Quote (JustAskin @ July 20 2010,18:24)They are now lost.And even more curious,… They both did it at the same time.They are dependent on each other…They support each other blindly…They are their own support.Has WJ or KJ ever claimed the support of the Holy Spirit?WJ cannot even say that he 'Worships Jesus'!And KJ….believes only in himself…[Read more]

Quote (JustAskin @ July 20 2010,18:18)Has anyone noticed that WJ and KJ have abandoned the Trinity?JAAre we changing the subject?WJ

Quote (JustAskin @ July 20 2010,17:54)Is there a seconder for the 'forgiveness of Kangaroo Jack'?We forgive you!WJ

Quote (JustAskin @ July 20 2010,17:06)You know that you have just lost your argument concerning 'Sons of God' so you resort to smokescreening. It seems that you are the one smokescreening being that you do not have a valid scriptural argument to Jacks post.Jesus answered and said unto them, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures“, nor the power of…[Read more]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 20 2010,15:11)Mike's revision of history shows that he has lost the argument on the scripture front. So he must find what he thinks is “company” among the fathers. Kathi is now doing the same thing. She allowed Mike to bring her down to his category. I was totally floored when I saw Kathi trying to pass Calvin off as a…[Read more]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 20 2010,03:16)WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:Quote I don't have to prove it.Jesus own words speak for themselves!You are asserting that “All” means less.Prove it!WJKeith,Mike is really a piece of work isn't he? He says that “all” means “all” in Colossians 1:15. But in verse 23 the word “all” is an “exaggeration.” Now…[Read more]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 20 2010,01:15)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,19:51)Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 18 2010,23:42)let me calrify this again!POINT A- shouldnt even be a point, its a refutation of a point. ITs a point taht doesnt prove anything, but calrify what is valid.Whats valid is that the words monogenes was used for Jesus at…[Read more]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ July 19 2010,18:18)JustAskin said:Quote ALL SENTIENT CREATIONS of God are “SONS” of God.Chapter and verse please! My Bible says that God never called an angel His son (Heb. 1). “To which of the angels did he ever say, 'You are My son.' “? Therefore, not all sentient beings are sons of God. Back it up or s___…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 19 2010,20:37)The Word was with THE God, and the Word was god. ps   Please stop posting that untrue translation of John 1:1.MikeDo you see that little that was added to the text by the lonely little polytheistic corrupted version, the NWT!When you can show me another verse where the Translators put an in front of the…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,14:11)Keith,I don't think John was implying either a beginning or an always existing.I do think that John was implying that the word was a person and a separate person than the one He was with and that separate person was in the beginning.KathiNo one is denying that he is not the same person.The question is in…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,13:45)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,12:57)Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,12:28)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories?  If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,13:21)I do not think that is the intent but more like:”The Word was in the beginning, the word was with God and the word was God”The intent of John could not have been that he had a beginning or else why would he say “the Word was God”, the same Word “Theos” that he was with?It is purely inference that the Theos…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,12:28)Quote (WorshippingJesus @ July 19 2010,11:13)Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories?  If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.KathiBut you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:21)Hi WJ,First, why didn't you answer my points about Jesus being the SON of God instead of a different title?How do you think God expected us to understand “only begotten Son of God”?Like John described him as the “Monogenes” “Only Unique” Son of God.He is Unique because he was born of a virgin. No other i…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 19 2010,10:03)Hi all,Some on here think that if the Son of God actually was begotten as an offspring before the ages, that would make Him a lesser God.  Well, not lesser God by nature.  The Father would not have an offspring that was of an alien nature than Himself.  Perfect begats perfect after all.  One would cer…[Read more]

Quote (Lightenup @ July 18 2010,23:23)Keith, who is pawning off the Fathers as supporting their arian theories?  If you think that I am an arian, then you do not know what they believe.KathiBut you are implying they believed that Jesus had a beginning which is mesleading for they believed the “begotten Son” eternally existed.AriansThe Arian…[Read more]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:09)I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.You see what I mean SF?This is why I made the point. Now Mike continues to claim that the point is invalid!WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:09)I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.BTW, what are you waiting for? Here is your chance. Prove that Jesus had a beginning by using the word “Monogenes”.Where is your honesty here Mike? You say my point is valid but now you infer it isn't!WJ

Quote (mikeboll64 @ July 18 2010,22:09)I most certainly CAN AND WILL use monogenes to prove Jesus had a beginning when we get to that.What are you talking about Mike?You agreed that to say “Monogenes” applies to Jesus before he came in the flesh is merely conjecture.Now how are you going to use “Monogenes” to prove he had a beginning?WJ

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ July 18 2010,23:42)let me calrify this again!POINT A- shouldnt even be a point, its a refutation of a point. ITs a point taht doesnt prove anything, but calrify what is valid.Whats valid is that the words monogenes was used for Jesus at a specfic time while he was in Flesh. whats not valid, and only a conjecture is the idea…[Read more]