- This topic has 3,215 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 8 months ago by
.
- Posts
For clarification: If Christ was the first thing created, he would have had to have created himself. Col 1:16 (NIV) “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Richard,
Quote I thought I understood English (I've spoken it all my life and I got straight A's in English classes in school), but if you are speaking English, I guess I'm wrong. I am speaking the English but I am not necessary using the same definitions for the English words as the ones that are commonly used in the same situation. For example when the Trinitarians use the word incarnate they mean a being incarnated in the form of a human being while I simply mean that Jesus, God, and the Spirit of God are each the incarnation of God’s righteousness (word) . Some are so used to the Trinitarians teaching that they think that I agree with the Trinitarians even though I oppose their Christology.
If someone stated that Cindy was the incarnation of God’s righteousness then what would you think they meant?
I believe that God, The Spirit of God, and Jesus are three separate entities while only God and Jesus are beings. I consider the Spirit of God a separate entity from God as it is listed separately from God in the description of the unity while it is also treated as part of God in other passages.By the way, if anyone cares, my name is Richard.
Kerwin
Your quote above was directed to “terraricca” or Pierre. While I frequently find myself in disagreement with your opinions, I usually do understand what you're trying to say. This is not the case with Pierre as his English usage is atrocious and when combined with his total lack of understanding I find it nearly impossible to follow his ramblings.
Nevertheless, it is always a good practice to use words in the way most people do, or else define the word in parentheses, so everyone will know for sure what you're saying. This is why I was so emphatic about the difference between “incarnation” and “manifestation.” While they are listed as synonyms, their common usage, especially in doctrinal discussions is quite different. And unless you are deliberately trying to mislead or confuse people, you should consider carefully how you use a particular word, especially if you know that the word is commonly used to mean something else.
If you notice, I am always very conscious of my choice of words, grammar, spelling and punctuation because it behooves me to do everything I can to convey to others my true meaning in order to be better understood. I also realize that cross-language and cross-culture discussions are especially difficult, I try to use words and terms that are concise and that (hopefully) are easily translated into another language, for clarification's sake. Because what good does it do anyone if I write a thousand words that only I understand the meaning of?
Peace – out
RichardRebellman,
Quote Your quote above was directed to “terraricca” or Pierre. While I frequently find myself in disagreement with your opinions, I usually do understand what you're trying to say. This is not the case with Pierre as his English usage is atrocious and when combined with his total lack of understanding I find it nearly impossible to follow his ramblings. I find that Pierre is an English language learner and has yet more to learn; but I believe practice can improve skills if one has a mindset to learn.
Sadly I find Pierre seems to suffer from a common ailment among man and that ailment is mental rigidity as a result of looking at Scripture in a certain way and so he has difficulties in shifting his mindset.
Here is what a Psyche lesson teaches of mental rigidity.
Quote Among the topics we have studied this semester is the idea of mental rigidity. That is, because we have grown accustomed to looking at a problem in a certain way, it makes it harder to solve problems which require a shift in thinking. Examples of mental rigidity we have studied include the functional fixedness of mounting a candle to the wall using only a limited number of objects, and using the same formula to solve water job problems, regardless of whether there is a better formula for some of the problems. Quote Nevertheless, it is always a good practice to use words in the way most people do, or else define the word in parentheses, so everyone will know for sure what you're saying. This is why I was so emphatic about the difference between “incarnation” and “manifestation.” While they are listed as synonyms, their common usage, especially in doctrinal discussions is quite different. And unless you are deliberately trying to mislead or confuse people, you should consider carefully how you use a particular word, especially if you know that the word is commonly used to mean something else. I merely like to research and share what I know. I also find the lack of people’s knowledge of their own language to be a disaster which I am drawn to seek to alleviate. I believe that perhaps it is not always lack of knowledge but sometimes it is just mental rigidity.
Your advice sounds to be on the line of being a Jew to a Jew and a Greek to a Greek. I will therefore strive to balance my drive to expand others vocabulary or reduce their mental rigidity with considering their limits of comprehension in order to make my message serve others best.
Quote If you notice, I am always very conscious of my choice of words, grammar, spelling and punctuation because it behooves me to do everything I can to convey to others my true meaning in order to be better understood. I also realize that cross-language and cross-culture discussions are especially difficult, I try to use words and terms that are concise and that (hopefully) are easily translated into another language, for clarification's sake. Because what good does it do anyone if I write a thousand words that only I understand the meaning of? Sounds good!
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 25 2011,11:19) Rebellman, Quote Your quote above was directed to “terraricca” or Pierre. While I frequently find myself in disagreement with your opinions, I usually do understand what you're trying to say. This is not the case with Pierre as his English usage is atrocious and when combined with his total lack of understanding I find it nearly impossible to follow his ramblings. I find that Pierre is an English language learner and has yet more to learn; but I believe practice can improve skills if one has a mindset to learn.
Sadly I find Pierre seems to suffer from a common ailment among man and that ailment is mental rigidity as a result of looking at Scripture in a certain way and so he has difficulties in shifting his mindset.
Here is what a Psyche lesson teaches of mental rigidity.
Quote Among the topics we have studied this semester is the idea of mental rigidity. That is, because we have grown accustomed to looking at a problem in a certain way, it makes it harder to solve problems which require a shift in thinking. Examples of mental rigidity we have studied include the functional fixedness of mounting a candle to the wall using only a limited number of objects, and using the same formula to solve water job problems, regardless of whether there is a better formula for some of the problems. Quote Nevertheless, it is always a good practice to use words in the way most people do, or else define the word in parentheses, so everyone will know for sure what you're saying. This is why I was so emphatic about the difference between “incarnation” and “manifestation.” While they are listed as synonyms, their common usage, especially in doctrinal discussions is quite different. And unless you are deliberately trying to mislead or confuse people, you should consider carefully how you use a particular word, especially if you know that the word is commonly used to mean something else. I merely like to research and share what I know. I also find the lack of people’s knowledge of their own language to be a disaster which I am drawn to seek to alleviate. I believe that perhaps it is not always lack of knowledge but sometimes it is just mental rigidity.
Your advice sounds to be on the line of being a Jew to a Jew and a Greek to a Greek. I will therefore strive to balance my drive to expand others vocabulary or reduce their mental rigidity with considering their limits of comprehension in order to make my message serve others best.
Quote If you notice, I am always very conscious of my choice of words, grammar, spelling and punctuation because it behooves me to do everything I can to convey to others my true meaning in order to be better understood. I also realize that cross-language and cross-culture discussions are especially difficult, I try to use words and terms that are concise and that (hopefully) are easily translated into another language, for clarification's sake. Because what good does it do anyone if I write a thousand words that only I understand the meaning of? Sounds good!
Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 22 2011,13:06) There is no personality with the Holy Spirit, regardless of the passages that seem to qualify it as such. Off the top of my head I can't remember the passage, but I will endeavor to find it if you'd like to see the evidence.
Hi Rebellman,Will you also correct the word of God?
The HolySpirit(God) forbid Paul to preach the word in Asia. (Acts 16:6)
How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert! (Psalms 78:40)
Grieve not the HolySpirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Eph.4:30)Wherefore (as the HolySpirit saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation,
in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works(See John 14:10)
forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known
my ways. So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.) (Heb.3:7-11)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (rebellman @ Oct. 22 2011,17:12) the Holy Ghost teacheth Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 22 2011,13:06) There is no personality with the Holy Spirit, regardless of the passages that seem to qualify it as such. Off the top of my head I can't remember the passage, but I will endeavor to find it if you'd like to see the evidence.
Hi Rebellman,Perhaps you can explain what appears to be inconsistency in your doctrine?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,12:43) Pierre You also completely misunderstand God's omnipotence. Because of God's own rules (laws) he cannot do anything contrary (against) his nature, hence he cannot change what he is, he cannot lie and among other things, he most certainly cannot die!!! But die, Jesus most certainly did!!! Jesus was not any kind of “halfbreed.” His mother was there merely to bring him into the world. Jesus was a new creation and did not partake of his mothers flesh, which in real effect means that he was not even related to her, this is how he can say to her at the time he changed water to wine, “Woman, what have I to do with you,” and not break the commandment to honor parents (father and mother).
Hi RebelMan,How do you account for these Scripture?…
Heb.7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;
of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made
of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)I have a trivia question for you… what is the second thing that God cannot do…
Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was (1)impossible for God to lie,
we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:1) Impossible for God to lie.
2) (Looking forward to your answer for #2!)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,13:39) For clarification: If Christ was the first thing created, he would have had to have created himself. Col 1:16 (NIV) “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
Hi RebelMan,Col.1:16 has to be a reference to The Father rather than Jesus.
Rev.4:11 Thou art worthy, O LORD, to receive glory and honor and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Will you also correct the word of God? I do not seek to correct the Word of God, however many translations of that Word need much correcting, especially the one almost everyone defers to, the AKJV. Without a doubt the AKJV is the least accurate translation out there. However, I do suspect that those who insist that it is the only version to use feel this way because it backs up their cockamamie theories, because it was translated by a particular group and was translated in such a way as to validate their absurd beliefs. But I will happily correct those that misquote, mistranslate or twist the word to their own purpose.
Quote Perhaps you can explain what appears to be inconsistency in your doctrine? Can one learn from a computer program? If so, I don't think I've met a computer that has a personality, yet. So, I don't see your point. The Holy Spirit is essentially like a conduit between God and men through which pass understanding, inspiration, power, etc. from God in much the same way as God speaks through angels, or do you think that it was actually God in the burning bush or on the Plain of Mamre? Every passage that refers to the Holy Spirit, in the Greek mss, use the neuter ending, or where there is a pronoun used it is always auto (not the vehicle). However, almost all Christian translators totally ignore that and translate “auto” as “he” which pretty clearly shows their bias, unless they just don't understand Greek, in which case they shouldn't be translating anything.
By-the-way, it is not my doctrine it is the doctrine of the apostles.
Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 24 2011,17:06) By the way, if anyone cares, my name is Richard. Kerwin
Your quote above was directed to “terraricca” or Pierre. While I frequently find myself in disagreement with your opinions, I usually do understand what you're trying to say. This is not the case with Pierre as his English usage is atrocious and when combined with his total lack of understanding I find it nearly impossible to follow his ramblings.
Nevertheless, it is always a good practice to use words in the way most people do, or else define the word in parentheses, so everyone will know for sure what you're saying. This is why I was so emphatic about the difference between “incarnation” and “manifestation.” While they are listed as synonyms, their common usage, especially in doctrinal discussions is quite different. And unless you are deliberately trying to mislead or confuse people, you should consider carefully how you use a particular word, especially if you know that the word is commonly used to mean something else.
If you notice, I am always very conscious of my choice of words, grammar, spelling and punctuation because it behooves me to do everything I can to convey to others my true meaning in order to be better understood. I also realize that cross-language and cross-culture discussions are especially difficult, I try to use words and terms that are concise and that (hopefully) are easily translated into another language, for clarification's sake. Because what good does it do anyone if I write a thousand words that only I understand the meaning of?
Peace – out
Richard
Hi Richard,We are all familiar with Pierre's shortcomings.
Don't you think it would be better for you to explain
your doctrinal beliefs (that differ from those you post to),
than to declare that you stand in opposition to their views?After all, how does that offer them the ability to consider your view?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote Don't you think it would be better for you to explain
your doctrinal beliefsEd J
I'm pretty sure that you've read most of my posts, which ones don't you think explain my doctrinal beliefs? I'm not expounding on someone else's doctrinal beliefs.
Do any of you people understand English?!? Every responce I've gotten, except from seekingtruth, have misquoted, misinterpreted, twisted my words or otherwise make no sense whatsoever. Have you just decided you don't like what I have to say and you're trying to irritate me to the point I go away. You don't have to do that, you know. If I'm not welcome here just say so and I'm gone.
I'm impressed that you can call whatever Pierre does a shortcoming. I can tell that he knows very little English, but that is the only thing I can call a shortcoming. Otherwise, he knows exactly what he's saying. It is clear that he considers his opinions the only correct interpretations of the Bible. I have read many categories that I haven't responded to and not once have I read a post by Pierre where he says something on the order of, “Okay, now I see what you mean.” He has nothing but contempt for anyone else's point of view and clearly thinks everyone else is either a liar or stupid.
If his totally assinine interpretations are merely a result of his not understanding English, then he should read a Bible translated into a language he does understand.
However, he seems to be in good company, as most of the rest of you have no qualms about twisting anothers words in an attempt to make him look like a fool, either.
Quote (rebellman @ Oct. 25 2011,08:06) I do not seek to correct the Word of God, however many translations of that Word need much correcting, especially the one almost everyone defers to, the AKJV. Without a doubt the AKJV is the least accurate translation out there. However, I do suspect that those who insist that it is the only version to use feel this way because it backs up their cockamamie theories, because it was translated by a particular group and was translated in such a way as to validate their absurd beliefs.
I have to agree with that statement.Hi Richard,
How have I twisted any of your words?
What I meant is for you to expound on your views,
rather than to just merely state specific differences.I hope you can see the difference.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (rebellman @ Oct. 25 2011,08:06) Without a doubt the AKJV is the least accurate translation out there.
Hi Richard,1) Is the AKJV Bible less accurate than the N.I.V.?
2) Is the AKJV Bible less accurate than the N.A.S.?
3) Is the AKJV Bible less accurate than the N.W.T.?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgRichard! I read some of your posts….. Especially the one on were you say something about Pierre…. in defense of Pierre, coming from a different country like we have, and then to learn their language is not easy… He IMO does real well….. Remembering my Mother who was older, She and my Aunt had a real bad time with English… So for anyone to criticize Him, I feel is wrong…. As far as what your believes are, I too have no idea, just reading from the posts you made…
Do you believe that Jesus was with His Father before the world was? Who is The Word of God spoken of in John 1:1-14 and Rev. 19;13-16…
Peace IreneRebellman,
In my observation what pronoun is used is irrelevant, especially in the ancient common Greek language as it seems not to have pronouns that specifically refer to gender as is the case with English. From what I can tell, at the novice level of that language I have obtained, the gender is determined by the gender of the noun it is substituted for. Spirit is a neuter gender noun in ancient common Greek. On the other hand Councilor is a male gender word.
Here is a quote about the gender forms in nouns from a page of ibiblio.org.
Quote The gender of a noun: The gender of a noun has nothing to do with whether it is a boy or a girl. In English, we refer to a dog as “he” if it is a boy, “she” if it is a girl, or “it” if we do not know its gender (or if it has just returned from an unpleasant visit to the veterinarian). In New Testament Greek, there is no direct link between the gender of a noun and male or female traits; e.g., a mother-in-law is neuter, both boys and girls are neuter, words are masculine, parables are feminine, and both male and female horses are masculine. Here is a quote about the gender forms in pronouns from a another page of ibiblio.org.
Quote Pronouns and gender In the above table, we translated autoc, auton, auto as “he”, “she”, and “it”. This is a useful oversimplification, but the gender of a pronoun does not necessarily mean that a male, a female, or an “it” is intended. If you recall, in lesson one, we pointed out that every noun has a gender, and this gender is somewhat arbitrary:
In Greek, it would be quite normal to say something like, “the light shines in the darkness, and she has not overcome it”; because darkness is feminine and light is neuter, “she” would have to refer to the darkness, and “it” would have to refer to the light. Naturally, we wouldn't want to use “she” and “it” in an English translation of this sentence! Whenever you see a pronoun, you have to figure out what it is referring to before you can translate it. Therefore, “he”, “she”, and “it” are somewhat misleading. It is more accurate to call autoc, auton, auto the masculine, feminine, and neuter forms.I believe the Hebrew traditional view the spirit as a feminine aspect of God since the Hebrew word spirit has a feminine form. I do not believe that means the spirit is a female as the ancient Hebrews often practiced symbolism. You can see that in many of Jesus’ teachings.
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 23 2011,14:35) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Oct. 23 2011,22:01) Col 1:16 says that ALL THINGS (up until the point Paul wrote this verse) had ALREADY BEEN created through Jesus. This thought has nothing to do with people coming to be in God and Jesus – or already being in God and Jesus. The thought has to do with the creation of all things. And Paul CLEARLY states, not once, but TWICE, that ALL THINGS were created through Jesus.
Mike,
You are the one that chooses not to believe the Word of God as you deny the mystery of God’s “will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ”, Ephesians 1:3-10(NIV), by your teaching that all things of the old creation were originally created in him.
The Spirit of truth should instruct you that since all things are being brought into unity to God by and through Jesus then they are not already in unity in him as you seem to claim Colossians 1:17 states; unless you like Pierre want to debate with the meaning Strong’s gives for the word translated to “consist” in the KJV or the fact that believers are part of all things.
Here are the four definitions that Strong’s gives or the common Greek word translated to “consist” in the KJV.
Quote
1.to place together, to set in the same place, to bring or band together
a.to stand with (or near)
2.to set one with another
a.by way of presenting or introducing him
b.to comprehend
3.to put together by way of composition or combination, to teach by combining and comparing
a.to show, prove, establish, exhibit
4.to put together, unite parts into one whole
a.to be composed of, consistPlease notice that the words “all things” are in both the NIV and KJV translations of Ephesians 1:10 is translated from the same common Greek word that is also translated to “all things” in both Colossians 1:16 and 17. This is what Strong’s state the possible definitions of that word are.
Quote
1.individually
a.each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2.collectively
a.some of all typesBeing as Paul is teaching the same gospel in Colossians 1:16-17 that he has been teaching in Ephesians 1:10 and he also speaks of all things that are unified in Christ, in Colossians 1:17, just as he speaks of all things that are being unified in all things that are being unified in Christ, in Ephesians 1:10.
According to what is written in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians he and they were “ktizo” in Christ, Ephesians 2:10 and Jesus “ktizo” a consolidated race of mankind by uniting them with God, Ephesians 2:15. He did this by “ktizo” a new man that is like God in true righteousness and holiness. So these scriptures testify that the new man is created by Jesus and in just as Colossians 1:16-17 declares for the new man is part of all things that are unified in Christ for it is also written that believers are a kind of first fruits of God’s “ktisma”, a word who’s origins is “ktizo”, James 1:18.
Why do you, by your teachings, deny that the new mankind is created by and in Christ and that the new man is a kind of first fruits of all things created new?
Now to the first clause of Colossians 1:15. Jesus and God are manifestations, incarnations, personifications, mirrors, images etc, of the teachings of God and so they are also manifestations, incarnations, personifications, mirrors, images, etc. of each other.
The second instructs us that Jesus is the first born of “all things” “ktisis”, another word whose root is ktizo.
You already acknowledge that God calls David firstborn of all kings on earth because God placed him over them so it should not be difficult that Jesus is also firstborn of all things in heaven and on earth because God placed him over them.
Why do your teachings obscure that Jesus is the one God placed over all things he created whether in heaven or one earth?
Kerwin,You complain about not having enough time to address all of my posts and points, but then spend a lot of time making a post like the one above – which doesn't even address the meat of my point.
You are all over the place in this post, trying desparately to link the fact that things are being brought into unity with God through Christ to the fact that Paul said ALL THINGS were created through Christ.
You are comparing a word from Eph 1:10, which is thought to mean “summed up”, (based on it's only other use in scripture in Romans 13:9), with the word “ktizo” in Col 1:16.
Does the fact that all things are summed up in Christ CHANGE the fact that all things were created through Christ? Could not all things have been created through Christ, and all things are ALSO being summed up/reconciled through his death? Can't BOTH things be true, Kerwin? OF COURSE THEY CAN.
So instead of doing things YOUR way, which has us strung out all over the place, why don't we just keep this discussion SHORT and TO THE POINT?
Kerwin, in 1 Cor 8:6, “ALL things” are said to have come from God. I asked you if the “ALL” literally means “ALL”, since everybody knows that ALL things DID come from God. You have decided for yourself that the word “ALL” only referred to “knowledge”, because, you said, “the act of creation was not the internally consistent teaching of 1 Cor 8”.
So then I asked you about Eccl 11:5, and the phrase “Maker of ALL things” therein. You claimed that the “ALL things” in that verse really DOES mean “ALL things”. So after I explained that “the act of creation” is not the “internally consistent teaching” of Eccl 11:5, I asked why the “ALL things” there can LITERALLY MEAN “ALL things”, when the “ALL things” in 1 Cor 8:6 can't.
To cover yourself, you then asserted that the act of creation IS the “internally consistent teaching” of Eccl 11:1-6.
I cannot see how you've come to that conclusion, and so I posted Eccl 11:1-6 so you can explain to me where you find the act of creation being the “internally consistent teaching” of 1-6.
I've already bumped the post for you once, and I will do it again immediately following this post. Please address it for me so that I too can see how verses 1-6 have the internally consistent teaching of “the act of creation”.
Kerwin, since you're strapped for time, you don't need to bother with THIS post. But PLEASE address the following one that I will bump.
mike
Bumped for Kerwin
Quote (kerwin @ Oct. 16 2011,23:55) My answer was in the form of explaining to you how God being the Maker of all things fit the context of Ecclesiastes 11:1-6.
Let's see if you're right:1 Ship your grain across the sea; after many days you may receive a return.
What does verse 1 have to do with the act of creation?2 Invest in seven ventures, yes, in eight; you do not know what disaster may come upon the land.
How does verse 2 discuss the act of creation?3 If clouds are full of water, they pour rain on the earth. Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where it falls, there it will lie.
And verse 3?4 Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap.
How about verse 4? What does this have to do with the act of creation?5 As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.
How about this one? Does verse 5 speak of the act of creation? Or does “Maker of all things” refer ONLY to God making bodies in a mother's womb? (Oh, that's right. You already said “all things” literally means “ALL things”, right?)6 Sow your seed in the morning, and at evening let your hands not be idle, for you do not know which will succeed, whether this or that, or whether both will do equally well.
And finally, how does verse 6 refer to the act of creation?I anxiously await your insight into how ANY of these verses concern the act of God creating the heavens, the earth, and ALL things in them.
(Acts 4:24 and Revelation 4:11 are soon to follow, Kerwin. I hope you are equally prepared to show how the “internally consistent teaching” in those chapters center around “the act of creation”.)
peace,
mikeMike,
Quote You complain about not having enough time to address all of my posts and points, but then spend a lot of time making a post like this – which doesn't even address the meat of my point. I am not sure of what the meat of your point is but my purpose is to seek God and what prioritize and what I write serves that purpose for me. I use an intellectual approach to seek God because that is a gift of the Spirit that he chose to grant to me. That spirit leads me to use scientific methodology and research which the spirit of righteousness uses to enable me to understand God’s word. It is a slow process and therefore takes time.
Quote You are all over the place in this post, trying desperately to link the fact that things are being brought into unity with God through Christ to the fact that Paul said ALL THINGS were created through Christ. To interpret your words, my studies make you uncomfortable because they challenge your current worldview as I am certainly linking the words in Colossians 1:17 to the fact that those that believe are unified with the Spirit of adoption, by being in him. Since those that believe are part of “all things” then it follows that all things are also unified with God through Christ. Scripture clearly states that those in Christ are a kind of first fruits of creation, James 1:18; which is to say part of all things in the same creation.
Quote You are comparing a word from Eph 1:10, which is thought to mean “summed up”, (based on it's only other use in scripture in Romans 13:9), with the word “ktizo” in Col 1:16. Strong’s agrees that “Anakephalaiomai” means “to sum up (again), to repeat summarily, to condense into a summary”. They also agree that “gather together” is a legitimate translation based on the sole definition. It sounds like a synonym of the forth definition of “Sunistao” which is “to put together, unite parts into one whole”. The word “Sunistao” is in Colossians 1:17 and I advanced the hypothesis for you to test that the “all things” in Colossians 1:17 was the same “all things” written of in “Colossians 1:16.
Quote Does the fact that all things are summed up in Christ CHANGE the fact that all things were created through Christ? Could not all things have been created through Christ, and all things are ALSO being summed up/reconciled through his death? Can't BOTH things be true, Kerwin? OF COURSE THEY CAN. Look at what happens when we apply the idea that mankind was originally created in Christ to this scripture from the words of King Solomon.
Quote Ecclesiastes 7:29
King James Version (KJV)29Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
So you are inadvertently claiming that mankind was created upright in Christ and then fell from grace.
Then consider this scripture.
Quote Hebrews 6
King James Version (KJV)4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.If as you claim each human being was originally created through Jesus then each human being was created enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, and were partakers of the Holy Ghost before falling away to be recreated in Christ and “crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame” in keeping with the words of Hebrews.
Quote So instead of doing things YOUR way, which has us strung out all over the place, why don't we just keep this discussion SHORT and TO THE POINT? I do prefer to cover the whole gospel rather than it parts but even in covering the parts the rest will come in because it is all summed up as one. The point being that Paul is teaching the good news of Christ and that is that believers are created a new man though Christ Jesus. There is simply no need to interpret Colossians 1:16 in such a way as to support the idea that all things were originally created through Jesus because it is clear that all new things are created through him, by him, and for him. It is also clear that he was made the first born of all creation so that all new things could be created in him and so united with him and God through the Spirit of God.
Quote Kerwin, in 1 Cor 8:6, “ALL things” are said to have come from God. I asked you if the “ALL” literally means “ALL”, since everybody knows that ALL things DID come from God. You have decided for yourself that the word “ALL” only referred to “knowledge”, because, you said, “the act of creation was not the internally consistent teaching of 1 Cor 8”. You seem not to comprehend the words “it depends on what is being spoken about”as to what all things mean in a conversation. When you show an inability to handle a concept like that the conversation stops making progress and starts becoming repetitive. I question if you even pay attention to the actual words or if instead mental rigity causes you to see the words you expect to see.
Quote 1 Corinthians 8:6
King James Version (KJV)6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Notice that both all things and we are of God and through Jesus. All things clearly does not include we or there would be no reason to state “and we”, “kai ēmeis” in common Greek.
Quote So then I asked you about Eccl 11:5, and the phrase “Maker of ALL things” therein. You claimed that the “ALL things” in that verse really DOES mean “ALL things”. I don’t know about you but the word “makes” leads me to believe it is speaking
of all made things. Strangely enough 1 Corinthians 8 is not speaking of made things, unless you speak of the food, but rather of the knowledge of God.Quote To cover yourself, you then asserted that the act of creation IS the “internally consistent teaching” of Eccl 11:1-6. You are correct that Ecclesiastes 11:1-6 is speaking of the labors of Gods. To sum it up it is instructing its readers that since they do not know what works God will do in the future then they are not to waste time and dwell on them instead of doing their labors for him but rather diversify their plans to take in that uncertainty into account and do what God puts in their hands to do today.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
