- This topic is empty.
- Posts
And Scripture also seems to suggest that we too have power over the Angels,
Edj, and ALL
In actual fact it is not really THAT WE HAVE POWER OVER THE ANGELS
Scriptures say that WE WOULD JUDGE ANGELS1Corinthians 6:3 Know you not that we shall judge angels ? ……
But in the truth, the above is a reference that the angels, since:
They are only SONS OF GOD, SPIRITS, the image of God in the truth, WITHOUT SEX!
in order to becomeCHILDREN OF GOD,
therefore males and females ,which in actual fact is also a reference to our glorification as
BOTH spirit and flesh BEINGS, ON THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD!
LIKE JESUS CHRIST IS NOW ONLY ON HIS OWN,
THE BRIDEGROOM who is still waiting for the bride, HIS CHURCH!The angels, from the beginning of the world, came down from heaven as humans FIRST to JUSTIFY themselves
THAT THEY IN THE TRUTH WERE AND REMAINED HOLY NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY WERE SUBJECT TO SATAN’S SPIRIT, WITHIN THEIR SOULS,WHICH SCRIPTURES DEFINE THEM AS THE GENERATION OF HEAVEN
THE FIRST ONE ABELThis happened for the simple reason that HUMAN DEMONS WERE AND ARE ON EARTH TO MANIPULATE HUMANS,
SO THE ANGELS’S JOB IS TO SUPPORT, AND BE AS MODELS FOR HUMANS THROUGH THEIR HOLY LIVES, WHICH OURSELVES IDENTIFY THEM
HOLY PEOPLE AND THE FIRST ONE, SINCE ABEL WAS KILLED WAS:
SETHThis was demonstrated first through Jacob’s ladder, which clearly manifested the angels coming down, and eventually would have returned since CHRIST OVERTURNED SATAN’S PROCESS AND TOOK ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVED HIS GOSPEL WHEN HE WENT TO HELL!
And also in
John1:51 And he said to him: Amen, amen I say to you, you shall see the heaven opened, and
the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.The above is a clear declaration that:
FROM JESUS DEATH, ONWARDS, ALL THE ANGELS WOULD INSTANTLY AFTER THEIR DEATH,RETURN TO HEAVEN!
BUT NOT AS ANGELS ANY MORE, SINCE THEY JUSTIFIED THEMSELVES IN THE TRUTH THAT THEY ARE REALLY RIGHTEOUS!PERFECTED, THROUGH THE HUMAN PROCESS IN, BY, AND FOR “THE WORD”, JESUS CHRIST
THE FACT THAT JESUS RECREATED CREATION A NEW, AND CHANGED ALL THROUGH HIS DEATH! AND BECAME
FATHER OF IT THROUGH HIS BLOOD!
Hebrews 1:8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, ……… a sceptre of JUSTICE is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9Thou hast loved JUSTICE………, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee ….
11They shall PERISH, but thou shalt CONTINUE: and they shall all grow OLD as a garment. OBVIOUS THEY ALL BECAME HUMANS
12And as a vesture shalt thou CHANGE THEM, and they shall be CHANGED: but thou art the SELFSAME, and thy years shall not fail. OBVIOUS DIVINE!It is important to be aware THAT ONCE THE ANGELS ARE BORN AS HUMANS, THEY WOULD NEVER BE AWARE OF IT,
FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THEY HAVE TO BE:
JUDGED AS HUMANS! ON THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD!AND ESTABLISH THEMSELVES
CHILDREN OF GOD!!!!!
IN, BY AND FOR,
“THE WORD” JESUS
BUT???????
WITH BOTH SEXES,
NOT JUST ONE SEX!
SINCE THEY BECOME
Both SPIRIT and FLESH
MALE and FEMALE
ALTHOUGH THE FLESH SUBSTANCE WOULD BE RECEIVED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD, IN THE WDDING OF THE LAMB
THE NEW JERUSALEM!
THE BRIDE!
DIRECTLY FROM
GOD ALMIGHTY!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles@t8
Begetting a person is a work of the non-creative type. In order to ‘beget’ an offspring, an offspring had to already exist, btw. You can’t bring something ‘forth’ (beget) unless you change it’s position from where it already was.Prov 8:22
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.God possessed wisdom in the beginning of His way. The beginning of God’s way, since God is eternal, like you agree, has been eternal. The Son was there eternally.
You see holes which I keep proving are not holes, and I see old wineskin that can’t seem to contain new wine. Get rid of the old wineskin and you can receive truth, t8.
@kerwin
you said:I agree that Jesus Christ is the first of creation. He is the supreme leader of creation.
I do not agree that the Son of God is the first of creation. He is the beginning of the creation of God. I do agree that He is the supreme leader of creation in heaven and earth.
Beginning may not be the best way of expressing that meaning but it is the word the translators of at least one version chose to. The beginning is the position of the leader and it clear Jesus is the leader of the creation of God.
The beginning when used as a noun, as in the case of Rev 3:14, is not ‘first of other things’ because that would be an adjective. For example, if I am a race director, and someone asks me where the race begins, I will point to a starting line and say “the beginning is over there.” In that case, the ‘beginning of the race’ is not the first of other races, but a place-a noun. If I said that the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD, then the ‘beginning’ is not the first wisdom of other wisdoms. In that case, the beginning of wisdom, is a condition of the heart-fear of the LORD. It is not the first wisdom of many wisdoms but the condition of the heart towards the LORD and is like prepared soil for seeds of truth.
Therefore, the beginning of the creation of God, is not to be thought of as the first of the creations of God. The beginning of the creation of God is a person from whom creation is brought forth. It would be like prepared soil being the beginning of a garden. From the soil, comes the garden. From the Son, comes creation. The Son is the beginning of the creation of God.
I have no idea where you get the idea he is eternal though the Son is if you are calling the God’s Spirit the son. The Spirit is like a son to God just like wisdom is like unto a daughter to him. Jesus was conceived miraculously and his generation is recorded in the gospels.
I understand that you do not accept that Jesus even pre-existed the Son of Man who is Jesus in the flesh. Therefore, you will not be able to accept anything about Him pre-existing including His being eternal. You won’t be able to see many glorious truths about Jesus because your ‘Christology filter’ is much too small. Until you are open to that truth, you will not see it.
God bless!
Lo and behold…a teaching about Jesus who is the beginning of the creation of God from Hebraic roots. Look at video one in the series of Yeshua: Genesis to Revelation
from here: http://www.hebroots.org/eddieglc.htmScripture also seems to suggest that we too have power over the Angels, at least power over those of the dark side.
In actual fact it is not really THAT WE HAVE POWER OVER THE ANGELS
Hi Charles,
Oh no, what does Mark 6:7 mean to you?
___________
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
”Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.” – JEHOVAH GOD@t8
you said:
God has no beginning. If Jesus is called a beginning or described as the beginning, it makes him the first.
The ‘beginning of…’ is different than the ‘beginning…’ and you confuse the two. The way you use the word would be an adjective but if you look at the Greek, you will see that the ‘beginning’ is written as a noun and NOT an adjective.
The beginning has no beginning, that would be why it is the beginning. If it had a beginning, that which came before it would have really been the beginning.
Yes, it is used as a noun in Greek.
But insisting on a strictly noun meaning in English is just a diversion from the intended meaning. If one points to a certain coin in a collection and says “that is the beginning of my collection,” or a man says about his father, “I am the beginning of his children,” the meaning of ‘first one’ is clear whether classified as noun or adjective.
This is just as I pointed out from scripture in an earlier post above (February 13, 2015 at 2:26 pm).
It is used as a noun which governs a genitive noun
(‘beginning of —-’) And so are the following examples:
Matt. 24:8 δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων
NASB: these things are [merely] the beginning of birth pangs.
ἀρχὴ of… means the first of the birth pangs.
Gen. 49:3 Ρουβην, πρωτότοκός μου σύ, … καὶ ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου – LXX
Reuben, you are my first-born, … and the beginning of my children
ἀρχὴ of… means the first of the children.
Deut. 21:17 ἀλλὰ τὸν πρωτότοκον υἱὸν…. ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀρχὴ τέκνων αὐτοῦ, – LXX
But the first-born son … because he is the beginning of his children,
ἀρχὴ of… means the first of the children.
Rev. 3:14 [Jesus] ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ
the beginning of God’s creation
ἀρχὴ of… means Jesus is the very first of God’s [not his own]creation
Please show me how the meaning of these “beginning of…” phrases is not what they clearly mean.
God’s people have used “Father” synonymously with “source” or “origin” for thousands of years. When they wanted to use a word that denotes absolute “source” they most often used “Father.” Obviously the Son is not the “source of creation” – his Father is! (And what could be more appropriate than the Father’s very first creation being called his “Firstborn Son”?)
In the latest edition [BDAG, 2000], section 6 under πατήρ, which discusses God as Father, we find the following definition: “the supreme deity, who is responsible for the origin and care of all that exists, Father….” [boldface and italics belong to BDAG].
The BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (Editor), has been revised as the BDAG. On page 138, the interpretation of Rev 3:14 that ‘ARXH [arche] of creation’ means that Christ was created has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].
We expect Trinitarians to try to find some way around the clear meaning of Rev. 3:14 (and others), but the mere fact that some respected Trinitarian scholars admit the above outweighs the biased statements of others.
You wrote: “The beginning has no beginning, that would be why it is the beginning. If it had a beginning, that which came before it would have really been the beginning.”
The Father has no beginning. The beginning of HIS (God’s) creation is (obviously enough) the firstborn Son.
Col. 1:15 [the Son] “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” – NASB.
Tigger…….Good points. I believe JESUS THE MAN IS THE FIRST ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY BORN INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. This took place after his resurection , not before , he was tbe first of the human race to be begotten of GOD THE FATHER TO enter the kingdom of God and therefore the FIRSTBORN FROM the “HUMAN” CREATION OF GOD, AND THE ONLY ONE who has thus far made it into that kingdom from man kind. So he is the only one born into it now, but there are many begotten into it waiting to be born into it, at the return of JESUS our lord, but even better our elder brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours. ……………..gene
Even this revelation of things that were supposedly to soon come to pass came from God,to Jesus,to an angel,to John.So Jesus didn’t know this revelation until God gave it to him.
AndrewAD,
By all means!
BUT:
On the last day of the Lord Jesus Christ,
JESUS SHALL GIVE HIS KINGDOM TO THE FATHER:
THEREFORE THE FATHER HASN’T YET GOT WHAT JESUS HAS RIGHT NOW!
Jesus THEN ONLY THEN, would be SUBJECT to the Father ,and the Father would be
ALL IN ALL
THE ONLY TRUE GOD!
BUT I REPEAT :
ON THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!
THEREFORE RIGHT NOW,
JESUS IS not subject to the father,
ALSO, HE IS INTEGRATED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT AS
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST!
THROUGH HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS,
REGARDING HIS SPIRITUAL FLESH BODY! “THE WORD MADE FLESH”
JESUS IS THE SUPREME RULER OF ALL THE UNIVERSES!
Since He is the sole proprietor of all matter, through His death on the cross!
GOD OF ALL FLESH! “THE WORD MADE FLESH”
Till the Father accomplishes His part, FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT,
Regarding HIS SPIRITUAL ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH JESUS DEATH,
and put all Jesus’ enemies as Jesus’ footstool!
Therefore IN THIS PARTICULAR TIME serving Jesus’ NO?
Obvious through the HOLY SPIRIT, since it is a spiritual task!
NOW scripture is CLEAR:
But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first.
SO, In the beginning GOD THE FATHER was FIRST to start creation, VERY GOOD through THE WORD, HIS SON!
AND THE SON WAS LAST TO RECREATE ALL, PERFECT IN HIS BLOOD, through the FATHER!
THE SON NOW IS FIRST AS THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST
THEN THE FATHER WOULD BE LAST
THE ONLY TRUE GOD
ON THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! THOUGH!
WHEN?
WHEN LUCIFER/SATAN RETURN TO THE FATHER!!!!!
SO LUCIFER WAS FIRST TO BE CREATED!
HE WOULD BE LAST TO BE REDEEMED!
THE PRODIGAL SON!
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
at least power over those of the dark side.
Edj,
YOU YOURSELF SPECIFIED THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST ANGELS BUT
OF THE DARK SIDE!
BUT “ANGELS” ON ITS OWN THERE ARE ONLY ONE KIND WITHIN OUR UNDERSTANDING!
HOLY HEAVENLY CREATURES!
ALSO SCRIPTURE REFERS TO THE DEMONS AS ANGELS ONLY WHEN IT ATTACHED THEM TO SATAN! AS:
HIS ANGELS:
THEREFORE DEMONS!
PAUL WAS NOT REFERRING TO DEMONS!
BUT TO ANGELS
REFLECT:
IF PAUL REFERRED TO DEMONS, WAS IT WORTH IT TO MENTION IT IN HIS EPISTLES???
OR RATHER HE REFERRED TO ANGELS TO
EULOGIZE THE STATE OF THE HUMAN BEING,
WHICH FROM A SATANIC SUBSTANCE THROUGH ADAM SIN,
JESUS THROUGH HIS DEATH AS A HUMAN BEING
IN ALL THINGS LIKE HIS BRETHREN, EXCEPT SIN,IS NOW
GOD OF ALL FLESH,
THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST.
AND WE ON THE LAST DAY OF THE LORD WOULD BE
LIKE HIM
gods in flesh
Peace and love in Jesus
Charles
LU,
I do not agree that the Son of God is the first of creation. He is the beginning of the creation of God. I do agree that He is the supreme leader of creation in heaven and earth.
I think I see what you are trying to say but words can be tricky as first does mean leader. I assume when you use it in your first sentence you are addressing those who insist he was born, aka created, first. The firstborn is the heir, even when they are not literally born first. In one passage King David is called the firstborn of the earth, which is to say the heir of the earth.
In Revelations 3:14 there is one called the beginning, originator, ruler, or source of creation depending on which choice translators made in a number of different versions. I went with leader assuming the Koine Greek had a meaning equivalent to first. It is actually “arché” which is more chief of creation just like a archangel is a chief messenger. We know Jehovah appointed him as chief or all thing in heaven and on earth.
@t8,
kerwin, I suppose you realise that I was not saying or implying that the son of God in the genealogies was Jesus Christ.
It is something that struck me at the moment. The question is, why wasn’t he called the son of God in his own genealogies?
Thanks for your explanation. So, are we in agreement that Rev 3:14 is NOT saying that Jesus is the first creation of God when He is called the ‘beginning of the creation of God?”
Also, you are correct that ‘chief’ is an appropriate translation of arche’ among a few other words like: origin, beginning, ruler, etc. The use of the word ‘first’ however, is not an appropriate translation. I do think that the correct translation of arche’ is ‘beginning’ in this case because the same word is used in other places in Revelation and is translated as ‘beginning.’ For example:
Rev 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
God bless!
I want to find out more about how Jesus is the beginning AND THE END. I am wondering if ‘Beginning’ is one of His names and ‘in the Beginning (Jesus)’ God created the heavens and the earth. hmmm.
Once again, thank you for the time it took you to make your post. And, once again, ‘first’ is not an appropriate translation of arche’. I have also never seen it translated that way in any Bible in Rev 3:14. Do you know of a Bible translation that translates arche’ as ‘first’ for Rev 3:14?
God bless!
@LU
This is the third time you have ignored the following:
This is just as I pointed out from scripture in an earlier post above (February 13, 2015 at 2:26 pm).
It is used as a noun which governs a genitive noun
(‘beginning of —-’) And so are the following examples:
Matt. 24:8 δὲ ταῦτα ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων
NASB: these things are [merely] the beginning of birth pangs.
ἀρχὴ of… means the first of the birth pangs.
Gen. 49:3 Ρουβην, πρωτότοκός μου σύ, … καὶ ἀρχὴ τέκνων μου – LXX
Reuben, you are my first-born, … and the beginning of my children
ἀρχὴ of… means the first of the children.
Deut. 21:17 ἀλλὰ τὸν πρωτότοκον υἱὸν…. ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀρχὴ τέκνων αὐτοῦ, – LXX
But the first-born son … because he is the beginning of his children,
ἀρχὴ of… means the first of the children.
Rev. 3:14 [Jesus] ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ
the beginning of God’s creation
ἀρχὴ of… means Jesus is the very first of God’s [not his own]creation
Please show me how the meaning of these “beginning of…” phrases is not what they clearly mean.
As for translations using first, we are fortunate to find any Trinitarian Bible which accurately translates it as “Beginning of….” since it a scripture they do not wish to acknowledge accurately (for obvious reasons).
However, there is this Trinitarian rendering:
Rev-3:14 Write to Laodicea, to the Angel of the church. God’s Yes, the Faithful and Accurate Witness, the First of God’s creation” – MSG.
And, the best Trinitarian acknowledgement of this truth is found in the most-respected Trinitarian lexicon:
In the latest edition [BDAG, 2000], section 6 under πατήρ, which discusses God as Father, we find the following definition: “the supreme deity, who is responsible for the origin and care of all that exists, Father….” [boldface and italics belong to BDAG].
The Father, as the name clearly implies is the ultimate source (not the Son) of all that exists (including the Son).
The BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt (Translator), F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker (Editor), has been revised as the BDAG. On page 138, the interpretation of Rev 3:14 that ‘ARXH [arche] of creation’ means that Christ was created has been upgraded from poss. [possible] to prob. [probable].
This may be helpful in examining the scriptures in the above post:
Matt. 24:8 – This is normally translated “beginning of birth pangs,” but never “ruler of” or “source of”!
But we can also find these Trinitarian renderings:
“All these things are like the first pains of childbirth.” – GNT.
“These things are like the first pains when something new is about to be born” – NCV.
“But all this is only the first of the birth pains, with more to come” – NLT.
……………………………………………
But more important, this next scripture is even more closely parallel to Rev. 3:14:
Gen. 49:3 LXX – Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and the first [arche] of my children, hard to be endured, hard and self-willed. – Brenton.
Hi,
Please note that JESUS CHRIST, the anointed man Jesus of Nazareth, ONLY BEGAN at the Jordan when he was anointed.
Before that there was a man of Nazareth, and the WORD that was with God and was God.
Jn 10.38
It is something that struck me at the moment. The question is, why wasn’t he called the son of God in his own genealogies?
Not sure. Perhaps genealogies deal exclusively with man. Only as a man is he mentioned or alluded to as the starting point in the genealogy. Further, it doesn’t mention God either, possibly for the same reason.
Please note that JESUS CHRIST, the anointed man Jesus of Nazareth, ONLY BEGAN at the Jordan when he was anointed.
Before that there was a man of Nazareth, and the WORD that was with God and was God.
Are you saying that Jesus began as a created being, became the Christ at the Jordan, and there are two, the man of Nazareth, and God who is the Word. Then somehow, this man was taken over by God’s Word?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
