Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What makes a son, a son?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 9:17:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Hi

Is the only way to have a son to procreate?

There are certainly those who say so, but they come up against a logical conundrum. Especially when dealing with scripture.

The secular version of that conundrum is adoption.

My legal father was not my father by conception. He did not procreate me. I was created his son by legal process.

What about John 1:14?
14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.

That calls the Word Jehovah's only begotten son.

However many say that it applies to Christ because Christ was begotten and the Word could not have been, since God cannot procreate, only create.

The problem there becomes, how do they deal with:

Reference Bible Lu 3:38
38 [son] of EE7;nosh,+
[son] of Seth,+
[son] of Adam,+
[son] of God.

King James Version Lu 3:38
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

American Standard Version Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Byington Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth the son of Adam the son of God.

OK Enoch and Seth were procreated, but Adam?

Hardly.

And yet he is still "son of God".

Or how about Job 1:6
6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.

King James Version Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

American Standard Version Job 1:6
6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Byington Job 1:6
6* And one day the angels came to present themselves before Jehovah, and the Adversary too came among them.

There scripture is describing the Angels as "sons of God". Were they procreated?

Come to that was the flesh of Jesus created or procreated?

Since procreation requires 2 human participants, he can only have been created, albeit in Mary's womb.

None of the above were procreated.

None of the spirit beings were born either.

How about begotten?

Many will say that though the dictionary say begotten can be either procreated or produced, produced only applies to manufactured things, and yt I have never seen the dictionary that specifies that as being the case. If anyone can produce one please do.

Interestingly history often speaks of royalty as "producing" heirs.

So there really is no reason other than prejudice to restrict Begetting to procreation, and if you do that even rules out the flesh of Jesus.

No, the Word was Jehovah's begotten son.

But how was he Jehovah's only begotten son, when Jehovah has so many?

There can only be one logical way. He was, as Revelation 3:14 suggests, the only one produced, begotten, by Jehovah entirely on his own, and, as Colossians 1:13 points out he was then used in the creation of everything that was created "through him and for him".

That alone destroyed the Trinity teaching utterly.

Of course there is always the simple, logical fact that a son is one generation down from a father, and Christ is no exception to that rule either. That is the whole reason for them being called father and son, they are 1 generation apart.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 12:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 11:28:25 AM, tarantula wrote:
Sexual intercourse, or in modern times IVF, that is how you procreate!

Exactly my point, plus that beget doesn't always mean procreate, it can mean produce.

One interesting (to me anyway) factor I forgot to include is that in scripture it is only the males who are listed as "begetting", the females therefore presumable simply produce.

A woman can produce but it takes two to procreate, even if one is nothing more than an unknown donor. However, even a donor has to have something to donate.

Jehovah, as a spirit being, does not, other than the spirit that gives all things life.
tarantula
Posts: 858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 12:24:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Jesus was the result of sexual intercourse with Joseph or another guy, nothing else is remotely credible!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 1:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 12:24:58 PM, tarantula wrote:
Jesus was the result of sexual intercourse with Joseph or another guy, nothing else is remotely credible!

In your limited knowledge that is.

Jesus was not the first virgin birth in the Bible (Isaiah 7:14), and since that was to be a sign for King Ahaz, it had to have happened for it to do what it was supposed to do.
tarantula
Posts: 858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 3:33:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 1:06:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:24:58 PM, tarantula wrote:
Jesus was the result of sexual intercourse with Joseph or another guy, nothing else is remotely credible!

In your limited knowledge that is.

Jesus was not the first virgin birth in the Bible (Isaiah 7:14), and since that was to be a sign for King Ahaz, it had to have happened for it to do what it was supposed to do.

Virgin births don't happen in humans, that is a fable not reality!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 4:54:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 3:33:16 PM, tarantula wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:06:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:24:58 PM, tarantula wrote:
Jesus was the result of sexual intercourse with Joseph or another guy, nothing else is remotely credible!

In your limited knowledge that is.

Jesus was not the first virgin birth in the Bible (Isaiah 7:14), and since that was to be a sign for King Ahaz, it had to have happened for it to do what it was supposed to do.

Virgin births don't happen in humans, that is a fable not reality!

According to your ignorance of the ability of our creator to make whatever he wants to happen, happen.
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:23:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 9:17:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Hi

Is the only way to have a son to procreate?

There are certainly those who say so, but they come up against a logical conundrum. Especially when dealing with scripture.

The secular version of that conundrum is adoption.

My legal father was not my father by conception. He did not procreate me. I was created his son by legal process.

What about John 1:14?
14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.

That calls the Word Jehovah's only begotten son.

However many say that it applies to Christ because Christ was begotten and the Word could not have been, since God cannot procreate, only create.

The problem there becomes, how do they deal with:

Reference Bible Lu 3:38
38 [son] of EE7;nosh,+
[son] of Seth,+
[son] of Adam,+
[son] of God.

King James Version Lu 3:38
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

American Standard Version Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Byington Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth the son of Adam the son of God.

OK Enoch and Seth were procreated, but Adam?

Hardly.

And yet he is still "son of God".

Or how about Job 1:6
6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.

King James Version Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

American Standard Version Job 1:6
6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Byington Job 1:6
6* And one day the angels came to present themselves before Jehovah, and the Adversary too came among them.

There scripture is describing the Angels as "sons of God". Were they procreated?

Come to that was the flesh of Jesus created or procreated?

Since procreation requires 2 human participants, he can only have been created, albeit in Mary's womb.

None of the above were procreated.

None of the spirit beings were born either.

How about begotten?

Many will say that though the dictionary say begotten can be either procreated or produced, produced only applies to manufactured things, and yt I have never seen the dictionary that specifies that as being the case. If anyone can produce one please do.

Interestingly history often speaks of royalty as "producing" heirs.

So there really is no reason other than prejudice to restrict Begetting to procreation, and if you do that even rules out the flesh of Jesus.

No, the Word was Jehovah's begotten son.

But how was he Jehovah's only begotten son, when Jehovah has so many?

There can only be one logical way. He was, as Revelation 3:14 suggests, the only one produced, begotten, by Jehovah entirely on his own, and, as Colossians 1:13 points out he was then used in the creation of everything that was created "through him and for him".

That alone destroyed the Trinity teaching utterly.

Of course there is always the simple, logical fact that a son is one generation down from a father, and Christ is no exception to that rule either. That is the whole reason for them being called father and son, they are 1 generation apart.
How long is a divine generation?
Is yahweh still shagging jesus' mother or michaels or both?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2016 5:30:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 9:17:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Hi

Is the only way to have a son to procreate?

There are certainly those who say so, but they come up against a logical conundrum. Especially when dealing with scripture.

The secular version of that conundrum is adoption.

My legal father was not my father by conception. He did not procreate me. I was created his son by legal process.

What about John 1:14?
14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.

That calls the Word Jehovah's only begotten son.

However many say that it applies to Christ because Christ was begotten and the Word could not have been, since God cannot procreate, only create.

The problem there becomes, how do they deal with:

Reference Bible Lu 3:38
38 [son] of EE7;nosh,+
[son] of Seth,+
[son] of Adam,+
[son] of God.

King James Version Lu 3:38
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

American Standard Version Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Byington Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth the son of Adam the son of God.

OK Enoch and Seth were procreated, but Adam?

Hardly.

And yet he is still "son of God".

Or how about Job 1:6
6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.

King James Version Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

American Standard Version Job 1:6
6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Byington Job 1:6
6* And one day the angels came to present themselves before Jehovah, and the Adversary too came among them.

There scripture is describing the Angels as "sons of God". Were they procreated?

Come to that was the flesh of Jesus created or procreated?

Since procreation requires 2 human participants, he can only have been created, albeit in Mary's womb.

None of the above were procreated.

None of the spirit beings were born either.

How about begotten?

Many will say that though the dictionary say begotten can be either procreated or produced, produced only applies to manufactured things, and yt I have never seen the dictionary that specifies that as being the case. If anyone can produce one please do.

Interestingly history often speaks of royalty as "producing" heirs.

So there really is no reason other than prejudice to restrict Begetting to procreation, and if you do that even rules out the flesh of Jesus.

No, the Word was Jehovah's begotten son.

But how was he Jehovah's only begotten son, when Jehovah has so many?

There can only be one logical way. He was, as Revelation 3:14 suggests, the only one produced, begotten, by Jehovah entirely on his own, and, as Colossians 1:13 points out he was then used in the creation of everything that was created "through him and for him".

That alone destroyed the Trinity teaching utterly.

Of course there is always the simple, logical fact that a son is one generation down from a father, and Christ is no exception to that rule either. That is the whole reason for them being called father and son, they are 1 generation apart.

You are not the son of your current father, you are a step child That is why he is called your stepfather. If you were born out of wedlock you would be called a bastard. I will now have to call you a perverted bastard.

Because Michael was an angel he was created like all the other Angels. There is no spiritual DNA link between God and Michael. But there is a link between Mary and God which qualifies Jesus as the son of God. I hope you get it now you perverted bastard!!!
tarantula
Posts: 858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 7:26:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 4:54:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 3:33:16 PM, tarantula wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:06:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:24:58 PM, tarantula wrote:
Jesus was the result of sexual intercourse with Joseph or another guy, nothing else is remotely credible!

In your limited knowledge that is.

Jesus was not the first virgin birth in the Bible (Isaiah 7:14), and since that was to be a sign for King Ahaz, it had to have happened for it to do what it was supposed to do.

Virgin births don't happen in humans, that is a fable not reality!

According to your ignorance of the ability of our creator to make whatever he wants to happen, happen.

You can't offer any evidence to prove it exists. However, as I have said before, if it does exist we should be trying to exterminate it if it is as bad as the Bible indicates it is.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 10:17:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 7:26:40 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 5/12/2016 4:54:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 3:33:16 PM, tarantula wrote:
At 5/12/2016 1:06:12 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:24:58 PM, tarantula wrote:
Jesus was the result of sexual intercourse with Joseph or another guy, nothing else is remotely credible!

In your limited knowledge that is.

Jesus was not the first virgin birth in the Bible (Isaiah 7:14), and since that was to be a sign for King Ahaz, it had to have happened for it to do what it was supposed to do.

Virgin births don't happen in humans, that is a fable not reality!

According to your ignorance of the ability of our creator to make whatever he wants to happen, happen.

You can't offer any evidence to prove it exists. However, as I have said before, if it does exist we should be trying to exterminate it if it is as bad as the Bible indicates it is.

I can offer the whole of creation which proves it.

I can offer a comparison between prophecy and history which proves it, even today's history.

But what is the point when you refuse to recognise the evidence for what it truly is?

I can take you to the water of truth, I cannot force you to drink it if you do not wish to.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 10:25:37 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 5:30:41 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/12/2016 9:17:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Hi

Is the only way to have a son to procreate?

There are certainly those who say so, but they come up against a logical conundrum. Especially when dealing with scripture.

The secular version of that conundrum is adoption.

My legal father was not my father by conception. He did not procreate me. I was created his son by legal process.

What about John 1:14?
14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.

That calls the Word Jehovah's only begotten son.

However many say that it applies to Christ because Christ was begotten and the Word could not have been, since God cannot procreate, only create.

The problem there becomes, how do they deal with:

Reference Bible Lu 3:38
38 [son] of EE7;nosh,+
[son] of Seth,+
[son] of Adam,+
[son] of God.

King James Version Lu 3:38
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

American Standard Version Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Byington Lu 3:38
38 the son of Enosh the son of Seth the son of Adam the son of God.

OK Enoch and Seth were procreated, but Adam?

Hardly.

And yet he is still "son of God".

Or how about Job 1:6
6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.

King James Version Job 1:6
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

American Standard Version Job 1:6
6 Now it came to pass on the day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah, that Satan also came among them.

Byington Job 1:6
6* And one day the angels came to present themselves before Jehovah, and the Adversary too came among them.

There scripture is describing the Angels as "sons of God". Were they procreated?

Come to that was the flesh of Jesus created or procreated?

Since procreation requires 2 human participants, he can only have been created, albeit in Mary's womb.

None of the above were procreated.

None of the spirit beings were born either.

How about begotten?

Many will say that though the dictionary say begotten can be either procreated or produced, produced only applies to manufactured things, and yt I have never seen the dictionary that specifies that as being the case. If anyone can produce one please do.

Interestingly history often speaks of royalty as "producing" heirs.

So there really is no reason other than prejudice to restrict Begetting to procreation, and if you do that even rules out the flesh of Jesus.

No, the Word was Jehovah's begotten son.

But how was he Jehovah's only begotten son, when Jehovah has so many?

There can only be one logical way. He was, as Revelation 3:14 suggests, the only one produced, begotten, by Jehovah entirely on his own, and, as Colossians 1:13 points out he was then used in the creation of everything that was created "through him and for him".

That alone destroyed the Trinity teaching utterly.

Of course there is always the simple, logical fact that a son is one generation down from a father, and Christ is no exception to that rule either. That is the whole reason for them being called father and son, they are 1 generation apart.

You are not the son of your current father, you are a step child That is why he is called your stepfather. If you were born out of wedlock you would be called a bastard. I will now have to call you a perverted bastard.

No, I am not a stepchild, I am a legally adopted child, there is a world of difference, between the two.


Because Michael was an angel he was created like all the other Angels. There is no spiritual DNA link between God and Michael. But there is a link between Mary and God which qualifies Jesus as the son of God. I hope you get it now you perverted bastard!!!

Michael was not an Angel, he was the Archangel, the only begotten (created) son of God, (John 1:14; John 3:16) the only one Jehovah created all on his own without the aid of that son, through whom, and for whom, he created everything else, including all the Angels. Colossians 1:13-16
13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

Al other things including the Angels, the universe, everything except himself.

He was the one Jehovah sent to occupy the specially created flesh of Jesus (John 1:14; John 3:16).

You can twist it how you like, but Michael, AKA the Word, was unique amongst created beings in that he was the only one Jehovah created all by himself (Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:13-16).
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 3:12:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/12/2016 12:16:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:28:25 AM, tarantula wrote:
Sexual intercourse, or in modern times IVF, that is how you procreate!

Exactly my point, plus that beget doesn't always mean procreate, it can mean produce.

Beget means "to sire" when dealing with animate beings. Beget can mean "to produce or create" when dealing with the inanimate such as paintings, feelings, and the like.

The definition, copied directly from Merriam-Webster:

1. to cause (something) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
2. to become the father of (someone), to procreate as the father, sire

I didn't alter it. Your basic problem is that you take the definition as it applied to inanimate objects (somethings) and try to twist it into applying to animate beings (someones).
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Harikrish
Posts: 11,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 4:09:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 10:25:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 5:30:41 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 5/12/2016 9:17:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

No, the Word was Jehovah's begotten son.

But how was he Jehovah's only begotten son, when Jehovah has so many?

There can only be one logical way. He was, as Revelation 3:14 suggests, the only one produced, begotten, by Jehovah entirely on his own, and, as Colossians 1:13 points out he was then used in the creation of everything that was created "through him and for him".

That alone destroyed the Trinity teaching utterly.

Of course there is always the simple, logical fact that a son is one generation down from a father, and Christ is no exception to that rule either. That is the whole reason for them being called father and son, they are 1 generation apart.

You are not the son of your current father, you are a step child That is why he is called your stepfather. If you were born out of wedlock you would be called a bastard. I will now have to call you a perverted bastard.

No, I am not a stepchild, I am a legally adopted child, there is a world of difference, between the two.

You did not mention your mother so it was assumed your mother remarried and you became a step child to him as much as he became your step father. But it appears you were abandoned by your real parents and given up for adoption. That makes you a rejected perverted bastard.
Recap.
You were not even good or worthy for your biological parents who gave you up for adoption.
You were not worthy or good enough for your children or 4 wives who dumped you.
You were not worthy or good enough for the Jehovah's Witnesses who disfellowshipped and shunned you. You remain expelled after 11-15 years with little hope of reinstatement.
That of a lot of rejections for one lifetime.
Any wonder Jehovah gave you a dog as a companion because no human wants to be near you.
As you sow so shall you reap. You will be judged by the fruit you bear which so far has only been rejection after rejection.

Man, I am beginning to feel sorry for you and for myself. I will never get the time back that I wasted on a total reject like you. Lol!!!

Because Michael was an angel he was created like all the other Angels. There is no spiritual DNA link between God and Michael. But there is a link between Mary and God which qualifies Jesus as the son of God. I hope you get it now you perverted bastard!!!

Michael was not an Angel, he was the Archangel, the only begotten (created) son of God, (John 1:14; John 3:16) the only one Jehovah created all on his own without the aid of that son, through whom, and for whom, he created everything else, including all the Angels. Colossians 1:13-16
An archangel is an angel with a title of chief angel, you retard.
Even the Watchtower made it clear Michael,was an angel and like all Angels he too had to worship Jesus.

First president of the Watchtower, Charles Taze Russell wrote:

"Hence it is said, "Let all the angels of God worship him"; [that must include Michael, the chief angel, hence Michael is not the Son of God] and the reason is, because he has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they." (brackets theirs).;"The Watchtower", (Nov. 1879), p. 4"


Al other things including the Angels, the universe, everything except himself.

He was the one Jehovah sent to occupy the specially created flesh of Jesus (John 1:14; John 3:16).

You can twist it how you like, but Michael, AKA the Word, was unique amongst created beings in that he was the only one Jehovah created all by himself (Revelation 3:14; Colossians 1:13-16).
Learn to read you regard.
Paul starts out with thank God the father of our Lord Jesus Christ not angel Michael.
Colossians 1:3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,

Paul continues to describe Jesus Christ.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

And John 1 in every Bibke translation said the Word was God not 'a' god as edited in the NWT.
Read the list of translations you retard. Everyone of them says tbe word was God and God became flesh in Jesus, none reference angel Michael. John 1:14.

Parallel Verses
New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Study Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

International Standard Version
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

NET Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
In the origin The Word had been existing and That Word had been existing with God and That Word was himself God.

GOD'S WORD" Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

New American Standard 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Jubilee Bible 2000
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

King James 2000 Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Darby Bible Translation
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Webster's Bible Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Weymouth New Testament
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

World English Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 5:30:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 3:12:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:16:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:28:25 AM, tarantula wrote:
Sexual intercourse, or in modern times IVF, that is how you procreate!

Exactly my point, plus that beget doesn't always mean procreate, it can mean produce.

Beget means "to sire" when dealing with animate beings. Beget can mean "to produce or create" when dealing with the inanimate such as paintings, feelings, and the like.

The definition, copied directly from Merriam-Webster:

1. to cause (something) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
2. to become the father of (someone), to procreate as the father, sire

I didn't alter it. Your basic problem is that you take the definition as it applied to inanimate objects (somethings) and try to twist it into applying to animate beings (someones).

I do not disagree with either of those definitions.

What you refuse to accept is that the only way Jehovah has of having a son is by producing him, he cannot procreate.

All of Jehovah's sons were produced by creation, including the flesh of Jesus which was a special creation in Mary's womb, no male was involved and therefore no procreation took place.

That is why Matthew says that Mary was found to be pregnant by holy spirit, not by God, because holy spirit is what Jehovah has always used in creating everything, whether directly or through his son, and possibly also through the Angels after they were created.

However Jesus was not the first son he produced.

Nor was he the one that Jehovah produced without the aid of anyone else.

That is why, as John 1:14 says, it was Jehovah's only begotten, produced, son who came to earth to become incarnate in Jesus flesh.

The Word was Jehovah's only begotten son because he was the only one produced, begotten, by Jehovah alone, with no assistance from any. Everything else was, as scripture tells us, produced through and for that son.

The whole of creation was a gift to Jehovah's only begotten son!

King James Version Col 1:16
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

American Standard Version Col 1:16
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Byington Col 1:16
16* because in him everything was created in the heavens and on earth, the visible and the invisible, be it thrones or lordships or governments or dominions"everything has been created through him and to come to him,
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 5:47:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 5:30:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:12:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:16:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:28:25 AM, tarantula wrote:
Sexual intercourse, or in modern times IVF, that is how you procreate!

Exactly my point, plus that beget doesn't always mean procreate, it can mean produce.

Beget means "to sire" when dealing with animate beings. Beget can mean "to produce or create" when dealing with the inanimate such as paintings, feelings, and the like.

The definition, copied directly from Merriam-Webster:

1. to cause (something) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
2. to become the father of (someone), to procreate as the father, sire

I didn't alter it. Your basic problem is that you take the definition as it applied to inanimate objects (somethings) and try to twist it into applying to animate beings (someones).

I do not disagree with either of those definitions.

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 5:47:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 5:30:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:12:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:16:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:28:25 AM, tarantula wrote:
Sexual intercourse, or in modern times IVF, that is how you procreate!

Exactly my point, plus that beget doesn't always mean procreate, it can mean produce.

Beget means "to sire" when dealing with animate beings. Beget can mean "to produce or create" when dealing with the inanimate such as paintings, feelings, and the like.

The definition, copied directly from Merriam-Webster:

1. to cause (something) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
2. to become the father of (someone), to procreate as the father, sire

I didn't alter it. Your basic problem is that you take the definition as it applied to inanimate objects (somethings) and try to twist it into applying to animate beings (someones).

I do not disagree with either of those definitions.

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

I explained that as part of my reply, which you have chosen to censor, as not doubt you will censor this reply..

In the case of both the flesh of Christ and the spirit that became incarnate in teat flesh, only the word "produced" can apply since no procreation was involved in either case.

The fact that the flesh of Jesus was created in Mary's womb does not alter that fact, since procreation cannot take place without the sperm from a male being introduced.

The other factor that controls that definition is the fact that the flesh of Jesus had to be sin free, an exact representation of the flesh of Adam, a second Adam in fact.

Since that could not be formed by procreation it could only have come about by creation inside Mary's womb.

That is not a third definition, it is simply the use of the appropriate one, and there is nothing in definition 1 which precludes that use.

The above also adds to the evidence proving that the one who was the "only begotten son" of God was indeed, as John 1:14 states, the word, the only one Jehovah created all alone, without the assistance of any other.

Hence the son of God is, as scripture explains and as pure logic states a generation lower than his father in the "family tree" and all other sons are a generation lower still since they were created through that son as Colossians 1:16 tells us.

You insist on staying in your error Anna but scripture bets you every time.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 5:47:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 5:30:51 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 3:12:34 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/12/2016 12:16:00 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/12/2016 11:28:25 AM, tarantula wrote:
Sexual intercourse, or in modern times IVF, that is how you procreate!

Exactly my point, plus that beget doesn't always mean procreate, it can mean produce.

Beget means "to sire" when dealing with animate beings. Beget can mean "to produce or create" when dealing with the inanimate such as paintings, feelings, and the like.

The definition, copied directly from Merriam-Webster:

1. to cause (something) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
2. to become the father of (someone), to procreate as the father, sire

I didn't alter it. Your basic problem is that you take the definition as it applied to inanimate objects (somethings) and try to twist it into applying to animate beings (someones).

I do not disagree with either of those definitions.

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

I explained that as part of my reply, which you have chosen to censor, as not doubt you will censor this reply..

In the case of both the flesh of Christ and the spirit that became incarnate in teat flesh, only the word "produced" can apply since no procreation was involved in either case.

The fact that the flesh of Jesus was created in Mary's womb does not alter that fact, since procreation cannot take place without the sperm from a male being introduced.

The other factor that controls that definition is the fact that the flesh of Jesus had to be sin free, an exact representation of the flesh of Adam, a second Adam in fact.

Since that could not be formed by procreation it could only have come about by creation inside Mary's womb.

That is not a third definition, it is simply the use of the appropriate one, and there is nothing in definition 1 which precludes that use.

The above also adds to the evidence proving that the one who was the "only begotten son" of God was indeed, as John 1:14 states, the word, the only one Jehovah created all alone, without the assistance of any other.

Hence the son of God is, as scripture explains and as pure logic states a generation lower than his father in the "family tree" and all other sons are a generation lower still since they were created through that son as Colossians 1:16 tells us.

You insist on staying in your error Anna but scripture bets you every time.

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

Of course, as usual you don;t like it because scripture proves you wrong - again.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

I am not going to repeat myself again.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 7:31:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.

No I do not, I have explained which one I accept and why.

You can wriggle all you like, and deny the truth of that all you like, but it remains true.

I know you didn't ask for an explanation but you always get one as you well know.

I don;t walk into your traps and you know it by now, I don;t know why you bother trying any more.

But then again I don't understand why you appear so incapable of learning anyway, unless you already think you know it all, which would be a fatal mistake, because only Jehovah knows it all, and he tells us only as and when he wants us to know.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 7:40:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 7:31:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.

No I do not, I have explained which one I accept and why.

You can wriggle all you like, and deny the truth of that all you like, but it remains true.

I know you didn't ask for an explanation but you always get one as you well know.

Oh, I don't mind the "explanation" - as long as the question is answered first. The trouble is that you launch into your "explanation" without ever answering the question.

Hence, the question IS:

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

All you have to type is #1 or #2. It's that simple.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 8:05:57 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 7:40:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:31:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.

No I do not, I have explained which one I accept and why.

You can wriggle all you like, and deny the truth of that all you like, but it remains true.

I know you didn't ask for an explanation but you always get one as you well know.

Oh, I don't mind the "explanation" - as long as the question is answered first. The trouble is that you launch into your "explanation" without ever answering the question.

Except that the explanation is an integral part of the answer and no answer is complete without it.


Hence, the question IS:

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

All you have to type is #1 or #2. It's that simple.

No Anna it is even simpler than that, you only have to read my answer it is in there.

Or do you have that much trouble with comprehension?
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 8:13:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:05:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:40:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:31:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.

No I do not, I have explained which one I accept and why.

You can wriggle all you like, and deny the truth of that all you like, but it remains true.

I know you didn't ask for an explanation but you always get one as you well know.

Oh, I don't mind the "explanation" - as long as the question is answered first. The trouble is that you launch into your "explanation" without ever answering the question.

Except that the explanation is an integral part of the answer and no answer is complete without it.


Hence, the question IS:

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

All you have to type is #1 or #2. It's that simple.

No Anna it is even simpler than that, you only have to read my answer it is in there.

Or do you have that much trouble with comprehension?

Just couldn't type #1 or #2, could you? Why don't you direct us to the Post # in which you "answered" the question. I say you can't do that, either.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 9:30:31 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:05:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:40:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:31:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.

No I do not, I have explained which one I accept and why.

You can wriggle all you like, and deny the truth of that all you like, but it remains true.

I know you didn't ask for an explanation but you always get one as you well know.

Oh, I don't mind the "explanation" - as long as the question is answered first. The trouble is that you launch into your "explanation" without ever answering the question.

Except that the explanation is an integral part of the answer and no answer is complete without it.


Hence, the question IS:

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

All you have to type is #1 or #2. It's that simple.

No Anna it is even simpler than that, you only have to read my answer it is in there.
Why do you keep lying madman, you haven't answered the question as everybody can see.
Pathological liar.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 2:57:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 9:30:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:05:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:40:34 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2016 7:31:18 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:50:03 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:44:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:50:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 8:27:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:58:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:53:55 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

I didn't ask for a bunch of your usual babbling. I asked a simple question:

Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know.

All you've got to say is, "I apply definition #1 to Jesus Christ" or "I apply definition #2 to Jesus Christ." Simply as, as you say.

No All I have to say is what I already have said, none of which was babbling, and all of which answered your question

You never once answered the question - and you're not going to. I asked,

"Really? Then would you be so kind as to inform us WHICH ONE you apply to Jesus Christ. Surely you can't be so ... well ... stupid ... as to try to apply bits and pieces of both and invent yet a third definition, e. g. "to cause (SOMEONE) to happen or exist, to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth. Let us know."

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

You see, you do not accept EITHER definition. You said you accept both of them as correct. And so they are. But you will NOT - mark it - will NOT tell us exactly which one applies to Jesus Christ.

I have explained which one applies to Jesus if you only read my answer properly.

That would have been great if I'd asked for your "explanation". Unfortunately, I didn't. I simply asked you which definition you accept as it applies to an animate being, Jesus Christ. You can't answer THAT, so you engage in rambling "explanations." The truth is that you can't accept EITHER ONE. You have to make up a third one.

No I do not, I have explained which one I accept and why.

You can wriggle all you like, and deny the truth of that all you like, but it remains true.

I know you didn't ask for an explanation but you always get one as you well know.

Oh, I don't mind the "explanation" - as long as the question is answered first. The trouble is that you launch into your "explanation" without ever answering the question.

Except that the explanation is an integral part of the answer and no answer is complete without it.


Hence, the question IS:

We STILL do not know if you apply definition #1 or definition #2 to "beget" as it relates to an animate being, Jesus Christ. Which is it? Just put the number right here so we'll all know: ____________________ .

All you have to type is #1 or #2. It's that simple.

No Anna it is even simpler than that, you only have to read my answer it is in there.
Why do you keep lying madman, you haven't answered the question as everybody can see.
Pathological liar.

I don't lie, and yes the question is answered.

It's not my fault that you are too dumb to understand it.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 2:59:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:13:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:05:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Or do you have that much trouble with comprehension?

Just couldn't type #1 or #2, could you? Why don't you direct us to the Post # in which you "answered" the question. I say you can't do that, either.

No I couldn't, I cannot give an answer without explaining why I say that.

I suggest you read back through my posts, the answer is there and is not hidden, and it hinges around the single word "produced", which you falsely restrict to the inorganic.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2016 3:01:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/14/2016 8:13:48 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/14/2016 8:05:57 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:


Or do you have that much trouble with comprehension?

Just couldn't type #1 or #2, could you? Why don't you direct us to the Post # in which you "answered" the question. I say you can't do that, either.

Ok since you are apparently unable to understand a proper answer when it is given you I shall give you a hint:

https://books.google.co.uk...