nonsense in supposed response to a question and then immediately launches a violent attack in return.

To be honest, trinity has already fallen in this forum but Mikeboll64 can't help trying to raise it again so he can have a go at winning an argument using the points used to kill it off in the first place. It seems Mikeboll64 is lacking massively in selfworth and confidence.

As for SF. I can't see what his beef is. He neither knows anything nor has anything worthwhile to say. He and Mikeboll64 are like brothers in pokerdot pyjamas!
The silliest discussions in this forum is between those two. Remember the great debate where they set out to set out how to set out how the forum debate should be set out??
Whatever became of that! Ha ha, it never got past the opening point for 200 pages of discussions on how to get started with SF saying that he used to be a Debate Judge at his college!!!

January 7, 2011 at 2:25 am#232238

Participant

Quote (Istari @ Jan. 07 2011,19:19)

Kathi,
My conceding is not agreeing.
It is saying the argument is moot. I do not wish to pursue it.

But see, even as you try to justify yourself you again say, inside Mom. Kathi, God is not a woman AND Kathi, A Spirit does not Procreate. So you are wrong on both scores.

But my point is that you take a human concept and BACKWARDS apply it to God. Kathi, that is sinful.
You have brought God down to the level of a woman. That is incredibly sinful!

WJ suggested that God could be a worm! Kathi, look at WJ now. Kathi, see how WJ is now! Do you want to become like him?

Kathi, some say that Jesus was God, is God, that's what this latter discussion was about that we got drawn away from.

istari

how come you do not believe in God s son??
then you do not have a faith,not in the scriptures that is.

Pierre

January 7, 2011 at 2:44 am#232241

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (Istari @ Jan. 07 2011,12:19)

A Spirit does not Procreate.

Hi Istari,

How are you? Good, I hope.

You make this claim that “spirits don't procreate” very often on this site. I wonder if you realize “procreate” simply means “cause to exist”? Do you?

And now, knowing this information, do you not agree that God is a spirit and caused many to exist? Therefore, a spirit DID procreate.

And do you not know that angels mated with humans and caused the Nephilim to exist? Well, then there's yet another example of spirits procreating, right?

Quote (Istari @ Jan. 07 2011,12:19)

I'm sorry, what was the point you used to “kill off the trinity in this forum” again? Oh, now I remember. It was “the Holy Spirit does not have a name”. Dang! I can't understand why Keith is still a trinitarian after learning that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a name. I enjoy discussing the flawed logic of the trinity doctrine. It causes me to research many scriptures and gain a fuller understanding of them. But don't worry, I have never used your killer argument about the Holy Spirit not having a name, and never will.

Quote (Istari @ Jan. 07 2011,12:19)

As for SF. I can't see what his beef is. He neither knows anything nor has anything worthwhile to say. He and Mikeboll64 are like brothers in pokerdot pyjamas!

I don't personally wear jammies. But Dennison IS my brother and I love him, as I do you.

peace and love,
mike

January 7, 2011 at 2:48 am#232242

Participant

Oh and WJ can only discuss the Trinity because to discuss anything else may make him accidentally have to say something unTrinitylike by accident, or by truth.
WJ is running scared at the moment unable to defend Trinity.

January 7, 2011 at 2:54 am#232244

Participant

Ah mikeboll64,
The man of limited interlect but who thinks he is God.

Mikeboll64, has anyone taken anything from you lately? Oooh, like, ummm, moderator privileges?

So, you not a God afterall!! Must have been a shock to your system!

You should remove that sIgnature of yours now cos it ain't true anymore, eh?

January 7, 2011 at 2:58 am#232245

Participant

Istari,
You seem to get hung up on that the Father has to be a woman to have a literal son within Him and I think that God can have a literal Son within Him just by being God and does not have to be man or woman…those earthly ideas are limiting you here. So, we disagree. You don't believe in a literal Son of God but a person that earned that title by not sinning like the rest of the followers. Truth is, the Bible never says that He BECAME a son nor does it say that the Father BECAME a Father. It does say that He became a Son WITH POWER but before that He was the Son that had emptied Himself of whatever He had before flesh. It also says that the Son is the Firstborn and the only begotten Son. Procreated means the same as begotten. Procreated doesn't necessarily mean conceived. BTW.

January 7, 2011 at 3:01 am#232246