- This topic has 3,676 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Kathi,
From the same author:
The word “firstborn” is always used in either of two settings: as being the firstborn offspring of a father (as in Genesis 25:13), or as being part of the group being spoken of. Nevertheless even when used as the firstborn offspring of a father, it is still the group of children that the offspring of the father that the firstborn is a member of. For instance, In Exodus 11:5 we find: “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of the group that would make up Pharaoh’s offspring. Still, since Colossians 1:15 is definitely not saying that Jesus is the offspring of creation, making the creation the father, the other alternative is that Jesus is definitely included as part of the creation of which he is firstborn. In no case does “firstborn” mean that the firstborn did not have a beginning, or that the firstborn is not included in the group of which he is firstborn.
Can you scripturally prove this last sentence to be incorrect?
Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 30 2011,20:03) Mike,
The way to be a firstborn as part of any group is to be born from a member within the group.
Explain that in light of Psalm 89:27. Was David born from a king?But as to MY point, that the firstborn OF a group must be a PART OF that group: Was David a king?
Mike,
you asked me to prove this last sentence to be incorrect:Quote In no case does “firstborn” mean that the firstborn did not have a beginning, or that the firstborn is not included in the group of which he is firstborn. In no case does “firstborn” mean the one born began at the moment of birth.
In no case does “firstborn” tell us about how long the one born existed within the parent.
If “firstborn” meant first-created, then there would be billions of parents that were creators also and for Christians, there is only one creator, Jehovah, who is both the Father and the Son.Btw, firstborn does mean that the one born belongs to the group from which He was born. The group “Deity,” of which there are only the Father and the Son. Jesus was born of God and God is not part of a created group and therefore neither is His Firstborn. If the father is a man, his firstborn is also a man. If the father is a giraffe, his firstborn is also a giraffe. If the Father is God, the firstborn is also a God.
So then your answer is “NO Mike, I CANNOT scripturally prove this last sentence to be incorrect.” Thank you, Kathi.
All else you add to it is simply your own imagination and wishes. The FACTS, as we KNOW them from scripture are:
1. The firstborn of any particular group does not have to come FROM a member of the group, ie: David did not come FROM a king.
2. A firstborn is ALWAYS a part OF the group he is the firstborn OF.
Quote (Kathi @ Sept 03) In no case does “firstborn” mean the one born began at the moment of birth.
Nonsense and wordplay. In no case does “firstborn” mean that the firstborn did not have a beginning, or that the firstborn is not included in the group of which he is firstborn.Quote (Kathi @ Sept 03) In no case does “firstborn” tell us about how long the one born existed within the parent.
More nonsense and wordplay. No matter how long the gestation period, in no case does “firstborn” mean that the firstborn did not have a beginning, or that the firstborn is not included in the group of which he is firstborn.Quote (Kathi @ Sept 03) If “firstborn” meant first-created, then there would be billions of parents that were creators also and for Christians, there is only one creator, Jehovah, who is both the Father and the Son.
Genesis 4:1 NET ©
Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created a man just as the Lord did!”This is the same Hebrew word “qanah” from Proverbs 8:22. Remember we discussed how the older translators, while suspecting a meaning of “create”, couldn't quite connect the dots and therefore translated this word as “possessed” or “aquired”. New evidence has proven the meaning of “create”. See footnote #1 on the NET Translation for a review of the info I showed you before.
Genesis 4:1 shows that Eve CREATED a man. Just as I, with the help of Jehovah, CREATED my son. Your point is moot, as no one in their right mind would confuse Eve or myself with the Creator of all things.
Quote (Kathi @ Sept 03) Btw, firstborn does mean that the one born belongs to the group from which He was born.
It means he belongs to the group of which he is the firstborn…………..WITHOUT EXCEPTION.Quote (Kathi @ Sept 03) If the Father is God, the firstborn is also a God.
If the Father is a SPIRIT BEING, then the firstborn is also a SPIRIT BEING. “God” is not a species, of which there are many members, Kathi. God is an adjective, describing one who is very mighty. “THE God” refers to the ONE who is the MOST mighty of all. If the ONE who was the MOST mighty of all begot a son, that son would likely be mighty, but he would not be the same being who is the MOST mighty of all. He would not be the BEING who begot him.A king does not beget a king, because “king” is a title describing the POSITION of that particular being. “King” is not a species, causing anyone born of a king to be a king themself. If it is a HUMAN king doing the begetting, the firstborn will be a HUMAN, but he will not be born a king. If it is a SPIRIT king doing the begetting, the firstborn will be a spirit, but will not be born a king.
Our one true God begat a very powerful spirit being, but that spirit being was not born into the role and POSITION of “God Most High” simply because he was begotten BY “God Most High”. Just as the begotten of a king is not born into the POSITION of “King”, just because he was begotten BY a king.
Kathi, Jehovah is the Most High God. (Gen 14:22) And Jesus is the SON OF the Most High God. (Mark 5:7) Do you accept these scriptures as truth?
Mike,
Where is the scripture that says David is the firstborn of all the kings?Who made David a firstborn…all the kings or God?
Does that mean that David was not born until this verse and thus David came by God birthing him or by God designating Him an honor of being called His firstborn to show preeminence of all the kings on earth?
This is what is written:
27“I also shall make him My firstborn,
The highest of the kings of the earth.Also does the Bible say that Jehovah and Eve are the creators or did Jehovah create alone?
Is 44:24Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb,
“I, the LORD, am the maker of all things,
Stretching out the heavens by Myself
And spreading out the earth all alone,Here are the translations of Gen 4:1 and none of them translate with the word 'created' coupled with the fact that Jehovah alone creates…it is an easy conclusion that the word in Gen 4:1 that the supposed new evidence jumps to a wrong conclusion when they translate the word as 'created.' They admit that they are taking a guess at the translation in the NET notes when they say:
Quote The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of “to acquire”; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning “create.” Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish” (R. N. Whybray, “Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,” VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, “Where Will Wisdom Be Found?” JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42). Note that the notes say the parallel ideas of 'appointed' and 'given birth' ARGUE for the translation of 'create' OR 'ESTABLISH.' Thus these notes aren't a matter of definite conclusion but only an argument. Every other time that the verb is written in Proverbs, the verb is not translated as 'created' in the Apostolic Bible. Now, all of the sudden 'created' is used…hmmm. I think that is a very weak argument.
Kathi
Kathi,
The point is that no firstborn was without a beginning. That is why God will NEVER be called the firstborn of or over anything at all. In order to be a firstborn, you must have first BEEN BORN.
And the quote from Irene's source I wanted you to address was this:
In no case does “firstborn” mean that the firstborn did not have a beginning, or that the firstborn is not included in the group of which he is firstborn.
You apparently cannot scripturally rebut these words, or you would have done so. Therefore, if Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, he first has to have been born at some time, meaning he had a beginning, and second, he has to be a part of the group of which he is the firstborn – in this case, creation.
End of exercise. Take five.
mike
Mike,
If a firstborn is without a beginning, then the firstborn would be eternal. Right? You think that it is impossible for the firstborn of an eternal being to not have been eternally within the eternal being before being begotten, but you have no proof of that.If there is only one eternal person who became begotten and hence firstborn, then you will not find an example of anyone else that has that history. And so you can't…so that should tell you that He is unique, not like any of the other firstborns.
To have the knowledge that a person is a firstborn is not enough to indicate how long they were within their parent beforehand unless they are said to have the exact nature of the eternal being they are begotten from.
In human terms, you can put all the firstborns in a line and ask them how long they were in their mother, unless they were test tube babies, they wouldn't be able to tell you exactly. Some of them may have been born prematurely, some at about 38 weeks, some at about 40 weeks, some at about 42 weeks, etc. Knowing the fact that they were their human parents' firstborn in no way tells you precisely how long they were within their parent but we know generally they were within them about 9 months before being begotten. So if we know that a human person was the natural firstborn of their parents…we know:
1. They are human because their parents were human and have a created nature not an eternal nature.
2. They were within their mother for several months.
3. They were born from within their mother on a given day.
4. They were the first to be born from their mother's womb.What we do not know from the term 'firstborn' is:
1. How long exactly they were inside of their mother before they were born.In the respect of being the only begotten Son of God and thus His firstborn with His exact nature, we can reasonably assume that He was eternally within the Father since the Father's nature is to be eternal, so must the Son's nature be eternal. This coupled with evidence of scriptures teaching the deity of the Son of God, we can be confident that both the
Father and Son are eternal in nature. This would further support the all sufficiency of God and that He doesn't change. He was never without His Word or His Spirit.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 05 2011,21:17) Mike,
If a firstborn is without a beginning, then the firstborn would be eternal. Right? You think that it is impossible for the firstborn of an eternal being to not have been eternally within the eternal being before being begotten, but you have no proof of that.
Kathi,The word “born” is the dead giveaway. If one was from eternity, that one wouldn't be firstborn, secondborn, or any kind of born.
That is why our God is never said to be the firstborn of anyone or anything. If one is born, they were not from eternity.
It's really quite simple, if you put away your personal wishes. Which brings me to a question I've been wanting to ask you:
WHY? Why must Jesus be God for you? Why can't Jesus be the Son OF God who sacrifice his life for us? Why must he be the same exact God Most High that he is the Son of?
Mike! Just consider that when those Scriptures in John 1:1 ans Hebrew 1:8 speak of Jesus being God, it is a title, not that Jesus is equal to Jehovah…. Throughout the Bible very seldom is His name translated the Most High God…or Jehovah. It's always either God or LORD in the Old Testament, and mostly God in the New Test.
Its no wonder that most think God is his name, when in reality it is Jehovah name ALONE…..
Peace and Love IreneMike,
The word born is only a dead giveaway to Him being a Son and that He has a Father. That is as far as you can take that. You can't know how long He existed before He was born merely by the idea that He was born.Jesus is God, the Son because He is the Son of God, the Father. Since they are both deity beings, they are both most high in their perspective positions. Do you think that the Father would also be the Most High Son? The Most High Son is not the Most High Father, but that wouldn't mean that He wasn't the Most High Son.
Context will help as well as true understanding.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2011,11:04) Mike,
The word born is only a dead giveaway to Him being a Son and that He has a Father. That is as far as you can take that. You can't know how long He existed before He was born merely by the idea that He was born.
I know that because he was born at all, it means he had a beginning. These words you posted are nothing but illogical nonsense, Kathi.Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2011,11:04)
Jesus is God, the Son because He is the Son of God, the Father.
No Kathi, Jesus is the Son OF God because he is the Son OF God. The words “Son OF God” never, ever mean “God the Son”. Don't you ever wonder why the phrase “God the Son” is not in the scriptures?Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2011,11:04)
Since they are both deity beings, they are both most high in their perspective positions.
Okay, then which one is REALLY the MOST High God? Jesus says the Father is greater than he and calls Him “my God”. This makes me think that the Father is more high than the Son. Do you agree?mike
Quote (Pastry @ Sep. 06 2011,20:14) Mike! Just consider that when those Scriptures in John 1:1 ans Hebrew 1:8 speak of Jesus being God, it is a title, not that Jesus is equal to Jehovah….
Thank you Irene.Mike,
Quote I know that because he was born at all, it means he had a beginning. You appraise supernatural birth by natural birth understandings and you can't derive laws of the supernatural from the laws of the natural.
Quote Jesus is the Son OF God because he is the Son OF God. The words “Son OF God” never, ever mean “God the Son”. Don't you ever wonder why the phrase “God the Son” is not in the scriptures? Let's look at how different translations view the Son of God:
New International Version (©1984)
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
New Living Translation (©2007)
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart. He has revealed God to us.English Standard Version (©2001)
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side , he has made him known.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.International Standard Version (©2008)
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.So, according to scripture, would you prefer me to say that I believe in God the Father and God, the One and Only at the Father's Side?
If the God, the One and Only at the Father's side is called 'His only begotten Son' by the Father then it is easy to see that the God, the One and only at the Father's side is God the Son. God the Son is a lot easier to say and sums up who the scriptures declare Him to be.
Quote Okay, then which one is REALLY the MOST High God? Jesus says the Father is greater than he and calls Him “my God”. Both are really the Most high God in their positions, one as the Most High Father, and one as the Most High Son. Together they are the Most High as a unity.
Imagine putting all of the most high political leaders in office who are over each country, in a big room…that would be the most powerful human, political group imaginable. Compare that to just our president being in the room alone. Our president is the most high human, political person in the world but when all leaders are together in the room, then there is the most high human political GROUP in the world. Also in the room are the most high human political leaders in their country. That would be a room of one most high human political group as well as several most high human political leaders. My point is that there can be more than one person who is the most high God of their perspective positions and together they form even more power because they work together in unity. Synergy!
Synergy definition:
1. The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.Quote This makes me think that the Father is more high than the Son. Do you agree? Well, the Father is the most high God the Father and would be a higher 'father' than the Son, however, the Son is the Most High God the Son and would be a higher 'son' than the Father who was never a son.
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2011,20:36)
You appraise supernatural birth by natural birth understandings and you can't derive laws of the supernatural from the laws of the natural.
And you use this excuse as if it is some kind of proof to your imagined theory.Kathi, do you think God knew how we as humans would understand the word “yalad”? Do you think God said to Himself, “Hey, I'm going to tell them I begot you just to mess with their heads! That will make them think that you had a beginning just like every other son in existence – even though you've really existed forever!
“? Is that what you think, Kathi?Jesus was YALAD, Kathi. Never does the word refer to someone who has always existed.
Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2011,20:36)
Let's look at how different translations view the Son of God:
No, let's not look at those travesties of translation! Instead, look at the Greek and look to Strong for the true meaning of “monogenes”.Jiminy Cricket, Kathi! How much sense does it make to say “God the ONE and ONLY, who is at the Father's side”?
If Jesus is the ONE and ONLY God, then who is the Father he is beside? The words mean “only begotten god” Kathi. The only true God is not begotten. You know this, right? Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2011,20:36)
Both are really the Most high God in their positions, one as the Most High Father, and one as the Most High Son. Together they are the Most High as a unity.
Hmmmm…………Jehovah is the Most High God, according to Gen 14:22. And Jesus is the SON OF the Most High God, according to Mark 5:7. That means that the One with a Son is truly the Most High God. Do you agree that the Father ALONE is the Most High God, Kathi?Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 08 2011,12:51) I know that because he was born at all, it means he had a beginning. These words you posted are nothing but illogical nonsense, Kathi.
Show me the evidence that Yeshua had a “birth” that preceeded his incarnation?That would be a good starting point.
Hi Paul,
The Firstborn of Col 1:15 had to exist as the 'firstborn' before all things were created by Him, so He was born before the ages. The Nicene Creed agrees with this, so does the Chalcedonian Creed and the Anathasian Creed.Nicene Creed:
Traditional WordingI believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.The Chalcedonian Creed:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.The Anathasian Creed:
Whosoever will be saved,
before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.And the catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity,
neither confounding the Persons,
nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father,
another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal.And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.
As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated,
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three
Almighties, but one Almighty.So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge
every Person by himself to be both God and Lord,
So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say,
There be three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other;
none is greater, or less than another; But the whole three Persons
are co-eternal together and co-equal.
So that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also
believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess,
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man;
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds;
and Man of the substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect Man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the
Father, as touching his manhood; Who, although he be God and Man,
yet he is not two, but one Christ;
One, not by conversion of the Godhead
into flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God;
One altogether; not by confusion of Substance,
but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul
and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell,
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth at the right hand of the Father,
God Almighty, from whence he will come
to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and shall give account for their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.This is the catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully,
he cannot be saved.Do you agree with those creeds Paul?
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
