- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Mikeboll said:
Quote They also believe that the phrase “prototokos pasa ktisis” does not really mean “firstborn of every creature” even though the Greek words mean exactly that. They argue that “firstborn” really means “preeminence” and “of every creature” really means “just mankind”, therefore when Paul called Jesus the “firstborn of all creation”, he really meant that Jesus is “preeminent over all mankind”.
To ALL:In my debate with Mike I demonstrated that the word “protokos” or “firstborn” means that Christ is the Son of honor and not literally “firstborn”. It means that He is the firstborn or HEAD of all mankind. But Mike denies that “protokos” may mean “preeminent” and his denial goes against the scriptural evidence. Mike's denial that “protokos” may mean “preeminent” is solely based in his Arain presuppositions.
Though the word “firstborn” literally refers to a child not preceded by another child in birth; it is also applied to a child of honor who is APPOINTED to be the firstborn in a family.
Note the scriptural examples below:
Simri was APPOINTED the “chief” son though he was not the literal firstborn:
Quote “Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the chief;)” 1 Chronicles 16:10 Ephraim was the second born of Joseph but was APPOINTED to be to be God's firstborn:
Quote “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house.
And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction” Genesis 41:50-52).
“They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9).
David was the youngest of many brothers but was APPOINTED God's firstborn:
Quote “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep” (1 Samuel 16:20) ” 20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him…
27Also I will appoint him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:20, 27).[/i]
There you have it! These scriptures clearly indicate that the word “firstborn” has nothing to do with being the literal firsborn but with being APPOINTED the “supreme” son in the family.
Mike batantly contradicts Paul who said that Christ is the firstborn in the sense that He is the “head” of the church and “preeminent” in all things:
Quote ]15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: 16For by him 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:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the HEAD of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the PREEMINENCE.
It's clear! The word “firstborn” in reference to Christ means that He is the CHIEF Son. It means that He is PREEMINENT. Paul said so!
Mike erroneously concludes that the phrase “fisrtborn of all creation” means that He is the first creature. But the Greek “pasa ktisis” in the context means “all mankind” which I proved to Mike beyond all doubt.
In reply Mike was not able to give a consistent explanation of Colossians 1. Verse 6 says that the gosel had produced fruit in “ALL the world.” According to Mike this is not to be taken literally. He says it is an “exaggeration.” Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “ALL creation.” Mike says that this also is an “exaggeration.” But He flip flops on verse 15 and says that the word “all” in “all creation” is literal.
Note how Mike flip flops:
vs. 6 is exaggeration: “The gospel produced fruit in ALL the world.”
vs. 15 is literal: “He is the firstborn of ALL creation.”
vs. 23 is exaggeration: “The gospel was preached to ALL creation.”
We are not obligated to take Mike's arguments seriously because he cannot maintain his definitionns consistently. If the word “ALL” is exaggeration in verses 6 & 23, then it is also exaggeration in verse 15.
Mike can't have it both ways! Consistency must rule!
vs. 6 is literal: “The gospel produced fruit in ALL creation” (mankind).
vs. 15 is literal: “He is the firstborn of ALL creation” (mankind).
vs. 23 is literal: “The gospel which was preached to ALL creation” (mankind).
Hebrews 1 says that Christ was “APPOINTED” heir of all things. If Jesus was literally the firstborn then He would have been the heir by birth and not by appointment. Christ was APPOINTED the heir. This means that He was APPOINTED the firstborn JUST AS His father David.
Mike has not been able to refute these things! His recent assertions that Jesus does not reign now but is “waiting”; and that He is a god in the “same sense” as satan prove that he is losing!. He has also said that satan is a “true god” while Jesus is not. Need I say more?
I'll be back after the holiday.
Kangaroo Jack
Hi Roo,
HI ALL! THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO MOVE A TOPIC AWAY FROM THE DAMNING INFORMATION CONTAINED ON ANOTHER THREAD. IT IS ONLY A DISTRACTION FOR ROO CANNOT REFUTE THE FACTS ON THE OTHER SITE. DON'T FALL FOR IT
Answer on my thread, Roo.
In my debate with Mike I demonstrated that the word “protokos” or “firstborn” means that Christ is the Son of honor and not literally “firstborn”–Kangaroo Jack
Though the word “firstborn” literally refers to a child not preceded by another child in birth–Kangaroo Jack
Confusing.
Hey kanga you are bouncing all over the place as david has shown.
Let me say that a first-born is literally a first-born and has certain privileges as a result. Only when a first-born gives up his birthright does it become open to another. It seems there are some people who make the exception the rule.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2010,09:55) Hi Roo, HI ALL! THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO MOVE A TOPIC AWAY FROM THE DAMNING INFORMATION CONTAINED ON ANOTHER THREAD. IT IS ONLY A DISTRACTION FOR ROO CANNOT REFUTE THE FACTS ON THE OTHER SITE. DON'T FALL FOR IT
Answer on my thread, Roo.
Hey at least he changed his name from the thinker (which didn't suit) to something more accurate. After all, he does jump around quite a bit trying to dodge difficulties.Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 30 2010,15:35) Mikeboll said: Quote They also believe that the phrase “prototokos pasa ktisis” does not really mean “firstborn of every creature” even though the Greek words mean exactly that. They argue that “firstborn” really means “preeminence” and “of every creature” really means “just mankind”, therefore when Paul called Jesus the “firstborn of all creation”, he really meant that Jesus is “preeminent over all mankind”.
To ALL:In my debate with Mike I demonstrated that the word “protokos” or “firstborn” means that Christ is the Son of honor and not literally “firstborn”. It means that He is the firstborn or HEAD of all mankind. But Mike denies that “protokos” may mean “preeminent” and his denial goes against the scriptural evidence. Mike's denial that “protokos” may mean “preeminent” is solely based in his Arain presuppositions.
Though the word “firstborn” literally refers to a child not preceded by another child in birth; it is also applied to a child of honor who is APPOINTED to be the firstborn in a family.
Note the scriptural examples below:
Simri was APPOINTED the “chief” son though he was not the literal firstborn:
Quote “Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the chief;)” 1 Chronicles 16:10 Ephraim was the second born of Joseph but was APPOINTED to be to be God's firstborn:
Quote “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house.
And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction” Genesis 41:50-52).
“They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9).
David was the youngest of many brothers but was APPOINTED God's firstborn:
Quote “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep” (1 Samuel 16:20) ” 20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him…
27Also I will appoint him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:20, 27).[/i]
There you have it! These scriptures clearly indicate that the word “firstborn” has nothing to do with being the literal firsborn but with being APPOINTED the “supreme” son in the family.
Mike batantly contradicts Paul who said that Christ is the firstborn in the sense that He is the “head” of the church and “preeminent” in all things:
Quote ]15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: 16For by him 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:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the HEAD of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the PREEMINENCE.
It's clear! The word “firstborn” in reference to Christ means that He is the CHIEF Son. It means that He is PREEMINENT. Paul said so!
Mike erroneously concludes that the phrase “fisrtborn of all creation” means that He is the first creature. But the Greek “pasa ktisis” in the context means “all mankind” which I proved to Mike beyond all doubt.
In reply Mike was not able to give a consistent explanation of Colossians 1. Verse 6 says that the gosel had produced fruit in “ALL the world.” According to Mike this is not to be taken literally. He says it is an “exaggeration.” Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “ALL creation.” Mike says that this also is an “exaggeration.” But He flip flops on verse 15 and says that the word “all” in “all creation” is literal.
Note how Mike flip flops:
vs. 6 is exaggeration: “The gospel produced fruit in ALL the world.”
vs. 15 is literal: “He is the firstborn of ALL creation.”
vs. 23 is exaggeration: “The gospel was preached to ALL creation.”
We are not obligated to take Mike's arguments seriously because he cannot maintain his definitionns consistently. If the word “ALL” is exaggeration in verses 6 & 23, then it is also exaggeration in verse 15.
Mike can't have it both ways! Consistency must rule!
vs. 6 is literal: “The gospel produced fruit in ALL creation” (mankind).
vs. 15 is literal: “He is the firstborn of ALL creation” (mankind).
vs. 23 is literal: “The gospel which was preached to ALL creation” (mankind).
Hebrews 1 says that Christ was “APPOINTED” heir of all things. If Jesus was literally the firstborn then He would have been the heir by birth and not by appointment. Christ was APPOINTED the heir. This means that He was APPOINTED the firstborn JUST AS His father David.
Mike has not been able to refute these things! His recent assertions that Jesus does not reign now but is “waiting”; and that He is a god in the “same sense” as satan prove that he is losing!. He has also said that satan is a “true god” while Jesus is not. Need I say more?
I'll be back after the holiday.
Kangaroo Jack
JackGood post and very well put. Col 1:15 contextually is about the “Preeminence” of Jesus without a doubt!
The NET completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, has this to say about the verse…
The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the ki
ngs of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).The problem that the ATs have is there is no “unambiguous” scripture anywhere in the Bible that proves Jesus had a beginning!
In the beginning before time, matter and space, Jesus who is the Word who was God always existed with the Father!
Have a good Holiday! Blessings Keith
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,13:05) Let me say that a first-born is literally a first-born and has certain privileges as a result.
David was described as a “first born” (ps 89) and yet he was the literal last born of Jesse. There goes that theory….Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,13:07) Hey at least he changed his name from the thinker (which didn't suit) to something more accurate. After all, he does jump around quite a bit trying to dodge difficulties.
I don't see it that way. Jack is an anomaly in this forum – he consistently and cogently answers questions. He answers the whole post and doesn't cherry pick. I haven't seen him run from anyone.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2010,00:14) Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,13:07) Hey at least he changed his name from the thinker (which didn't suit) to something more accurate. After all, he does jump around quite a bit trying to dodge difficulties.
I don't see it that way. Jack is an anomaly in this forum – he consistently and cogently answers questions. He answers the whole post and doesn't cherry pick. I haven't seen him run from anyone.
Amen!Hi Is 1.18,
He runs from nobody but the truth is not his friend.
He attacks all who oppose his bizarre ideas setting up threads against them.
He should make truth his friend and attack the traditions and deceptions that bind men and their sourceHi all,
It seems that this is KJ's second attempt to attack mike based on fallacys…
am i missing something here?Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2010,15:27) The problem that the ATs have is there is no “unambiguous” scripture anywhere in the Bible that proves Jesus had a beginning! In the beginning before time, matter and space, Jesus who is the Word who was God always existed with the Father!
Hi All,Keith, your claim above was the whole reason for me posting the Eusebius letter. According to info Nick posted:
“Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time…This great Greek teacher and learned theologian wrote:
We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,I don't ask anyone to interpret scripture the way Eusebius did. But from his letter we can see that he took Col 1:15 to literally mean that Christ was the “firstborn of all creation”, not “preeminant over mankind” as Roo asserts. Eusebius thought that Jesus was the “first-born of every creature, before all the ages“. That eliminates the possibility that Eusebius thought it to mean “preeminant over mankind”.
Can we at least agree on how Eusebius understood Col 1:15?
Roo says that in NT times, “prototokos pasa ktisis” ALWAYS meant “preeminant over mankind” because they used the phrase loosely or as an “exaggeration” sometimes, but he has produced no 4th or 5th century evidence of this, only more recent trinitarian scholar's conjecture.
Roo says: It's clear! The word “firstborn” in reference to Christ means that He is the CHIEF Son. It means that He is PREEMINENT. Paul said so!
Mike erroneously concludes that the phrase “fisrtborn of all creation” means that He is the first creature. But the Greek “pasa ktisis” in the context means “all mankind” which I proved to Mike beyond all doubt.
But I have now produced a document from the same 4th century time period as the LXX MSS that Roo says back his theory. This document is from “the most learned theologian of his time” – the 4th century.
This document makes it crystal clear that even if you dispute Eusebius' interpretation of the scriptures, you can NOT deny that he understood “prototokos pasa ktisis” in Col 1:15 to literally mean “first-born of every creature”.
And if a man who actually spoke the language of the oldest LXX MSS we have took it literally, then why wouldn't we?
So WJ, Jack and Paul…you guys are mistaken. There is for sure at least one “unambiguous” scripture that clearly states that Jesus had a beginning.
More to come….”begotten”
peace and love,
mikeQuote (SimplyForgiven @ May 31 2010,19:51) Hi all, It seems that this is KJ's second attempt to attack mike based on fallacys…
am i missing something here?
Why yes….yes you are missing something Dennison. You've missed the other 47 times he's done the same thing. He thinks that if he yells it loud enough and adds in some ridicule and insults, people will ignore the facts and believe him.
peace to you, brother
mikeTo All…….The words ” FIRST- BORN……..can be quite confusing. because it can be taken two way, one is the very first in a sequence of events, the other cane be as first Place in position or status. In fact it can even mean both. GOD even called Ephraim His FIRST BORN.
Jer 31:9….> The shall come with weeping and with supplications, will I lead them : I will (CAUSE) them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for i ams a father to Israel and (Ephraim) is my (firstborn) Now does that mean the Ephraim was the First (ever) born by GOD? This would be a counteraction of scriptures if that were the case because it also say Jesus was the firstborn of all creation. So some thing has to be understood by the wording (FIRSTBORN) and How can all this fit together, If we see Jesus as First bone (from) the physical creation of man as a true SON of GOD and is Places in First Place because of that it then can be true in Both instances. IMO.
peace and love to you all……………gene
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2010,13:05) Hey kanga you are bouncing all over the place as david has shown. Let me say that a first-born is literally a first-born and has certain privileges as a result. Only when a first-born gives up his birthright does it become open to another. It seems there are some people who make the exception the rule.
But man did give up their birthright at the fall! That is why Christ is the favored son, placed before the rest of mankind. Not in time but in preeminence.Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2010,03:35) for i ams a father to Israel and (Ephraim) is my (firstborn)
Hi Gene,“Ephraim” in this context refers to the northern half the nation of Israel. Judah was the southern tribes consisting of Judah, Benjamin and I believe one half tribe of Manasseh.
God was saying that the nation of Israel was his firstborn, not the person Ephraim himself.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (martian @ June 01 2010,03:40) But man did give up their birthright at the fall! That is why Christ is the favored son, placed before the rest of mankind. Not in time but in preeminence.
Hi Martian,So Jesus wasn't already the favored Son as the firstborn of God BEFORE mankind even existed?
peace and love,
mike
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
