- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2010,08:35) So both WJ and the LXX think it speaks of Jesus' “origin”……what do you say Dennison? mike
Trying to catch up with all the posts,
When i Read it, ill hit you up homeboyQuote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2010,09:48) Post it again in English SF. I'm not fluent in gibberish. mike
Ok Let me edit it,
and ill re-post itOk Done, let me know if its better
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2010,08:39) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,09:36) WJ 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
No Mike! no no no!LOL! actually im doing what your doing!
At one point you said that Revlations was Written first and that the gospel of John was written later, and for you this is proof that John didnt believe that Jesus was God, based on intention. You typically use “intentions” of the writers or of God as “proof” of your cliams or rebuttals.
This is the same logical “Mike tactic” thats valid in the world of the Mike.
You have also made “intention” cliams like “why would paul say Jesus is preemenient when we know God is”
If you think making cliams based on intention are valid than My cliams are just as valid.Your arguements at times are based on intentions,So im doing the same thing and making an arguement based on intentions of the writer.
Why would Paul state that Jesus is the Image of the Invisible God (that we know who is a living God) and than say he is firstborn of all creatures after words?
Wouldnt it make more sense if it were backwords?(To Add: Im not sure this includes the heavens and the earth and things that are natural, what do you think?)
Your rebuttal to my last statment that terrarica responded to:
I think your Anaylsis is incorrect.
firstborn of the dead and firstborn of all creation is a better example of interchangable phrases
just like the phrase you mentioned “king of kings and lord of lords…”
Those fit togethor, but “not the Image of the invisible God and the firstborn of all creation.”
Title with a Title, Firstborn, with Firstborn,Image and Firstborn, Two differnt things.
Not one of your brightetess moments mike….
(Is this better, im sorry i was in a hurry)
Mike,
Quote 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. He is part of the creation in that He performed the act of creation with His Father. The creator is definitely part of the creation account. He is the Firstborn of all creation as the co-creator, not as the created. Firstborn does not mean first created Mike, it means firstborn.
Kathi,
I'm into some heavy stuff with the “brain trust” of WJ and SF here.
If you're going to divert the discussion, then at least have the good sense that God gave you to not make a claim that our Creator Jehovah is also a part “of creation”. peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,23:02) Mike, Quote 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. He is part of the creation in that He performed the act of creation with His Father. The creator is definitely part of the creation account. He is the Firstborn of all creation as the co-creator, not as the created. Firstborn does not mean first created Mike, it means firstborn.
Kathywere that it say that Christ is the co-creator,God is the creator i have not seen it written other wise,did you ??
trough him and for him would that mean that he did it
The creator and the creation are one,because no creator no creation so were there is creation there must be a creator.
Christ say scriptures is a participant of creation not a producer of creation.
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2010,00:09) Kathi, I'm into some heavy stuff with the “brain trust” of WJ and SF here.
If you're going to divert the discussion, then at least have the good sense that God gave you to not make a claim that our Creator Jehovah is also a part “of creation”. peace and love,
mike
Mike,
You gotta keep upHere is what the word 'creation' means:
ktisis
ktisiv ktisis
Pronunciation:ktis'-is
Origin:from 2936
Reference:TDNT – 3:1000,481
PrtSpch:n f
In Greek:ktisei 4, ktisewv 8, ktisiv 7
In NET:creation 14, of creation 2, creature 1, institution 1, to creature 1
In AV:creature 11, creation 6, building 1, ordinance 1
Count:19
Definition:1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted
from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinanceSo, the Father and the Son were part of the act of creation, the created beings were part of the act of creation also. Just sayin' is all.
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,00:14) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,23:02) Mike, Quote 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. He is part of the creation in that He performed the act of creation with His Father. The creator is definitely part of the creation account. He is the Firstborn of all creation as the co-creator, not as the created. Firstborn does not mean first created Mike, it means firstborn.
Kathywere that it say that Christ is the co-creator,God is the creator i have not seen it written other wise,did you ??
trough him and for him would that mean that he did it
The creator and the creation are one,because no creator no creation so were there is creation there must be a creator.
Christ say scriptures is a participant of creation not a producer of creation.
Pierre
Pierre,
You are right, the creator and creation go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Our creator happens to be the Father and the Son, they both take part to produce creation:1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. NET
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2010,23:09) Kathi, I'm into some heavy stuff with the “brain trust” of WJ and SF here.
If you're going to divert the discussion, then at least have the good sense that God gave you to not make a claim that our Creator Jehovah is also a part “of creation”. peace and love,
mike
Mikethere is a bible program worth 6000$ at logos.com that has everything that you can almost have about the bible ,
but it will burn you up.i think
Pierre
Quote 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?
Mike im going to be honest, I have no studies on the early Chruch fathers like Lu, You, and WJ have.
Im not going to respond dishonestly, so i wanted to confess that.
I know more about the Spanish translations than some things about the KJV, but from there is faith in the Holy spirit.
IMO I think that goes to far….Spiritually i think that its unnessary to follow the teachings of other men, but focus more on what the Holy spirit Thinks, about what He wants to teach, and guide us in the right direction, i think in good intentions we can learn a few things here and there but we start putting faith in the old translators more than the One who inspired it all. Than again thats just my opinion, ill look it up and give you a better anaylsis of what i learn from such things.But from what you said so far, and what I can answer is your last question. I say preeminent or in other words the First over every creature.
Actually i cant argue with what Eusebuis “thinks” or what he thought it meant or when it occured, becuase i lack in that field of subject of the studies of the people who transalted the bible.But ill stick to bible, The bible however doesnt mention before the ages. When it says He is firstborn of all creation, that he is The Son of God, the heir of all things,
The very next verse which explains that All things were created by Him, Which excludes the God, the Holy Spirit and himself.
Jesus is not part of this creation, but in other words just as he is the Image of the Invisible God, he is the Firstborn over all creation, or in other words the Son of God who is above everything that is made because he created everything that was made.In other words, becaues he created everything, which excludes himself, than the previous verse cannot be related to him being created because it would make the next verse even more confusing.
Quote 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.
Did he believe that Jesus was created?Quote 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.
Your right my opinion doesnt matter, but thats why i included biblical Text such as 1:18 and the fact that Jesus created everything that we know of.
To make the Conjecture that God created Jesus, would be simply conjecture because there is no such verse that directly says such a thing.
Get my point?
To say that he was created because it says firstborn, doesnt count either, because first born can include inheritence or being First in other words Preemeneint.I gave other examples how the same words were used in reference to Firstborn of the dead and Firstborn amoung brethern.
In each case it means for him to be FIRST, I think you got stuck in the word “preeminence”
Im focussing more that he Was First or like… the position he holds is higher than all.
You say the word is not presented, True, but the message that Paul referrred is unraveled in 1:18.Quote 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.
Acutally i didnt make up a new definition, I said the whole idea in reference with context represents Preemenince and not being created. And if your talking about Revelations 3:14 thats left open for dicussion if you want to again.Quote 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?
1. that wouldnt make any sense with 1:16 sinced he created everything.
2. Actually the Firstborn rights is in inheritance, Since Jesus is the Son of God, that would be automtically his position and it always was his position simply because 1:19 says it Pleased the Father to do so. That all fullness dwell in him.Quote 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.”
We were just talking about Opinions…werent we?
Paul made a Claim, like he does often, and Proved it.
He said be humble like Christ IN WHOM: (like philipians)
And its the very same case here in reference to 1:14
He spoke about IN WHOM we have redemption of his Blood and than gave a description of Him and what he did.
and proved Why it was like that.Quote He has “corrected” me. I await your comments about it.
I want to see how it works out for you too before i continue on, seems ya went far beyond my extent of knowledge about who wrote this and that and this and that, and this guy said this and that. Ill do some research myself and hit you back up homeboyQuote 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.
Yes you do. You take authority as your role as Father, and submit your authority to your Father as a Son.
Your relationship with your Father is not the same relationship you have with your Son.Quote Tell me Dennison, in your mind, when EXACTLY did God become a “Father/Son” duality?
I dont believe in a Dualitiy.
Actually I believe that the Son who is the Image of the Invisible God, came to Reveal the Father and died and resurrected so that we must Know the Son to be able to have the rights to call God Almighty our Father.Quote 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”?
Actually i dont believe in the Trinity soooo, or better yet let me say that i think God is beyond the Trinity.
I dont believe in a co-equal members in the God head,
I believe in one God,
or in hebrew that God is Echad.Quote 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”?
Yet we forget that Jesus came as a Son of Man, yet never had a Man as his biological father.
God works in perfection. I dont think its confusing in any sense, but again Mike is “intentions” really a cliam your going to make again?
Anyways I think even the Jews belived he was blaspheming for calling himself Son of God, when according to you we all are Sons of God, so than why was he crucfied?
I dont beleive at all its confusing to believe that the Son was never seperated from the Father, and that they always were togethor in One.
I find it harder to believe that the Father had to create Jesus into existence and than into a virgens womb.
I find it alot harder to even comprehend what Jesus is in fact.
Angels or a demi-god is a definition that is easier to accpet than the Son of God who is not God but not Human but not an Angel, and not a Demi God, yet that created everything, yet that came to flesh and was perfect enough to die for all our sins, yet to ressurect himself, and Yet to destroy all his enemies and yet be the way the truth and the light and be the only way towards God.I mean if he isnt God, and isnt a number of things, what is He?
and saying he is simply the Son doesnt cut it, because what is that?Now that i have answered your curiousity can we stop talking about beliefs, and talk about the Thread?
much love old man,
Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,16:39) Mike there is a bible program worth 6000$ at logos.com that has everything that you can almost have about the bible ,
but it will burn you up.i think
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Are you offering to buy it for me?
(I think I'll have a chance to look at you fax tonight)
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,16:23) So, the Father and the Son were part of the act of creation, the created beings were part of the act of creation also. Just sayin' is all.
Hi Kathi,God created cows. Is God a part of the “group of cows”?
God ALONE created……scripture says so plain and clear. He chose to do that THROUGH Jesus, so I think it's fair to say Jesus played a part, though he is NEVER given the title of “Creator” or even “Co-Creator” in scripture.
God created me THROUGH my parents. Does that mean my parents are “Co-Creators” with God?
And as far as your definition for “ktisis”, when “creation” is used for “the act of creating”, it is clear from the context. For example, “God's creation started many years ago.”
It does not and never will mean that our God who created everything is a part of the “group of created things”. In order to be a part of that group, you have to be a “created thing”. Jesus is not only a part of that group, but the firstborn of that group. But that is only what the inspired word of God tells us…….you may view things differently.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 29 2010,16:01) Why would Paul state that Jesus is the Image of the Invisible God (that we know who is a living God) and than say he is firstborn of all creatures after words?
Wouldnt it make more sense if it were backwords?
No. It wouldn't matter if Paul said, “he is the Immanuel, he is the firstborn from the dead, he is the image of God…., etc”.He is listing things that Jesus is. It doesn't matter to the context here which one he says first. But if you would think for a minute with a clear mind, the fact that Jesus is the image OF God Himself should be enough to make it clear that he is NOT God Himself.
mike
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 29 2010,16:52) Now that i have answered your curiousity can we stop talking about beliefs, and talk about the Thread? much love old man,
Absolutely my deranged juvenile delinquent.Dennison, do you believe Jesus always existed as a being?
Or do you think God caused him to exist a some point?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 29 2010,19:44) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,16:23) So, the Father and the Son were part of the act of creation, the created beings were part of the act of creation also. Just sayin' is all.
Hi Kathi,God created cows. Is God a part of the “group of cows”?
God ALONE created……scripture says so plain and clear. He chose to do that THROUGH Jesus, so I think it's fair to say Jesus played a part, though he is NEVER given the title of “Creator” or even “Co-Creator” in scripture.
God created me THROUGH my parents. Does that mean my parents are “Co-Creators” with God?
And as far as your definition for “ktisis”, when “creation” is used for “the act of creating”, it is clear from the context. For example, “God's creation started many years ago.”
It does not and never will mean that our God who created everything is a part of the “group of created things”. In order to be a part of that group, you have to be a “created thing”. Jesus is not only a part of that group, but the firstborn of that group. But that is only what the inspired word of God tells us…….you may view things differently.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
Really, the cows? That is no comparison to what we are talking about.The Son is not given the title of 'Creator' or 'Co-creator' but He is given the credit, so with or without the title mentioned, He is said to have created all things.
You said:
Quote And as far as your definition for “ktisis”, when “creation” is used for “the act of creating”, it is clear from the context. For example, “God's creation started many years ago.” The very next verse (Col 1:16) it talking about the act of the Firstborn as the creator, so don't try to tell me that He, as the creator, isn't in context.
Think about this…can you be the Creator of all creation and not be created? If so, then you can be the Firstborn of all creation and not be created. Don't you see how that works? He was the Firstborn of all creation as the firstborn AND co-creator as you see in the next verse in Col 1. You have said that you will not say something is black when it is white in scripture or something to that effect. However, you are saying 'firstborn' and meaning 'first created' and thus you are calling what is black as if it were white.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,23:29) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,00:14) Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 29 2010,23:02) Mike, Quote 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. He is part of the creation in that He performed the act of creation with His Father. The creator is definitely part of the creation account. He is the Firstborn of all creation as the co-creator, not as the created. Firstborn does not mean first created Mike, it means firstborn.
Kathywere that it say that Christ is the co-creator,God is the creator i have not seen it written other wise,did you ??
trough him and for him would that mean that he did it
The creator and the creation are one,because no creator no creation so were there is creation there must be a creator.
Christ say scriptures is a participant of creation not a producer of creation.
Pierre
Pierre,
You are right, the creator and creation go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. Our creator happens to be the Father and the Son, they both take part to produce creation:1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. NET
Kathy1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.
Kathy,Kathy my friend ,What Paul says here is one God from whom are all things
then we have Christ through whom we live BECAUSE HE GIVES IS LIVE IN SACRIFICE SO THAT WE MAY OBTAIN THAT LIVE,it as nothing the do with creation ,there is only one creator God the father ,Christ is a instrument by which God create all things.
Pierre
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 30 2010,18:33) Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 29 2010,16:39) Mike there is a bible program worth 6000$ at logos.com that has everything that you can almost have about the bible ,
but it will burn you up.i think
Pierre
Hi Pierre,Are you offering to buy it for me?
(I think I'll have a chance to look at you fax tonight)
peace and love,
mike
Mikeno i will not ,the reason why i posted that ,most of your opponents have those programs and so have a advantage on you ,for that type of study and knowledge what is to me useless,and always end in a deadlock.
it does not progress truth ,it does not teach truth,and the spirit of Christ is not find in it .
wisdom of above is found otherwise not that way.
Pierre
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 30 2010,13:37) The Son is not given the title of 'Creator' or 'Co-creator' but He is given the credit, so with or without the title mentioned, He is said to have created all things.
Jesus is NEVER given the credit of creation. The closest the scriptures ever come to saying anything close to that is MAYBE in Hebrews 1, where Paul could be crediting Jesus with laying the foundations of the earth with his own hands.That one is “iffy” though, because he could just as easily be speaking of God Himself in the middle of the passage. And the fact that God Himself is said to be the One who did that leads me to think Paul was in fact speaking of God.
The scriptures YOU allude to are the ones where it is stated that things came to be THROUGH Jesus, but trinitarian translations like to use the word “BY” instead.
But by using the word “BY”, they go directly against the scriptures where God said He created everything ALONE.
And they are cool with this because they think Jesus IS God anyway…….so what's the difference?
Kathi, just understand 1 Cor 8:6,
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.Get it? All things came from (or were created BY) God. All things did NOT come FROM God AND Jesus.
Kathi:
Quote The very next verse (Col 1:16) it talking about the act of the Firstborn as the creator, so don't try to tell me that He, as the creator, isn't in context.
Try a more accurate translation: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.You can stick with your “BY” translations and feel all happy inside because you think it agrees with YOU. But don't forget, it disagrees with the bulk of scripture, both OT AND NT.
Acts 4:24 NIV
24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.They prayed this through the name of God's holy servant Jesus, so I don't think they were including this “servant” of the God who made everything as a “co-creator”.
Kathi:
Quote Think about this…can you be the Creator of all creation and not be created? If so, then you can be the Firstborn of all creation and not be created.
Can you show me anywhere in scripture where a “firstborn” of any particular group is NOT a part OF that group? Hint: There are none.Kathi:
Quote You have said that you will not say something is black when it is white in scripture or something to that effect. However, you are saying 'firstborn' and meaning 'first created' and thus you are calling what is black as if it were white.
I am doing no such thing. If “Zed” was the firstborn of all cows, then “Zed” absolutely MUST be part of the “group of cows”.If Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, then Jesus MUST be part of the “group of created things”.
When I begot my son, with the help of God, I CREATED a new life where there was not one before.
Scriptures tell us God can create beings from dust, from rocks, from dead bones……so why can't he create a being from His own “loins”.
You get so hung up on the word “create”. For some reason you think that if Jesus is “begotten”, it is an honor. But if he was “created” by his wonderful loving God as the first of His works before all ages, this is somehow a dishonor to him. Yet Jesus proudly tells us he is “the beginning of the creation of God”. I just don't get it.
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
