- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Paladin
Quote So Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn son, but was removed from the seed line of the covenant; and of Isaac's two sons' Esau and Jacob, his second son Jacob became God's firstborn, not Isaac's. “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:” [Exo 4:22] The story of the “firstborn” has always been a source of confusion for Christians, who take the position, “The old testament is done away, it is not for us, we are under the new.” Because they fail to attain a working knowledge of the old testament, they come up with all kinds of confusion and hold onto it as though it came from the mouth of God. I do not say this of you Pierre, for you did not originate this system, but I do say it of the Christian scholars who not only invent such a doctrine, but promote it even to this day.
i was well aware of Ismael being his first ,but the one that was first according to Abraham heart,was Issac, and so became the true seed of the promise,
it is this type of faith that we should have in our possession ,
Pierre
Mike………….Not only your Mothers LIFE but your Fathers, brothers and sisters and and your (LIFE ALSO)> It is obvious you do not “HATE” their lives and YOUR LIFE “ALSO', So because you don't are your “really a disciple of Jesus” it appears your are NOT, according to your own words. IMO
peace and love……………………………………………..gene
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2011,15:34) Hi All, Have you guys met our new member, Chihuahua Jack?
You know how those Chihuahuas are, right? You walk into their yard and they start barking. They are so small you could drop-kick them through a football goal. But they aren't really worth the bother.
If ever you just approach them head on, they go whimpering and running away. But as soon as you turn your back to do something else, there they are again, barking and nipping at your heels.
See, they never are willing to stand and defend their territory, or anything else. They just sneak up on people from behind, bark and nip a little, but then run away if confronted.
Yep, that's our Chihuahua Jack for ya!
peace,
mike
Whatever dude! Paladin is correct that the title “firstborn” may be applied to one who is chronologically not the first. Thus Colossians 1 refers to Christ's Supremacy and not to His origin because He clearly is not literally the firstborn of men.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 06 2011,11:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2011,15:34) Hi All, Have you guys met our new member, Chihuahua Jack?
You know how those Chihuahuas are, right? You walk into their yard and they start barking. They are so small you could drop-kick them through a football goal. But they aren't really worth the bother.
If ever you just approach them head on, they go whimpering and running away. But as soon as you turn your back to do something else, there they are again, barking and nipping at your heels.
See, they never are willing to stand and defend their territory, or anything else. They just sneak up on people from behind, bark and nip a little, but then run away if confronted.
Yep, that's our Chihuahua Jack for ya!
peace,
mike
Whatever dude! Paladin is correct that the title “firstborn” may be applied to one who is chronologically not the first. Thus Colossians 1 refers to Christ's Supremacy and not to His origin because He clearly is not literally the firstborn of men.
KJwe all know that Christ is not the first born men,
but go back to sleep
Pierre
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 05 2011,11:48) Paladin is correct that the title “firstborn” may be applied to one who is chronologically not the first.
And my friend Kathi had a brilliant thought about this a while back: The DEFAULT meaning of “firstborn” is always “the one born first”. Any time in the scriptures that the DEFAULT meaning is NOT the one meant, we are clearly told this fact from the context. Just like in the case of Isaac. We KNOW that he was not Abraham's real firstborn because the context tells us all about Ishmael.Now………………….where is the CONTEXT that tells us “firstborn” in the case of Jesus is NOT the DEFAULT meaning?
mike
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 06 2011,08:21) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Aug. 06 2011,11:48) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 05 2011,15:34) Hi All, Have you guys met our new member, Chihuahua Jack?
You know how those Chihuahuas are, right? You walk into their yard and they start barking. They are so small you could drop-kick them through a football goal. But they aren't really worth the bother.
If ever you just approach them head on, they go whimpering and running away. But as soon as you turn your back to do something else, there they are again, barking and nipping at your heels.
See, they never are willing to stand and defend their territory, or anything else. They just sneak up on people from behind, bark and nip a little, but then run away if confronted.
Yep, that's our Chihuahua Jack for ya!
peace,
mike
Whatever dude! Paladin is correct that the title “firstborn” may be applied to one who is chronologically not the first. Thus Colossians 1 refers to Christ's Supremacy and not to His origin because He clearly is not literally the firstborn of men.
KJwe all know that Christ is not the first born men,
but go back to sleep
Pierre
Therefore, Jesus was APPOINTED to be the Firstborn and the word has no reference at all to His beginning. It refers EXCLUSIVELY to His SUPREME RANK.KJ
Mike……..The only Idiot Name caller here seem to be you. No one else is calling people names I notice. I agree with KJ and Paladin, Marty, Kerwin, also , You or no one else has produced ONE Scripture Identifying Jesus as a firstborn of “ALL CREATION” from a preexistence past point of view as the first being born into existence status. Produce (ONE) Scripture that clearly say Jesus “PREEXISTED HIS BERTH AS A HUMAN BEING” on this earth or anywhere else for that matter. I do not mean scripture you and your co-harts can twist to say, what you false indoctrination has lead you to believe, which in fact it does not “SPECIFICALLY SAY”. IMO
peace and love…………………………………………………gene
I'm sorry Gene.
You have apparently missed the QUESTION part of my post. Let me repost the question for you:
Now………………….where is the CONTEXT that tells us “firstborn” in the case of Jesus is NOT the DEFAULT meaning?
Thanks for your DIRECT answer in advance, Gene.
mike
Mike………..Why not tell us where it does? first if you can. Firstborn as explained very clearly to you by many in the bible can mean “first in position” , so why should you “assume” it mean firstborn as a sentinel being when the context was not talking about the Beginning of the Physical creation of GOD so why “ASSUME” THEN, when there is no other supporting scriptures that Specifically say Jesus was the first thing God ever created anywhere in scripture. Lets be honest for a change Mike that is your preexistence Point of View you and some other preexistences get by forcing scripture text, to say what in fact it really does not say. Goes to show how people can be brain washed to believe anything they have been programed to “Believe”> IMO
peace and love………………………………………gene
Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2011,17:14) Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2011,10:57)
Where do you go to find understanding about “Nehushtan” Ed? And where do you read of his final effect upon men?
Hi Paladin,Huh?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for PaladinQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 06 2011,18:40) Mike………..Why not tell us where it does? first if you can. Firstborn as explained very clearly to you by many in the bible can mean “first in position” , so why should you “assume” it mean firstborn as a sentinel being
Okay Gene,So, show me one instance in the scriptures where “firstborn” means “first in position”, and I'll show you clear words from the context that EXPLAIN this fact to us……………EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Then we'll look at every other instance of “firstborn” in the scriptures – the ones where there is no context telling us it means “first in position” – and I'll show that that those cases refer to the default meaning of “the one born first”……………….EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Are you getting the point yet? The point is NOT that there aren’t any times where “firstborn” is used metaphorically. The point is that EACH AND EVERY TIME it IS used metaphorically, we have context that tells us it's being used metaphorically.
All I'm asking for is the context that tells us Jesus was only metaphorically the “firstborn of all creation”.
Can you show me this context? YES or NO?
Because when I read Col 1:15-16, I understand Paul to be saying that it's clear that Jesus was the first one born of all creation, for everything else was created through him. What context clearly shows my understanding to be flawed?
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 06 2011,18:40) when the context was not talking about the Beginning of the Physical creation of GOD
Says who? How do you know this?Mike………….Go look up the meaning of the Word OF, you will find it means from[/B , and as far as the word “TROUGH” goes i have shown you before that word is translated in about 70 different way in scriptures. And you disregard scriptures where GOD Said He “ALONE” and BY “HIMSELF” created every thing. Again you preexistences have disregarded hundreds if not thousands of scriptures the show Jesus did not preexist his berth on the earth as a sentential being of any kind in heaven. If you have scriptures then produce them show us any activity of His, prior to his berth on earth. Surely there must be, seeing this is such a big subject concerning his “Preexistence” , then produce His activity or perhaps his preexistent Name. You preexistences remind me of our latest rounds in our congress, debt talks, whole lot of talk but nothing “SPECIFIC” to solve the debt crises, Just a bunch of gibberish, throwing up flack but nothing Specific. Same with “MYSTERY RELIGIONS” nothing “SPECIFIC” Just a whole lot of non-Sense. IMO
peace and love………………………………………..gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 08 2011,16:00) Again you preexistences have disregarded hundreds if not thousands of scriptures the show Jesus did not preexist his berth on the earth as a sentential being of any kind in heaven.
As usual, no DIRECT response to the points I made. How disappointing, yet expected.Gene, I like your words here. Let's do this. I've asked Marty before but he gave up on the game after I showed him that his first two scriptures did NOT prohibit Jesus from pre-existing.
Okay Gene, that leaves it up to you. Post your first scripture out of the thousands that clearly show Jesus did not pre-exist.
Ready, set, GO!
MIke…………….lets start, here is the First,
Gen 3:15…..> And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it SHALL (future tense) , bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Now mike who is this speaking of is it not Jesus and does it say that the enmity already exists or SHALL (in the future exist)>
Mike, Why would God leave out the fact that, that “enmity” already existed if, it is as You and your Preexistences Co-harts assume it to mean.
Can we come to and agreement that this is a future event and is talking about Jesus the Man who would Bruise the Head of the serpent?, And in this there is No mention of a (PRESENT) existing Jesus or any PRESENT EXISTING BEING at all ?
peace and love……………………….gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 07 2011,11:40) Mike………..Why not tell us where it does? first if you can. Firstborn as explained very clearly to you by many in the bible can mean “first in position” , so why should you “assume” it mean firstborn as a sentinel being when the context was not talking about the Beginning of the Physical creation of GOD so why “ASSUME” THEN, when there is no other supporting scriptures that Specifically say Jesus was the first thing God ever created anywhere in scripture. Lets be honest for a change Mike that is your preexistence Point of View you and some other preexistences get by forcing scripture text, to say what in fact it really does not say. Goes to show how people can be brain washed to believe anything they have been programed to “Believe”> IMO peace and love………………………………………gene
God's people, after they die, become the children of God because they are the children of the resurrection, just as Christ was firstborn from the dead, therefore, firstborn of the new creation.And we all become children of God because we will be children of resurrection.
“And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”[Luke 20:34-36]
Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 08 2011,02:52) Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2011,17:14) Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2011,10:57)
Where do you go to find understanding about “Nehushtan” Ed? And where do you read of his final effect upon men?
Hi Paladin,Huh?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for Paladin
I'm trying to show you Ed, that you do nothave a working knowledge of the old testament if you know nothing of Nehushtan.Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2011,06:20) Quote (Ed J @ Aug. 08 2011,02:52) Quote (Ed J @ July 30 2011,17:14) Quote (Paladin @ July 30 2011,10:57)
Where do you go to find understanding about “Nehushtan” Ed? And where do you read of his final effect upon men?
Hi Paladin,Huh?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for Paladin
I'm trying to show you Ed, that you do nothave a working knowledge of the old testament if you know nothing of Nehushtan.
Hi Paladin,I knew nothing of this word (Nehushtan) YOU have used here at h-net.
I have looked it up and I traced the usage of it to biblical passages
in Numbers 21:8-9; I have been familiar with these passages.Are trying to imply some kind of ignorance on my part? <– Please explain what you are driving at if not ignorance?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 09 2011,07:00) MIke…………….lets start, here is the First, Gen 3:15…..> And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it SHALL (future tense) , bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Now mike who is this speaking of is it not Jesus and does it say that the enmity already exists or SHALL (in the future exist)>
Okay Gene,We're off and running now.
I wish you wouldn't have picked that scripture because, unlike most people, I DON'T believe this is a Messianic prophecy.
But for the purposes of this exercise, I will assume that it is, okay?
In Jesus's existence prior to being made as a human being, he was not yet the seed of Eve. So if this was a prophecy about the HUMAN BEING Jesus, it would have to be a future situation, for Jesus was not yet a human being, and therefore not yet the seed of Eve.
It does not mean he wasn't existing at the time God said this to Satan though.
Does that make sense to you Gene? I'm answering you honestly and openly. I'm not trying to “twist” anything or “lie” about anything. I'm simply having an HONEST discussion with you.
And the bottom line is that if 3:15 IS about Jesus, it doesn't apply to Jesus UNTIL he becomes the seed of Eve. And therefore, it doesn't prohibit the existence of Jesus BEFORE he became the seed of Eve.
What scripture is next?
peace,
mikeQuote (Paladin @ Aug. 09 2011,13:18) Christ was firstborn from the dead, therefore, firstborn of the new creation.
Hey Gene,It seems that your Pal doesn't agree that “firstborn” is a position of power for Jesus. He seems to think that “firstborn” literally means “the one born first” of the new creation.
I also agree that “firstborn”, in the case of Jesus, means “the one born first”. So do Kerwin and Marty.
How about YOU? Does “firstborn”, in the case of Jesus, refer to “the one born first”? Or to his “preeminence”?
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2011,12:26) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Aug. 09 2011,07:00) MIke…………….lets start, here is the First, Gen 3:15…..> And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it SHALL (future tense) , bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
Now mike who is this speaking of is it not Jesus and does it say that the enmity already exists or SHALL (in the future exist)>
Okay Gene,We're off and running now.
I wish you wouldn't have picked that scripture because, unlike most people, I DON'T believe this is a Messianic prophecy.
But for the purposes of this exercise, I will assume that it is, okay?
In Jesus's existence prior to being made as a human being, he was not yet the seed of Eve. So if this was a prophecy about the HUMAN BEING Jesus, it would have to be a future situation, for Jesus was not yet a human being, and therefore not yet the seed of Eve.
It does not mean he wasn't existing at the time God said this to Satan though.
Does that make sense to you Gene? I'm answering you honestly and openly. I'm not trying to “twist” anything or “lie” about anything. I'm simply having an HONEST discussion with you.
And the bottom line is that if 3:15 IS about Jesus, it doesn't apply to Jesus UNTIL he becomes the seed of Eve. And therefore, it doesn't prohibit the existence of Jesus BEFORE he became the seed of Eve.
What scripture is next?
peace,
mike
Hi Mike,Nice post.
But if the woman's seed in Gen.3:15 is not Jesus,
then who do you think the seed of the woman is?God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
