- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Thinker,
You wrote:Quote Kathi,
I have no problem at all with your commentary on Jesus' birth and the miraculous conception. It is on the word “firstborn” that we sharply disagree. Jesus is indeed the firstborn “every creature.” The Greek is “pasa ktisis” and refers exclusively to mankind. Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to “every creature” (pasa ktisis). In Colossians 1:23 Paul said that the gospel had been preached to “every creature” (pasa ktisis) under heaven. So I want to establish first of all that Christ's being the “firstborn” has reference to mankind only and not to animals or the rest of creation.The second point is that the term “firstborn” simply means that He is sovereign and supreme over all mankind (Colossians 1:18). It has nothing whatsoever to do with His supposed beginning. You say that He is firstborn literally from God. Yet if you look at Christ's geneaology in Luke you will note that Christ's geneaology is traced back to Adam who is called the son of God.
Adam qualifies as God's firstborn literally rather than Jesus. Paul calls Adam the first man. Luke says he was the son of God. Seeing therefore that Jesus is NOT the firstborn of all mankind literally, but He is indeed the “firstborn” of all mankind truly, the word “firstborn” in reference to Jesus simply means that He is supreme over all mankind. (Col. 1:1:18).
You say that we sharply disagree on the word “firstborn” and what that means in Colossians. Am I saying that correctly?
You also say that “creature” means “mankind.”Here is the Strong's definition:
NT:2937
kti/si$
ktisis (ktis'-is); from NT:2936; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively):
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)So with respect to Strong's definition, the Son is the Firstborn of the original formation, i.e. the firstborn of any originally born thing. You do know that the term firstborn literally and most commonly means the first out of the womb…don't you. Yet you want to site the exceptions to the natural meaning of the term instead of considering the simple natural meaning of the term. You insist that we are not to understand the term by what has been displayed through God's creation but exchange the natural meaning for the unnatural. You believe that the Son is the exception to the created norm.
You do realize that Adam was not called a “firstborn” don't you? Adam was created and would be the first-created, not firstborn.
You mentioned that Jesus's genealogy goes all the way back to Adam who is the son of GOD. Jesus's genealogy has to do with the Son that came in the flesh. He existed prior to the flesh and has other origins.
LU
To all,
Here is where the term “firstborn” refers to the Son, twice. First He is the firstborn of all creation and secondly, He is the firstborn from the dead.Col 1:13-20
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
NASUI am going to list the things that He is “first” in since one of the points of this passage is that He has first place in everything.
The firstborn of all creation
He is before all things
Also, He is head of the body, the church
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead
He has first place in everything.This cannot be summed up as He is the firstborn of all creation from the dead.
Here is the passage in another translation:
Col 1:15-1815
Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things;16
For by him all things were made, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, authorities, lords, rulers, and powers; all things were made by him and for him;17
He is before all things, and in him all things have being.18
And he is the head of the body, the church: the starting point of all things, the first to come again from the dead; so that in all things he might have the chief place.
BBEThanks for lookin'
LULightenup wrote:
Quote Here is where the term “firstborn” refers to the Son, twice. First He is the firstborn of all creation and secondly, He is the firstborn from the dead.
Some scriptures can be hard to understand and they are contusing you since you seem to believe two different ways of wording the same event are two different events. Maybe this scripture will help reconcile the two.
2 Corinthians 5:17(NIV) reads:
Quote Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
2 Corinthians 5:17(KJV) reads:
Quote Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Galatians 6:15(NIV) reads:
Quote Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Galatians 6:15(KJV) reads:
Quote For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Kerwin,
The new creature comes after the old creature. Each creature has a beginning; born once then born again.
Firstborn of all creation…first to receive original life of all to receive original life
Firstborn from the dead…first to receive the promised eternal life after death of all to receive the promised eternal life after death.
LULightenup said:
Quote If you think that a teaching exists in the Bible using the actual term “firstborn” as it applies to Ishmael and Isaac which ALSO says applies to Christ would you please present your scripture account? Let's first define the term “firstborn.” Ishmael was the firstborn literally but not covenantally. Do you agree or disagree? Isaac was the firstborn covenantally but not literally. Do you agree or disagree?
You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,19:29) Lightenup said: Quote If you think that a teaching exists in the Bible using the actual term “firstborn” as it applies to Ishmael and Isaac which ALSO says applies to Christ would you please present your scripture account? Let's first define the term “firstborn.” Ishmael was the firstborn literally but not covenantally. Do you agree or disagree? Isaac was the firstborn covenantally but not literally. Do you agree or disagree?
You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind.
thinker
Thinker,If we are going to define firstborn then lets look at the term as it relates to the perfect sacrifice since that is comparing apples to apples. How Isaac and Ishmael were “firstborns” have nothing to do with how the Son was a firstborn unless you can produce evidence in scripture that shows that the pattern of Abraham's sons is a precursor to the Father's Son as the Firstborn.
Would you agree that the perfect sacrifice in the OT would be defined as the firstborn male of a specific animal, unblemished?
Ex 13:2
“Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”
NASUEx 13:1-16
Consecration of the Firstborn
13 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”
3 Moses said to the people, “Remember this day in which you went out from Egypt, from the house of slavery; for by a powerful hand the Lord brought you out from this place. And nothing leavened shall be eaten. 4 “On this day in the month of Abib, you are about to go forth. 5 “It shall be when the Lord brings you to the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, which He swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall observe this rite in this month. 6 “For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, and on the seventh day there shall be a feast to the Lord. 7 “Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and nothing leavened shall be seen among you, nor shall any leaven be seen among you in all your borders. 8 “You shall tell your son on that day, saying, 'It is because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt.' 9 “And it shall serve as a sign to you on your hand, and as a reminder on your forehead, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth; for with a powerful hand the Lord brought you out of Egypt. 10 “Therefore, you shall keep this ordinance at its appointed time from year to year.
11 “Now when the Lord brings you to the land of the Canaanite, as He swore to you and to your fathers, and gives it to you, 12 you shall devote to the Lord the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the Lord. 13 “But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. 14 “And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' then you shall say to him, 'With a powerful hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. 15 'It came about, when Pharaoh was stubborn about letting us go, that the Lord killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man and the firstborn of beast. Therefore, I sacrifice to the Lord the males, the first offspring of every womb, but every firstborn of my sons I redeem.' 16 “So it shall serve as a sign on your hand and as phylacteries on your forehead, for with a powerful hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt.”
NASUEx 34:19-20
19 “The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep. 20 “You shall redeem with a lamb the first offspring from a donkey; and if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck. You shall redeem all the firstborn of your sons. None shall appear before Me empty-handed.
NASUWhat do you think?
LUQuote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,16:29) You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind. thinker
Adam was created not born, Gen.1:27.Jesus was literally born via the miraculous intervention of God, being the only one born of a virgin.
Not a ridiculous idea but a wonderful idea pre- determined by his heavenly father and ours, Mt.6:9.
Seeking
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 25 2009,21:44) Hi GM,
God had many sons with Him before Jesus came in the flesh.
But none were said to be infilled with His Spirit.I am beginning to wonder if the begettal spoken of in scripture is when Jesus was reborn of God's Spirit at the Jordan. It is the Spiritual sonship we can share with him and His God.
Hi brother Nick,
Thanks for your reply. The other sons of God you quoted above may be angels as you often mention from the Book of Job. But you say that Jesus was begotten of God at Jordan when he was anointed by God's Holy Spirit. If so you are agreeing with me that Jesus was full blooded son of David and not God. He became God's son when he was born/re-born of Spirit as per your above quote.But my question to you is; how is Jesus a monogenes son of God?
Brother Kerwin says that Jesus became son of God even at his conception because the Holy Spirit was involved in his conception. I want to ask him; whether Jesus was flesh and blood son of God?
Hope these questions will clarify us some doubts on Jesus birth.
Peace to you
AdamHi GM,
God tells us that Jesus is the Son of David.
But Jesus was conceived in Mary of the Spirit of God.gollamudi wrote:
Quote Brother Kerwin says that Jesus became son of God even at his conception because the Holy Spirit was involved in his conception. I want to ask him; whether Jesus was flesh and blood son of God?
I seem not to have been as clear spoken as I believed I was. There were two different events involving the Holy Spirit that occurred at Jesus' conception. The first even is the conception itself and the second event was that Jesus was immediately reborn in Spirit. I am not sure it happened at conception since the scripture is not clear on the point and all I know that from the point he was able to sin onward he lived by the Holy Spirit and thus must have been reborn of it. Since John the Baptist knew Jesus' mother when John was within the womb but six months then I would conclude six months in the womb would be the latest possibility and the earliest is conception. Sadly this is all inferred from scripture since scripture does not explicitly address the point at which Jesus was reborn in Spirit and some even question the rebirth. That and other obstacles God has placed in the way to test the hearts of those who claim to seek Him.
Mark 14:36(NIV) reads:
Quote “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
Romans 8:15(NIV) reads:
Quote For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.[a] And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”
Galatians 4:6(NIV) reads:
Quote Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Lightenup said:
Quote If we are going to define firstborn then lets look at the term as it relates to the perfect sacrifice since that is comparing apples to apples. How Isaac and Ishmael were “firstborns” have nothing to do with how the Son was a firstborn unless you can produce evidence in scripture that shows that the pattern of Abraham's sons is a precursor to the Father's Son as the Firstborn. Kathi,
Throughout the new testament the idea of Christ as God's “firstborn” indicates His supremacy over God's family just as the firsborn son in Hebrew culture was preeminent. And Christ inherited the title “firstborn” just as Isaac and Jacob did. They were NOT born the firstborn. Isaac acquired the title because his older brother was kicked out of the covenant. Jacob gained the name “only begotten” and “firstborn” by conning his older brother Esau out of his birthright. Isaac and Jacob consequently became the heads of the covenantal family.Jesus, just as Isaac and Jacob was not born the head. Jesus did not have a human father. He was the firstborn of Mary and therefore had no such rights as “firstborn.” So Jesus had to acquire the position as head just as Isaac and Jacob. The difference is that Jesus EARNED the title unlike Isaac and Jacob. The title just fell on Isaac and Jacob gained it by deceit.
It wasn't until He EARNED the title that God begat Him as Son. Hebrews 1 is very clear about this.
Quote AFTER making purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son TODAY I have begotten you”?
Then Hebrews says that AFTER He had offered Himself for sins he passed through the heavens as the high priest (4:14). It wasn't until he was exalted as high priest that God begat him as Son,
Quote So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten you”; as he also says in another place,
“You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” (5:5-6)
This does not mean that he wasn't “a son” beforehand,
Quote Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:8-10) It is without dispute that Jesus was required to EARN the name “firstborn” or “begotten.” Therefore, His name “begotten Son” has no reference to His beginning or to God's reproducing Himself.
The expression “firstborn” in reference to sacrifices is another matter. It is NOT comparing apples with apples as you say. Firstborn animals were not heads of anything.
thinker
Quote (SEEKING @ April 26 2009,21:32) Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,16:29) You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind. thinker
Adam was created not born, Gen.1:27.Jesus was literally born via the miraculous intervention of God, being the only one born of a virgin.
Not a ridiculous idea but a wonderful idea pre- determined by his heavenly father and ours, Mt.6:9.
Seeking
Hi Seeking,
Do you believe that the Son of GOD existed in a living way before His conception in Mary?
KathiQuote (SEEKING @ April 27 2009,13:32) Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,16:29) You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind. thinker
Adam was created not born, Gen.1:27.Jesus was literally born via the miraculous intervention of God, being the only one born of a virgin.
Not a ridiculous idea but a wonderful idea pre- determined by his heavenly father and ours, Mt.6:9.
Seeking
Seeking,
Jesus is called the “firstborn” from the dead. He wasn't “born” when he was raised up. You should re-visit the meaning of the word “firstborn.”thinker
Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2009,08:04) To all,
Here is where the term “firstborn” refers to the Son, twice. First He is the firstborn of all creation and secondly, He is the firstborn from the dead.Col 1:13-20
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
NASUI am going to list the things that He is “first” in since one of the points of this passage is that He has first place in everything.
The firstborn of all creation
He is before all things
Also, He is head of the body, the church
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead
He has first place in everything.This cannot be summed up as He is the firstborn of all creation from the dead.
Here is the passage in another translation:
Col 1:15-1815
Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things;16
For by him all things were made, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, authorities, lords, rulers, and powers; all things were made by him and for him;17
He is before all things, and in him all things have being.18
And he is the head of the body, the church: the starting point of all things, the first to come again from the dead; so that in all things he might have the chief place.
BBEThanks for lookin'
LU
Kathi,
Christ is indeed the “firstborn” in variuos relations. But he became that at just ONE POINT IN TIME. According to the NT he became “firstborn” at his resurrection and exaltation (Rom. 1:1-3; Heb. 1:1-5; 5:4-6).thinker
Quote (thethinker @ April 27 2009,03:35) Lightenup said: Quote If we are going to define firstborn then lets look at the term as it relates to the perfect sacrifice since that is comparing apples to apples. How Isaac and Ishmael were “firstborns” have nothing to do with how the Son was a firstborn unless you can produce evidence in scripture that shows that the pattern of Abraham's sons is a precursor to the Father's Son as the Firstborn. Kathi,
Throughout the new testament the idea of Christ as God's “firstborn” indicates His supremacy over God's family just as the firsborn son in Hebrew culture was preeminent. And Christ inherited the title “firstborn” just as Isaac and Jacob did. They were NOT born the firstborn. Isaac acquired the title because his older brother was kicked out of the covenant. Jacob gained the name “only begotten” and “firstborn” by conning his older brother Esau out of his birthright. Isaac and Jacob consequently became the heads of the covenantal family.Jesus, just as Isaac and Jacob was not born the head. Jesus did not have a human father. He was the firstborn of Mary and therefore had no such rights as “firstborn.” So Jesus had to acquire the position as head just as Isaac and Jacob. The difference is that Jesus EARNED the title unlike Isaac and Jacob. The title just fell on Isaac and Jacob gained it by deceit.
It wasn't until He EARNED the title that God begat Him as Son. Hebrews 1 is very clear about this.
Quote AFTER making purification for our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son TODAY I have begotten you”?
Then Hebrews says that AFTER He had offered Himself for sins he passed through the heavens as the high priest (4:14). It wasn't until he was exalted as high priest that God begat him as Son,
Quote So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, “You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten you”; as he also says in another place,
“You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” (5:5-6)
This does not mean that he wasn't “a son” beforehand,
Quote Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (5:8-10) It is without dispute that Jesus was required to EARN the name “firstborn” or “begotten.” Therefore, His name “begotten Son” has no reference to His beginning or to God's reproducing Himself.
The expression “firstborn” in reference to sacrifices is another matter. It is NOT comparing apples with apples as you say. Firstborn animals were not heads of anything.
thinker
Thinker,
You say that the Son earned the title “only begotten” after He died.
I say that the Son was the only begotten in two different senses…the first and only life by reproduction not creation (with an independant will) apart from the Father which the Father used to create all things IN heaven and ON earth and who was much later sent to inhabit a flesh body so that He could shed blood and become payment for our sin. The second was the first to receive eternal life, incorruptible, immortal after He paid for our sins.It is CLEAR from scripture, one of the most quoted scriptures, John 3:16 that the Son was considered God's “only begotten Son” before He received the title of “firstborn” from the dead or the “Only Begotten Son” from the dead.
John 3:16 says:
For God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life.Thinker, you do not seem to see that the Son was considered an only begotten Son before He died on the cross and was resurrected. That is an undeniable truth from scripture that you seem to deny. Why?
LU
Quote (thethinker @ April 27 2009,02:22) Quote (SEEKING @ April 27 2009,13:32) Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,16:29) You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind. thinker
Adam was created not born, Gen.1:27.Jesus was literally born via the miraculous intervention of God, being the only one born of a virgin.
Not a ridiculous idea but a wonderful idea pre- determined by his heavenly father and ours, Mt.6:9.
Seeking
Seeking,
Jesus is called the “firstborn” from the dead. He wasn't “born” when he was raised up. You should re-visit the meaning of the word “firstborn.”thinker
Adam was not born, he was created!Quote (Lightenup @ April 25 2009,12:42) Hi Is,
He was declared the son “with power.” He always was the son but now He was given authority so now He was given power. That is how I understand that anyway. Different ways of looking at the same thing again. K
Hi Kathi:He was declared to be the Son of God with power having obeyed God without sin even unto death on the Cross. He was perfected through application of the Word of God in the suffering that he endured.
Quote Hbr 5:7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
Hbr 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Hbr 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;Love in Christ,
MartyQuote (Lightenup @ April 27 2009,02:13) Quote (SEEKING @ April 26 2009,21:32) Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,16:29) You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind. thinker
Adam was created not born, Gen.1:27.Jesus was literally born via the miraculous intervention of God, being the only one born of a virgin.
Not a ridiculous idea but a wonderful idea pre- determined by his heavenly father and ours, Mt.6:9.
Seeking
Hi Seeking,
Do you believe that the Son of GOD existed in a living way before His conception in Mary?
Kathi
I am not certain what you mean by “living.”
If you mean having flesh, no. In a spiritual sense, pre-determined in the mind of GOD, yes.I do believe that Jesus being the begotten “firstborn” of a virgin is who he was in John 3:16.
John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.I believe it is significant that Jesus is and will be the only one born in this fashion, of a virgin. You have covered the fact that this statement was made prior to the resurrection. It was also pointed out, I believe by Nick, that GOD declared Jesus to be His son prior to the resurrection also, at his baptism –
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.Much has been made of the point of declaration as son from
Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
by the resurrection. I believe the simple and accurate explanation is that the resurrection was the point of “decaration” as son, but it was NOT the point of “consummation” as son. That was at conception by the Spirit when he was conceived in Mary. Jesus alone carries the title “firstborn” and only one to be born in that fashion. He is the “firstborn” from the dead with many to follow, including you and me.
Does that ring true to you? I do not forsee it will with our trinitarian friends, but I expect that. It has been suggested that I “revisit” “firstborn”. It has been “revisted” by you, me, thinker, and others – but not to the point that I would change my mind.
Blessings,
Seeking
Quote (SEEKING @ April 28 2009,13:17) Quote (Lightenup @ April 27 2009,02:13) Quote (SEEKING @ April 26 2009,21:32) Quote (thethinker @ April 26 2009,16:29) You have said that Jesus is literally the firstborn (a ridiculous idea I think). Adam was the literal firstborn of all mankind. thinker
Adam was created not born, Gen.1:27.Jesus was literally born via the miraculous intervention of God, being the only one born of a virgin.
Not a ridiculous idea but a wonderful idea pre- determined by his heavenly father and ours, Mt.6:9.
Seeking
Hi Seeking,
Do you believe that the Son of GOD existed in a living way before His conception in Mary?
Kathi
I am not certain what you mean by “living.”
If you mean having flesh, no. In a spiritual sense, pre-determined in the mind of GOD, yes.I do believe that Jesus being the begotten “firstborn” of a virgin is who he was in John 3:16.
John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.I believe it is significant that Jesus is and will be the only one born in this fashion, of a virgin. You have covered the fact that this statement was made prior to the resurrection. It was also pointed out, I believe by Nick, that GOD declared Jesus to be His son prior to the resurrection also, at his baptism –
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.Much has been made of the point of declaration as son from
Rom 1:4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
by the resurrection. I believe the simple and accurate explanation is that the resurrection was the point of “decaration” as son, but it was NOT the point of “consummation” as son. That was at conception by the Spirit when he was conceived in Mary. Jesus alone carries the title “firstborn” and only one to be born in that fashion. He is the “firstborn” from the dead with many to follow, including you and me.
Does that ring true to you? I do not forsee it will with our trinitarian friends, but I expect that. It has been suggested that I “revisit” “firstborn”. It has been “revisted” by you, me, thinker, and others – but not to the point that I would change my mind.
Blessings,
Seeking
This is my understanding as well.Love in Christ,
Marty
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
