- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mike,
This is my third post today in reply to your last post.
I want to say first that I apologize for my bad manners yesterday. I had reached a high level of frustration. You had asked me where the Bible says that David was God's firstborn son. You had asked this AFTER acknowledging that God had appointed David as His “firstborn” (Psalm 89:27). This was quite frustrating. We both know that the CLEAR implication is that David was appointed as God's firstborn [son].
Now to point out to you that you did not answer everything in your last post. I had directed you to 2 Peter 1:1 where Peter said that Jesus Christ is our “God and Savior.” You did not reply
1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ
You also did not reply to my point that Jesus was appointed as High priest at the SAME POINT IN TIME that He was apppointed as Son.
5 So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:
“ You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.” Heb. 5:5and,
33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘ You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.’ Acts 13:33It is obvious that Jesus “became” High priest at the SAME point in time that He became Son. The word “TODAY” cannot refer to two different times. The “begetting” as Son could not have occurred before creation and the “begetting” as High Priest hundreds of years later.
Please anwser these.
thinker
Hi Thinker,
About David: God didn't call him His firstborn son. If God said that leviathon was appointed the firstborn among sea creatures, would you assume it meant son? If He said the eagle was appointed the firstborn among winged creatures, would you assume it meant son? David was appointed the firstborn of God's kings on the earth, not His firstborn son. And IMO, it wouldn't be right for God to appoint David His firstborn son of the eath and overlook Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, etc. To sum up – it doesn't say firstborn son, so I will not assume it means firstborn son.
You said:
Quote The scriptures do NOT say that Jesus was created. They actually say he was “the firstborn of all creation”. “Of” means “part of”. But because you cannot stomach having any part of your Godhead being created, you tell twisted tales of “firstborn” actually means this and “all creation” actually means that. So, put your twist on it if you feel you need to, but you are wrong to say that the Scriptures don't say it.
You said:
Quote You say that Christ was “never appointed.” But Psalms 2 disagrees with you. It says: 6 “Yet I have SET My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.Was Christ “set” King before creation? No! He was “set” King AT HIS EXALTATION. This is when He was “begotten.”
What I said was that the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was APPOINTED as God's Son. Not that God never appointed His son to any position. And your second point is nothing because there is no time frame given. God could have been foretelling the setting up of Jesus on Zion for the future while Jesus was repeating the first words he ever heard millions of years ago.
About Acts: Paul set out to let everyone know that Jesus was God's Son, period. There is no evidence that Paul set out to let anyone know that Jesus became God's Son only after he was raised. And that's my main point about this whole thing – wouldn't you think something as “news-worthy” as this would have been told to many different people many different times? Wouldn't there have been a Scripture where one of the apostles explained, “While he was on earth, he, his Father, the demons and all of us called him and knew him as the Son of God, but as it turns out, he didn't really become appointed to the “Son of God position” until he was raised from the dead.”? But there is nothing like that in the Scriptures, only in your mind.
You said:
Quote Of course the part about sinning did not apply to Jesus. The part that did apply is recorded in Hebrews one. It is the part which says, “I WILL BE a Father to Him and he SHALL BE a son to Me.” Again, Paul is quoting an old Scripture originally about Solomon, who had not been born yet. The future tense does not necessarily apply when Paul applies it to Jesus. And besides, “I shall be his Father and he will be my Son” doesn't really have a tense to it. The Greek has “will be my Son”, not “will become my Son”. If God told us today, “Soon I will send a helper to mankind. He will be my Son.”, you could read it as he won't be His Son until he is sent, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.
You said:
Quote You are dancing your way around the apostolic teachings. Hey kettle, this is the pot – you're black!
You said:
Quote 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Hebrews 1:5-6 Why did you change translations after making a point to tell me it actually says:
Hi again,
You quoted:
Quote 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Hebrews 1:5-6 Why did you use a different translation after making a point to tell me it actually says:
Quote 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him. I suspect it is because, whether you think the “again” applies to the second coming or the exaltation, it is clear the Jesus was the “Firstborn” both times he was in the world.
You said:
Quote Paul said also that jesus was the rock that followed the people in the wilderness. He said that the rock was “the Christ.” Was Jesus actually the Christ in the old testament? No! Jesus had to be born and be anointed and win the victory before he could become the Christ. Paul also said that Christ Jesus “came into the world” to save sinners.” Was Jesus the Christ before He was born and annointed and won the victory? No! Peter said that God made Jesus the Christ AT HIS EXALTATION:
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.”
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
There it is! Jesus was made both Lord and Christ WHEN He ascended to God's throne.
First, I'm glad to see you used one of the quotes that say it is God who puts Jesus' enemies under him. ( Make a note to yourself that when we debate this point later, Paul is only quoting Scripture, not saying Jesus will put all enemies under himself.
)Second, if you hear on the news, “President Obama used to work in a grocery store”, you would know that it was before he was the POTUS. So the newscaster doesn't have to start by saying, “Before President Obama became President…”. The same thing applies when we say the Word in John was actually Jesus. And when other OT positions are applied to who we now know as Jesus.
Now on the other hand, while President Obama was running for office, no newscaster called him “President Obama”, because he wasn't yet. And nobody called Jesus the “soon to be Son of God”. They called him the Son of God because he already was.
And third, Peter doesn't show any timeline in his statement:
Quote 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.” He doesn't say that God made him Christ AFTER he raised him. But it's another one of those wordings that can lead someone to think that. Fortunately, we have other Scriptures we can use to find out if that is what Peter meant:
Quote 16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is the same Peter. And he is talking with Jesus while he is on the earth. And don't come back with the “God revealed that he WAS GOING TO BE the Christ, because that is not what it says. And look at verse 20:
Quote 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. Not that “he WAS GOING TO BE the Christ.” So when you use the other Scriptures in conjunction with Peter's later statement, it becomes clear that he was not really saying what you think he is.
You said:
Quote I have answered you. I said that the Eternal Word became Son. But you don't like my reply and accuse me of not answering. I want to “hear you say”, No. Jehovah God Almighty was never begotten by anyone. But you're too stubborn, I guess. And where do you get “ETERNAL WORD”?
As far as the other stuff in your first post: Firstborn is not a name or position he acquired or inherited. In Rev, Jesus tells us:
Quote Revelation 3:12 NIV
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.What is that “new name”? Rev 19 tells us:
Quote 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. I don't know what that new name is, but I'm sure it's not “firstborn”.
Your second and third post are just more of the same. What do you want me to say about “our God and Savior Jesus Christ”? What is the question?
Look Jack, I know you believe what you think these Scriptures imply, but they just simply don't say what you think they do. Show me a Scripture that says, “Begotten is a title” or “Firstborn is an office” or “Jesus didn't become God's Begotten Son until he was raised”. There are none like this in the Bible. I'm sorry, man. I keep saying to myself, “I want to believe so I can have a triad god like Jack, Keith and the pagans!”, but it's just not there.
This is how I understand your trinity: Jesus was God Almighty from the beginning even though everything came FROM Jehovah THROUGH Jesus. They're equal even though one is the Father and the other is the Son. Jesus said the Father is greater only because he was on earth in a lesser form at the time, but when he was put back to his former glory, he still did not become God, but sits at God's right hand. And Jesus has equality to God right now, even though he still calls Jehovah his God and is waiting for Him to put his enemies under his feet. And even though he will be subjected to God so God can be all in all.
It doesn't sound like there was equality before Jesus came to earth, while he was on earth or after he was raised, or even to this very day, and
Jesus' equal future doesn't look too promising either, what with being subjected to God and all.I'm ready for you to show me that being at someone's right hand means equality with that person.
peace and love,
mikeHi Thinker,
Just thought I'd leave you with a few Scriptures.
Romans 8:3
Quote 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. Jesus was God's Son before he sent him in the likeness of man.
Galatians 4:4
Quote 4But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Jesus was God's Son when He sent him, and His Son when he was born of a woman.
1 John 4:9
Quote 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. Again, Jesus was God's Son before he was sent into the world.
John 8:38
Quote 38I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father. Jesus only does what he has seen His Father do. And as His Son in His presence, he has seen what his Father does.
John 1:14
Quote 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth They viewed some of the Son of God's glory while he was on earth.
1 John 5:18
Quote 18We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. Who is the one who was BORN of God?
Colossians 1:15
Quote He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; You say the firstborn of all creation doesn't really mean what it says. What if Jesus phrases it differently?
Revelation 3:14
Quote 14 “And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God, Making sense yet?
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote About David: God didn't call him His firstborn son.
Mike,
How many times do I need to refer you back to Psalm 89?26 He [David] will call out to me, 'You are my Father,
my God, the Rock my Savior.'27 I will also appoint him MY firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.David calls out to Jehovah, “You are MY Father.”
Mike:
Quote God said that leviathon was appointed the firstborn among sea creatures, would you assume it meant son? 
God said that David is “MY firstborn.”Mike:
Quote They actually say he was “the firstborn of all creation”.
All creation means “all mankind.” Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “all creation.” I guess this would include the rocks and the trees in your thinking. You look up the use of “pasa ktisis” (all creation) in the new testament. It ALWAYS means “all mankind.” Jesus is not the firstborn of cows and rocks and trees. He is the firstborn of MEN.A cow is the firstborn of a litter of cows. Jesus is the firstborn of the family of men. The word “firstborn” is a family thing dude!
Mike:
Quote What I said was that the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was APPOINTED as God's Son. Not that God never appointed His son to any position.
Again you do not comprehend what you read. His appointment to the position as king is what it means for Him to be Son. Now read it again CAREFULLY:6 “Yet I have SET My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”
7 “I will declare the decree:
The LORD has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.Jesus was begotten as Son WHEN He as appointed as King.
Mike:
Quote Jesus was repeating the first words he ever heard millions of years ago.
Where on earth did you come up with this?
Mike:
Quote The future tense does not necessarily apply when Paul applies it to Jesus.
Garbled.Mike:
Quote The Greek has “will be my Son”, not “will become my Son”. If God told us today, “Soon I will send a helper to mankind. He will be my Son.”, you could read it as he won't be His Son until he is sent, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Your beloved NWT contradicts you:So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”?
Ouch!
Mike:
Quote Why did you change translations after making a point to tell me it actually says:
I copied and pasted the first translation I used being unaware of the difference. So what of it?thinker
all
Mt 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple.
Mt 4:6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“ ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stoneMt 4:7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test
Mt 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.
Mt 4:9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”Mt 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’
Mt 4:11 Then the devil left him
the truth is of God,
Mike said:
Quote Why did you use a different translation after making a point to tell me it actually says:
See my answer at the end of my previous post above.Mike:
Quote I suspect it is because, whether you think the “again” applies to the second coming or the exaltation, it is clear the Jesus was the “Firstborn” both times he was in the world.
Do you pay attention at all? I said that His coming into the world again in the passage has reference to His presence NOW through the Holy Spirit. Your assertion that he was the “firstborn” during the days of His flesh have no basis in the context. It CLEARLY says that as the “firstborn” the angels of God are commanded to worship Him. Chapter 2:5 says that in the days of His flesh He was lower than the angels. Therefore, He did not INHERIT the name “firstborn” until He was exalted.Mike:
Quote First, I'm glad to see you used one of the quotes that say it is God who puts Jesus' enemies under him. ( Make a note to yourself that when we debate this point later, Paul is only quoting Scripture, not saying Jesus will put all enemies under himself. Paul ain't quoting scripture in Philippians 3:20-21:
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.
Mike:
Quote …while President Obama was running for office, no newscaster called him “President Obama”, because he wasn't yet. And nobody called Jesus the “soon to be Son of God”. They called him the Son of God because he already was
First, He was the Son of God only by decree through the resurrection of the dead.concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and DECREED to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.
Therefore, He was not installed to the office as Son until He was resurrected from the dead.
Second, your logic fails because He was called “the Christ” before He was actually anointed at the Jordan. Paul said that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Yet He could not become anointed as the Christ until He was born as a man. It was a man that was ordained to be the Christ even though it is said of Him that He “came into the world.”
Mike:
Quote And third, Peter doesn't show any timeline in his statement: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.”.
What! Which manuscript do you have? Peter CLEARLY puts a timeline in his statement:34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.”
36THEREFORE let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:34-36
Peter CLEARLY said that Jesus was installed as both “Lord and Christ” when He assumed His position at God's right hand. He cited Psalm 110 about His exaltation to His Fathr's right hand and then said, “THEREFORE….”
You are blatantly denying that He had to become a man and suffer in order to be the Christ. Look where your errors have taken you!
He could not become the Christ without becoming a man. Yet Paul said that “Christ Jesus came into the world. He could not become the Son until He became a man and finished His work. You are totally destitute of truth!
Mike:
Quote Firstborn is not a name or position he acquired or inherited.
You contradict God. And you contradict your beloved NWT:So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has INHERITED a name more excellent than theirs.
5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”?
There it is! The NWT says that He “inherited” the name “Son.” Note that pesty little verb “become” again.
Mike:
Quote What do you want me to say about “our God and Savior Jesus Christ”? What is the question?
I get it. You can't answer it.Mike:
Quote Show me a Scripture that says, “Begotten is a title” or “Firstborn is an office”
I already and you acknowledged it.I said:
Quote Lookat Psalm 89: I have found David my servant;
with my sacred oil I have anointed him….He will call out to me, 'You are my Father,
my God, the Rock my Savior.'I will also APPOINT him my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
28 I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail. Psalm 89:20-27NIVNote that God said that “I have anointed” David and he will call out to me, “You are my father.” It was AFTER David was anointed that he was appointed as God's “firstborn” son. The name “firstborn” had reference to David's office and rank as God's supreme king (at that time).
You replied:
Quote I asked you to use Scripture and you did. I'm impressed to see Scripture applied correctly instead of conjecture from you. I showed you that the term “firstborn” may be used to indicate one's office and rank and you said that I “applied scripture correctly.”
Now you flip flop again and ask me to show you from scripture that the word “first
born” may refer to one's office. Flip flop flip flop
thinker
Mike said:
Quote Jesus was God's Son before he sent him in the likeness of man.
Mike,
First, this still does not prove Jesus was created. The word “begotten” does not mean created. The word “begotten” is the Greek “gennao.” The word “create” is the Greek “ktizo.” The scripture no where says that Jesus was created (ktizo).That which is “begotten” PRE-EXISTS its being begotten.” So even if Jesus was the Son of God before His incarnation He still would have pre-existed the decree “Today I have begotten you.”
Second, Paul said that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” He had to be a man in order to be the Christ. He had to be anointed at the Jordan before He could be called “the Christ.”
He was the pre-existent Christ and the pre-existent Son of God by foreordination. He was not actually installed to the office of Christ and Son UNTIL HE WAS EXALTED.
Before His exaltation: He was Christ and Son by decree.
After His exaltation: He was installed as Christ and Son.
Mike:
Quote They viewed some of the Son of God's glory while he was on earth.
They viewed Him as the Son of God because they believed He was the ordained One who came to fulfill the scriptures. Paul said that He was decreed to be the Son of God “BY THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD” (Romans 1:3).Mike:
Quote Who is the one who was BORN of God? Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
The word “firstborn” refers to His RANK. Paul said that it means that He is SUPREME. The Greek “pasa ktisis” (all creation) means “all mankind.” Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “all creation” (all mankind). The apostles did not turn over the rocks and preach to the reptile creation. They preached to ALL MANKIND. They did not give the gospel to the plant creation. They preached only to men. Therefore, “all creation” means “all mankind.” Jesus is the firstborn of “all mankind.” The term “all creation” in verse 23 CLEARLY means “all mankind.” In verse 23 Paul said that the gospel was preached to “all creation” (the creation of men). This is how the term “all creation” must be understood in verse 6.A cow is the firstborn over the litter of cows. It is not the firstborn in relation to anything else but the litter of cows. So Jesus is not the “firstborn” in relation to anything else but men.
Paul said that He is the “firstborn of the many brethren (Romans 8)
thinker
Hi Thinker,.
How long will we circle about the same points? We are busy at work now, and I'm doing 12 hour days. I don't have time to answer to a 4000 word post each night.
Here's where I am right now:
I agree that Romans 1:3 sounds like it supports what you're saying. I don't have an answer for it right now.
But……
When Paul quotes 2 Samuel 7, the Greek has “will be”, not “will become”. It doesn't matter how the NWT or any other translation puts it – it is “will be”. And I stand by my assumption that Paul is only quoting Scripture word for word, not thinking to change the tense because all he is interested in is proving that the man Jesus really is the Son of God, not when he became the Son of God.
Acts 13:33 doesn't validate your assumtion at all, because the only thing Paul is saying about the resurrection is that God has now provided the one through whom He will save mankind. Again, he quotes Scripture (Psalm 2:7) word for word, not to teach a time that Jesus became the Son of God, but to enforce what he is preaching – that Jesus is the Son of God.
As far as the rest of the nonsense you've been posting about persons calling him the Son of God because they somehow knew he would eventually be the Son of God, and that he was the Son by foreordination only – you show no Scriptural proof. I just read some JW material on when Jesus was begotten. They say he was begotten by spirit at his baptism. But if this is true, he wasn't begotten by God in the beginning, as I've always thought. That means he was simply created – how sad for me, my bubble has been burst.
Seriously.But just because they say this and you say that doesn't mean I believe without Scriptural backing. That's why I'm not a Witness, while most of my family is. I can't get on board with Jesus being Michael, no such thing as “hell”, their view on blood tranfusions, and many other things. And if you think I'm just being obstinant about this debate, you're wrong. I've taken the same stand against my family and other Witnesses – Show me Scripturally, and I will believe. So you can knock off the “your beloved NWT” crap. It's a good, reliable translation, even if they interpret those Scriptures differently than you or me.
So, I have only Romans 1:3 giving me doubt right now – nothing else, including what the Witnesses think. And I have to weigh that one Scripture against many, many Scriptures that say Jesus was the Son of God before, during and after he was on earth. For right now, I'm sticking with the majority of the Scriptures. And it won't help for you to keep beating me on the head with the same Scriptures I've explained away, or the same nonsense you've concocted that has no Scriptural support. But, if you can come up with some more like Romans, I'll take another look at it.
Can we move on to the right hand of God now? 1. How do come to the understanding that it means “equality”?
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote When Paul quotes 2 Samuel 7, the Greek has “will be”, not “will become”. It doesn't matter how the NWT or any other translation puts it – it is “will be”. And I stand by my assumption that Paul is only quoting Scripture word for word, not thinking to change the tense because all he is interested in is proving that the man Jesus really is the Son of God, not when he became the Son of God.
Mike,
So you know better than trinitarian and even the NWT translators? You just buried yourself in saying that Paul used “will be” only to prove that the “MAN” Jesus really is the Son of God. If Paul is attempting to prove from the prophecy that the “MAN” Jesus is the Son of God, then he is putting the the “begetting” at the time of His incarnation which was future from the giving of the prophecy. The “begetting” is the time when He “will be” the Son of God.5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
The “begetting” is the time when THE MAN Jesus “will be” the Son of God. Yet you have said that the begetting was “millions of years ago.” Was He a man millions of years before He became flesh Mike?
You are not allowing the scriptures to speak to you Mike.
Mike:
Quote Acts 13:33 doesn't validate your assumtion at all, because the only thing Paul is saying about the resurrection is that God has now provided the one through whom He will save mankind. Again, he quotes Scripture (Psalm 2:7) word for word, not to teach a time that Jesus became the Son of God, but to enforce what he is preaching – that Jesus is the Son of God.
So the word “TODAY” is not a time word? Paul clearly said that the Psalm referred to Christ's resurrection.33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, TODAY have I begotten thee.
34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
There it is! The “begetting” had reference to His resurrection:
and,
18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstbegotten from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)
You need to start all over Mike.
Mike:
Quote As far as the rest of the nonsense you've been posting about persons calling him the Son of God because they somehow knew he would eventually be the Son of God, and that he was the Son by foreordination only – you show no Scriptural proof.
Ha! I never said that they “somehow” knew that He would “eventually be” the Son of God. You seem to be ignorant that the name “Son of God” was given Him with the anticipation that He would suffer and die and be raised from the dead. And Paul said that he was DECREED to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead (Romans 1:3).The decree “You are my Son, TODAY I have begotten you” refers to His resurrection. He is the “firstBEGOTTEN from the dead.”
Mike:
Quote I just read some JW material on when Jesus was begotten. They say he was begotten by spirit at his baptism. But if this is true, he wasn't begotten by God in the beginning, as I've always thought. That means he was simply created – how sad for me, my bubble has been burst. Seriously.
Well, it's about time you did some homework!
And if He was not begotten in the beginning then what are the scriptures you would use to show that He was created? So far you have employed only the two terms which are “begotten” and “firstborn” (or firstbegotten). If these might no longer serve you then what terms do? The scripture nowhere says that He was created (ktiso).
So if “begotten” does not mean “created” and the scripture no where says that He was created, then you believe a man made doctrine. It's that simple!
Mike:
Quote But just because they say this and you say that doesn't mean I believe without Scriptural backing.
The “scriptural backing” is the fact that Psalm 2:7 is a PROPHETIC utterance of a PROMISE to be fulfilled in the FUTURE. But you have twisted it to refer to an event that happened “millions of years ago.” Paul said that the resurrection of Jesus was the fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 2:7:32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; AS IT IS ALSO WRITTEN IN THE SECOND PSALM, Thou art my Son, TODAY have I begotten thee.
Again, the Psalm was PROPHETIC of a FUTURE PROMISE. But you have grossly twisted it to speak about something that happened “millions of years ago.” Then you have the audacity to say, “I want Scripture backing.” Translated this means, “Give me more scripture that I can twist.”
Mike:
Quote So you can knock off the “your beloved NWT” crap. It's a good, reliable translation, even if they interpret those Scriptures differently than you or me.
The NWT is a good and “reliable” translation for you when it serves you. But when it says, “He shall BECOME a Son to Me” it does not serve you and you say, “It doesn't matter how the NWT or any other translation puts it…..Mike:
Quote So, I have only Romans 1:3 giving me doubt right now – nothing else, including what the Witnesses think. And I have to weigh that one Scripture against many, many Scriptures that say Jesus was the Son of God before, during and after he was on earth.
About those scriptures which seem to say that Jesus was the Son of God before He came in the flesh. The scripture says also that He was the Son of Man who “came down from heaven” (John 3:13). Do you think that He was actually the Son
of Man before He was born of a woman? He was the Son of Man before because God so deemed it. Yet He still had to be born of a woman. All the names that Jesus had were by the unbreakable connection with the fulfillment of prophecy.Mike:
Quote And it won't help for you to keep beating me on the head with the same Scriptures I've explained away
Note the bold words “explained away.” Yes indeed. You have “explained away” the scriptures. You've made my day.
Mike:
Quote Can we move on to the right hand of God now? 1. How do come to the understanding that it means “equality”?
That depends on your next post.thinker
Hi Thinker,
I thank God for you. Not just for giving me a reason to delve even deeper into Scripture, but because I haven't read one of your posts without laughing out loud.
You said:
Quote Mike,
So you know better than trinitarian and even the NWT translators?Let's get down to the heart of the matter. The ONLY reason it is so important to you when Jesus was begotten is that if he was the begotten Son of God from his creation, you could not fit that into your trinity belief. Therefore, in order for Jesus to be God Almighty from everlasting to everlasting, you have to do away with these pesky little Scriptures that say Jesus was created, begotten and born. It doesn't align with your doctrine for Jesus to have had a beginning. But no matter when you say Jesus was “begotten”, you can't do away with Rev 3:14:
King James:
Quote 14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; It's the same Greek word for beginning as in John 1:1. And the same Greek word for creation as in Col 1:15. You know, the word creation that you say ALWAYS refers to mankind. Was Jesus saying he was the beginning of mankind? Now look at how the NIV, (which was translated by men who had to sign off on being Trinitarian before they were allowed on the project) puts it:
Quote 14″To the angel of the church in Laodicea write:
These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.And the NIV translates Col 1:15 as:
Quote 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. And check out the Living Bible's translation of John 1:2-3,
Quote “He existed before God made anything at all, and, in fact, Christ himself is the Creator who made everything in heaven and earth…“ And the Contemporary English Version of John 1:1,
Quote “The Word was with God and was truly God.” Where did the word “truly” come from? It's not in the Greek.
My point to all this is that the Trinitarians have been doctoring the Scriptures and changing the meanings of clearly written Scriptures for 1800 years. Lately, they just keep getting more and more blatant about it. The NIV is the most prominent translation in America today, at least with the younger, post-King James readers, and they are flat out lying about Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15. If your doctrine is so absolutely undeniable and based on Scripture, why the need for doctoring?
You said:
Quote Well, it's about time you did some homework! Now you see why I have kept this debate between you, me, the Scriptures and the Spirit. While I like to learn some insight on Jewish and Greek culture during Biblical times, I don't need some scholar telling me that creation ALWAYS means mankind when he has no Scriptural backing to that statement. Especially when I have Scriptures that contradict it.
You said:
Quote About those scriptures which seem to say that Jesus was the Son of God before He came in the flesh. The scripture says also that He was the Son of Man who “came down from heaven” (John 3:13). John 3:13 actually says:
Quote 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. Jesus is known as the Son of Man when he is talking to Nicodemus. He doesn't say he was the Son of Man while still in spirit form. I guess I don't see what you're getting at.
You said:
Quote Yes indeed. You have “explained away” the scriptures. Okay, I'll phrase it differently for you. I will not keep answering to the same Scriptures that I've already given a sensible response to, explaining very clearly why they do not constitute “proof positive” that Jesus was begotten when he was raised. Which is why I chose not to answer to points in your post that I've already answered to. If you do not like my reasoning, too bad. I'm not too impressed with yours, either.
The fact is, you think that Jesus was begotten when he was raised. I think Jesus was begotten in the beginning, before God created anything else. You think you have Scriptures that support your belief, I think I have many more Scriptures that show your belief to be false. This point of discussion looks like a stalemate, Jack. Now can you tell me how right hand means equality?
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote I thank God for you. Not just for giving me a reason to delve even deeper into Scripture, but because I haven't read one of your posts without laughing out loud
You have quite an entertaining imagination yourself.Mike:
Quote The ONLY reason it is so important to you when Jesus was begotten is that if he was the begotten Son of God from his creation, you could not fit that into your trinity belief.
The ONLY reason you deny the apostolic interpretation of prophecy is because it does not fit your Arian beliefs.Mike:
Quote Therefore, in order for Jesus to be God Almighty from everlasting to everlasting, you have to do away with these pesky little Scriptures that say Jesus was created, begotten and born.
I am still waiting for you to produce a scripture which says that He was created (ktiso). As far as your treatment of the word “born” (begotten) I guess I must conclude that when Paul said that He is the “firstborn from the dead” it must mean that He was created at the point He was resurrected. Clean out the cobwebs Mike!Mike:
Quote But no matter when you say Jesus was “begotten”, you can't do away with Rev 3:14: King James:
14And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Mike Mike Mike. The word “beginning” is the Greek “arche” which means “chief.” You know, like in Michael the “Arch” angel and like in satan as an “arch” enemy.Young's literal translation:
14`And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness — the faithful and true — the CHIEF of the creation of God;Mike:
Quote It's the same Greek word for beginning as in John 1:1. And the same Greek word for creation as in Col 1:15.
Rolling on the floor!
First, in John 1:1 the noun form is dative which means “IN the beginning of things.” It says that He was “IN the beginning” not that He “IS the beginning.” But in Revelation 3:14 the noun form is nominative which means “chief” or “head” (Moulton pages 53-54).
Second, the word “arche” is not present in Colossians 1:15. Where do you get this stuff dude?
Mike:
Quote And the NIV translates Col 1:15 as: 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
My point to all this is that the Trinitarians have been doctoring the Scriptures and changing the meanings of clearly written Scriptures for 1800 years.
Before I reply I want to inform you that I took two years of New Testament Greek in college. So don't ever think I will be fooled by your crap. The words “all creation” (pasa ktisis) are written in the genetive case which is the case of possession. So when it says that Jesus is the “firstborn OF all creation” (all mankind) it means that He is the OWNER. And if He is the OWNER of all mankind, then He is OVER all mankind.The NIV's rendering “over” agrees with the genetive case and is substantiated by the context. For in verse 18 it says that He is the HEAD of the body and that He is PREEMINENT (supreme).
As the “firstborn” son was heir and OWNER so Christ who is God's “firstborn” is heir and OWNER. And if He is OWNER then He is “OVER” all mankind. Clean out the cobwebs Mike!
So you see Mike it doesn't matter that the KJV says “firstborn of all creation.” The noun case is genetive which is the case of POSSESSION. It means that Jesus OWNS all mankind!
NWT: 6 [Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king
Upon Zion, my holy mountain.”7 Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah;
He has said to me: “You are my son;
I, today, I have become your father.8 Ask of me, that I may give nations as YOUR INHERITANCE
And the ends of the earth as YOUR OWN POSSESSION.Now look at this Mike! Your own NWT uses the word “installed” in reference to Christ becoming King and connects it with the day He was begotten as Son clearly indicating that the term “son” in reference to Him is an office. Note also that it says that the “nations” (all mankind) become HIS INHERITANCE AND HIS OWN POSSESSION.
God's Firstborn owns YOU Mike!
btw, did you notice that pesty little word “become” in the NWT in Psalm 2:7? “I will become a Father to Him.”
Mike:
Quote Jesus is known as the Son of Man when he is talking to Nicodemus. He doesn't say he was the Son of Man while still in spirit form. I guess I don't see what you're getting at.
Please don't be coy with me Mike. You know exactly what I am getting at. Jesus said the the Son of Man “came down from heaven.” Yet He did not BECOME the Son of Man in terms of the fulfillmment of prophecy UNTIL He was born of a woman. Therefore, the statement that the Son of God was “sent from heaven” does not prove that He BECAME the Son of God before His exaltation.You cannot bypass the fulfillment of prophecy Mike. It was one thing for Jesus to be “called” the Son of God and quite another for Him to “become” the Son of God. He had been the Son of God only BY DECREE until His resurrection when He actually BECAME the Son of God.
Romans 1:4 YLT:4who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord
Note that the YLT renders the word “decree” as “marked out.” Paul said that Christ was “marked out” Son of God…by the rising again from the dead. An example of this is in Acts 13 where it says that the gentiles were “marked out” for eternal life and that consequently they believed (Acts 13:48).
The gentiles were “marked out” as God's people but did not actually “become” the people of God until the gospel was brought to them and they believed. Paul unambiguously stated that Jesus Christ was “marked out” the Son of God BY HIS RISING FROM THE DEAD. It was because He was “marked out” that He was “CALLED” the
Son of God BEFORE His resurrection. But it was because of His resurrection that He “BECAME” the Son of GodRECAP OF “ARCHE”
Nominative form: Chief, ruler, head (Rev. 3:14)
Dative form: “IN the beginning of things” (John 1:1), not “IS the beginning of things.” (Moulton p. 53-54)
thinker
Hi Thinker,
You said:
Quote The ONLY reason you deny the apostolic interpretation of prophecy is because it does not fit your Arian beliefs. I choose to believe that Jesus was begotten by God in the beginning as the firstborn of all of God's creations. There is no Scripture I'm aware of (including the ones you brought up) that says different. But when he was begotten doesn't make that much of a difference to me. And whether or not begotten means procreated or “appointed to an office” shouldn't matter that much to you. The fact that Jesus was begotten at all means he was begotten by someone greater than him. There is no way in the universe that God Almighty becomes begotten by anyone at any time. And there is no way that God Almighty lowers himself to become flesh, follows commands from One whom he calls “my God”, and after finishing his God's commands, gets the reward of being appointed to the lesser position of Son of God, while his former “equal” gets to be the Father.
You said:
Quote I am still waiting for you to produce a scripture which says that He was created (ktiso). As far as your treatment of the word “born” (begotten) I guess I must conclude that when Paul said that He is the “firstborn from the dead” it must mean that He was created at the point He was resurrected. Clean out the cobwebs Mike! First, any Scripture that says Jesus was “of creation” means he was created. Second, I always wondered about that “firstborn from the dead”, because others were raised from the dead before Jesus. Anyway, it says “from” the dead, not “of” the dead. And yes, Jesus was “re-created” in that he was dead and gone, and now he's back. If he didn't really die, what is our hope of being raised from the dead?
You said:
Quote Mike Mike Mike. The word “beginning” is the Greek “arche” which means “chief.” You know, like in Michael the “Arch” angel and like in satan as an “arch” enemy. Jack, Jack, Jack. Read this:
Quote Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar‧khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) So I'll stick with the King James and NWT translation, thank you.
You said:
Quote Second, the word “arche” is not present in Colossians 1:15. Where do you get this stuff dude? I was talking about the Greek word for creation. Remember, the word that ALWAYS means mankind in the NT according to you?
You said:
Quote Before I reply I want to inform you that I took two years of New Testament Greek in college. So don't ever think I will be fooled by your crap. The words “all creation” (pasa ktisis) are written in the genetive case which is the case of possession. So when it says that Jesus is the “firstborn OF all creation” (all mankind) it means that He is the OWNER. And if He is the OWNER of all mankind, then He is OVER all mankind. I didn't even take two days of Greek.
So in this rare instance, I'll let the Witnesses answer for me:Quote Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? You said:
Quote Jesus said the the Son of Man “came down from heaven.” No sir, he didn't. I'll stick with my previous answer to this and the parts of your post I didn't answer. If you bring something new to the table, I'll try my best to answer it or say I don't know, as was the case with Romans 1:3. But I refuse to waste time answering to the same thing over and over, just because you think if you say it enough times, I'll change my mind. New evidence, however, might prompt me to look at things differently.
You said:
Quote It was one thing for Jesus to be “called” the Son of God and quite another for Him to “become” the Son of God. He had been the Son of God only BY DECREE until His resurrection when He actually BECAME the Son of God. I'm sorry, Thinker. I don't mean to be cruel, but that is one of the most stupid things I've ever read.
You said:
Quote The gentiles were “marked out” as God's people but did not actually “become” the people of God until the gospel was brought to them and they believed. Paul unambiguously stated that Jesus Christ was “marked out” the Son of God BY HIS RISING FROM THE DEAD. It was because He was “marked out” that He was “CALLED” the Son of God BEFORE His resurrection. But it was because of His resurrection that He “BECAME” the Son of God Based on your reasoning here, Christ became “marked out” the Son of God WHEN he was raised. So does that mean he, like in the case of the Gentiles, will not actually become the Son of God until something else significant happens?
Right Hand?
???peace and love,
mikeMike,
I will be taking off from this for a couple of days. I have to prepare my taxes and it takes me several hours because I am self employed. I gotta make sure I don't cheat Obama and Pelosi.
Mike said:
Quote But when he was begotten doesn't make that much of a difference to me.
In other words, you lied when you said that you were here to learn. How could the “when” of Christ's being begotten not make much difference to you? And why have you been wasting my time and your time if it does not make much difference to you?Mike:
Quote The fact that Jesus was begotten at all means he was begotten by someone greater than him.
First, if He had pre existed His being begotten then He was not created. Second, being begotten does not imply inferiority. David begat Solomon yet we are told the Solomon was “greater” than David (1 Kings 1:37, 47).Mike:
Quote First, any Scripture that says Jesus was “of creation” means he was created.
First, the expression “of creation” does not mean that Jesus was created. It refers to His relationship to creation (mankind). Second, the word “pasa ktisis” means “all mankind” as I have already demonstrated. You have not yet refuted this. You have only ignored it. Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “all creation.” This necessarily means “all mankind” for the apostles preached only to men. Every use of the term “pasa ktisis” in the new testament is about mankind. “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to pasa ktisis” (all creation). This cannot mean the whole created order. Paul cannot mean “the whole created order” in verse 6 and then mystically and magically change his meaning in verse 23.So the expression “firstborn” as you employ it would mean that Jesus was the FIRST MAN. But He clearly was not the first man. Therefore, by the term “firstborn” Paul meant that Jesus was supreme.
Please show from the bible where “pasa ktisis” is a reference to the whole created order.
Mike:
Quote , Jack, Jack. Read this:
Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar‧khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252)So I'll stick with the King James and NWT translation, thank you.
Did I deny that “arche” also means “beginning?” In fact, I specifically said that it may mean “beginning.”Liddell and Scott do not support your conclusion.
Quote Revelation 3:14
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, 'These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning ['arche'] of the creation of God…”The “Beginning of the creation of God” — so that means He's created, right? To the contrary. The Greek work 'arche' means, “arche, a beginning, origin, first cause…” (Liddell & Scott). Thus the phrase found in 3:14 means that He was the “first cause”, the “origin”, of creation, not its first production. Here is how the New English Bible renders it: “To the angel of the church at Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the prime source of all God's creation…'”, perfectly apt words for the Logos to communicate.
So is the English 'beginning' a poor translation? No, it's an excellent, comprehensive translation, having the same range of meanings as 'arche': “beginning, The first cause; origin; the first state; commencement…” (Webster's International). The Jehovah's Witness misunderstanding of this verse could have been avoided, not only by checking a Greek lexicon, but by getting up and grabbing the English dictionary off the shelf!
http://thriceholy.net/christ.html
I especially like the last statement, “The Jehovah's Witness misunderstanding of this verse could have been avoided, not only by checking a Greek lexicon, but by getting up and grabbing the English dictionary off the shelf!
Liddell and Scott interpret “arche” in Revelation 3:14 to mean “first cause” or “origin.” I prefer the reading “ruler” but I can definitely live with Liddell and Scott's treatment of the word. At any rate, they do not support you.
Mike:
Quote I was talking about the Greek word for creation. Remember, the word that ALWAYS means mankind in the NT according to you?
I have said that the term “all creation” always refers to all mankind.Colossians 1:23 NWT:
23 provided, of course, that YOU continue in the faith, established on the foundation and steadfast and not being shifted away from the hope of that good news which YOU heard, and which was preached in all creation that is under heaven. Of this [good news] I Paul became a minister.
Was the gospel preached to the rocks and the trees Mike? Please answer!
Mike quotes the Witnesses:
Quote Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created.
The “Witnesses” ignore that Paul himself defined what he meant by the term “firstborn.” He said “head” and “preeminent” (or supreme). Did you notice that the “Witnesses” do not mention Paul's use of these terms?The “Witnesses” continue:
Quote If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son.
The “Witnesses” answer their own question. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not called “Son.”The “Witnesses” continue:
Quote According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.
Boom! Jesus is not literally the eldest of God'
s family of sons. His father David who preceded Him was also God's “firstborn” (Psalm 89).The “Witnesses” continue:
Quote Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.
Wow! Are the “Witnesses” helping me out or what? I have been trying tell you that Jesus is “firstborn” only in relation to men. Therefore, the term “firstborn of all creation” means that Jesus is the “firstborn of all mankind.” He is the “firstborn of all mankind” just as I have said.THANK YOU “WITNESSES!”
The “Witnesses” continue:
Quote What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
Not me dude! I have not ascribed a different meaning to the word “firstborn.” I have repeatedly said into your deaf ears that the expression “firstborn of all creation” means that Jesus is the “firstborn of all mankind” maintaining the biblical meaning. And now the “Witnesses” justify me!Therefore, it is you Mike who ascribes a different meaning to the term “firstborn” when you say that Jesus is the “firstborn” of rocks and trees and animals and plants. And seeing that Jesus is not the eldest son literally, but David who preceded Him was also God's “firstborn,” then the term “firstborn” does not prove that He was created. For even your “Witness” buddies say that it means “eldest son.” Therefore, the term “firstborn” regarding Him refers to His RANK!
THANK YOU AGAIN “WITNESSES!”
thethinker said:
Quote Jesus said the the Son of Man “came down from heaven.” Mike replied:
Quote No sir, he didn't.
What scripture are you reading?NWT:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.
Mike:
Quote I'm sorry, Thinker. I don't mean to be cruel, but that is one of the most stupid things I've ever read.
Well, the apostle Paul is stupid then. He said that we are called the sons of God but we are still “eagerly awaiting for the adoption.” He said that we have the “spirit of adoption” and we cry “Abba father.” But we are not yet adopted.Paul said that Christ was decreed to be the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. You still have not replied to this. It is much easier for you to say it is “stupid.” Try the harder thing and refute it.
You have explained away EVERY apostolic statement regarding the timing of His “begetting.”
Mike:
Quote Based on your reasoning here, Christ became “marked out” the Son of God WHEN he was raised.
He was foreordained to become the Son of God when He was risen from the dead.4who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord
thinker
Hi Thinker,
When your done figuring out how much to pay uncle sam, maybe we can move on to “right hand means equality”. Although I've answered to many of these points over and over, I will do it one more time in an effort to move on.
You said:
Quote In other words, you lied when you said that you were here to learn. How could the “when” of Christ's being begotten not make much difference to you? And why have you been wasting my time and your time if it does not make much difference to you? I shouldn't have said it that way, sorry. What I mean is that WHEN Jesus was begotten doesn't negate all the other information the Scriptures contain that make it very clear that Jesus is not God Almighty. So whether it is your interpretations of the Scriptures that are correct, or mine, let's move on.
You said:
Quote First, if He had pre existed His being begotten then He was not created. Second, being begotten does not imply inferiority. David begat Solomon yet we are told the Solomon was “greater” than David (1 Kings 1:37, 47). Your first point: This is exactly what I said to you two posts ago – you NEED the begetting to occur later, or it shoots down your “Jesus was Almighty God before he came to earth” theory.
Second, Kings has David's servants wishing well on his son. Don't most people hope and pray that their children will surpass their own positions in life? The one that begets the other is always the greater of the two, at least at the time of the begetting.
You said:
Quote Second, the word “pasa ktisis” mean “all mankind” as I have already demonstrated. You have not yet refuted this. You have only ignored it. No, it actually means “every creature”. And the fact that you think every time it is used in the NT it means “mankind”, is of no use to me.
Quote Romans 8:39 NIV
neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.Here the Greek means “any other creature”. Does “creature” also mean only “mankind” in this verse?
Quote Hebrews 4:13 NIV
Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.Here the Greek means “any creature”. Is it only mankind that is not hidden from God's sight?
And how do you know the disciples weren't preaching to ALL of creation. They could be shouting God's praises to animals, hills and valleys, trees, etc. Why not – Psalm 148 says:
Quote 7 Praise the LORD from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,8 lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,9 you mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars,10 wild animals and all cattle,
small creatures and flying birds,I work outside all day and often talk to the animals saying silly stuff like, “Hi pretty bird, are you singing that song to Jehovah?”, or, “Hey there lizard, do you know that Jehovah is the One that made this beautiful day?”, or, “What's up rattlesnake? Do you think you got a bad rap because of Satan?” You have exactly 0 proof that “all creation” ALWAYS (or EVER for that matter) means only “mankind”.
You said:
Quote I especially like the last statement, “The Jehovah's Witness misunderstanding of this verse could have been avoided, not only by checking a Greek lexicon, but by getting up and grabbing the English dictionary off the shelf! Liddell and Scott interpret “arche” in Revelation 3:14 to mean “first cause” or “origin.” I prefer the reading “ruler” but I can definitely live with Liddell and Scott's treatment of the word. At any rate, they do not support you.
Isn't it funny how everyone jumps at the chance to slam the Witnesses when the KJV translates it the exact same way? Where's your mean-spirited joke about the KJV?
Second, you admit that it could be translated as “beginning”, “ruler”, “first cause” or “origin”. But the same word “arche” is used in a nominative, not dative way in Rev 22:13, and yet is translated in every Bible as “beginning”.
You said:
Quote The “Witnesses” ignore that Paul himself defined what he meant by the term “firstborn.” He said “head” and “preeminent” (or supreme). Did you notice that the “Witnesses” do not mention Paul's use of these terms? You have stated this over and over, but have shown no Scripture in which Paul said, “Firstborn means supreme, not born first when it comes to Jesus.” I already answered you that BECAUSE Jesus is the firstborn, he IS supreme.
You said:
Quote The “Witnesses” answer their own question. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not called “Son.” Is that really what you think the question was, Jack?
The question is why are not the Father and Spirit also called the “firstborn of all creation”? Why ONLY the Son?You said:
Quote Boom! Jesus is not literally the eldest of God's family of sons. His father David who preceded Him was also God's “firstborn” So David existed BEFORE Jesus? Besides, we've been over and over Psalm 89; it doesn't say firstborn son. You can think that it implies it, but it says David is the firstborn of His kings of the earth. Your opinions don't outweigh the Scriptures, Jack.
You said:
Quote Wow! are the “Witnesses” helping me out or what? I have been trying tell you that Jesus is “firstborn” only in relation to men. Therefore, the term “firstborn of all creation” means that Jesus is the “firstborn of all mankind.” He is the “firstborn of all mankind” just as I have said. So now it is not only in the NT that all creation means only mankind. Now you apply your same misinterpretation to the Witnesses saying, “and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies”?
Unlike the writers of the NT, we can actually ask the Witnesses if they only meant “mankind” when they said “living creatures”. Should we ask them, Jack?You said:
Quote Therefore, it is you Mike who ascribes a different meaning to the term “firstborn” when you say that Jesus is the “firstborn” of rocks and trees and animals and plants. And seeing that Jesus is not the eldest son literally, but David who preceded Him was also God's “firstborn,” then the term “firstborn” does not prove that He was created. For even your “Witness” buddies say that it means “eldest son.” Therefore, the term “firstborn” regarding Him refers to His RANK! Just more non supported “thinker nonsense”.
You quoted:
Quote NWT:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. While Jesus was seen as a son of man in Daniel's vision, he didn't physically become a son of man until he was born on earth. So Jesus telling Nicodemus that the one you now see before you as the Son of Man, is the one who was already in heaven before as a spirit creature. He was not saying he was made of flesh when he was in heaven, nor was he saying he went by the name of Son of Man while in heaven. Get it?
You said:
Quote He said that we are called the sons of God but we are still “eagerly awaiting for the adoption.” He said that we have the “spirit of adoption” and we cry “Abba father.” But we are not yet adopted. And Paul was right. While every living thing is in a way “a son of God”, we anticipate the day when we will be able to see Him face to face and dwell in His presence.
You said:
Quote Paul said that Christ was decreed to be the Son of God by the resurrection of the dead. You still have not replied to this. It is much easier for you to say it is “stupid.” Try the harder thing and refute it. To which I'll quote what I just posted on this (even though this reposting because you ignore what I say and just try to yell the same question louder gets old):
Quote You said:
Quote
The gentiles were “marked out” as God's people but did not actually “become” the people of God until the gospel was brought to them and they believed. Paul unambiguously stated that Jesus Christ was “marked out” the Son of God BY HIS RISING FROM THE DEAD. It was because He was “marked out” that He was “CALLED” the Son of God BEFORE His resurrection. But it was because of His resurrection that He “BECAME” the Son of GodBased on your reasoning here, Christ became “marked out” the Son of God WHEN he was raised. So does that mean he, like in the case of the Gentiles, will not actually become the Son of God until something else significant happens?
You said:
Quote 4who is marked out Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the rising again from the dead,) Jesus Christ our Lord As I said twice before, I don't have an answer for this Scripture. So, 6 posts later, I still have to weigh what was meant in one Scripture against all the other ones.
Come on Jack – stop keeping me in suspense. I can't wait to hear what Trinitarian scholar you're going to quote that says “right hand” is a position of equality. (Hint: I know it won't be Strong's)
peace and love and happy tax preparation,
mikeMike said:
Quote What I mean is that WHEN Jesus was begotten doesn't negate all the other information the Scriptures contain that make it very clear that Jesus is not God Almighty. So whether it is your interpretations of the Scriptures that are correct, or mine, let's move on.
You have not yet given a scripture which denies that Jesus is God. Therefore, your reasoning is circular.Mike:
Quote Your first point: This is exactly what I said to you two posts ago – you NEED the begetting to occur later, or it shoots down your “Jesus was Almighty God before he came to earth” theory.
Paul CLEARLY said that He was begotten from the dead:Colossians 1:18 Wycliffe new testament:
18 And he is head of the body of the church; which is the beginning and the first begotten of dead men, that he hold the first dignity in all things.
Note that Jesus was “begotten” when He rose from the dead. Was He begotten two times Mike? Was He begotten once before creation and then again when He rose from the dead?
33 God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm:
‘ You are My Son,
TODAY I have begotten You.’Again Mike, was Jesus begotten TWICE? Was He begotten before creation and then again when He was raised from the dead?
thethinker said;
Quote Second, being begotten does not imply inferiority. David begat Solomon yet we are told the Solomon was “greater” than David (1 Kings 1:37, 47).
Mike replied:
Quote Second, Kings has David's servants wishing well on his son. Don't most people hope and pray that their children will surpass their own positions in life? The one that begets the other is always the greater of the two, at least at the time of the begetting.
You didn't disappoint me Mike. You commented on the scripture OUT OF CONTEXT as I expected you would. It was Nathan the prophet who said that Solomon would be greater than David and he was speaking as God's oracle (2 Samuel 7). You never cease to amaze me Mike!Mike:
Quote Romans 8:39 NIV
neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.Here the Greek means “any other creature”. Does “creature” also mean only “mankind” in this verse?
Uh, yes it does mean “mankind.” Paul had just said that angels, principalities and powers could not separate us from the love of God. Then he adds, “neither any other creature.” Paul had just ruled out angels and principalities and powers. So the only “creatures” that would remain a threat to us would be MEN.Now go back to verse 22 where Paul said that “all creation” (pasa ktisis) is “eagerly waiting for the adoption as sons” with us. Are the geccos and the bugs waiting to be adopted as sons Mike? Are the trees and the planets going to receive the adoption, the redemption of the body and be conformed to the image of Christ? Paul said that “all creation” HOPES. Do rocks “hope” Mike?
Mike:
Quote And how do you know the disciples weren't preaching to ALL of creation. They could be shouting God's praises to animals, hills and valleys, trees, etc. Why not – Psalm 148 says:
You're going off the deep end now Mike!
Are you suggesting that Christ died for animals and hills and valleys? Psalm 148 is poetic Mike. In Mark's account it says that Jesus commanded His disciples to preach the gospel to “all creation” (pasa ktisis). But Matthew's account says “ALL NATIONS.” Therefore, the terms “pasa ktisis” (all creation) in Mark's account and “all nations” in Matthew's account are the same. Your commentary is not sober Mike. You are showing others here the untenability of your position.
Mike:
Quote Isn't it funny how everyone jumps at the chance to slam the Witnesses when the KJV translates it the exact same way? Where's your mean-spirited joke about the KJV?
My Joke was about the Jehovah's Witnesses and not about the NWT or the KJV. Again, Liddell and Scott do not support you and neither do the lexicons and the dictionaries.Mike:
Quote …you admit that it could be translated as “beginning”, “ruler”, “first cause” or “origin”. But the same word “arche” is used in a nominative, not dative way in Rev 22:13, and yet is translated in every Bible as “beginning”.
First, it still means that Jesus is the RULER Mike. The exact same word “arche” is used of the One who sits on the throne whch is God Himself:Revelation 21:6 NWT:
And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.
There it is Mike! This is God Himself speaking to John saying, “I am …the beginning and the end.” DID GOD HAVE A BEGINNING MIKE? You may want to rethink your views of the Greek “arche.”
Second, I failed to give the qualifying statement in my original statement. I now include the qualifying statement in italics: The Greek “arche” when it appears in the nominative form and when it refers to persons means “chief” “head” or “ruler.”
The idea of SOVEREIGNTY is always present in the word when it appears in the nominative form and when it refers to persons no matter how it is translated. When God calls Himself the “A & Z” and the “beginning and the end” He is saying, “I RULE!” Please show how the word “arche” changes its meaning in 22:13 in reference to Christ.
Mike:
Quote So now it is not only in the NT that all creation means only mankind.
What kind of a nonsense reply is this? I asked you to show me where the GREEK “pasa ktisis” means the “whole created order.” This means I am asking you to show me from the new testament. You are getting bizarre dude! Mike:
Quote Is that really what you think the question was, Jack? The question is why are not the Father and Spirit also called the “firstborn of all creation”? Why ONLY the Son?
They indeed answered their own question. They said that “firstborn” means “eldest son.” This answers why the Father and the Spirit are not called the “firstborn of all creation” (all mankind) because Christ alone is the Son. Again, bizarre dude!Mike:
Quote While Jesus was seen as a son of man in Daniel's vision, he didn't physically become a son of man until he was born on earth. So Jesus telling Nicodemus that the one you now see before you as the Son of Man, is the one who was already in heaven before as a spirit creature.
It doesn't matter. Jesus still said that the Son of Man “came down from heaven.” He said also that the Son of Man would ascend up to where He was BEFORE.The point is that He had the title “Son of Man” BEFORE He actually became a Man. So He had the title “Son of God” BEFORE He was actually begotten.
Mike:
Quote Besides, we've been over and over Psalm 89; it doesn't say firstborn son.
So you disagree with the Witnesses who say that “firstborn” means “eldest son?”Let's recap the JW's definition of the term “firstborn”:
Quote According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons….
Does this not mean that David was a “firstborn [son]?”The Witnesses again:
Quote Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.
Do you agree or disagree with your buddies on the term “firstborn?” If you agree, then Jesus is the “firstborn” of men alone as a calf would be the firstborn of a litter of calves alone. If you agree with your Witness friends, then Colossians 1:15 does not prove that Jesus was created. For He was not literally the first man and neither was He literally the eldest son. Therefore, the term “firstborn” applies to Him ONLY in the other biblical sense that He is the SUPREME Son in the Family of God just as Paul said. He was not created but was APPOINTED to be God's “firstborn” just as His father David.I am enjoying watching you choke. Otherwise you are putting me to sleep.
thinker
Hi Thinker,
I put in 12 hours today, so I'm going back to the KISS theory. This is getting too long and too crazy.
The point of discussion you picked for us to start on was “When was Jesus begotten?” While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it. But I can Scripturally prove it was before he was raised from the dead by using the most famous Scripture of all time, John 3:16 which says:
Quote 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life. Think it out, thinker. Who was it that God GAVE (past tense)?
The person who was already His son. Why? So that whoever believes in him….( present tense) And throughout Jesus' ministry he talked about believing in him while he was alive, and some did, even before he died and was raised. John 12 says:Quote 42Yet at the same time many even among the leaders BELIEVED in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; 43for they loved praise from men more than praise from God. 44Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. 45When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. 46I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.
Do you see the word “believed” in verse 42? He had not died yet, but already some believed he was the Son of God. And notice the words “looks” and “sees” in verse 45. He did not say, “When he looks at my risen body he sees the One who sent me.” He was talking about right there and right then. And he called Jehovah his Father while he was on earth and even talked about previously learning things from being in his Father's presence. Why in the world would he call Him Father if he was not yet the Son?
And if he wasn't the Christ until he was raised, how do you explain John 4?
Quote 25The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”
Not “will be he.”
You see? Plain as day. Put your pre-conceived notions at bay and read what is plainly written for you. GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, PERIOD. God was not said to have sent the one who would soon inherit the position of “begotten” or the office of “His Son”. And He could not have been said to have SENT His Son if Jesus wasn't already His Son. I am done with the first point of discussion.
Now somehow we've jumped over my choice for second point and went right in to “all of creation”. Here is my KISS theory on it.
Did the Greeks have a word for mankind? Men? People? Yet Paul chose to say creation. Online Bible Tools says:
Quote The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2937
Original Word Word Origin
ktivsiß from (2936)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ktisis 3:1000,481
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ktis'-is Noun FeminineDefinition
the act of founding, establishing, building etc
the act of creating, creation
creation i.e. thing created
of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b
anything created 1b
after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b
the sum or aggregate of things created
institution, ordinance
Why Paul chose this word to represent to whom the Gospel would be preached, I don't know. And the fact is that neither do you. Did Paul really mean to preach the Gospel to every living creature? Was it a figure of speech he used? I could say, “never in a million years would I have thought that”. But I won't live for a million years – who knows what I would think if I did? And you can put your little funny graphics on this and insult me some more, but the fact still remains that you can never be able to say for certain why Paul worded some things the ways he did. So once again, put away your pre-conceived notions, and take the words for what they say.
Online Bible tools says this about “firstborn”:
Quote The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 4416
Original Word Word Origin
prwtovtokoß from (4413) and the alternate of (5088)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Prototokos 6:871,965
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pro-tot-ok'-os AdjectiveDefinition
the firstborn
of man or beast
of Christ, the first born of all creationWhen used of Christ, it means “THE FIRST BORN OF ALL CREATION PERIOD.
Don't make it so hard. It really is right there in the Scriptures plain for all to see. You think that “firstborn of all creation” means that Jesus received the “position” of having the firstborn rights of all mankind. You're wrong. It means that Jesus was the first thing God ever created. Just like it says.
I am also done with “firstborn of all creation”.Right Hand Position: Online Bible Tools and Strong's both say:
Quote The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 1188
Original Word Word Origin
dexiovß from (1209)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Dexios 2:37,143
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
dex-ee-os' AdjectiveDefinition
the right, the right hand
metaph.
a place of honour or authorityYour mission, should you choose to accept it – show me how you consider “right hand of God” to mean “equal with God”.
peace and love,
mikeMike said:
Quote The point of discussion you picked for us to start on was “When was Jesus begotten?” While I think it was from his very creation, I cannot Scripturally prove it. But I can Scripturally prove it was before he was raised from the dead by using the most famous Scripture of all time, John 3:16 which says:
Mike,Your admission that you cannot scripturally prove that Jesus was begotten before creation is very significant. We have already been over texts like John 3:16. The translation “only begotten” in the KJV is not correct. Most translations render it simply as, “only son.” The ancient translations render it “unique son.”
The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the old testament) employs the word “monogenes” in passages where the original Hebrew says “yachid” meaning “only” or “alone.”
Judges 11:34: 34And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son or daughter
Psalm 25:16: 16 Turn to me and be gracious to me, for I am lonely and afflicted. NIV
The Greek word used in the Septuagint for both verses above is “monogenes.” But in both verses the Hebrew word is “yachid” (only or alone).
Monogenes should not be translated as “onlybegotten.” It should be translated simply as “only” or “unique.” Therefore, you have no conclusive evidence that Jesus was begotten before His resurrection. The unified apostolic testimony is that Jesus was “begotten” at His resurrection and exaltation.
Mike:
Quote You see? Plain as day. Put your pre-conceived notions at bay and read what is plainly written for you. GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, PERIOD.
You have been misguided by the KJV and the NWT. The word “monogenes” simply means “only” or “unique.”Mike:
Quote Did the Greeks have a word for mankind? Men? People? Yet Paul chose to say creation. Online Bible Tools says: The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 2937
Original Word Word Origin
ktivsiß from (2936)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ktisis 3:1000,481
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ktis'-is Noun FeminineDefinition
the act of founding, establishing, building etc
the act of creating, creation
creation i.e. thing created
of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation 1b
anything created 1b
after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called) 1b
the sum or aggregate of things created
institution, ordinance
Note what W.E. Vine says,Quote The English word “creation” also signifies the product of the creative act….In Mark 16:15 and Colossians 1:23 its significance has SPECIAL REFERENCE TO MANKIND Vine's Expository Dictionary page 255
You are not thinking Mike. The term “all creation” is not a reference to the creative act itself but to the PRODUCT of the creative act. In Colossians 1:23 the product of the creative act is MANKIND SPECIFICALLY. The apostles preached the gospel to mankind alone. They did not command the swine and the rocks and trees to “repent and be baptized.”So the term “all creation” in verse 6 also refers specifically to mankind because Jesus is the firstborn of the family of MEN alone. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? I'll tell you. It is because you need for Jesus to be the firstborn of the animal families and the plant families and the rock families because you want Him to be created.
He is the firstborn of the family of men alone! This means that the name “firstborn” in reference to Him cannot mean that He was created because He was not the first man. Therefore, the other biblical definition must be assigned. Jesus is the firstborn BY APPOINTMENT and BY RANK. The “firstborn” was the highest ranking member in the family. Paul CLEARLY said so. He said that Jesus is the HEAD of the body and SUPREME in all things.
It is clear dude!
Mike:
Quote When used of Christ, it means “THE FIRST BORN OF ALL CREATION PERIOD.
Nonsense! Refer back to my source above from Vine's Expository Dictionary.See also your own JW source which says this:
Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.
There it is Mike! Your own people support me! The firstborn of Israelites are themselves Israelites. The firstborn of beasts are themselves animals. So if Christ is the firstborn of swine then He is Himself a swine. Come on man! You continue with your absurdities because you must.
Again, Jesus is the firstborn of men because He is Himself a man. But He cannot be the firstborn literally because He was not the first man. Therefore, He is the firstborn BY RANK.
Mike:
Quote Right Hand Position: Online Bible Tools and Strong's both say:
You must first concede that Jesus is the firstborn of men alone. Paul said that He is the firstborn of “MANY BRETHREN.” As the firstborn He is our highest ranking and supreme BROTHER. He is not a brother to the whole created order.We will not move forward until you show you have some teachability and concede the obvious.
thinker
Mike,
This is my second reply today. See my post above. I just remembered that you did not answer an important point I made yesterday.
Revelation 21:6 NWT:
And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also, he says: “Write, because these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.
There it is Mike! This is God Himself speaking to John saying, “I am …the beginning and the end.” DID GOD HAVE A BEGINNING MIKE? You may want to rethink your views of the Greek “arche.”
PLEASE ANSWER MIKE!
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
