Firstborn of/over all creation

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2010,13:18)

Well Mike, As I said I don't think it makes a difference because both are true.  He was not the second born of or over all creation or even before creation, He was the firstborn of the creation that came through Him and He became the firstborn before the ages and before anything was created.  Eusebius says that He was the foundation of the coming creation, not a part of creation Himself. I'm fine with either 'of' or 'over.'

Did you read my points at all?

Please answer them number by number for me. I would like to see a reason for “over” if you have one…..not just your “approval” of it.

thanks,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 06 2010,21:15)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2010,19:07) Pierre, I find the writings fascinating.  For instance, if you were a child of a veteran of WWll, you would have been brought up with stories from first handed veterans about the war and you could somewhat understand the important facts of WWll because it happened close to your lifetime and directly affected people that were close to you.  Now compare the American Revolutionary War…it was hundreds of years ago and you would not directly know anyone involved.  Which war would you be able to explain better?   In comparison, I would rather read writings from someone that lived as close to the time of Christ as possible and get their perspective.  The Bible is of course the most important writing but Jesus told the disciples to go into the world and make disciples, teaching them all the things which He had taught them.  Don't you think that they obeyed that and don't you think that those teachings would reflect basic things like if Jesus was pre-existent or not?  That shouldn't be a confusing truth.  I am finding in the writings that the Son did pre-exist before the ages and most often referred to as the Word of God that was begotten before the ages and is the firstborn of all creation, not as part of creation but as the foundation of that which would be created through Him. And He is the God of God, and that there is one true unbegotten God and His only begotten Son and His Spirit which are both of the one true God, the Father. I see the early church fathers as ones that would know what the basic truths are better than anyone here because of their more direct influences that they had and that many of them died for what they believed about Christ. The Father, Son and Spirit are often spoken of together but it doesn't seem the same as the current trinity mindset.  The Father is always spoken of as the one true God and the Son and the Spirit are purposely 'of' Him (and beforehand were 'within' Him) to create His creation and to manifest who He is to His creation as well as to redeem His creation. I suggest that you study the scriptures first with the help of the Holy Spirit and then see if the early Christians were teaching the same basic thing.  If not, I would think that you are on the ground of new and likely false teaching and very susceptible to being wrong. Also, if something is black but you tell me that it is white because you don't argue over words, you are just being deceptive unless you are convinced that it really is white and not black.  If so, you ought to be easily able to prove it.  If you can't, you ought to stick with the early disciples say as being most likely. Further more, you make statements that there is no such a thing coming out of nothing.  If that were true the scriptures would tell us that and matter would be another God of different natures than the one true God.:;): God bless you, Kathi (not Katty) Kathi i do not know where you get your wisdom, how is it that someone closer to Jesus time would more truthful than the scriptures today , do you believe that the problem of society lays not in how closer we are to each other but how honestly and truthful a person his. since there is men after sin nothing is any good,and the good there is is quickly disposed of one way or another. so now you do not believe me when i say there is nothing coming out of nothing ? show me where it is that something comes out nothing?? i am now curious. Pierre

Pierre,
When historians study history they want the documents that were written as close to the event as possible and the witnesses that were as close to the event as possible. I put a lot more stock into what someone would say about crucifixions that lived while people were being put to death on crosses than I would from some one's opinion here that has never known anyone or seen anyone die on a cross, for example. Haven't you ever played the game 'Telephone?' You know how the truth gets lost the further away you get from the first person that spoke? Same thing with history.

Also, about something coming from nothing…what comes to mind as an example are the many languages that God brought to those building the tower of Babel. Many languages were created out of nothing but the will of God.

[terraricca]

Kathi

you say;Also, about something coming from nothing…what comes to mind as an example are the many languages that God brought to those building the tower of Babel. Many languages were created out of nothing but the will of God.

that is not ;nothing coming out of nothing. first God create man to talk,so all those men at the tower of Babel spook a language.

and what ever comes out of the will of God is not coming out of nothing..

and your mind is not nothing at the least my is not….

many historians have been look up and found not trust worthy, and even when they are people do not believe them anyway.
you see the bible is different than all other books it has the holy spirit ,no other book as that for reference.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Sep. 06 2010,21:09)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2010,12:56) Mike, We have already discussed this and looked at the explanation of the NET Bible.  I don't think that either word makes a difference since I believe both words to be true.  He was the first one begotten of God of all creation and He is over all creation, not inferior to it. Yeah, I saw that explanation myself.  They call it a “genetive of subordination”.   First, how do they come to the conclusion that the scripture means Jesus is “over” the rest of creation?   Second, they list no other scriptures where they use “over” for the genetive form of “pas”.   Third, if they want you to think Jesus is “preeminent over creation”, then aren't they forgetting someone else?  Jehovah is preeminent over Jesus, and He would therefore be the preeminent One over creation also, not His “second in command”.   Fourth, both Eusebius and (I think) Ignatius say Jesus was the “firstborn of every creature” BEFORE THE AGES, or BEFORE THE WORLDS.  What “creation” was there for him to be “preeminent over” BEFORE THE AGES? Too many holes in that one Kathi.  Best to just take the words to mean what the words actually mean instead of guessing they mean something else and then making up new rules of Greek grammar to support your “guess”. mike

Mike,

Quote

First, how do they come to the conclusion that the scripture means Jesus is “over” the rest of creation?

I don't know Greek as well as the scholars and so I have to say that I am ignorant of a subordinate genitive rule in grammar. I can't tell you how but I sure can tell you that I don't know half of what there is to know about Greek grammar.

The context continues to tell us that the Firstborn created all things visible and invisible. To be a firstborn at all, one comes from another of his kind and I believe that the one He came from was the Heavenly Father. So, you can read this with that understanding that the image of God is the first to be born of God of all creation. Others will be born of God in their rebirth.

Quote

Second, they list no other scriptures where they use “over” for the genetive form of “pas”.

I don't really care if it is of or over Mike. He is both.

Quote

Third, if they want you to think Jesus is “preeminent over creation”, then aren't they forgetting someone else?  Jehovah is preeminent over Jesus, and He would therefore be the preeminent One over creation also, not His “second in command”.

I would say that it is obvious that the Father was first and already in existence if the other is called a Son and a firstborn and an image. For there to be a firstborn there had to be one that beget Him.

Quote

Fourth, both Eusebius and (I think) Ignatius say Jesus was the “firstborn of every creature” BEFORE THE AGES, or BEFORE THE WORLDS.  What “creation” was there for him to be “preeminent over” BEFORE THE AGES?

He was begotten before the ages, the firstborn of all creation (to come).

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 06 2010,21:57)

Kathi you say;Also, about something coming from nothing…what comes to mind as an example are the many languages that God brought to those building the tower of Babel.  Many languages were created out of nothing but the will of God. that is not ;nothing coming out of nothing.  first God create man to talk,so all those men at the tower of Babel spook a language. and what ever comes out of the will of God is not coming out of nothing.. and your mind is not nothing at the least my is not…. many historians have been look up and found not trust worthy, and even when they are people do not believe them anyway. you see the bible is different than all other books it has the holy spirit ,no other book as that for reference. Pierre

Ok Pierre,
When I say things were created out of nothing, I mean that things did not evolve from an always existent prior material substance but only the immaterial will of God. Does that help you understand?

God made matter by His will. Matter didn't always exist in God of outside of God.

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2010,22:05)

Quote (terraricca @ Sep. 06 2010,21:57) Kathi you say;Also, about something coming from nothing…what comes to mind as an example are the many languages that God brought to those building the tower of Babel.  Many languages were created out of nothing but the will of God. that is not ;nothing coming out of nothing.  first God create man to talk,so all those men at the tower of Babel spook a language. and what ever comes out of the will of God is not coming out of nothing.. and your mind is not nothing at the least my is not…. many historians have been look up and found not trust worthy, and even when they are people do not believe them anyway. you see the bible is different than all other books it has the holy spirit ,no other book as that for reference. Pierre Ok Pierre, When I say things were created out of nothing, I mean that things did not evolve from an always existent prior material substance but only the immaterial will of God.  Does that help you understand? God made matter by His will.  Matter didn't always exist in God of outside of God.

Kathi

i have no problem in understanding Gods word,

God create all things material and immaterial,

you should go and look at some of HUBBEL space telescope pictures to see what our creator as done and create.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

That is great Pierre. God did create all things material and immaterial but He did not create them from a prior substance that always existed. The creator is able to bring about what wasn't before in existence by merely His desire to bring it about.

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2010,22:48)

That is great Pierre.  God did create all things material and immaterial but He did not create them from a prior substance that always existed.  The creator is able to bring about what wasn't before in existence by merely His desire to bring it about.

Kathi

that right in the beginning there was nothing but God,then God create,or made,or beget ,Christ also known has THE WORD,and that is by taking from himself,
not from nothing.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
That is closer to my understanding. I do agree that the Son did not come from nothing. I think the Son was in existence before He was begotten and was within the one true God. During eternity at some point, He was begotten and began His ministry as the begotten God 'of God,' He was a helper in creation and made appearances to men, Adam first, Abraham also and others in the OT. He was to the Father as a most precious living attribute manifesting the character and nature, form and image of the Father in His own person.

[Lightenup]

Quote (Baker @ Sep. 06 2010,12:53)

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 07 2010,03:45) OK, a new author for today…Theophilus.  He has captured my attention and is easier to read than some early Christian fathers.  Following is an excerpt about God creating through a helper…His Word which was begotten before the ages. Quote CHAPTER X.—THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD THROUGH THE WORD. And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things. He is called “governing principle” [ἁρκή], because He rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by Him. He, then, being Spirit of God, and governing principle, and wisdom, and power of the highest, came down upon the prophets, and through them spoke of the creation of the world and of all other things. For the prophets were not when the world came into existence, but the wisdom of God which was in Him, and His holy Word which was always present with Him. Wherefore He speaks thus by the prophet Solomon: “When He prepared the heavens I was there, and when He appointed the foundations of the earth I was by Him as one brought up with Him.”568568    Prov. viii. 27. Theophilus reads with the Septuagint, “I was with Him, putting things into order,” instead of “I was by Him as one brought up with Him.” [Here the Logos is the σοφία as with the Fathers generally; e.g. Cyprian, Advs. Judæos, book ii. 2. But see cap. xv. p. 101, infra.] And Moses, who lived many years before Solomon, or, rather, the Word of God by him as by an instrument, says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” First he named the “beginning,”569569    That is, the first principle, whom he has just shown to be the Word. and “creation,”570570    In the Greek version of Gen. i. 1, the word “created” stands before “God.” then he thus introduced God; for not lightly and on slight occasion is it right to name God. For the divine wisdom foreknew that some would trifle and name a multitude of gods that do not exist. In order, therefore, that the living God might be known by His works, and that [it might be known that] by His Word God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, he said, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This stood out to me about this excerpt: “God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begat Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things.” This is not indicating that the Word has always been beside God, but within God and was begotten with God's own wisdom before all things. Hi Kathi!  The Word of God in John  1:1 it says In the beginning, so who's beginning was it?  I believe that goes nicely with Col. 1:15 being the firstborn of all creation and also Rev. 3:14  The beginning of the creation of God, it shows that Jesus had a beginning.  And through Him all was made it says in verse 3 of John 1. Also it just struck me since He is the Son of God, He is younger and came forth from God, and had to have a beginning.  Just like our Sons are…… Plain and simple…..Peace Irene

Hi Irene,
When John 1:1 says 'in the beginning' I believe it is referring to the beginning of the earth.

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 08 2010,07:27)

Pierre, That is closer to my understanding.  I do agree that the Son did not come from nothing.  I think the Son was in existence before He was begotten and was within the one true God.  During eternity at some point, He was begotten and began His ministry as the begotten God 'of God,'  He was a helper in creation and made appearances to men, Adam first, Abraham also and others in the OT.  He was to the Father as a most precious living attribute manifesting the character and nature, form and image of the Father in His own person.

Kathi

you should stop to use your own interpretation of what God is and did ,and do.

like this you say;; I think the Son was in existence before He was begotten and was within the one true God;

What we think and say does not influence God in no way.
it is what we do and understand of what he says and do or will do ,that influence us.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
And who's interpretation of what God is and did, and does shall I start using…yours? I can't believe less than I believe…all I can do is seek and deal with what I learn. I really don't think that it is your place to tell people to stop understanding how they understand…that doesn't even make sense. Why do you want to intimidate me? I'm not trying to change who the Son is, I am just trying to know Him better through what He says in His word and by His Spirit and through the disciples…good grief, Pierre.

If you think my understanding is wrong…prove it with scripture, not with suggestions and opinions.

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 08 2010,10:35)

Pierre, And who's interpretation of what God is and did, and does shall I start using…yours?  I can't believe less than I believe…all I can do is seek and deal with what I learn.  I really don't think that it is your place to tell people to stop understanding how they understand…that doesn't even make sense.  Why do you want to intimidate me?  I'm not trying to change who the Son is, I am just trying to know Him better through what He says in His word and by His Spirit and through the disciples…good grief, Pierre. If you think my understanding is wrong…prove it with scripture, not with suggestions and opinions.

Kathi
this is John the loved one by Jesus speaking;Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 He was with God in the beginning.
Jn 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Jn 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
Jn 1:5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.
Jn 1:6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John.
Jn 1:7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
Jn 1:8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.
Jn 1:9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.
Jn 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
Jn 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.
Jn 1:12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

This is John the baptist talking;Jn 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
Jn 1:30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’
Jn 1:31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
Jn 1:32 Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him.
Jn 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
Jn 1:34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.”

this Jesus speaking;Jn 3:9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
Jn 3:10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

those are the words that changed the world of men and every men inside of him if he accept the words.

the understanding is in your hearth.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Hi Pierre,
Thank you for those scriptures and I agree with them and I do not know how you would think my understanding would not go with this?

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 08 2010,15:52)

Hi Pierre, Thank you for those scriptures and I agree with them and I do not know how you would think my understanding would not go with this?

Kathi

if your thinking is ajusted with the word of God then it is not your thinking but God's

just as you do God's will it is no longer yours.
Pierre

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
Don't miss the intent of the message by getting caught up in how things aren't said the way you would want them said, ok?

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Sep. 08 2010,19:33)

Pierre, Don't miss the intent of the message by getting caught up in how things aren't said the way you would want them said, ok?

Kathi

i try not to,but think it this way ,if you do not make clear what you looking for ,and not covering the intend and extend of your ideas ,this could lead to more confusion ,

i took your word at true value,sorry if i should have not.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Finally, I get to Athanasius to see what he says about the term 'firstborn' and he agrees that by calling the Son the First-born, God shows that He is the offspring of the Father and not a creature.

Quote

3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.x.ii.html

[SimplyForgiven]

its funny how Lu and WJ agree the whole time in many apects in the beginning of this thread,
and only bc the silly trinitarian beliefs that things get all messed up.

Trinitarians and Anti trinitarians… their all messed up

[terraricca]

Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Sep. 14 2010,23:06)

its funny how Lu and WJ agree the whole time in many apects in the beginning of this thread, and only bc the silly trinitarian beliefs that things get all messed up. Trinitarians and Anti trinitarians… their all messed up

SF

HOW??

Pierre

[Author]

Posts