In article <102.57.10.05.014231000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...

>Bart Goddard wrote:

>>How could God give His "only-begotten Son" _before_ He was
>>begotten?

>Jesus was "begotten" at his creation as the "firstborn of all
>creation", "the beginning of the creation of God".

So you love to repeat. But you were dead wrong the firs time you said
this, and you are just as dead wrong now.

>The Word, Michael,

Ah, ah, ah! "The Word" and "Michael" are NOT the same. Never were.

>Jesus was the only creature directly created by
>God- thus the "only-begotten god" (John 1:18).

This is too bizarre for words. And are you really unaware of how
horrible such words sound to so many in this NG? And yes, 'horrible'
is the only word for it. For it is not just absurd, but it is
_horribly_ absurd to talk about ANY creature being "only-begotten
God".

> All other angels were created THROUGH Jesus.

No, all angels PERIOD. Including ALL the Archangels.

> >JW doctrine would better match this verse if it said
>>"God sent one of His angels to _become_ His only-begotten
>>son".
>
>That's close but God sent his only-begotten Son who was the Archangel
>Michael.
>
>>And if God writes His own laws, then why did He, being omniscient,
>>write them in such a way as to trap Himself so that He had to
>>send His Son to suffer and die to get out of it?
>
>God is not omniscient.

Another surprise! I didn't even realize that JWs bought into _this_
crock of malarkey!

But why _do_ you want to believe this nonsense? Of _course_ God is
omniscient.What else _could_ the Apostle have meant when he wrote:

There is nothing in Creation that is invisible to His sight;
for all things are naked and open to His eyes, to Whom
we will answer (Hb 4:13 RST).

>Many times in the Bible this is proven (the
>example of Gon "going down to Sodom to get to know if the complaints
>were true" being a small example).

Only if you read it too literally. But that way lies madness.

>Could God be omniscient? Yes. Does
>that necessitate he exercise that ability? No.

What is _this_ supposed to mean? All I see that it could really mean
is that you do not know what 'omniscient' MEANS. It does NOT mean
"able to know all", it means "knowing all".

Oh, if only you would LOOK UP fancy words before you try to use them!

>If God knew Adam and Eve
>would sin and that untold misery and suffering would result he would be
>responsible for it by going through with it.

NO, that does not follow. Anyone who follows the numerous threads in
this NG on "free will" knows tha