Firstborn of/over all creation

[karmarie]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,09:30)

Or 'today' could be according to eternity where there is only today, just an eternal one.

Just make a quick comment here, when your dead in the grave awaiting the ressurection, the time between… would'nt be remembered. Just like when your in a deep sleep, then wake up.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Kathi said:

Quote

Jack, I never said that Jesus wasn't also called the 'firstborn from the dead' as well as 'firstborn of all creation.'  Two different times of being begotten…one is in the beginning, the other is after His flesh body died.  He was a Son the entire time. Kathi

Not two begettings but one begetting in two relations. Psalm 2:6-7 is NOT about a supposed 'begetting' before all ages. Verse 6 says that Jesus was installed as King at that time. He was not installed as King before all ages.

Why not invent a third begetting Kathi? Paul said that we will be conformed to Christ's image in order that jesus might BECOME the “firstborn of many brethren.” Would this not imply a third begetting for you? And if the second and third begettings are not literal, then the first begetting is not literal.

Give it up!

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,14:57)

It is not said that it was allegorical.

Jack even allegories are based on literal facts or a literal event.

This is not a parable because Jesus mentions a name.

If what you say is not true then Jesus was teaching lies using an allegory.

WJ

[Istari]

Jack,
Could you have just said that without the icon thing?

Yes, it doesn't make sense – simply so.

There was nothing technical in what Jesus said to the man. He was just a simple man who spent his life on the wrong road. He was most likely illiterate, why would Jesus speak to him in technical language?
No, jesus was making it clear, and in context, that he had already judged the man and cleansed him of his sin thereby making him suitable for redemption into the new world – not in heaven (because the man was redeemed by mercy and grace only) but the renewed and completed Paradise earth.

Nothing more complicated than that.

There is a subtle unspoken message though which indicates that even on ones 'Death Bed' true repentance 'Counts'!! But don't 'Count' on it!!! For God knows the true intent of the heart.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,07:14)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,14:57) It is not said that it was allegorical. Jack even allegories are based on literal facts or a literal event. This is not a parable because Jesus mentions a name. If what you say is not true then Jesus was teaching lies using an allegory.   WJ

Keith,

I said it is not allegorical. JA said it was allegorical.

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,15:18)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,07:14) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,14:57) It is not said that it was allegorical. Jack even allegories are based on literal facts or a literal event. This is not a parable because Jesus mentions a name. If what you say is not true then Jesus was teaching lies using an allegory.   WJ Keith, I said it is not allegorical. JA said it was allegorical. Jack

I know. But I am saying that even if it was a parable it still would be based on facts that are based on reality.

WJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,07:21)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,15:18) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,07:14) Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,14:57) It is not said that it was allegorical. Jack even allegories are based on literal facts or a literal event. This is not a parable because Jesus mentions a name. If what you say is not true then Jesus was teaching lies using an allegory.   WJ Keith, I said it is not allegorical. JA said it was allegorical. Jack I know. But I am saying that even if it was a parable it still would be based on facts that are based on reality. WJ

Oh,

I did not see the 'not' part of 'not true.' I thought you said, “if what I say is true, then Jesus lied.”

Sorry

Jack

[Istari]

Mike,
I concur on your response to my post in this thread.

I did not require a response as it was quite clear that they would either have to concede on Trinity or provide a disingenuous response, hence I gave a third option of 'No answer'.

In reality, a true believer in their doctrine (even incorrectly) would reply… By not responding it shows they know their response would have been futile so 'Well done, them'.

One other thing – it is not only commonsense the newcomer or staunch believer loses – it could also be their life in Christ!!
(P.S. This also applies to other sects and cults claiming Christian truth but be it known that the TRUE believer in Christ, even though deceived, may still be saved by grace and mercy!)

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 04 2011,14:30)

Or 'today' could be according to eternity where there is only today, just an eternal one.

Do you have a scripture for that because “yown” is the first time days are mentioned and it is mentioned as the “first day” in Genesis.

Does the word “first” mean anything?

WJ

[Istari]

WJ, Jack,

Are you saying that Poor people go to heaven and rich people go to hell and there is a massive great physical gulf between the two such but that one can still call out to each other across the gulf and converse with each other?

And hell is hot and firey and ones there are in perpetual thirst (What need do the dead of Drink – hey, I notice the rich man didn't call out for food – just water … Isn't water representative if the Holy Spirit?)
and also, when did Abraham ascend to heaven?

The Rich man poor man story is simply illustrating that misuse of earthly goodness at the expense of those lacking it will result in death of the spiritof the abuser.
The rich man realised this too late and wanted to somehow 'save' his friends and relatives from the same fate…allegorically…

Else, please re-enlighten me as to the point of the 'Story'?

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,04:45)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 20 2010,00:13) Here is one: Quote Theophilus to Autolycus Book II http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1669_480398 You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? “Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason.[/b] And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. found here: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm Bump for seeing how an early church father understood 'firstborn of all creation.'

Now for an example of a scholar who is an expert in languages and is also an anthropologist.

“It seems clear enough that the Great Commission of Mark's Gospel has reference to the human race alone. There is the familiar story of St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds, but I doubt if it is really the intent of the original that the Gospel is to be preached to animals as well as to man, commanding them all alike to believe and be saved. If it is, the command has certainly never been taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Christian people. So at least in Mark the Greek phrase rendered “the whole creation” clearly refers only to humanity, to human society. Nor can one suppose that Paul was including the world of animals in Colossians 1:23. This must surely be equally true of Colossians 1:15, for it would be ABSURD to suppose that the Lord is to be called the firstborn of animals and plants.”

http://custance.org/old/seed/ch8s.html

And let's not forget that Paul that when the sons are conformed to Christ's image that He will BECOME the “firstborn” of many brethren. Christ really gets 'born' a lot.

KJ

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (Istari @ April 05 2011,07:58)

WJ, Jack, Are you saying that Poor people go to heaven and rich people go to hell and there is a massive great physical gulf between the two such but that one can still call out to each other across the gulf and converse with each other? And hell is hot and firey and ones there are in perpetual thirst (What need do the dead of Drink – hey, I notice the rich man didn't call out for food – just water … Isn't water representative if the Holy Spirit?) and also, when did Abraham ascend to heaven? The Rich man poor man story is simply illustrating that misuse of earthly goodness at the expense of those lacking it will result in death of the spiritof the abuser. The rich man realised this too late and wanted to somehow 'save' his friends and relatives from the same fate…allegorically… Else, please re-enlighten me as to the point of the 'Story'?

Nope! The rich man was in hades because he was unmerciful. Those 'stories' were illustrations from REAL life. They were PARABLES which differ from allegories because they represent REAL life.

[Istari]

WJ,
Yes, the story was based on reality – I never said otherwise that why it is Allegorical.
Is not the rich man now in need – and the poor man now in comfort?
The opposite of that in their 'affore-life'?

Or do you say the poor man went to 'Heaven' just because he was poor and the rich man to hell just because he was rich…?

If the rich man had offered help to the poor man he would have been a bit more earthly poor but more Heavey rich!

[Istari]

Jack,

Please tell me what the point of the story was – what does Ot say to you – what is it's point?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Istari @ April 04 2011,16:11)

Jack, Please tell me what the point of the story was – what does Ot say to you – what is it's point?

The point of the parable is to show death does not mean “cease to exist”.

WJ

[Lightenup]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,15:04)

Kathi said: Quote Jack, I never said that Jesus wasn't also called the 'firstborn from the dead' as well as 'firstborn of all creation.'  Two different times of being begotten…one is in the beginning, the other is after His flesh body died.  He was a Son the entire time. Kathi Not two begettings but one begetting in two relations. Psalm 2:6-7 is NOT about a supposed 'begetting' before all ages. Verse 6 says that Jesus was installed as King at that time. He was not installed as King before all ages. Why not invent a third begetting Kathi? Paul said that we will be conformed to Christ's image in order that jesus might BECOME the “firstborn of many brethren.” Would this not imply a third begetting for you? And if the second and third begettings are not literal, then the first begetting is not literal. Give it up! Jack

Jack,
Jesus goes from being the firstborn from the dead to the firstborn of many brethren during the same begetting. Being firstborn from the dead allowed others to be begotten from the dead and thus making Jesus the firstborn of many brethren. There are three times He was begotten though.
1. before the ages…the 'Word' was within God, then the 'Word' came out. The 'Word' was a person that was divine, thus, the begotten God.

2. When He became flesh as the Son of Man He was born of Mary, in time.

3. When His body was raised to everlasting life to be joined once again with His eternal spirit.

Only one of those times makes Him an 'only begotten Son' who had the nature of God and thus an only begotten God…#1.

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack Jr. @ April 04 2011,15:59)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,04:45) Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 20 2010,00:13) Here is one: Quote Theophilus to Autolycus Book II http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-42.htm#P1669_480398 You will say, then, to me: “You said that God ought not to be contained in a place, and how do you now say that He walked in Paradise? “Hear what I say. The God and Father, indeed, of all cannot be contained, and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things, being His power and His wisdom, assuming the person of the Father and Lord of all, went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice. But what else is this voice but the Word of God, who is also His Son? Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason.[/b] And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place. found here: http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm Bump for seeing how an early church father understood 'firstborn of all creation.' Now for an example of a scholar who is an expert in languages and is also an anthropologist. “It seems clear enough that the Great Commission of Mark's Gospel has reference to the human race alone. There is the familiar story of St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds, but I doubt if it is really the intent of the original that the Gospel is to be preached to animals as well as to man, commanding them all alike to believe and be saved. If it is, the command has certainly never been taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Christian people. So at least in Mark the Greek phrase rendered “the whole creation” clearly refers only to humanity, to human society. Nor can one suppose that Paul was including the world of animals in Colossians 1:23. This must surely be equally true of Colossians 1:15, for it would be ABSURD to suppose that the Lord is to be called the firstborn of animals and plants.” http://custance.org/old/seed/ch8s.html And let's not forget that Paul that when the sons are conformed to Christ's image that He will BECOME the “firstborn” of many brethren. Christ really gets 'born' a lot. KJ

Jack,
The title 'firstborn of all creation' not only includes animals but trees, plants, fish, heavenly bodies, and man…all living things.

[Kangaroo Jack Jr.]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 05 2011,08:33)

Quote (Istari @ April 04 2011,16:11) Jack, Please tell me what the point of the story was – what does Ot say to you – what is it's point? The point of the parable is to show death does not mean “cease to exist”. WJ

Keith,

You're correct. If death meant “to cease to exist” then Adam would have been obliterated the day he ate the fruit of the tree. God said, “In the day you eat from it you will surely die.”

Oh wait a minute…. Mike believes that time is an “abstract notion” so the term “in the day” cannot be understood.

Adam “died” to God. It had nothing to do with physical death for he was created mortal and would have physically died eventually no matter what (1 Corinthians 15:46-49).

Jack

[Istari]

WJ,
Ha ha ha ha ha ha….. Sorry to laugh at you!

oh, no I'm not !

Ok, so why did the poor man go to heaven – just for being poor?

[Lightenup]

Quote (karmarie @ April 04 2011,15:04)

Quote (Lightenup @ April 05 2011,09:30) Or 'today' could be according to eternity where there is only today, just an eternal one. Just make a quick comment here, when your dead in the grave awaiting the ressurection, the time between… would'nt be remembered. Just like when your in a deep sleep, then wake up.

Karmarie,
Right. When you 'wake up' from dying you only experience daytime if you are a believer, there is no more night. That day that Christ was referring to was to start when the new believer 'woke' from dying. It is always day in eternity.

Good job that you can see that. It must be a girl thing
Kathi

[Author]

Posts