Preexistence

[NickHassan]

Hi CON,
Monogenes?

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 10 2009,00:57)

Hi CON, Monogenes?

Only Begotten!

John 8:12 I am the Light of the world.

Hebrews 11:17

[NickHassan]

Hi CON,
So begotten as a Spiritual Son from above at the Jordan when God proclaimed his sonship?
It is the only sonship we can follow him into.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 10 2009,03:11)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 09 2009,23:24) Con, here is the post! Have at it! Hi All John 6:38-40 For “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated. The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a  “Unitarian” interpretation. The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined… 1) to go down, come down, descend a) the place from which one has come down from b) to come down “In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“. katabainō  is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! “The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above. “The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action. “The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. ”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38 The same word is used here… And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16 And here… And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2 Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from  heaven? Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3 Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”. When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven! Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father! Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words… What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62 Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action. Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”! Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with “the glory which I had with thee before the world was“. The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as… 1) to have, i.e. to hold a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”! To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation! The Jews mumured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow! John 6:61, 62 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“? WJ “This is a hard saying, who can understand it?” asked the disciples (v.60). It was followed by one even more difficult: “What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” So ridiculous did this sound to some of Yeshua' disciples that they left him (v.66). And that conclusively proves that they knew nothing of the theory of a pre-existent messiah. Moreover, consider the title the Lord used. He described himself as “Son of Man.” Was the pre-existent one a Son of Man? Evidently he was if this reference is relied upon as proof of his supposed pre-existence. What did the Lord mean by these difficult sayings? They appear at the end of a long conversation with the Jews, based upon the giving of manna in the wilderness, and the circumstances provide the key to their meaning. The manna is described as “bread from heaven” (John 6:32), and the Lord likened himself to anti-typical manna or “bread from heaven” (vv. 32-33). Does this description mean that the manna was manufactured in heaven, at the dwelling place of 'elohim, and wafted down in a thick cloud every night through the illimitable spaces above to the wilderness below? Or did 'elohim send His spirit to earth, and there manufacture it? Undoubtedly the latter, as any reasonable person will concede. That is the sense, therefore, in which we must understand the Lord's allusions to himself. Co nsider the circumstances of his birth. The angel told his mother: “The holy spirit shall come upon thee, the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 'elohim” (Luke 1:35). Yeshua was “the only begotten Son of 'elohimd” and therefore from above. Paul taught that “'elohim was in the Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). That which was in the Messiah (the Spirit) had come down from heaven, and tabernacling in the flesh of Yeshua, ascended into heaven after his resurrection. That this is the true meaning, is shown by the explanatory words of the Lord himself. To the confused disciples he declared: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:62-63). 'Elohim, by His spirit, descended to earth to provide one of the human race capable of conquering sin (see Ps. 80:17), and having done so, He withdrew this one to heaven, having changed his nature from a body of flesh to one of spirit, for it should be clearly understood that a spirit being is corporeal (1 Cor. 15:44-45). Thus the Spirit ascended where it was before, though in a different form. It descended as the power of 'elohim; it ascended as a Son of Man made immortal.

Con

Just as I thought. You ignore the clear meaning of the Greek text and explain it all away.

They left him because they did not believe him. They did not believe him because they could not accept his clear teaching with the carnal mind. Unlike the 12 who stayed with him because he had the words of eternal life!

Nice try.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 10 2009,03:11)

That which was in the Messiah (the Spirit) had come down from heaven, and tabernacling in the flesh of Yeshua, ascended into heaven after his resurrection.

So the Fathers Spirit came in the flesh? John 1:14

LOL, the Spirit was made flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us!

WJ

[NickHassan]

Hi CON,
Of course the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary did not make him any different from you and I and it was the anointing at the Jordan that made him the light of the world, by the light of God's Spirit in him.

[kerwin]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 11 2009,03:51)

Hi CON, Of course the conception of Jesus in the womb of Mary did not make him any different from you and I and it was the anointing at the Jordan that made him the light of the world, by the light of God's Spirit in him.

This is why scripture states the spirit descended and rested on Jesus at the Jordon.

John 1:33(KJV) reads:

Quote

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

It sounds different from what you state.

[NickHassan]

Hi KW,
Jesus and John were related and would have known each other well but it was not till the Spirit of God came on his cousin that he knew he was the Christ.

[kerwin]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 11 2009,04:27)

Hi KW, Jesus and John were related and would have known each other well but it was not till the Spirit of God came on his cousin that he knew he was the Christ.

I was pointing out that it seems John is stating the reason the Spirit descends on Jesus and remains with him is so that John will know Jesus is the Anointed One.

There is evidence John later had doubts.

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 10 2009,13:00)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 10 2009,03:11) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 09 2009,23:24) Con, here is the post! Have at it! Hi All John 6:38-40 For “I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will“, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is obvious what Jesus meant, but men who know nothing of the construction of the Greek have set out to make themselves greater than the truth by misinterpreting the clear meaning of the text in which the authors intended and which the translators translated. The Greek construction of the text concerning the preexistence of Jesus does not allow for a  “Unitarian” interpretation. The Greek for “I have come” is Strong's G2597 – katabainō which is defined… 1) to go down, come down, descend a) the place from which one has come down from b) to come down “In every place the word is used it is referring to a literal action by a person and not an abstract “thought or plan”“. katabainō  is in the “perfect” tense, and the “active voice” and the “indicative” mood! “The perfect tense” in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes “an action” which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated. Jesus' last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”) is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.” Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner equivalent to the normal past tense. These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above. “The active voice” represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, “The boy hit the ball,” the boy performs the action. “The indicative mood” is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood. ”For I came down (katabainō) from heaven”, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. John 6:38 The same word is used here… And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God “descending (katabainō,)” like a dove, and lighting upon him: Matt 3:16 And here… And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord “(descended (katabainō )” from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28:2 Was the Holy Spirit and the Angel a “thought or plan” come down from heaven? Or did they really descend from  heaven? Jesus said plainly that he came “From God” and “went to God”. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that “he was come from God, and went to God“; John 13:3 Again the Greek word come is in the “active voice” meaning Jesus did the action, and it is the indicative mood which means “the action really occurred”. When Jesus ascended to heaven., it was Jesus that did the ascending! The scriptures do not tell us the Father took him to heaven! Jesus words were clear, for he never said or even in the slightest way implied that he was or came from a plan or thought of the Father! Jesus puts the nail in the coffin for those who questioned what he was saying by the following words… What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before”? John 6:62 Again the word “Ascend” is in the present tense and active voice which means that Jesus is doing the action. Jesus is going to “WHERE HE WAS BEFORE”! Was he returning to a “plan or thought” or was he returning to the Father in heaven from where he came from and to the Glory that he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with “the glory which I had with thee before the world was“. The Greek word for “I had” is Strong's G2192 – echō which is defined as… 1) to have, i.e. to hold a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, to have (hold) possession of the mind (refers to alarm, agitating emotions, etc.), to hold fast keep, to have or comprise or involve, to regard or consider or hold as 2) to have i.e. own, possess Again “I had” is in the “imperfect tense”, the “active voice”, and the “indicative mood”, so there is no way Jesus was saying “I shared his glory because I was in his thought and plan”! To deny the preexistence of Jesus is to deny the simple truths of the scriptures that tell us that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning of all of creation! The Jews mumured among themselves because Jesus said he was the Bread of Life that came down from heaven and many turned back because it was a hard pill they could not swallow! John 6:61, 62 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man “ascend up where he was before“? WJ “This is a hard saying, who can understand it?” asked the disciples (v.60). It was followed by one even more difficult: “What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?” So ridiculous did this sound to some of Yeshua' disciples that they left him (v.66). And that conclusively proves that they knew nothing of the theory of a pre-existent messiah. Moreover, consider the title the Lord used. He described himself as “Son of Man.” Was the pre-existent one a Son of Man? Evidently he was if this reference is relied upon as proof of his supposed pre-existence. What did the Lord mean by these difficult sayings? They appear at the end of a long conversation with the Jews, based upon the giving of manna in the wilderness, and the circumstances provide the key to their meaning. The manna is described as “bread from heaven” (John 6:32), and the Lord likened himself to anti-typical manna or “bread from heaven” (vv. 32-33). Does this description mean that the manna was manufactured in heaven, at the dwelling place of 'elohim, and wafted down in a thick cloud every night through the illimitable spaces above to the wilderness below? Or did 'elohi m send His spirit to earth, and there manufacture it? Undoubtedly the latter, as any reasonable person will concede. That is the sense, therefore, in which we must understand the Lord's allusions to himself. Consider the circumstances of his birth. The angel told his mother: “The holy spirit shall come upon thee, the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 'elohim” (Luke 1:35). Yeshua was “the only begotten Son of 'elohimd” and therefore from above. Paul taught that “'elohim was in the Messiah, reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). That which was in the Messiah (the Spirit) had come down from heaven, and tabernacling in the flesh of Yeshua, ascended into heaven after his resurrection. That this is the true meaning, is shown by the explanatory words of the Lord himself. To the confused disciples he declared: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:62-63). 'Elohim, by His spirit, descended to earth to provide one of the human race capable of conquering sin (see Ps. 80:17), and having done so, He withdrew this one to heaven, having changed his nature from a body of flesh to one of spirit, for it should be clearly understood that a spirit being is corporeal (1 Cor. 15:44-45). Thus the Spirit ascended where it was before, though in a different form. It descended as the power of 'elohim; it ascended as a Son of Man made immortal. Con Just as I thought. You ignore the clear meaning of the Greek text and explain it all away. They left him because they did not believe him. They did not believe him because they could not accept his clear teaching with the carnal mind. Unlike the 12 who stayed with him because he had the words of eternal life! Nice try. WJ

So you say.

[Anonymous]

Amen WJ!!

[Anonymous]

CON- Colossians 1;16 by Jesus all things were created in heaven. Visiable and invisiable, by him and for Him.(17) He is before all things and by Him all things consist.(Hmmm) Must pre-existed!

[georg]

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 30 2007,05:38)

The belief that Jesus was alive before his conception raises a number of questions about his nature.  Is it possible to be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate in the womb of one's mother? John Knox said this, “We can have the humanity of Christ without the preexistence and we can have the preexistence without the humanity.  There is absolutely no way of having both.” The Messiah, according to scripture was to be a descendant of David, of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and the seed of the women (Gen. 3:15).  Paul constantly thinks of Christ as the last Adam (man).  If he existed as a person before his conception, in what sense is he – the real person – a human being and a descendant of David and Abraham? What do other's think?  If you believe Jesus existed prior to his birth, please give your scriptural understanding.  As most of you know, I contend for the Son of God beginning his life – for the first time – at conception. If Jesus is the Son, and words mean anything, a “son” is derived and dependent.

Mandy

Did not God, through his son (Jesus), create the universe from nothing? Do you think it would be a greater task to place his son as a sperm into the womb of Mary?
He had to be all human because he came to die, take the place in the grave for a human;

Hbr 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

he was the exchange that took on all of our sins, and the penalty for sin is death.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If you think it is no big deal for God to give you a spirit body after your resurrection, why should it be any harder for God to do it the other way around?
The seed of David means, from the same blood line, not necessarily a direct descendant from David. Abraham of course is the father of the nation Israel.
If Jesus began his life when he was born of Mary, God could not have send him, how can you send your son who is not yet born?
Father: he who gives live to the son.
Son: he who receives live from the father.
That is why Jesus calls God his Father, and himself the son.

Georg

[Jodi Lee]

Quote (georg @ Nov. 11 2009,15:28)

Quote (Not3in1 @ May 30 2007,05:38) The belief that Jesus was alive before his conception raises a number of questions about his nature.  Is it possible to be a human being in any meaningful sense if one does not originate in the womb of one's mother? John Knox said this, “We can have the humanity of Christ without the preexistence and we can have the preexistence without the humanity.  There is absolutely no way of having both.” The Messiah, according to scripture was to be a descendant of David, of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), and the seed of the women (Gen. 3:15).  Paul constantly thinks of Christ as the last Adam (man).  If he existed as a person before his conception, in what sense is he – the real person – a human being and a descendant of David and Abraham? What do other's think?  If you believe Jesus existed prior to his birth, please give your scriptural understanding.  As most of you know, I contend for the Son of God beginning his life – for the first time – at conception. If Jesus is the Son, and words mean anything, a “son” is derived and dependent. Mandy Did not God, through his son (Jesus), create the universe from nothing? Do you think it would be a greater task to place his son as a sperm into the womb of Mary? He had to be all human because he came to die, take the place in the grave for a human; Hbr 2:16   For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. he was the exchange that took on all of our sins, and the penalty for sin is death. Rom 6:23   For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.   If you think it is no big deal for God to give you a spirit body after your resurrection, why should it be any harder for God to do it the other way around? The seed of David means, from the same blood line, not necessarily a direct descendant from David. Abraham of course is the father of the nation Israel. If Jesus began his life when he was born of Mary, God could not have send him, how can you send your son who is not yet born? Father: he who gives live to the son. Son: he who receives live from the father. That is why Jesus calls God his Father, and himself the son. Georg

Hi Georg,

The Father was sending His PROMISE!! What part of the pre-existent son was the infant that sucked on his mother's boobie and crapped in his diaper? …….or whatever they had in those days=)  …seriously, come on, think about it! YHWH didn't send a pre-existent being to become an embryo, then a fetus, then an infant, then a boy, then a man. He sent into the world that which He had Promised, a human Messiah that would be to Him a Son because of his obedience as a MAN!

Hbr 2:16   For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

The “he” is not speaking of the pre-existing Jesus but the after- existing Jesus, the ….RESURRECTED Jesus, the human being raised flesh and bones… IMO!!

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 10 2009,13:06)

Quote (Constitutionalist @ Nov. 10 2009,03:11) That which was in the Messiah (the Spirit) had come down from heaven, and tabernacling in the flesh of Yeshua, ascended into heaven after his resurrection. So the Fathers Spirit came in the flesh? John 1:14 LOL, the Spirit was made flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us! WJ

Why you trying to make it magical with your hocus pocus ideas? 'Elohim with a word Yeshua was born in the flesh, and dwelt among them! Or, By the word of 'Elohim, Yeshua came into being! He was born! Or even, The word became life!

Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.

KJV John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.

3056. logos

“A word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech.”

Original Word: λόγος
Transliteration: logos
Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os)
Short Definition: word

NAS Exhaustive Concordance:

Word Origin, from legó

Definition: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech.

NASB Word Usage:

account (7), account* (1), accounting (2), accounts (2), answer (1), appearance (1), complaint (1), exhortation* (1), have to do (1), instruction (1), length* (1), matter (4), matters (1), message (10), news (3), preaching (1), question (2), reason (2), reasonable (1), remark (1), report (1), said (1), say (1), saying (4), sayings (1), speaker (1), speech (10), statement (18), story (1), talk (1), teaching (2), thing (2), things (1), utterance (2), what he says (1), what* (1), word (179), words (61).

Strongs Exhaustive Concordance:

a word, the Word

From lego; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ) — account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work.

Romans 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life!

[Constitutionalist]

Quote (katjo @ Nov. 10 2009,19:52)

CON- Colossians 1;16 by Jesus all things were created in heaven. Visiable and invisiable, by him and for Him.(17) He is before all things and by Him all things consist.(Hmmm) Must pre-existed!

Did Yeshua create the Earth?

Colossians 1:15-18: By Yeshua Were All Things Created
“The firstborn of every creature: for by (Yeshua) were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead…” (Col. 1:15-18).

This is typical of those passages which can give the impression that Yeshua actually created the earth.

1. If this were true, then so many other passages are contradicted which teach that Yeshua did not exist before his birth.

The record in Genesis clearly teaches that 'elohim was the creator.

Either Yeshua or 'elohim were the creator; if we say that Yeshua was the creator while Genesis says that 'elohim was, we are saying that Yeshua was directly equal to 'elohim.

In this case it is impossible to explain the many verses which show the differences between 'elohim and Yeshua.

2. Yeshua was the “firstborn”, which implies a beginning.

There is no proof that Yeshua was 'elohim’s “firstborn” before the creation of the literal earth.

Passages like 2 Sam.7:14 and Ps. 89:27 predicted that a literal descendant of David would become 'elohim’s firstborn.

He was clearly not in existence at the time those passages were written, and therefore not at the time of the Genesis creation either.

Yeshua became “the Son of 'elohim with power” by his resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4).

'Elohim “has raised up Yeshua again; as it is also written in the second psalm, You are My Son, this day have I begotten you” (Acts 13:32,33).

Thus Yeshua became 'elohim’s firstborn by his resurrection.

Note too that a son standing at his father’s right hand is associated with being the firstborn (Gen. 48:13-16), and the Messiah was exalted to 'elohim’s right hand after his resurrection (Acts 2:32 R.V.mg.; Heb. 1:3).

3. It is in this sense that Yeshua is described as the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), a phrase which is parallel to “the firstborn of every creature” or creation (Col. 1:15 R.V.).

He therefore speaks of himself as “the first begotten of the dead…the beginning of the creation of 'elohim” (Rev. 1:5; 3:14).

Yeshua was the first of a new creation of immortal men and women, whose resurrection and full birth as the immortal sons of 'elohim has been made possible by the death and resurrection of Yeshua (Eph. 2:10; 4:23,24; 2 Cor. 5:17).

“In the Messiah shall all (true believers) be made alive. But every man in his own order: The Messiah the firstfruits, afterward they that are the Messiah’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:22,23).

This is just the same idea as in Col. 1.

Yeshua was the first person to rise from the dead and be given immortality, he was the first of the new creation, and the true believers will follow his pattern at his return.

4. The creation spoken about in Col. 1 therefore refers to the new creation, rather than that of Genesis.

Through the work of Yeshua “were all things created. . . thrones. . . dominions” etc.

Paul does not say that Yeshua created all things and then give examples of rivers, mountains, birds etc.

The elements of this new creation refer to those rewards which we will have in 'elohim’s Kingdom.

“Thrones…dominions” etc. refer to how the raised believers will be “kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10).

These things were made possible by the work of Yeshua.

“In him were all things created in the heavens” (Col. 1:16 R.V.).

In Eph. 2:6 we read of the believers who are in the Messiah as sitting in “heavenly places”.

If any man is in the Messiah by baptism, he is a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

By being in the Messiah we are saved by His death (Col. 1:22).

The literal planet could not be created by being in the Messiah.

Thus these verses are teaching that the exalted spiritual position which we can now have, as well as what we will experience in the future, has all been made possible by the Messiah.

The “heavens and earth” contain “all things that needed reconciliation by the blood of (the Messiah’s) cross” (Col. 1:16,20), showing that the “all things…in heaven” refer to the believers who now sit in “heavenly places…in the Messiah Yeshua”, rather than to all physical things around us.

5. If Yeshua were the creator, it is strange how He should say: “…from the beginning of the creation 'elohim made them…” (Mk. 10:6).

This surely sounds as if He understood 'elohim to be the creator, not He Himself.

And if He literally created everything in Heaven, this would include 'elohim.

6. That “by him” is a poor translation is readily testified by reliable scholars. Take J.H. Moulton: “for because of him [Yeshua]…”; or the Expositor's Greek Commentary: “en auto: This does not mean “by Him””.

It should be noted, as a general point, that 'elohim the Father alone, exclusively, is described as the creator in many passages (e.g. Is. 44:24; Is. 45:12; Is. 48:13; Is. 66:2).

These passages simply leave no room for the Son to have also created the literal planet.

James Dunn comments on Col. 1:20: “The Messiah is being identified here not with a pre-existent being but with the creative power and action of 'elohim. There is no indication that Yeshua thought or spoke of himself as having pre-existed with 'elohim prior to his birth”. Christology In The Making p.254.

J.H. Moulton, Grammar Of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) Vol. 3 p. 253.

W.R. Nicoll, ed., Expositor's Greek Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) p. 504.

[NickHassan]

Hi CON,
The Son was declared as His Son by God Himself at his anointing so his sonship in power began then and not at his resurrection.
He was also proven to be the son of God [ps2] promised in 2 Sam 7 and Ps 89 and his resurrection proved those prophecies to be about him[Acts 2, Acts 13, Rom1]

He is also the firstborn from the dead being first to receive the reward of eternal life, the firstfruits of God's promise..

[Anonymous]

See how many scriptures contradict each other when you dont believe in the trinity!! God became flesh!

[NickHassan]

Hi Kat,
Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
God, his Father came to dwell in him.
God can also be dwelling in you [eph 3.19]

Does that make you God too? Come out of her.

[Anonymous]

The word was God- became flesh! Old testament even shows us he would be coming.

[Author]

Posts