Christ was not created&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Participant

Quote (JustAskin @ Sep. 25 2010,08:38)

There was nothing in what i wrote contending the lineage of the Builder nor the owner – perhaps you got me mixed up with someone else – for which error you wish to be “Simply Forgiven”. Perhaps you deliberately create errors to gain the need to be “Simply forgiven”

Ja,
Actually I didnt say i was disagreeing with you, If i did maybe i would said more, as i usualy do.

Im “Just Askin” a simple question, and i have every right to ask.
you accused me of not being spiritual,
I responded and i was “Just Askin” if your anaology was Spiritual or not?

I would love to be simply forgiven if you wish to simply forgive me.

But lets quit the rhyming and get serious,

I know you had nothing in your post that regarded lineage but this thread is not about that but concerns the lineage,

In other words, your off topic and im getting you back on topic.

So my Topical Questions was towards your Untopical Post

Im a Man, if i make Erorrs feel free to call me out.

Much love Ja,

September 25, 2010 at 3:46 am#217474

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2010,08:43)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 24 2010,21:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2010,06:40)

Thanks Dennison,
The word in 1 John 1 is called the word of life so maybe that has something to do with the 'action' idea. If you think about it, God always existed and then there had to be a first thing to exist in a living way after Him. So, that would be the 'word of life' and revealed to us as the Son of God. The Son is an extension of that eternal life as I understand things.

So, I think that the Son was begotten when that eternal life within the Father was extended to an existence apart from the Father to be with the Father.

I hear you about this being hard to wrap your mind around but maybe we are just trying to make it hard. I think that it is as simple as God continuing Himself through another person, a Son.

hi Kathy

so you believe that God as a restrain factor,he ad the word inside him all along and could not do anything but get him out in doe time ?

and it had to be the word.

does men reflect that idea? so in reality i was in my father (flesh)all the time since he was born?
if so that's mean man only makes the same spermatozoide over and over ? so that no matter what it will be always the same kid coming to be born??I did not know that.

i believe wen God says ;I am alone, God no one else is equal to me'

we either believe that or we do not,if we do believe it no more argument all is good;if we do not believe it now it takes explanation upon explanation until you got lost in explanation and still at the end no were;or we have to declare God a liar.

and this would make us the biggest liars.

so why just not listen to the word of God as an humble minded and truthful person ,with faith and good works……

there is very little fruit production in words discussion.
but to some this is there kick in live and so disturb the true beleivers and take them out of focus for a while.

Pierre

No Pierre,
You do not grasp what I said. Man is different.

Ya Peirre,
You didnt get waht she was saying,
Just like Irene made assumptions, you did as well.
Its ok we all make mistakes.

September 26, 2010 at 5:12 pm#217773

Blocked

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,14:24)

Irene,
How can you say that 1:18 has nothign to do with 15?

i already gave my analysis.

:laugh: Did you hear that Irene? We all better back off because SF gave his “analysis”!

And earlier, he said:

Quote

Irene, if you saw the beginning of this thread,
I already proved that Co. 1:15 depends on 1:18– this is not proof.

You have “proved” nothing SF. Let's break it down:

Col 1:15-16 NWT
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 upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.

To me this says, “It stands to reason that Jesus has to be the first thing God ever created, because all other things came into existence through him.” This doesn't refer to God “placing” him as “preeminent” over all things created, for God is preeminent over all things created. This has to do with the FACT that Jesus was created first.

Col 1:17-18 NWT
17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things;

Do you see the word “Also” at the beginning of 17? This is the indicator that Paul is done talking about “literally” being first, and moving on to the fact that God “Also” MADE him the head of the body and the firstborn from the dead, so that he “might become the one who is first in all things”.

I understand it to say that not only is Jesus the natural “first one born of anything ever created”, God has ALSO made it so he would hold “first place” among the Church of God and among all those born from the dead. Paul could have went on to include other things that God placed him first in…….such as High Priest before God, so he would hold first place among all the priests before God. Or King of kings over heaven and earth, so he could hold first place among all others who will also rule with him.

The bottom line is than no matter how much you WANT 1:18 to be included with 1:15, they speak of two different things. 1:15 speaks of a position Jesus came to be in NATURALLY, while 1:18 speaks of postitions God ALSO worked it out for him to be in so he could hold first place in all things.

And this is attested to by Proverbs 8:22, Revelation 3:14 and Micah 5:2 – which by the way DOES say “beginning” in the LXX, and IS translated as “origin” in almost every well known Bible today. Not to mention the words “Father” and “Son”. Dennison, do you know of any instance in the history of man where a son did not come both FROM and AFTER his father? Why do you think these two equal members of the “Godhead” would decide to call themselves “Father” and “Son”? Did the “Godhead” not know how we as humans would understand those titles? Was the “Godhead” just “messing with our minds” by choosing “Father” and “Son” as their respective titles, knowing full well how we would understand those terms?

This is the most obvious and ludicrous flaw of the trinity and oneness doctrines. In every single instance known to mankind (who btw was said to be created in the image of God), a son is “created”, or “caused to exist” by his father. And in NO instance known to mankind is the son EVER the same being, or even a part of the “totality of the being” of his father. They are father – one being, and son – a totally separate being.

Yet you would have us believe that this particular “Father” and “Son” have always co-existed side by side as two parts of the “totality” of only one being. Even though that goes against everything human beings know about “fathers” and “sons”. You would have us believe that, although this “Godhead” must have known how confusing a “Father” and “Son” who were the same being would be to us humans, those are the titles they decided to give themselves anyway.

peace and love,
mike

September 27, 2010 at 3:51 am#217827

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 26 2010,22:12)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,14:24)

Irene,
How can you say that 1:18 has nothign to do with 15?

i already gave my analysis.

:laugh: Did you hear that Irene? We all better back off because SF gave his “analysis”!

And earlier, he said:

Quote

Irene, if you saw the beginning of this thread,
I already proved that Co. 1:15 depends on 1:18– this is not proof.

You have “proved” nothing SF. Let's break it down:

peace and love,
mike

Quote

Did you hear that Irene? We all better back off because SF gave his “analysis”!

Yes be very afraid!

Quote

You it says………… I DONT CARE!
lol I dont care what YOU THINK, I want the Truth of it.
This isnt PROOf, nor LOGICALLY, proof, Your stating will God is the first of all things so this cant mean that Jesus is preeminent.
If Jesus was Created first, than why mention he is the IMAGE of the invisible God? shouldnt it be backwards? shouldnt it say he is the firstborn of all creation the image of the invisible God? no IT DOES NOT!
This is not fact Mike just because YOU SAY SO lol, Im sorry just because your super older than me doesnt give you the right to make me accept your faulty opinions.

Quote

Do you see the word “Also” at the beginning of 17? This is the
indicator that Paul is done talking about “literally” being first, and moving on to the fact that God “Also” MADE him the head of the body and the firstborn from the dead, so that he “might become the one who is first in all things”.

I actually I DO NOT SEE THE WORD ALSO.
IT says “Kai” which is commonly used as the word “And”
No, you didnt read what i said mike, i said that This indicates that he is proving his point.
So he made claim, now he is proving his point, this is what he does commonly within scripture.
Another example of this is in Philiipians, where he talks about Christ and than gives a discription or the proof of what he is claiming.

This doesnt suggest in any way that he was “Created” but again the disucussions goes back to the fact the he IS First in ALL things.

Quote

No, 1:18 is the conclusion of Paul description about what he was claming and told us why in 19.

Quote

What? you know what ill let WJ correct you on that one, since we both have hit you up in the same subject.

Quote

Not to mention the words “Father” and “Son”. Dennison, do you know of any instance in the history of man where a son did not come both FROM and AFTER his father? Why do you think these two equal members of the “Godhead” would decide to call themselves “Father” and “Son”? Did the “Godhead” not know how we as humans would understand those titles? Was the “Godhead” just “messing with our minds” by choosing “Father” and “Son” as their respective titles, knowing full well how we would understand those terms?

Actually arnt you a Father and A Son?

Quote

Actually God wasnt Always Father, and God wasnt Always the Son, The same way he wasnt ALWAYS the healer.

The funny thing mike is that often you make cliams like, “Man do you think God would do such a thing, to make both titles and see how confusing that is”
Mike why do you make such questions?

Much love mike,

September 27, 2010 at 4:14 am#217829

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,21:46)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2010,08:43)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 24 2010,21:25)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 25 2010,06:40)

So, I think that the Son was begotten when that eternal life within the Father was extended to an existence apart from the Father to be with the Father.

I hear you about this being hard to wrap your mind around but maybe we are just trying to make it hard. I think that it is as simple as God continuing Himself through another person, a Son.

hi Kathy

so you believe that God as a restrain factor,he ad the word inside him all along and could not do anything but get him out in doe time ?

and it had to be the word.

i believe wen God says ;I am alone, God no one else is equal to me'

and this would make us the biggest liars.

so why just not listen to the word of God as an humble minded and truthful person ,with faith and good works……

there is very little fruit production in words discussion.
but to some this is there kick in live and so disturb the true beleivers and take them out of focus for a while.

Pierre

No Pierre,
You do not grasp what I said. Man is different.

Ya Peirre,
You didnt get waht she was saying,
Just like Irene made assumptions, you did as well.
Its ok we all make mistakes.

no, i did understand he correctly,read my remarks and understand it you will see it .

this is what she says;;
(If you think about it, God always existed and then there had to be a first thing to exist in a living way after Him. So,)

you see the affirmation she is making ;HAD TO BE ;this is were things go wrong ,opinions ,men thinking aloud,and then bring you to believe in what is not.

show me with scriptures that Christ was not created;
and do it with the spirit of Christ if you can and understand what i mean by it .

Pierre

September 28, 2010 at 6:52 pm#217985

Lightenup

Participant

Think Pierre!

September 28, 2010 at 8:06 pm#217986

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,12:52)

Think Pierre!

Kathy

yes i think that's why i am,if i would not think i would not be.

but there is a greater I AM than me that i fallow because i am because he is God and because of his son i could be what i am ,

Kathy did you ever wander of what live is worth if you do not have God??
do you see ? or you can not see beyond your friends familly and your home ??

you are doing what men can do best,looking for things who do not help in any way.(dead end questions)

men go to space ,but can not stop destroying there own house (earth)

they can preach, do politics,built machines,planes,satellites,ect,looking if God exist but they do not have the hearth to do good and love each other why???

now God is God alone, the son (it does not matter how, where why ,when)has be created or bring forward,because of the love of God and save some men out the madness of the others,God can do it ,not one men can,soon it will be to late
to built our faith so strong that it will make us go from dead to live.

Pierre

September 28, 2010 at 9:05 pm#217988

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 26 2010,22:51)

If Jesus was Created first, than why mention he is the IMAGE of the invisible God? shouldnt it be backwards? shouldnt it say he is the firstborn of all creation the image of the invisible God? no IT DOES NOT!

Good point Dennison.

September 28, 2010 at 9:18 pm#217989

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 28 2010,15:06)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,12:52)

Think Pierre!

Kathy

yes i think that's why i am,if i would not think i would not be.

but there is a greater I AM than me that i fallow because i am because he is God and because of his son i could be what i am ,

Kathy did you ever wander of what live is worth if you do not have God??
do you see ? or you can not see beyond your friends familly and your home ??

you are doing what men can do best,looking for things who do not help in any way.(dead end questions)

men go to space ,but can not stop destroying there own house (earth)

they can preach, do politics,built machines,planes,satellites,ect,looking if God exist but they do not have the hearth to do good and love each other why???

Pierre

For you to say that it matters not how He is the Son is not knowing the Son by the Spirit. The Spirit will disclose this if you really want to know. The truth sets you free.

September 28, 2010 at 9:53 pm#217991

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 26 2010,12:12)

[And this is attested to by Proverbs 8:22, Revelation 3:14 and Micah 5:2 – which by the way DOES say “beginning” in the LXX, and IS translated as “origin” in almost every well known Bible today.

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 26 2010,22:51)

What? you know what ill let WJ correct you on that one, since we both have hit you up in the same subject.

Dennison

Actually the literal translation of Micah 5:2 from the LXX into English by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851 is as…

2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his “goings forth (mowtsa'ah)” were from the beginning, even from eternity.

And as far as Mikes claim that it “IS translated as “origin” in almost every well known Bible today”, of the 12 most popular English translations at blueletterbible.com 8 of them do not translate the word “mowtsa'ah” as “origin” but translate it as “goings forth”, or “coming forth”.

Not to mention all of the following versions…

AAT – You, Bethlehem [Ephrathah],
too small to be one of Judah's clans,
from you there will come out for Me,
One Who Is to Rule Israel
who “real comings” are from the eternal past.
AB – Whose “going s forth have been from of old, from ancient days — eternity.
ASV – whose [/b]goings forth[/b]” are from of old, from everlasting.
DHB – whose “goings forth” are from of old, from the days of eternity.
EBR – Whose “comings forth” have been from of old from the days of age-past time.
HBME – Who “brought you“, long ago, in old times from the East;
HBRV – whose “goings forth” are from of old, from everlasting.
IB – and His “goings forth” have been from old, from the days of eternity.
IV – whose “goings forth” have been from of old, from everlasting.
KJV – whose “goings forth” have been from of old, from everlasting.
LB – who “is alive from” everlasting ages past.
LBP – whose “goings forth” have been predicted from of old, from eternity.
LXX – and his “goings forth” have been from the beginning, even from eternity.
MRB – whose “goings forth” are from old, from ancient days.
NAS – His “goings forth” are from long ago,
From the days of eternity.
NBV – His “goings forth” are from of old, from days of eternity.
NCV – He “comes from” very old times,
from days long ago.
NEB – one “whose roots” are far back in the past, in days gone by.
NKJ – Whose “goings forth” are from of old,
From everlasting.
NLV – His “coming” was planned long ago, from the beginning.
SNB – whose “comings forth” have been from of old, from the days of age-past time.
TDB – whose “goings forth” have been from of old, from everlasting.
TEV – whose “family line” goes back to ancient times.
YLR – And his “comings forth” are of old,
From the days of antiquity.

The NIV translates it…

NIV – whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. With the footnotes…

Footnote: origins: “HEBREW GOINGS OUT“.

It is obvious that the majority see it as “his goings forth”.

September 28, 2010 at 10:36 pm#217995

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 29 2010,15:05)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 26 2010,22:51)

Good point Dennison.

i can see you support the unsupported idea,

tell me why would Christ be anything else than the image of is father.??

when God create men some parts where also to his image,what are they???(is God human??)

i start to believe that you must have a buz to use your high tech bible program to show what in reality you don't know and that is the spirit of Christ who gives live.

Pierre

September 28, 2010 at 11:04 pm#217998

Baker

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2010,04:12)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,14:24)

Irene,
How can you say that 1:18 has nothign to do with 15?

i already gave my analysis.

:laugh: Did you hear that Irene? We all better back off because SF gave his “analysis”!

And earlier, he said:

Quote

Irene, if you saw the beginning of this thread,
I already proved that Co. 1:15 depends on 1:18– this is not proof.

You have “proved” nothing SF. Let's break it down:

peace and love,
mike

Mike! It seems no matter what you or I put down as prove they just imply something else. Even clear Scriptures, which makes no sense to me…. Keep up the good work…. Time will come and all will come to the understanding of the truths……
I just can't think of anything else to say to them, it is ironic and so weird to ignore clear Scriptures. Even Jesus own words…… I might just do what my Husband is doing and stay away…. There are to may Brethren here that want it their ways or no way……that to me is unfortunately…..Peace Irene

September 29, 2010 at 3:35 am#218027

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 29 2010,08:53)

Dennison

Actually the literal translation of Micah 5:2 from the LXX into English by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851 is as…

2 And thou, Bethleem, house of Ephratha, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Juda; yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel; and his “goings forth (mowtsa'ah)” were from the beginning, even from eternity.

First of all boys,

The fact that the LXX translates it as “beginning” speaks volumes. Jesus and the disciples quoted from the LXX more often than they quoted from the original Hebrew texts. So however Sir Lancelot translated the LXX back into English is not so important. For all we know, Sir Lancelot could have been a die-hard trinitarian, and felt obliged to translate a Greek word that is CLEARLY “beginning” back into the more obscure “goings out” to ensure that the verse didn't imply his God #2 had a “beginning”.

About the Septuagint (LXX) from http://biblicalgreek.org/links/lxx.php:

The Septuagint stands as one of the great historical wonders of the world. It was the world’s first major work of translation. The history and story behind the Septuagint is shrouded with intrigue and mystery which led to its general prominence over any other version of the Old Testament for over 500 years. The Septuagint, not the Hebrew Bible, was the Old Testament for the writers of the New Testament as well as the church fathers. Because most of the church fathers could not read Hebrew, exegetical debates were settled using the Septuagint. Even today the Septuagint remains the canonical text for the Orthodox Christian tradition. Its impact upon the New Testament cannot be overstated. It also provides a wealth of philological data for understanding Koine’ Greek. Furthermore, the widely varied translation techniques found throughout the Septuagint have raised questions concerning theories and methods of translation, which still haunt modern translators. “Although few students will pursue Septuagint studies as a specialty at the graduate level, all students of the Bible, regardless of their religious identity, should understand the historical importance of the Septuagint and its significant contribution to the development of the Bible that we hold in our hands today. As the eminent biblical scholar Ferdinand Hitzig is said to have remarked to his students, 'Gentlemen, have you a Septuagint? If not, sell all you have, and buy a Septuagint.'”

Get the picture guys? The Septuagint was thought to be translated by 70 Greek speaking Jewish experts in Hebrew scripture. Don't you think these guys knew what “mowtsa'ah” meant when they translated it into the Greek language as “arche”, which means “beginning”? Do you see where it says the church fathers used it to resolve exegetical debates? Isn't that what we're having here? If it was considered as THE SCRIPTURES to the disciples who actually wrote the NT, then should you be so fast to blow off the fact that it has “beginning” in Micah 5:2?

And I find it funny that the last list of translations that WJ posted to me had 15 translations that rendered it “origins”. Now he has excluded all of those.

Hey Dennison, read the last few pages of “Does God Procreate”. WJ has had a “change of heart” now and DOES think that “origin” is the correct translation.

So both WJ and the LXX think it speaks of Jesus' “origin”……what do you say Dennison?

mike

September 29, 2010 at 3:39 am#218028

Blocked

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,09:36)

i can see you support the unsupported idea,

tell me why would Christ be anything else than the image of is father.??

Hi Pierre,

Exactly. And what difference would the order that the two phrases appeared in make?

If it said Jesus was “King of kings and Lord of lords”, would it be somehow different than saying Jesus is “Lord of lords and King of kings”?

He is both of those things, so what does the order they're written in matter?

Anything for a diversion, I guess.

mike

September 29, 2010 at 3:47 am#218029

Blocked

Quote (Baker @ Sep. 29 2010,10:04)

Hang in there Irene! We are making headway ever so slowly. Did you know that WJ now agrees that Micah 5:2 is a Messianic prophecy? AND that it talks about Jesus' “origin”? He is still a little fuzzy about all the details, but I'm working with him on it. At least he's made one small step in the right direction.

Don't go away Irene……I steal many of my scriptures from your posts and just research and expand on them!

peace and love,
mike

September 29, 2010 at 4:12 am#218035

Participant

Quote (Baker @ Sep. 29 2010,17:04)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 27 2010,04:12)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 25 2010,14:24)

Irene,
How can you say that 1:18 has nothign to do with 15?

i already gave my analysis.

:laugh: Did you hear that Irene? We all better back off because SF gave his “analysis”!

And earlier, he said:

Quote

Irene, if you saw the beginning of this thread,
I already proved that Co. 1:15 depends on 1:18– this is not proof.

You have “proved” nothing SF. Let's break it down:

peace and love,
mike

hi Irene

do not go i also read your post often ,and those of Georg but i am not a caracter to send flowers but this is true,

Pierre

September 29, 2010 at 4:33 am#218040

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,03:36)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 29 2010,15:05)

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 26 2010,22:51)

Good point Dennison.

i can see you support the unsupported idea,

tell me why would Christ be anything else than the image of is father.??

when God create men some parts where also to his image,what are they???(is God human??)

i start to believe that you must have a buz to use your high tech bible program to show what in reality you don't know and that is the spirit of Christ who gives live.

Pierre

Pierre…
The Image of the Invisible God, what does that mean to you?

September 29, 2010 at 4:38 am#218043

Participant

Quote (Baker @ Sep. 29 2010,04:04)

Irene,
I told you my points, i believe perfectly what It says,

But the BIBLE does not say that “Jesus was created”
or that “God created the Son”
or “the Father created the majestic son in the beginning”

The bible does not say, “In the beginning God created his Son who through him the heavens and earth were created, this is the first day”

The bible does not say this

You see!??

I do believe in the bible, its you and Mike who say otherwise.

Maybe you should stay away, you dont want to listen,

AND, You attacked me!
I had no intentions of being rude nor actually having a debate with you!
but you were the one who was like “shame on you bad boy, shame one you”

Very judgemental of you, when i responded to your questions with the intentions of Fellowship in mind.

You didnt have peace when you spoke with me, you attacked me,

What your doing is not what your stating.

Anyways……..
I hope you understand what im actually saying instead of making up false accusations.
Much love,

September 29, 2010 at 4:38 am#218044

Blocked

SF:

Quote

You it says………… I DONT CARE!
lol I dont care what YOU THINK, I want the Truth of it.

Okay, fair enough. How about Eusebius? He was said to be the “greatest Greek teacher” and “the most learned theologian of his day”. This is a man who grew up speaking the same Greek language that the NT was written in. The phrase in Col 1:15 is “prototokos pasa ktisis”, and Eusebius understood it to mean that Jesus was the “firstborn of every creature BEFORE ALL THE AGES”. Now if he thought it was BEFORE ALL THE AGES, then how could it mean “preeminent of every creature” when there weren't any other creatures yet?

How about Ignatius? He was said to be a direct disciple of the apostle John himself. He thought Jesus was “the firstborn of every creature”…..BEFORE THE WORLDS.

Are you taking the hint here? Men who knew the Koine' Greek language way better than us took “firstborn of every creature” to mean exactly what it said. In fact, when and why did this thinking that it must mean “preeminent” even start? Think about it Dennison. Can you show any scriptural or language related reason that it doesn't simply mean that Jesus was the one who was created first? YOUR opinion is worth no more than mine. So YOUR opinion that it is a metaphoric way for Paul to say Jesus is “preeminent” over creation doesn't amount to a hill of beans. ESPECIALLY when we all know you MUST have it mean something other than what it clearly says in order to keep your “Jesus has always existed” doctrine alive and well.

So not only must you make up new imagined definitions, but you must also do the same for all the other scriptures that say Jesus had a beginning.

I posted about “firstborn”, but never saw a response. “Firstborn” in the Bible has some “laws of usage”.

1. The “firstborn” of any group is ALWAYS a part of that group. So Jesus MUST be a part OF creation in order to be the firstborn OF creation.

2. The “firstborn” is ALWAYS the one who was born first…….UNLESS it is made crystal clear that those “firstborn rights” were taken away from someone else and given to the “new firstborn” in that group. Can you tell me who originally was the “firstborn of all creation” who had his “firstborn rights” taken away and given to Jesus?

SF:

Quote

I actually I DO NOT SEE THE WORD ALSO.
IT says “Kai” which is commonly used as the word “And”

Who was at the party? Well, there was Mike. Oh, and Dennison.

Who was at the party? Well, there was Mike. Oh, also Dennison.

Isn't “and” just another way of saying “also”?

So my OPINION is that Paul is saying, “Jesus IS this. And/Also he was appointed as that.”

SF:

Quote

What? you know what ill let WJ correct you on that one, since we both have hit you up in the same subject.

He has “corrected” me. I await your comments about it.

I said:

Quote

You replied:

Quote

Actually arnt you a Father and A Son?

Why yes, I am. Do I also consist of two separate persons – one father and the other one son? Please answer the point in a manner that actually addresses it.

SF:

Quote

Actually God wasnt Always Father, and God wasnt Always the Son,

I agree. God became a Father when He begot a Son. Jesus became a Son when he was begotten by his Father.

Tell me Dennison, in your mind, when EXACTLY did God become a “Father/Son” duality?

SF:

Quote

The funny thing mike is that often you make cliams like, “Man do you think God would do such a thing, to make both titles and see how confusing that is”
Mike why do you make such questions?

The scriptures say that our God is NOT a God of confusion. Do you or do you not think that using the titles “Father” and “Son” for the co-eternal, co-equal members of the “Godhead” causes “confusion”?

Knowing that human beings ALWAYS understand a “son” to come FROM and AFTER his “father”, does it make sense to you personally that someone who is NOT a God of confusion would choose those particular titles to describe the relationship between two co-equal, co-eternal members of the “Godhead”?

I'm just curious.

peace and love,
mike

September 29, 2010 at 4:45 am#218045