Originally posted by robbie carrobie[b]"..the only entity directly created by God,.."[b]
I did not say, only created, I stated, the only entity directly created by God, otherwise,
what do you think 'only begotten', means'? for clearly God had other sons, those being
the angels
You said that? There is absolutely no scriptural evidence for that.
You do not know what "only begotten" means robbie.
Originally posted by josephwthis is worse than reading the Dandy or the Beano, at least Desperate Dan makes one
Paedophiles are everywhere. One doesn't usually hear about it amongst the cults though because of the fear induced by the type of indoctrination employed.
laugh, this is enough to make you want to tear the bum right out of your trousers.
Originally posted by josephwok then, you tell me. I am listening or should i say, listening I am?
"..the only entity directly created by God,.."
You said that? There is absolutely no scriptural evidence for that.
You do not know what "only begotten" means robbie.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere does it sat in scripture that He was the only being directly created by
I did not say, only created, I stated, the only entity directly created by God, otherwise,
what do you think 'only begotten', means'? for clearly God had other sons, those being
the angels
God? I missed that verse.
Originally posted by RJHindsColossians 1:15, i have already posted it, the first-born of all creation. How did you
Where does it sat in scripture that He was the only being directly created by
God? I missed that verse.
miss it, were your eyes shut and your mouth open catching flies? what does the term
only begotten mean, if you know? for clearly there were other sons. Do tell.
sigh,
The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is
monogenes, from monos, meaning “only,” and ginomai, a root word
meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance. Hence, monogenes is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an
only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, by E. Robinson.
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, says:
“[Monogenes] means ‘of sole descent,’ i.e., without brothers or sisters.” This book
also states that at John 1:18; 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9, “the relation of Jesus is not
just compared to that of an only child to its father. It is the relation of the
only-begotten to the Father.”
Trinitarians claim that in the case of Jesus, “only-begotten” is not the same as the
dictionary definition of “begetting,” which is “to procreate as the father.” (Webster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary) They say that in Jesus’ case it means “the sense of
unoriginated relationship,” a sort of only son relationship without the begetting.
(Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words) Does that sound
logical to you? Can a man father a son without begetting him?
Furthermore, why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for “only-begotten”
(as Vine admits without any explanation) to describe the relationship of Isaac to
Abraham? Hebrews 11:17 speaks of Isaac as Abraham’s “only-begotten son.” There
can be no question that in Isaac’s case, he was only-begotten in the normal sense,
not equal in time or position to his father.
When one considers that Jesus was not the only spirit son of God created in heaven,
it becomes evident why the term “only-begotten Son” was used in his case.
Countless other created spirit beings, angels, are also called “sons of God,” in the
same sense that Adam was, because their life-force originated with Jehovah God,
the Fountain, or Source, of life. (Job 38:7; Psalm 36:9; Luke 3:38) But these were
all created through the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten
by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell you always knew that Im not in favour of the Trinity doctrine.
Yes indeed, we agree on something. One Pharisees word for another, same same!
I apply the same rule when establishing basic doctrine. It must be straight from the mouth of Christ or someone he sent to preach on his behalf .. Paul and others. Certainly as discussed with Jaywill, I cannot envision a unforgiving Christ who will condemn someone for not getting all the doctrines perfectly right. Christ knows your heart and mind and will judged how well you/we have tried to folllow his example.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd Jesus WAS born was he not? The question is, was "only begotten" referring to the earthly birth or was it before? This is the question. Those who believe in the trinity would say it only refers to the earthly birth as where JW's would say it is a heavenly birth.
sigh,
The basic Greek word for “only-begotten” used for Jesus and Isaac is
monogenes, from monos, meaning “only,” and ginomai, a root word
meaning “to generate,” “to become (come into being),” states Strong’s Exhaustive
Concordance. Hence, monogenes is defined as: “Only born, only begotten, i.e. an
only child.”—A Greek and English Lexicon ...[text shortened]... gh the “only-begotten Son,” who was the only one directly begotten
by God.—Colossians 1:15-17.
As for myself, if a being created me, then that being is my God. It is only common sense.
I still would like to know if the archangel Michael is Jesus in your opinion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have already proven that "[name], I am" is grammatically correct.
maybe you should feel your bum to bring you back to reality. We do not say, 'RJH, I
am', in English, we say, 'I am RJH'. Perhaps you should go to your local primary school
and they will verify this for you. Your wilful ignorance continues.
Originally posted by whodey
And Jesus WAS born was he not? The question is, was "only begotten" referring to the earthly birth or was it before? This is the question. Those who believe in the trinity would say it only refers to the earthly birth as where JW's would say it is a heavenly birth.
As for myself, if a being created me, then that being is my God. It is only common sense.
I still would like to know if the archangel Michael is Jesus in your opinion.
And Jesus WAS born was he not? The question is, was "only begotten" referring to the earthly birth or was it before? This is the question. Those who believe in the trinity would say it only refers to the earthly birth as where JW's would say it is a heavenly birth.
As for myself, if a being created me, then that being is my God. It is only common sense.
I still would like to know if the archangel Michael is Jesus in your opinion.
Speaking for myself, "only begotten Son" refers to the Son of God in eternity even before His incarnation. That is an eternally "begotten Son".
As the Word was God (John 1:1) He is God Himself.
As the Word was "with God" (John 1:1) He is an only begotten Son of God.
"Firstborn" Son , refers to His being resurrected.
But the "Firstborn of all creation" refers to the Son of God incarnated.
Originally posted by tomtom232you have proven nothing except you dont know what you are talking about. The phrase
I have already proven that "[name], I am" is grammatically correct.
is a Greek idiomatic phrase not two verbs in isolation. What this means is that it takes
on a greater grammatical construct than two verbs in isolation. Why you fail to either
understand this, take it into account or make references to it in your explanations, I
cannot say.
Originally posted by whodeythe statement is qualified by the term firstborn of all creation, that is before, in time, to
And Jesus WAS born was he not? The question is, was "only begotten" referring to the earthly birth or was it before? This is the question. Those who believe in the trinity would say it only refers to the earthly birth as where JW's would say it is a heavenly birth.
As for myself, if a being created me, then that being is my God. It is only common sense.
I still would like to know if the archangel Michael is Jesus in your opinion.
all other created entities and we know this because the Greek term, first born is a
compound of two Greek words, protos (first) and tikto (bring forth, born, give birth).
Thus there is a reference to time, that before all creation Christ was the first to be
born. This can be established from the text. The snake trinitarians who have lying
asserted that Christ claims that he is Almighty God incarnate (of which they have
produced nada evidence) state that this is with reference to some preemminent
quality. Of course this is based not on an understanding of the text but their stupid
dogma and preconceived ideas to the nature of the Christ.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is B.S.
you have proven nothing except you dont know what you are talking about. The phrase
is a Greek idiomatic phrase not two verbs in isolation. What this means is that it takes
on a greater grammatical construct than two verbs in isolation. Why you fail to either
understand this, take it into account or make references to it in your explanations, I
cannot say.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt also says He was "firstborn" of the dead. That does not mean He was
the statement is qualified by the term firstborn of all creation, that is before, in time, to
all other created entities and we know this because the Greek term, first born is a
compound of two Greek words, protos (first) and tikto (bring forth, born, give birth).
Thus there is a reference to time, that before all creation Christ was the first ...[text shortened]... tanding of the text but their stupid
dogma and preconceived ideas to the nature of the Christ.
"first-created" of the dead does it? THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Idiot.
You don't know Greek or English very well. Go back to school.