Answering jodi lee's nonsense

[Lightenup]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 23 2010,21:26)

Lu, You are truly deluded. Jesus was a Servant of God, a Son of God like the rest of the Spirit realm are Son's of God, Jesus is a Son of God. The term 'begotton' was bestowed on him when he proved himself worthy at his baptism. Adam, was the FIRST flesh and blood Son of God. Created supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. Adam failed to walk in the way of God. This is what it means to be a SON of GOD. All who walk in the ways of God will be Sons if God and He will be our Father…and Jesus will be our Brother…Eternal Heirs WITH Him to the Kingdom of God (Eternal, God never dies – LU, A God cannot DIE -nor abdicates) When Adam sinned he relinquished his place as the FIRST fleshly Son of God. Jesus is the SECOND Adam, born supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. Jesus held to the path of Righteousness and proved himself worthy and qas blessed with becoming the 'Begotten' [First in status not by chronology, birth] Son of God, by inheritance over Adam. It would be assumed that what happened to Jesys wiuld have happened to Adam if he had walked with God all his life. God's plans do not change so what eventually happened to Jesus was predestined for whomever was the Son of God, that is, ti become Heir to God's kingdom. I'm sorry LU, what you write is fiction. Your Scriotural quotes are taken out of context and do not back up, and how could they, what you claim. The bottom line is this: Scriptures does not tell us what Jesus was before he came to earth, in the way you claim. Scriptures tell us that he was a Servant of God, hidden in the Palm if God's hand. Hidden, that is, from the Hebrews and Jews, more likely because they would have tried to worship him, as….as God!!! LU, don't get excited. It means they would have been committing Idolatry… Just as you are now. What Jesus DID was refered to, his mighty works in creating the universe and all in it, by the Power of God Amighty and His Holy Spirit. What Jesus WOULD do was also disclosed, so God says,'I announce all things before hand so when you see it happen you will know that I said it would and you will know by then that I am HE, Jehovah God who foretold it'. If Jesus was God, why would God Almighty hide him from being worshipped? Why is Jesus refered to as a Servant, if he IS God. How is a God a servant, servant to whom? A God is above ALL, only someone under someone can do servitude to that one above him, in terms of Power and Authority. A TRUE God has no equal, there is no such thing as Co-Equality of Godship. Even your own renderings, ramblings, openly show Jesus as subirdinate to God, but you happily ignore your own belief, even as you write it, to claim that Jesus is God, good God (oh mighty lord), LU, wake up, please. Jesus, himself called himself, 'Son of Man', not 'Son of God', it is others that called him so, then only did he concur, but he also said 'What of it?, did HE not called them, man, Gods, to whom the word of God came?…' The Jew tried to caim that Jesus was making himself equal to God…How does it gi again, 'Making himself equal to God'? Now, really, think about it. Making himself EQUAL to God…. Sounds… like… they… are… saying… He… Is… Not… GOD… But… Is… Making… Himself…Equal… To…God….! If course they forget that their original father if old, Adam, was the original Son of God. Was He God, too? Or equal to God….hmmm… A God that Sins…. Now that is a hard one to contemplate…Sounds like Pagan Godisms. LU, What is the description of Jehovah God, ss given in Revelation and elsewhere? Why can't we see God. LU, what is the description of Jesus Christ, as given throughout the New Testament? LU, in what ways do the descriptions of both beings marry up? In what ways do they NOT, what are the differences. LU, do an exercise..for yourself, by yourself, don't tell me the findings. This is it. List the similarities between Jesus and God, and the dissimilarities, be honest, you not proving anything to me, it is for you, so, if you want to fool yourself more than you are already doing, go ahead, but misdirection is like a pain to me. When a parent sees their loved one moving in bad company, learning wrongful doctrine, it hurts, and LU, that's how I feek for you right now. May God see fit to straighten your path and open your eyes to the Truth of his Word and you come to know Jesus Christ and be saved, even at the eleventh hour.

JA,
I'm just trying to help you. You have a lot of opinions without scripture to back them up. Prove what you say.

Here are some of your opinions, back them up with scripture:

Quote

When Adam sinned he relinquished his place as the FIRST fleshly Son of God.

Quote

Jesus is the SECOND Adam, born supernaturally through the Holy Spirit. Jesus held to the path of Righteousness and proved himself worthy and qas blessed with becoming the 'Begotten' [First in status not by chronology, birth] Son of God, by inheritance over Adam. It would be assumed that what happened to Jesys wiuld have happened to Adam if he had walked with God all his life. God's plans do not change so what eventually happened to Jesus was predestined for whomever was the Son of God, that is, ti become Heir to God's kingdom.

Quote

Scriptures tell us that he was a Servant of God, hidden in the Palm if God's hand.

Do you think that the Son of God was an angel before He was a man?

you say:

Quote

'God' is a TITLE, like 'Mr', 'Mrs', 'Lord', 'Judge',etc.

Yes, God is a title but God is also a kind of being otherwise why would the Bible talk about a nature?

Gal 4:8
8 However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.
NASU

Context will tell you if it is a title, or a kind of being, or the Most High, or the Son. Pay attention to context.

John 1:18
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
NASU

JA, tell us who is the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father. Please

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,06:05)

To me, equality is equality.  If Jesus is God Almighty, he is not just equal in “some senses”.

This statement presupposes a unitarian perspective of YHWH.

Quote

You say that all three are equal, but one “outranks” another?  Does that really make sense to you?

Yes. Remember to make a distinction between the ontological and the positional Mike. It's important.

Quote

Heb 1:3 says, 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. To me, this says: 1.  The Son radiates the glory of his God, just as all of God's creations do. 2.  A representation is not the original. 3.  Jesus' word is powerful because he speaks not of his own initiative, but God's words. 4.  He is now sitting at the right hand of his God, not a position of equality.

And once again this interpretation reflects your henotheistic view…..

1. Point me to a scripture that states that all of creation “radiates” the glory of God.

2. An exact representation is just that – exact. There is no difference between the “beings” (or natures) of the Father and Son, otherwise it would not be exact, now would it Mike?

“… in Heb. 1:3, of Christ as “the very image” of God's “substance;” here the word has the meaning of the real nature of that to which reference is made in contrast to the outward manifestation (see the preceding clause); it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son. The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance;” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words)

3. Your point here ignores the context. Look into the Greek in this verse – it's about Yeshua sustaining creation by His powerful word.

4. In Hebraic understanding to be at ones right hand emphasises an exalted and, in fact, EQUAL position of honor, dignity and authority. The term “sitting” denotes that Yeshua has completed his work of redemption.

More information here: http://www.gotquestions.org/right-hand-God.html

Quote

Phil 2:6 says, 6Who, being in very form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 1.  Jesus was a spirit creature before coming as a man. 2.  Jesus didn't consider himself equal to God.

You ignored the “being in the very form of God” part…..

The word “existed” is Huparcho, it “stresses the essence of a person's nature – the continuous state or condition of something” (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35). Here we see that Paul is not writing of Yeshua's earthly existence. This sentiment is pressed even further by Paul in the back half of the statement. Paul wrote that the Yeshua existed “in the form of God”. The Greek word for form is “morphe” it refers to essential attributes as shown in the form (source).

The word 'nature' perhaps captures the true essence of the word (this is how Strong's concordance defines it). So to paraphrase what Paul is asserting here:
Yeshua existed [perpetually] in the form [essential attributes as shown in the form, the nature] of God [YHWH, the most High God].

Quote

Col 2:9 says, 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 1.  The fullness of God (a being who is not Christ) dwells in Christ (a being who is not God)

You've redefined an important term in this verse, namely “theotes”. It's the fulness of deity (Gr. Theotes), NOT God (Gr. Theos) Mike.

There are several important words in the verse:

“For in Him dwells (katoikei) all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity (theotes) bodily (somatikos).”

“katoikeo” – meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action

“pleroma”-  indicating that which “is filled up.”

“somatikos” – meaning “corporeally” or “physically”

“Theotes” –  used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’.

Considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Yeshua’s body. This is an exceptionally emphatic statement and this kind of language is only applicable to YHWH.

Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows:
“Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9”

“The state of being God”….

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this:

”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties.

A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the world’s most authoritative grammarian said in his book Word Pictures In The New Testament:

“There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from ‘Theos,’ deity) and not to be confused with ‘Theiotes’ in Romans 1:20 (from ‘Theios,’ the quality of God, divinity), here only in N.T. as ‘Theiote’ only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. ‘Theiotes’ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions.”

On theotes in Colossians 2:9 Kenneth Wuest wrote this:

The Greek is very strong here. One could translate, “For in Him corporeally there is permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead.” That is, in our Lord Jesus in His incarnation and in the permanent possession of His human body now glorified, there resides by nature and permanently the fulness of the Godhead. The word “Godhead” is from our second word theotes. The word expresses Godhead in t
he absolute sense. It is not merely divine attributes that are in mind now, but the possession of the essence of deity in an absolute sense.

Quote

You are undecided as to whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews.  To me, he seems the most sensible choice, especially considering the way Timothy is talked about toward the end.

This is a side issue, in the interest of pursuing far more important issues I think we should park it up for now.

Quote

But we agree that Paul wrote Phillipians and Colossians.  And wasn't it Paul who wrote the following Scriptures? Romans 3:30 NIV since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Ephesians 4:6 NIV one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Yes.

Quote

I don't understand how anyone can read these Scriptures and still be blind to the fact that only the Father is God, and Jesus is someone besides God.   So even if at the outset, you like the “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” translation of Phil 2:6, after reading what else the author wrote, you would have to be dishonest with yourself to insist that translation is what Paul meant to convey.

None of the scriptures you quoted address the issue of the respective ontologies of the Father and Son and certainly there is no contradistinction drawn.

Quote

Let's see how the inventers of the doctine put it: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia

“Inventors”?? Are you claiming the RCC “invented” the Trinity doctrine? The doctrine was codified at the Nicene Council in A.D 325. Roman Catholicism, as we know it today, developed several centuries later, arguably in the 16th century. Looks like you have a significant timeline discrepancy to deal with.

Quote

That pretty much sounds like my understanding of it – the one I posted for you earlier.  Yet you say I don't understand the doctrine.  Well how could I?  No one else seems to either.

It’s clear to me that you hadn’t studied the issue because you continuously misrepresented the doctrine. Building up a straw man caricature and then knocking it down impresses no body.

Quote

The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.”

This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy of defective induction. Whether something is easily understood or not has no bearing on its veracity. Peter wrote of Paul’s writings being “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16). Quantum physics is hard to understand. Our difficulty in understanding a precept does not thereby invalidate it. Your reasoning is faulty.

Quote

Monsignor Eugene Clark said: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.”

As above

Quote

Cardinal John O’Connor stated: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.”

Ditto.

Quote

And Pope John Paul II spoke of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.”

Ditto.

Quote

A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.”

Yes, and….

Quote

Do you give me that much credit?  Can I understand what even the inventers and experts cannot?

Who are the inventors?

Quote

“ In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” (Ps 102:25, LXX, Brenton) Yes.  But does that mean that Jesus is now God?  No.  Now your turn.

It appears that your argument is with the writer of Hebrews who applied this verse to Yeshua. I agree with him that Psalms 102:25 is a messianic verse. The burden of proof is on you to show that it isn’t.

Quote

Does Heb 1:5 apply something originally said of Solomon to Jesus?  Does that mean that Jesus is now actually Solomon?

Yes the context of this verse in 2 Sam 7:14 apparently deals with Solomon, but it is not at all unusual for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that ostensibly deals with one subject and apply it to another. It’s also not uncommon for an OT verse to have a dual meaning or for the language to go well beyond what could be applicable to the original subject. We see clear examples of this in Genesis 49-1-10 and Ezekiel 28:12-19. It’s far more important to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put the verse into than the context of the passage it came from.  The writer applied it to Jesus, therefore, by default, 2 Sam 7:14 is a Messianic verse. Or do you have some inside knowledge that the writer of
Hebrews wasn’t privy to Mike?

Quote

But then you immediately paste the quote where you admitted the exception: I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son.

An exception outside of BOTH 1 & 2.

Quote

After a bunch of stuff I've already answered clearly to, you said: If this still isn’t clear enough for you let me know and I’ll go through your quoted passages one at a time. Please do.  Start with the ones I posted today.  One by one, explain how Paul could have wrote these and still thought Jesus was God Almighty.

When I have time I’ll go through them and show you that Paul was not dichotomizing Yeshua and His Father on the basis of their ontologies.

Quote

Jehovah can call Jesus Lord, because he is Lord.  And Jehovah should know, He is the One that set him up as Lord.  Clear enough yet?  Not God, not YHVH, but Lord.

Oh, I see, the word “LORD” carries and entirely different connotation to the one conveyed in the passage it was taken from in the OT. Give me some evidence to substantiate this theory.

[NickHassan]

Hi Is 1.18,
The Lord is the Spirit.
Think about it and you will not need such deep intellectual theology.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ April 24 2010,23:27)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 12 2010,06:05) To me, equality is equality.  If Jesus is God Almighty, he is not just equal in “some senses”. This statement presupposes a unitarian perspective of YHWH. Quote You say that all three are equal, but one “outranks” another?  Does that really make sense to you? Yes. Remember to make a distinction between the ontological and the positional Mike. It's important. Quote Heb 1:3 says, 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. To me, this says: 1.  The Son radiates the glory of his God, just as all of God's creations do. 2.  A representation is not the original. 3.  Jesus' word is powerful because he speaks not of his own initiative, but God's words. 4.  He is now sitting at the right hand of his God, not a position of equality. And once again this interpretation reflects your henotheistic view….. 1. Point me to a scripture that states that all of creation “radiates” the glory of God. 2. An exact representation is just that – exact. There is no difference between the “beings” (or natures) of the Father and Son, otherwise it would not be exact, now would it Mike? “… in Heb. 1:3, of Christ as “the very image” of God's “substance;” here the word has the meaning of the real nature of that to which reference is made in contrast to the outward manifestation (see the preceding clause); it speaks of the Divine essence of God existent and expressed in the revelation of His Son. The AV, “person” is an anachronism; the word was not so rendered till the 4th cent. Most of the earlier Eng. versions have “substance;” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) 3. Your point here ignores the context. Look into the Greek in this verse – it's about Yeshua sustaining creation by His powerful word. 4. In Hebraic understanding to be at ones right hand emphasises an exalted and, in fact, EQUAL position of honor, dignity and authority. The term “sitting” denotes that Yeshua has completed his work of redemption. More information here: http://www.gotquestions.org/right-hand-God.html Quote Phil 2:6 says, 6Who, being in very form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 1.  Jesus was a spirit creature before coming as a man. 2.  Jesus didn't consider himself equal to God. You ignored the “being in the very form of God” part….. The word “existed” is Huparcho, it “stresses the essence of a person's nature – the continuous state or condition of something” (cf. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976], p. 35). Here we see that Paul is not writing of Yeshua's earthly existence. This sentiment is pressed even further by Paul in the back half of the statement. Paul wrote that the Yeshua existed “in the form of God”. The Greek word for form is “morphe” it refers to essential attributes as shown in the form (source). The word 'nature' perhaps captures the true essence of the word (this is how Strong's concordance defines it). So to paraphrase what Paul is asserting here: Yeshua existed [perpetually] in the form [essential attributes as shown in the form, the nature] of God [YHWH, the most High God]. Quote Col 2:9 says, 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 1.  The fullness of God (a being who is not Christ) dwells in Christ (a being who is not God) You've redefined an important term in this verse, namely “theotes”. It's the fulness of deity (Gr. Theotes), NOT God (Gr. Theos) Mike. There are several important words in the verse: “For in Him dwells (katoikei) all the fullness (pleroma) of the Deity (theotes) bodily (somatikos).” “katoikeo” – meaning “to permanently settle down in a dwelling. The verb is in the present tense, showing durative action “pleroma”-  indicating that which “is filled up.” “somatikos” – meaning “corporeally” or “physically” “Theotes” –  used as an abstract noun for ‘theos’. Considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Yeshua’s body. This is an exceptionally emphatic statement and this kind of language is only applicable to YHWH. Joseph H. Thayer, the Unitarian scholar, defines theotes in his lexicon as follows: “Theotes…(deitas, Tertullian, Augustine) deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col 2:9” “The state of being God”…. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of NT words records this: ”…But in the second passage (Col. 2:9), Paul is declaring that in the Son there dwells all the fullness of absolute Godhead; they were no mere rays of Divine glory which gilded Him, lighting up His Person for a season and with a splendor not His own; but He was, and is, absolute and perfect God; and the Apostle uses theotes to express this essential and personal Godhead of the Son” (Trench, Syn. ii). Theotes indicates the “Divine” essence of Godhood, the personality of God; theiotes, the attributes of God, His “Divine” nature and properties. A.T Robertson who is widely recognized as the world’s most authoritative grammarian said in his book Word Pictures In The New Testament: “There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very essence of God, from ‘Theos,’ deity) and not to be confused with ‘Theiotes’ in Romans 1:20 (from ‘Theios,’ the quality of God, divinity), here only in N.T. as ‘Theiote’ only in Romans 1:20. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. ‘Theiotes’ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions.” On theotes in Colossians 2:9 Kenneth Wuest wrote this: The Greek is very strong here. One could translate, “For in Him corporeally there is permanently at home all the fulness of the Godhead.” That is, in our Lord Jesus in His incarnatio n and in the permanent possession of His human body now glorified, there resides by nature and permanently the fulness of the Godhead. The word “Godhead” is from our second word theotes. The word expresses Godhead in the absolute sense. It is not merely divine attributes that are in mind now, but the possession of the essence of deity in an absolute sense. Quote You are undecided as to whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews.  To me, he seems the most sensible choice, especially considering the way Timothy is talked about toward the end. This is a side issue, in the interest of pursuing far more important issues I think we should park it up for now. Quote But we agree that Paul wrote Phillipians and Colossians.  And wasn't it Paul who wrote the following Scriptures? Romans 3:30 NIV since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Ephesians 4:6 NIV one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Yes. Quote I don't understand how anyone can read these Scriptures and still be blind to the fact that only the Father is God, and Jesus is someone besides God.   So even if at the outset, you like the “did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” translation of Phil 2:6, after reading what else the author wrote, you would have to be dishonest with yourself to insist that translation is what Paul meant to convey. None of the scriptures you quoted address the issue of the respective ontologies of the Father and Son and certainly there is no contradistinction drawn. Quote Let's see how the inventers of the doctine put it: “The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: ‘the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.’ In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.”—The Catholic Encyclopedia “Inventors”?? Are you claiming the RCC “invented” the Trinity doctrine? The doctrine was codified at the Nicene Council in A.D 325. Roman Catholicism, as we know it today, developed several centuries later, arguably in the 16th century. Looks like you have a significant timeline discrepancy to deal with. Quote That pretty much sounds like my understanding of it – the one I posted for you earlier.  Yet you say I don't understand the doctrine.  Well how could I?  No one else seems to either. It’s clear to me that you hadn’t studied the issue because you continuously misrepresented the doctrine. Building up a straw man caricature and then knocking it down impresses no body. Quote The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” This is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy of defective induction. Whether something is easily understood or not has no bearing on its veracity. Peter wrote of Paul’s writings being “hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16). Quantum physics is hard to understand. Our difficulty in understanding a precept does not thereby invalidate it. Your reasoning is faulty. Quote Monsignor Eugene Clark said: “God is one, and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” As above Quote Cardinal John O’Connor stated: “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Ditto. Quote And Pope John Paul II spoke of “the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity.” Ditto. Quote A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge says: “Precisely what that doctrine is, or rather precisely how it is to be explained, Trinitarians are not agreed among themselves.” Yes, and…. Quote Do you give me that much credit?  Can I understand what even the inventers and experts cannot? Who are the inventors? Quote “ In the beginning thou, O Lord, didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” (Ps 102:25, LXX, Brenton) Yes.  But does that mean that Jesus is now God?  No.  Now your turn.   It appears that your argument is with the writer of Hebrews who applied this verse to Yeshua. I agree with him that Psalms 102:25 is a messianic verse. The burden of proof is on you to show that it isn’t. Quote Does Heb 1:5 apply something originally said of Solomon to Jesus?  Does that mean that Jesus is now actually Solomon? Yes the context of this verse in 2 Sam 7:14 apparently deals with Solomon, but it is not at all unusual for NT writers to take a verse in the OT that ostensibly deals with one subject and apply it to another. It’s also not uncommon for an OT verse to have a dual meaning or for the language to go well beyond what could be applicable to the original subject. We see clear examples of this in Genesis 49-1-10 and Ezekiel 28:12-19. It’s far more important to look at the context that the writer of Hebrews put the verse into than the context of the passage it came from.  The writer applied it to Jesus, therefore, by default, 2 Sam 7:14 is a Messianic verse. Or do you have some inside knowledge that the writer of Hebrews wasn’t privy to Mike? Quote But then you immediately paste the quote where you admitted the exception: I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. An exception outside of BOTH 1 & 2. Quote After a bunch of stuff I've already answered clearly to, you said: If this still isn’t clear enough for you let me know and I’ll go through your quoted passages one at a time. Please do.  Start with the ones I posted today.  One by one, explain how Paul could have wrote these and still thought Jesus was God Almighty. When I have time I’ll go through them and show you that Paul was not dichotomizing Yeshua and His Father on the basis of their ontologies. Quote Jehovah can call Jesus Lord, because he is Lord.  And Jehovah should know, He is the One that set him up as Lord.  Clear enough yet?  Not God, not YHVH, but Lord. Oh, I see, the word “LORD” carries and entirely different connotation to the one conveyed in the passage it was taken from in the OT. Give me some evidence to substantiate this theory.

Hi Paul

Excellent points!

Blessings Keith

[JustAskin]

Is1,
Who asked you to contest my posts?
Did we not agree to leave each other?

None the less.

The poster to whom my post was directed is capable if finding the scriptural support for my 'opinions', as you quite rightly put.

Continually feeding a babe with milk when it has become a child is not a good thing.

Where Scriptural support is required then it will be provided.

Are you simply wanting to make a dispute?

Is it not known that the genealogy of Christ places Adam at it's head as 'Son of God'.

Is this a new revelation?

Begotten: do you not know your biblical history, and that all scripture is 'fractal', that is, repeated in 'shape'.

Abraham's First Son was Ismael, Abraham's Second Son was Isaac.
Abraham dismissed Ishmael (Genesis 22:2), his chronological Firstborn, and established Isaac as his 'Begotten Son' and Ishmael became his son no more.
Is this not written in the scriptures and known to all? So how do you say to me, 'show us proof?'

Saul was anointed First[born] King of Israel but sinned. David was anointed second King of Israel, but appointed as Begotten Son of God, as the Scriptures say of David,, God said 'You are my Son, today I have Begotten you'

Is1, are these sayings all new revelations that these knowledgeable ones need it pointing out to them, or is it that they are hard of ears, lacking scriptural insight?

If I write, 'God's name is 'I AM', should I need to prove it, or is it a known thing that God said, 'This is my name from everlasting to everlasting', who claims scriptures and does not know even this little, but yet, mighty, thing?

If they know not these things as base level concepts, perhaps you have revealed why there is so much 'spinning in small circles' over the higher level aspects of Scriptural revelation, for if the foundations of the house are incomplete, unsound, not in place, how then are the builders erecting the upper levels? Will not the building collapse when tested with a load, or by the elemental forces?

WJ, in our debate, asked me, 'So what is the Father?'. How should I answer such a learned one?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 25 2010,17:17)

Is1, Who asked you to contest my posts? Did we not agree to leave each other?

Actually it was a response to a post written to me by mikeboll64 on pg 50 of this thread.

[Ed J]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 25 2010,17:17)

If I write, 'God's name is 'I AM', should I need to prove it…

Hi JustAskin,

1Thes.5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (Click Here) <– Last Post on the Page!

Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[JustAskin]

Is1, what is it you are trying to teach me about context. Do I seem like I need teaching that?
Perhaps you need to read my other posts. I have no problem with context. It is Trinitarians who have the problem, who cannot distinguish 'God' from 'god' and 'MY God' from 'The God', or 'Our God'. Whereever they see the word 'God' or 'god' they say it means 'The God', [the] God Almighty!

Who is it that claims that Jesus is YHVH, God Almighty?
Who is it who says that a Man, 'the Man, Jesus Christ' is 'God'?

Context!, teach me more, please!

'Thy throne, o god, is forever…'. Context states that this is not refering to 'the God', God Almighty, nor any person as God, but 'Mighty one'(in an heroic position), 'King'(on a throne), 'Judge' (on a bench). Indeed the context is brought out further on in the verse where it states (Heb 1:9),'Therefore God, Your God, has anointed you…'
Context: Who is being anointed?(David/Jesus), by whom? (God Almighty, YHVH), who is 'their God' …as oppposed to any other person's God…

Who lacks understanding of this? Me? P-l-e-a-s-e, say that again to me!

Is it not Trinitarians who say that David and Jesus are being called God, God Almighty?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 25 2010,01:17)

WJ, in our debate, asked me, 'So what is the Father?'. How should I answer such a learned one?

JA

Where did I say “So what is the Father”?

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 25 2010,01:55)

Who lacks understanding of this? Me? P-l-e-a-s-e, say that again to me!

Man

What is your problem?

Do you even read Pauls post? Pauls post is a response to Mikes post to him.

WJ

[JustAskin]

Is1,

My apology, the post was from LU.

Is1, Sorry, again for that.

IS1, WJ, thanks you both for pointing it out.

WJ, the quote was a typing error, it should have said, 'What is the name of the father?' and you knew that because you wrote the correct version.

I think I am old enough to start having 'Senior moments' and that last post was one of them.

[JustAskin]

LU,
Please see a response post to you (page 63)

[JustAskin]

WJ, can you give quarter to what was clearly an error.
Once again you have posted against me on behalf of Is1, where Is1 has taken the more humble path.

You call Is1, 'your god', perhaps you should imitate his humility in recognising my very evident error and did not get snappy about it. Clear error deserve heavy admonishment?

Edj, Is not the 'proof' ultimately down to the hearer. Never the less, didn't Jesus often say,'Is it not written in the Scriptures…this..or..that…'. He simply quoted or paraphrased the scripture extract.
Did he not do it so that those who wanted to understand would enquire from the scripture the full rendering, or consult him afterwards. Those not really interested just assumed an amusing saying or parable.

[Lightenup]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 25 2010,01:17)

Is1, Who asked you to contest my posts? Did we not agree to leave each other? None the less. The poster to whom my post was directed is capable if finding the scriptural support for my 'opinions', as you quite rightly put. Continually feeding a babe with milk when it has become a child is not a good thing. Where Scriptural support is required then it will be provided. Are you simply wanting to make a dispute? Is it not known that the genealogy of Christ places Adam at it's head as 'Son of God'. Is this a new revelation? Begotten: do you not know your biblical history, and that all scripture is 'fractal', that is, repeated in 'shape'. Abraham's First Son was Ismael, Abraham's Second Son was Isaac. Abraham dismissed Ishmael (Genesis 22:2), his chronological Firstborn, and established Isaac as his 'Begotten Son' and Ishmael became his son no more. Is this not written in the scriptures and known to all? So how do you say to me, 'show us proof?' Saul was anointed First[born] King of Israel but sinned. David was anointed second King of Israel, but appointed as Begotten Son of God, as the Scriptures say of David,, God said 'You are my Son, today I have Begotten you' Is1, are these sayings all new revelations that these knowledgeable ones need it pointing out to them, or is it that they are hard of ears, lacking scriptural insight? If I write, 'God's name is 'I AM', should I need to prove it, or is it a known thing that God said, 'This is my name from everlasting to everlasting', who claims scriptures and does not know even this little, but yet, mighty, thing? If they know not these things as base level concepts, perhaps you have revealed why there is so much 'spinning in small circles' over the higher level aspects of Scriptural revelation, for if the foundations of the house are incomplete, unsound, not in place, how then are the builders erecting the upper levels? Will not the building collapse when tested with a load, or by the elemental forces? WJ, in our debate, asked me, 'So what is the Father?'. How should I answer such a learned one?

JustAskin,

So you meant to address this post to me?

Quote

Who asked you to contest my posts?

Now you sound like your the Almighty.

Quote

Did we not agree to leave each other?

No, we didn't agree to that. You keep asking me questions.

Quote

The poster to whom my post was directed is capable if finding the scriptural support for my 'opinions', as you quite rightly put.

No, I cannot find scriptural proof for your opinions. That is why I asked for it.

BTW, I don't mind for people to insult me, (like you do over and over) because it reveals that the spirit in which they boast through their posts is nothing to be regarded as from God.

THE Son of God is a Son by inheritance and not by creation or appointment as was Adam and David, and His origins are from ancient times, He and His Father made Adam and the Son is the root of David. Adam was created, THE Son of God was procreated, not created and this happened before anything was in heaven or on earth.

[JustAskin]

LU, clearly not – it was there because I thought it was Is1 that had posted it.

Is there no understanding in this forum.

Should I have edited it out – erased my own error – No, it shows that I have faults,too -And it shows how some others ALSO cannot discern even the simple things of the sinful flesh, let alone the greater Godly things of the Spirit.
Clearly, if I was apologising to IS1 because I thought it was he who posted, then the exclamation could not possibly have been meant for YOU, LU.

[JustAskin]

LU,

Ok, now that the discussion is open, then I say “Show me where it says that Jesus was Procreated”

When I post in here I assume that the poster, in creating a post with controversy attached, has a grasp of the scriptures, else what, the poster is just POSTering, posting things just to cause controversy.

Before ONE posts, have an idea of what one is posting against – else Don't post – when come into the kitchen expect to find HEAT.

Can anything that is Created (Procreated or otherwise) be God?

LU, you have jumped many steppingstones forward by claiming that “The Son of God is the Son by inheritance”. You are quoting a Scripture verse but not linking it to your stream of dialogue.

if nothing else answer me this:
When did Jesus become the “Son of God”. Establish that first, then claim his inheritance. Show me a scripture verse stating this, please.

Here is something to help channel your thought before replying: (A rare moment of Web Copying for me: http://www.gotquestions.org/jesus-son-of-god.html)
“Jesus is not God’s Son in the sense of a human father and a son. God did not get married and have a son. God did not mate with Mary and, together with her, produce a son. Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that He is God made manifest in human form (John 1:1, 14). Jesus is God's Son in that He was conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:35 declares, “The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’”

You know why people insult you – because you post things that are not scriptural and refuse to change direction in the face of complete truth – Do you think Jesus held off from insulting the Jews – Have you really read the scriptures, who is it that uses words like “Snakes, dogs” and other foul things to describe the Jews, Pharisees and Sadducees. Did you know that to be called a “Dog” was one of the worst things to call a Jew? And why did he call them those things?

Frustration creeps in at posting against nonsense – What picture do you build up of Jesus and God and the heavenly realm, is it composite with Scripture? – if not then don't try to prove it by degrees – all that does is frustrate others who try to show you the right.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Paul,

I hope the holiday went well.

You said:

Quote

This statement presupposes a unitarian perspective of YHWH.

What does that mean?  If God is three equal persons, can one be “higher” than the others?

You said:

Quote

Yes. Remember to make a distinction between the ontological and the positional Mike. It's important.

Equal is equal.  Equal God doesn't have one as captain and one as leiutenant, etc.  If it does, equal doesn't mean equal no matter how many five dollar words you use.  The more you try to rationalize, the more asinine your doctrine becomes.

You said:

Quote

1. Point me to a scripture that states that all of creation “radiates” the glory of God.

, 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,

Doesn't that say to you that we can perceive the glory of God through the things He made?  How about this one:

21 And, on the other hand, as I live, all the earth will be filled with the glory of Jehovah.

Or this one:

 5 You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones,
And with glory and splendor you then crowned him.

Or this one:

The heavens are declaring the glory of God;
And of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.

How about this one:

and he showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God 11 and having the glory of God. Its radiance was like a most precious stone

Everything God created radiates the glory of it's wonderful creator.  Even if it is not worded exactly like that in the Scriptures.

You said:

Quote

2. An exact representation is just that – exact. There is no difference between the “beings” (or natures) of the Father and Son, otherwise it would not be exact, now would it Mike?

Now wait a minute.  Is your godhead ONE being consisting of three persons, or THREE separate beings?  I haven't got an answer from thinker on this question.  And if the president of a company sends a representative to take care of business, that representative can “exactly represent” the president of the company without being him, or even equal to him.

As far as you Vine's info, so what?  Of course Jesus would have the divine essence of his Father and his God.  Jehovah created him, didn't he?

You said:

Quote

3. Your point here ignores the context. Look into the Greek in this verse – it's about Yeshua sustaining creation by His powerful word.

Yes Paul, Jesus can do anything his God, Jehovah gives him the power and authority to do.

You said:

Quote

4. In Hebraic understanding to be at ones right hand emphasises an exalted and, in fact, EQUAL position of honor, dignity and authority.

Thanks for the website.  I checked it out.  It says:

In addition, a person of high rank who put someone on his right hand gave him equal honor with himself and recognized him as possessing equal dignity and authority.

Sounds like the comparison I have been using of Joseph and the Pharaoh.  The person of high rank is Jehovah.  He put Jesus on his right hand.  He effectively gave Jesus His signet ring to rule for Himself.  God has given Jesus “acting authority” for the time being.  Instead of meaning Jesus is in fact God, it means something quite different.  It means that God is the one with the power to put whoever he chooses at not only his right hand, but Jesus' also according to this Scripture:

Matthew 20:23 NIV
Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

So while it is clear that your info was prepared by a trinitarian judging from the use of the word LORD and the capital “H”, Therefore, what we can say is that “God's right hand” refers to the Messiah, the LORD Jesus Christ and He is of equal position, honor, power and authority with God, it doesn't say anything about Jesus actually BEING God, does it?

While Joseph had “equal” authority with Pharaoh, he was still a servant of Pharaoh, just like Acts 4 says that Jesus is still a servant of God.  I've endured your trinitarian's thoughts on the right hand.  You can endure my Watchtower info.

To be on the right hand of a ruler was to have the most important position, next to the ruler himself, or a position in his favor.

This makes perfect sense in the case of Joseph and Pharaoh, why must you try to change it in the case of Jesus and Jehovah?  The Witnesses also have some very good points you need to actually answer, not just dismiss because the Watchtower is the Devil.

one [Jesus] . . . to his right hand.” (Acts 5:31) Paul said: “God exalted him to a superior position.” (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is, raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God.

Paul also said that Christ entered “heaven itself, so that he could appear in the actual presence of God on our behalf.” (Hebrews 9:24, JB) If you appear in someone else’s presence, how can you be that person? You cannot. You must be different and separate.

Similarly, just before being stoned to death, the martyr Stephen “gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” (Acts 7:55) Clearly, he saw two separate individuals—but no holy spirit, no Trinity Godhead.

In the account at Revelation 4:8 to 5:7, God is shown seated on his heavenly throne, but Jesus is not. He has to approach God to take a scroll from God’s right hand. This shows that in heaven Jesus is not God but is separate from him.

You quoted:

Quote

Paul wrote that the Yeshua existed “in the form of God”. The Greek word for form is “morphe” it refers to essential attributes a s shown in the form

Again, so what?  Of course Jesus had “essential attributes” of God.  He is God's Son.  And yes, Jesus was in the nature of God.  God is spirit.  So was Jesus at that time.  (And now again.)

You said:

Quote

You've redefined an important term in this verse, namely “theotes”. It's the fulness of deity (Gr. Theotes), NOT God (Gr. Theos) Mike.

Even better!  I'm glad that you have to research every word used.  TRUE believers only have to do that in certain verses.  Because, no matter what definition you try to use, it still does not end up saying, “Jesus is God Almighty.”  

You said:

Quote

Considering the all the Greek in this verse, Paul affirmed that the fullness of the divine essence has permanently settled in Yeshua’s body.

No, it just means that Jesus is in fact God's begotten Son and therefore is an awful lot like God Himself.  And to all of the scholarly quotes, I say:  Show from Scripture that Paul thought Jesus was in fact God.  I can surely show you clearly that he did not.  In fact I did, but you said:

Quote

None of the scriptures you quoted address the issue of the respective ontologies of the Father and Son and certainly there is no contradistinction drawn.

Are you for real, man?   One is God, the other is someone other than God.  It is very clearly stated in all of those Scriptures, plus hundreds more.  I wish one of you three would actually answer the questions I've been asking for a while:

1.  How can a mediator be one of the parties he mediates between?

2.  How can God's priest actually be God?

3.  Why could Stephen see Jesus plain as day, but only the glory of God?

You said:

Quote

“Inventors”?? Are you claiming the RCC “invented” the Trinity doctrine? The doctrine was codified at the Nicene Council in A.D 325. Roman Catholicism, as we know it today, developed several centuries later, arguably in the 16th century. Looks like you have a significant timeline discrepancy to deal with.

Really?         And in 325, was it called the Catholic Church or not?  And in 325, was the Holy Spirit included in the godhead?  Or was your third god added later?

You said:

Quote

Building up a straw man caricature and then knocking it down impresses no body.

My understanding is the one I quoted.  Am I wrong?  Why don't you build your “brick man” for me, so Scripture can knock it down as well.

You said:

Quote

Who are the inventors?

The ones who tried to assimilate the pagan triad gods into the new religion of Christianity.

You said:

Quote

The writer applied it to Jesus, therefore, by default, 2 Sam 7:14 is a Messianic verse.

Okay.  Is Jesus now Solomon?  It's a simple question.

You said:

Quote

When I have time I’ll go through them and show you that Paul was not dichotomizing Yeshua and His Father on the basis of their ontologies.

More five dollar words?  I'll anxiously await your reply.

You said:

Quote

Oh, I see, the word “LORD” carries and entirely different connotation to the one conveyed in the passage it was taken from in the OT. Give me some evidence to substantiate this theory.

I have already given the info.  You just fail to be able to dispute it, so you ask the same question over and over.  “LORD” is how newer Bibles translate “YHVH”.  “Lord” is a title.  Hebrews does not use “YHVH” does it?

You know Paul, you can use all the five dollar words and websites and alternate definitions for the words in the Bible you want.  Because a person doesn't have to be as “superior” as you let on that you are to understand God's Word.  An average 5th grader can understand that the trinity doctrine means this:

1.  Jesus WAS God, then Wasn't God, now IS God again, but soon WON'T be God.

2.  A mediator between God and mankind can actually be God.

3.  A priest between God and mankind can actually be God.

4.  God could, and did die.

5.  One God calls the other “my God”.

The list goes on and on.  And the rest of it is equally ludicrous.

I've answered your question to the best of my ability.  If that is not good enough for you, tough.  Now show me how superior your intelligence is to the Scriptures and answer about mediator, priest, Stephen seeing Jesus and the Watchtower points I posted.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ April 26 2010,05:29)

“The Son of God is the Son by inheritance”.

hi Kathi and Ja,

I don't think that is in Scripture at all. If so, where?

peace and love,
mike

[JustAskin]

Hi Mike,

“The Son of God is the Son by inheritance”.
Where did I write that (Only askin, not disputin')?

My apology to all -I don't even know what that means.

Mike thanks for pointing it out.   (p.s. I put these little errors in just to see if anyone actually reads anything I post )

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 25 2010,17:18)

Quote (JustAskin @ April 26 2010,05:29) “The Son of God is the Son by inheritance”. hi Kathi and Ja, I don't think that is in Scripture at all.  If so, where? peace and love, mike

Mike and JA,
All my boys inherited the name “son” by being begotten of me. The Son of God got His name by being begotten of God, not appointed by God as a son, but begotten by God. He was told this before creation and this was repeated after the resurrection as a seal of that decree.

Quote

Heb 1 1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7 And of the angels He says, “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 “YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10 And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.” 13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation? NASU

The Son is also called the Firstborn of all creation. What does scriptures say that the firstborn is:

Deut 21:15 Suppose a man has two wives, one whom he loves more than the other, 30 and they both 31 bear him sons, with the firstborn being the child of the less loved wife. 21:16 In the day he divides his inheritance 32 he must not appoint as firstborn the son of the favorite wife in place of the other 33 wife’s son who is actually the firstborn. 21:17 Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved 34 wife as firstborn and give him the double portion 35 of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power – to him should go the right of the firstborn.

The Son is the beginning of his Father's procreative power and thus the Firstborn. He is the Firstborn of all creation, the first procreated before all of creation. He was procreated before He created anything in heaven or on earth.

Unless someone is appointed as firstborn, they are the beginning of their father's procreative power. The Son was never said to be appointed as the Firstborn. In two different senses the Son is the Firstborn. He is the firstborn of all creation and firstborn from the dead. Both involve getting life, the first by the procreation by the Father and the second by receiving life by resurrection by the Father and being returned to Him. Other people were resurrected but not yet returned to the Father. The Son was the Firstborn before Mary had her firstborn because of what the scriptures say here:

Heb 1:6
6 And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.”
NASU

Being a literal son, the Son of God receives the nature of God, a nature of deity.

God doesn't need to procreate in the same way that man does. He could simply speak a procreated Son into existence if He chooses. He designed asexual reproduction, why would He have to have a mate to procreate? He is God.

[Author]

Posts