Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,19:38)

Hi Kathi,

The question was:

Is Jesus a part of the group of things that God CAUSED TO EXIST?

Yes or no will work nicely.

You said:

Quote

Anyway, a son procreated by God Himself would be another God. A being created by God Himself would be a first of his kind and not another God. Big difference!

So all of King David's sons were immediately kings of Israel the second they were procreated? No, they were all human beings, just as Jesus was immediately a spirit being, like his Father and God. That doesn't make him God any more than David's sons became Kings of Israel or a part of the same being as David when they were caused to exist.

Don't you realize that Jesus himself said he was the beginning of the CREATION of God? And it's not me, but Paul who says he was the firstborn of all CREATION. The Eusebius letter is only to disprove the trinitarian claim that it meant “preeminent over mankind” in the Biblical Greek. So as I've said at least 6 times in this thread: I don't care if you agree with Eusebius' view or not, BUT, do you agree that he took the words “prototokos pasa ktisis” in Col 1:15 to literally mean Jesus was the first thing God ever created or not? He couldn't possibly have thought the Greek words meant “preeminent over mankind” if it was his belief that this happened “BEFORE ALL THE AGES”, could he?

Do you agree that he took the word “monogenes” to literally mean “only begotten” or not?

Do you agree that when he seconded the “monogenes” with “genao”, he doubly confirmed that he thought Jesus was caused to exist by the Father?

Again, I am NOT asking you to see things the way Eusebius did, just to acknowledge that to man who's native language was the same language that the NT was written in, “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” definitely spoke of Jesus' beginning. Could you do me that one little favor? Just read the quote and answer the questions….PLEASE.

peace and love,
mike

Mike,
You know that I believe Jesus was a procreated being and the only one procreated by God. The others that came into existence were created by God through the Son, not procreated. So, yes, the Son did come into existence by God…by procreation but not creation. That is your answer. :;):

You wrote:

Quote

So all of King David's sons were immediately kings of Israel the second they were procreated? No, they were all human beings, just as Jesus was immediately a spirit being, like his Father and God.

Don't equate an office with a nature. God has a divine nature and begets offspring with a divine nature. A person that has a divine nature would be part of deity(Godkind). A person that has a human nature would be part of mankind. Simple!

Quote

do you agree that he took the words “prototokos pasa ktisis” in Col 1:15 to literally mean Jesus was the first thing God ever created or not?

NO! I don't think that it means Jesus was the first thing God ever created. I think that it means Jesus was the first thing God ever procreated and only thing God ever procreated. There is such a big difference between a procreation of God and a creation of God, do you not understand? A procreated being of God would naturally be of the same 'substance'…of the same kind. A created being of God would be of a different 'substance'…a first of a different kind.

Quote

Don't you realize that Jesus himself said he was the beginning of the CREATION of God?

There are other interpretations better than 'beginning.'

NET ©
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write the following: “This is the solemn pronouncement of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation

Quote

He couldn't possibly have thought the Greek words meant “preeminent over mankind” if it was his belief that this happened “BEFORE ALL THE AGES”, could he?

Preeminence comes with being the first procreated son of any father. I think that 'firstborn over all creation' means that the Son is the first procreated Son of God over all things in heaven and on earth.

Quote

Do you agree that he took the word “monogenes” to literally mean “only begotten” or not?

Yes, I think that 'monogenes' means 'only begotten.'

Did I answer all your questions?

June 8, 2010 at 4:15 am#194646

kerwin

Participant

I wrote what I did because there are those that seem to be attacking the messenger when they do not like what there itching ears hear.

Instead of taking your emotions out on the messenger test the spirit both of what they have to say and what you believe.

June 8, 2010 at 4:21 am#194647

Participant

Hi MB,
If they cannot offer any foundation there only joy is in frustrating some and confusing others who know less.

June 8, 2010 at 4:33 am#194650

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ June 08 2010,15:00)

Did I answer all your questions?

Hi Kathi,

No, not at all. My questions were based on the Eusebius letter, how did HE understand the words in the Bible. But that's okay, forget it.

ps If Jesus was caused to exist by God, then he is most definitely part of the group of things caused to exist by God.

And because he was begotten by the Father means he is of divine nature. It does NOT mean he is God, or even “a God” to be worshipped in violation of scripture.

And, begotten or not, Jesus was CREATED by his God. He was just created in a different way than everything else. Just like when I begat my son, with the help of God, I CREATED a new life. I don't know why the word created offends you so much in referrence to Jesus.

And, your translation which says “the originator of God's creation” is an oxymoron. Obviously, GOD is the ORIGINATOR of His own creation, not Jesus. So, deal with it. Jesus proudly says that he is the “beginning of the creation of God”.

peace and love,
mike

June 8, 2010 at 4:35 am#194651

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 08 2010,15:21)

Hi MB,
If they cannot offer any foundation there only joy is in frustrating some and confusing others who know less.

Amen.

June 8, 2010 at 4:40 am#194652

Participant

Mike,
God and the Son are both the originator of the creation of God.

June 8, 2010 at 4:43 am#194653

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 07 2010,23:21)

Hi MB,
If they cannot offer any foundation there only joy is in frustrating some and confusing others who know less.

I thought that you were getting some sort of warped joy out of frustrating others, Nick…thanks for clarifying your role

June 8, 2010 at 2:45 pm#194682

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,21:19)

Can you understand that in every instance you give, someone who is not the firstborn (the one born first) is APPOINTED with the rights of the firstborn (the one born first). Jesus wasn't ever APPOINTED with firstborn rights because the real “firstborn of all creation” messed up. He has firstborn rights simply because he is the one born first.

Mike

Not true!

Jesus is the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, because the first Adam did mess up!

June 8, 2010 at 3:10 pm#194683

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,22:14)

God, may I never be so intent on being right in my beliefs that I nullify evidence to the contrary. Amen.

Mike

Then why are you denying the best witness of the Forefathers and the evidence which is Ignatius?

The thing is why are you denying all ot the first and second century Fathers?

Here I will post it again and see if you will comment on them this time?

Ignatius the earliest of the Fathers who was appointed as Overseer or Bishop of Antioch in 69 A.D. was a Christian during most of the Apostle John's lifetime and one of John's disciples. It was probably the Apostle John who appointed Ignatius as Overseer of Antioch.

Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch at the same time Polycarp was the Bishop of Smyrna. He wrote seven letters to the Churches while en route to his execution in Rome around the year A. D. 110. In Ignatius’ letter to the Ephesians 18:2 he states:

For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan . . .

Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished, “when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life” . . .19:3

It looks like he agrees with John that God came in the flesh. John 1:1, 14

There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, BORN AND UNBORN, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord. 7:2

Here we see Ignatius claiming Jesus was “UNBORN” and God in man both Spirit and flesh! I think Ignatius knows more than Eusebius about Jesus origin since he is close to John who wrote John 1:1, don't you?

Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through “the blood of God” you completed perfectly the task so natural to you. 1:1

Here we see him disagreeing with your interpretation of Acts 20:28!

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1 over whom Polycarp was Bishop he states:

I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise . . .

Here we see Ignatius who probably seen Jesus with his own eyes and knew Peter and was a disciple of John the Beloved, calling Jesus his God!

Yet you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not your God Mike?

Irenaeus who wrote around the year A. D. 185 wrote…

Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God. . . . For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God — both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father.(16)

Here we see Irenaeus confirming the Apostles and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit would not call Jesus God unless he was “Truly God”. In other words Mike when John says the Word was God, then that means John believed the Word is truly God!

So he then writes…

. . . this God, the Creator, who formed the world, is the only God, and that there is no other God besides Him.(17)

It cannot be any clearer than that!

Also he writes…

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man . . . we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.(18)

Here we see Irenaeus using a term Trinitarians use that is from Heb 1:3, Jesus is the very essence or substance of God therefore making him equal to God in being!

The term “Substance” was used quite often by the Church Fathers because they were speaking to the very nature of whom and what God is!

Clement of Alexandria who wrote around the year A. D. 200 wrote…

For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God . . .(21)

Here we see Clement claiming Jesus is “truly most manifest Deity” and that he is equal to the Lord of the Universe. But you have continually denied that Jesus is equal to the Father though he has “All authority and Power”.

Tertullian wrote around A. D. 200…

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other [italics mine], and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy[23] ) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole [italics mine], as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another [italics mine to note what the Watchtower cites]; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…. even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?”(24)

So we see here that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are inseparable distinct in personality. Tertullian also affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit as all the Church Fathers do. So as you can see the confession of the Trinitarians is more in line with the early Church Fathers than the “Arian view”.

He also writes…

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Fathe
r, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.”(29)

Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun.Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.(30)

Here we see Tertullian speaking of the Trinity as being one Economy!

n the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person.(31) As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [italics mine].(32)

Here he addresses the Modalist heresy and while claiming that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in substance and being as One God.

Origen who wrote around A. D. 200…

Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. FOR WE DO NOT SAY, AS THE HERETICS SUPPOSE, THAT SOME PART OF THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD WAS CONVERTED INTO THE SON, OR THAT THE SON WAS PROCREATED BY THE FATHER OUT OF THINGS NON-EXISTENT, I.E., BEYOND HIS OWN SUBSTANCE, SO THAT THERE ONCE WAS A TIME WHEN HE DID NOT EXIST . . . . How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father [italics mine]; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.(41)

As you can see Origen believes also that Jesus had no beginning or that he was procreated by God!

One thing is evident Mike; the Church Fathers did not hold the view that the words “firstborn or begotten” are defined in the sense that you say the words are defined. For the very definition of the Trinity is that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are Co-Eternal and Co-Equal and that the Word was always with the Father.

Another thing is they all had the confession that Jesus was God and their very own personal God, while you claim Jesus is “a god” but he is not your God, which is a denial of the Biblical truth taught by the Church Fathers.

Also they all confessed the Holy Spirit as being a third person and not some mere force or power or an “It” or “Thing” of God!

Finally all of the Early Church Fathers mentioned contradicts Eusebius definition of the word “Begotten” since they all believed that Jesus did not have a beginning as the Word that was always with the Father and in the Father!
The scriptures and history is on our side!

For centuries the Arain doctrines have been exposed as being heretical but satan likes to keep his lies alive!

Mike, you want to incite the words of a man from the third century but why don't you listen to the words of the ones closest to the Original Apostles and in Ignatius case possibly seen Jesus with his own eyes?

June 8, 2010 at 6:50 pm#194690

Arnold

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,08:31)

Quote (Arnold @ June 02 2010,07:58)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 02 2010,07:21)

Quote (Arnold @ June 01 2010,15:05)

W.J. and K! What do you think in the beginning means? To me it means that Jesus did have a beginning.

Really? The Father was there with Jesus in the beginning! So does that mean the Father had a beginning?

W.J. You know that the Father always existed don't be funny…. all those Scriptures that Kathi is giving again, I also have given over and over again, yet you and KJ just ignore and ignore this…. you know that is why I have not posted for awhile…. when members that have been here for so long and yet just don't want to learn, why even bother with them….at one time I too said you got to be kidding me, but God did not leave me in that unbelief… lucky me…. Irene

Irene,

The problem with your conclusion is that both Jesus and God are called “the beginning.”

God is called “the beginning” (Rev. 21:6)

Jesus is called “the begining: (Rev. 22:13)

So WJ's point stands!

the Roo

No that is not what it says. It says in the Beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God…… you are adding to Scriptures that is not wise……
The Word of God had a beginning and not His Father. He is all knowing immortal always been there…. You W.J and JK you just want to do away with that Jesus had a beginning, because that would certainly put a dent in the trinity doctrine….
I think Math. 15:9 is for you….You are just impossible to say the least. Why should anyone even bother with you, You will never give up your ignorance to some Scriptures that were given…..

June 8, 2010 at 7:23 pm#194692

KangarooJack

Participant

WorshippingJesus quoted:

Quote

Keith,

Amen Bro! The ray cannot be separated from the sun. The ray is the sun's radiance. Hebrews 1 says that Jesus is the radiance (effulgence) of God's glory. But the NWT changes the word to “reflection.” Jesus is not the reflection of God's glory. He is the radiance (effulgence) of God's glory.

Moreover, it says Jesus is the “exact representation” of God's substance. The word “exact representation” is the Greek “charakter” and it means that in His substance Jesus is indistinguishable from God.

The Greek word “charakter” is used in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 13:28:

13:28 εαν δε κατα χωραν μεινη το αυγαζον και μη διαχυθη εν τω δερματι αυτη δε η αμαυρα η ουλη του κατακαυματος εστιν και καθαριει αυτον ο ιερευς ο γαρ χαρακτηρ του κατακαυματος εστιν

Lev: 13:28 in English:

And if the glossy spot continues unchanged and makes no advances in the skin, and is rather INDISTINCT, it is the mark of the inflammation, and the priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the mere hurt of the inflammation. Leupold's Translation

The Greek “charakter” in Leviticus 13:28 means “INDISTINCT.”

Jesus is the “exact representation”, that is, the “indistinct representation” of God's substance. In other words, if the substance of God and Jesus could be put under a microscope and studied it could not be determined which is which for the substance of both Persons is indistinguishably the same.

“He that has seen Me has seen the Father”

Kangaroo Jack

June 8, 2010 at 7:29 pm#194693

Participant

Hi KJ,
Of course the sunlight is not the Sun.
Those who saw the anointed one saw the anointing too.

June 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm#194697

KangarooJack

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,01:45)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,21:19)

Mike

Not true!

Jesus is the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, because the first Adam did mess up!

Keith,

Your reply is PERFECTION my brother! Jesus was appointed the firstborn because the literal firstborn of men (the first Adam) messed up!

ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

btw, Paul explicitly said that Jesus was “born of the seed of David and decreed (appointed) to be the Son of God.” It was as the seed of David that Jesus was appointed the firstborn Son in the spiritual kingdom just as His father David was appointed God's firstborn son in the old covenant theocracy (Ps. 89).

Jack

June 8, 2010 at 8:06 pm#194699

Participant

Hi KJ,
Another outbreak of backslapping for those who do not agree with your preterism.
But somehow very little truth emerged as the rom 1 quote was incomplete and an odd translation.

June 8, 2010 at 8:06 pm#194700

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 08 2010,14:43)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,01:45)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,21:19)

Mike

Not true!

Jesus is the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, because the first Adam did mess up!

Keith,

Your reply is PERFECTION my brother! Jesus was appointed the firstborn because the literal firstborn of men (the first Adam) messed up!

ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

Jack

Roo,
Can you show us the passage where God designates the Son as the Firstborn specifically, or the passage that calls Adam the firstborn?

Thanks!

June 8, 2010 at 8:28 pm#194704

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 08 2010,15:06)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 08 2010,14:43)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,01:45)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,21:19)

Mike

Not true!

Jesus is the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, because the first Adam did mess up!

Keith,

Your reply is PERFECTION my brother! Jesus was appointed the firstborn because the literal firstborn of men (the first Adam) messed up!

ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

Jack

Roo,
Can you show us the passage where God designates the Son as the Firstborn specifically, or the passage that calls Adam the firstborn?

Thanks!

Kathi

Its interesting that before the “New Covenant” no man was called a Son of God except Adam and Jesus.

Therefore both Adam and Jesus were “Unique”.

So Jesus is apoointed all that Adam lost being that he is the second Son of God or “Second Adam” that came directly from God IE, the virgin birth!

Does everything have to be spelled out in scripture?

Maybe you can show us a passage that says Jesus was “procreated” by the Father.

June 8, 2010 at 8:52 pm#194713

Participant

Hi WJ,
Deut 14.1?

June 8, 2010 at 9:05 pm#194722

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 08 2010,15:28)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 08 2010,15:06)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 08 2010,14:43)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 09 2010,01:45)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 07 2010,21:19)

Mike

Not true!

Jesus is the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, because the first Adam did mess up!

Keith,

Your reply is PERFECTION my brother! Jesus was appointed the firstborn because the literal firstborn of men (the first Adam) messed up!

ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL!

Jack

Roo,
Can you show us the passage where God designates the Son as the Firstborn specifically, or the passage that calls Adam the firstborn?

Thanks!

Kathi

Its interesting that before the “New Covenant” no man was called a Son of God except Adam and Jesus.

Therefore both Adam and Jesus were “Unique”.

So Jesus is apoointed all that Adam lost being that he is the second Son of God or “Second Adam” that came directly from God IE, the virgin birth!

Does everything have to be spelled out in scripture?

Maybe you can show us a passage that says Jesus was “procreated” by the Father.

WJ,
If it is not spelled out in scripture then it requires us to believe in man's interpretation…right? Adam was 'born of a virgin'…hmmm?? Well you won't see that in scriptures, will you? You are right that Adam and Jesus are both unique but if they were both unique in the same way, they wouldn't be unique as an 'only begotten son.' Angels were called 'sons of God' before the second covenant, btw. Was the first angel born from a virgin also and thus the 'firstborn' angel-son of God? Strange doctrine you are pushing and I don't buy it…sorry.

I have shown that the term 'firstborn' naturally means the first procreated child from the father. That was in the context of man and who designed the whole idea of what a natural firstborn would be? God! Paul tells us that the Son is the firstborn over all creation and we know that the Son has the nature of God…yes or no? Did David have the nature of God who called him His Firstborn…NO! Did Israel have the nature of God who called the nation as His Firstborn…again, NO! Yet, the Son does. Does God explain anywhere that the Son has been given the title 'firstborn' instead of another more natural firstborn and therefore had to be designated as 'firstborn?' Oh, you already have indirectly admitted that He doesn't.

Your 'designated firstborn' doctrine has no Biblical basis. Your claiming that Adam was 'virgin born' has no Biblical basis either. Adam was created not born, that does have Biblical basis.

June 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm#194735