Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

[NickHassan]

Hi KJ,
The opinions of weak and carnal men offer little to truth.
But he was a good enough librarian

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 14 2010,14:42)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 13 2010,21:06) Quote (Lightenup @ June 14 2010,09:59) Can you just come to terms that the Son is YOUR Mighty god/God who has a God? Sorry Kathi, My God doesn't have a God He answers to.  Give it up, girl.   mike Mike, I beg to differ… Heb 1 something But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

Hi Kathi,

What does that scripture have to do with what I said? Jesus is called god, and it is made clear that HIS god is the one who set him above all others.

My God does not need another God to set Him anywhere.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Oh WJ, what am I going to do with you?  

You said:

Quote

Why are you denying the fact that Eusebius had changed his position?

I didn't deny it, I explained his lack of choices very well, I thought.  I used Roo's info to do it.

You said:

Quote

Its hillarious that you call on Trinitarians like Eusebius who spoke of the Trinity and you have yet to show us where he says Jesus had a beginning!

You're kidding, right?

Quote

Its also hillarious that you talk about Ignatious disproving the Trinity when you haven't read his writings obviously and its especially hillarious that he calls Jesus his God yet we know they were strict Monotheist!

WJ, they both thought that Jesus was begotten by the Father before the ages, and was the firstborn of everything God created, also before the ages.

Sorry, man…..that's the way it is.  And it's sad that you weren't honest enough of a person to deal with those facts when I shoved them right in front of you.  Many times.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 15 2010,01:30)

Mike and JA Why should Jack agree to JA being a judge between the two who is obviously biased towards Mike and even calls him his “begotten brother”? Thats funny that you guys would even request such. Tell you what Mike, how about if someone who doesn't post here that much like Paul (Isa 1:18) be the judge, how about that? WJ

Hi WJ,

First, JA didn't even suggest himself.

Second, what do you mean “you guys”? What did I say?

I would have no problem with Paul. I've actually challenged Roo to finish our debate with Simply Forgiven as a “judge”.

mike

[KangarooJack]

Mikeboll said to kathi:

Quote

Jesus is called god, and it is made clear that HIS god is the one who set him above all others.

TO ALL:

First, as usual Mike speaks a half truth and a half truth is a whole lie. Yes Christ's Father set Him above all others. This is because Jesus made Himself nothing in the first place (Philippians 2).

Second, if Jesus is set above all others then He is not a god in the “same sense” as satan because God did not set satan up as a god. Satan is a usurper. Yet Mike believes that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan.

Third, If Jesus is above all others then He is above Mike which means that Jesus is Mike's god. But Mike denies that Jesus is his god.

Fourth, if God set Jesus above all others and Jesus is not God, then God set up an idol.

Kangaroo Jack

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,02:46)

WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll: Quote Here is what is really hillarious, that you say Jesus is “a god” but he is not “your god” and you can't even say he is a god over anyone, yet you say satan is the god of this world and is a mighty god over the people of the world! What is sad is that Mike believes that Jesus is a god in the “same sense” as satan. Yet Hebrews says that He has inherited a name that is “so much better” than the angels. I have been reading on JW forums and Mike doesn't hold a candle to them. Our JW friend David seems to keep his distance from Mike. the Roo

Hi Jack,

Let me ask a serious question.  What does this kind of post really prove?

a.  You dislike me.
b.  You think I'm unintelligent.
c.  You think I'm ignorant to scriptures and things related to them.

Okay.  I'm fine with that.  But if I'm so ignorant and unintelligent, why are you the one who always runs away from me?    If I don't know what I'm talking about, it should be like taking candy from a baby to prove me wrong, right?  But instead, you run from my questions just to post negative things about me.  Stand and fight, man.  Answer my direct points.  Stop running away.  

Here's an example:  Could Eusebius have taken Col 1:15 to mean Jesus was “preeminent over mankind” when he thought that verse referred to Jesus “before all the ages”?  Were there mankind at that point that Jesus was preeminent over?

See.  A very simple straightforward question.  Will he answer the question, ladies and gentleman?  Or will he avoid it and post more nonsense?  Time will tell.  

You said:

Quote

Anything Eusebius said or wrote before he submitted to and signed the Nicean creed doesn't count.

So what he actually believed and wrote doesn't count, but the “revised” version after the council got done “doctoring” his statement does?  You got to hand it to those trinitarians.

I've shown you proof that he submitted under threat of being excommunicated by Alexander.  You've posted proof that he submitted to “the oposition” after coming to believe that Arius thought that Jesus wasn't even divine at all.

So what you are saying is that you would believe the doctored confession of a man made while under duress than the totally opposite confession he made of his free will before the duress began?  Do you really think the “doctored confession” reflects the TRUE beliefs of Eusebius?  Hmmm……..

I'll stick with the actual letter he wrote in his own words, thanks.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (JustAskin @ June 15 2010,04:46)

Did someone miss a trick earlier…. If Mike and 'roo' are debating and Mike is also the Mediator? remind anyone of anything…

So good! I'm still laughing!

peace and love,
mike

[karmarie]

Just some thoughts,

Scripture and Ignatius,

The Word became flesh (became Jesus)  , Jesus was raised up to a position which is higher than all others (Except for God the Fathers which is above all others, Jesus will never be God the Father), so Jesus is at the right hand side of God, he gained that. He has earned the title of 'God',  though He isnt God the Father, He is and always was the Son of God. But only now has become something higher than just the Son?

Scripture says…”but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom”.

Ignatius.
.”The ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for “of His kingdom there shall be no end. (VI).

————————————————-

Ignatius…
…..”But our Physician is the Only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son.

We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.” (VII).

The early church, early Apostles would have been accused of having more than one God, How, after all the deaths and Martyrs could they protect themselves?

A) Try to claim they have only one God, so there came the Trinity

or

B) Try to say Jesus was no god. 'Denying the Son'.

“Those who try to save their own life will lose it, they who lose their life for the sake of the kingdom will gain it..

[mikeboll64]

Hi All,

Kathi had posted the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 A.D.  The words “begotten of the Father before all worlds” are definitely in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#cite_note-7

Roo said:

Quote

Kathi is not paying attention to my posts. She is really slipping up big time lately. The excerpt she gives above is from the original creed that Eusebius drafted and submitted to the Council of Nicea. The Council revised Eusebius' creed and omitted “begotten before all ages” and in its stead they inserted”, “that is, of one substance with the Father.”

You are wrong Roo.  You can see the 325 Creed side by side with the 381 Creed at the above site.  And it is not even clear that Eusebius penned the 325 Creed.  And both of the actual Creeds readily admit that the Son was begotten of the Father.  Genao, Jack, not monogenes.  Remember?  The Greek word that you say still DID mean “caused to exist”.

So again, is this kind of talk below necessary?

Quote

I am going to give you the beneift of the doubt for having poor reading comprehension skills. But if you continue to revise history like Mikeboll then I will be forced to think much less of you. Please! One history revisionist is enough here! the Roo

Who's the one revising history, Jack?

And JA, as moderator, maybe you should check the info before passing a judgement.  Especially if the conflict involves Roo.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,05:50)

Kathi said: Quote The Son didn't stop being a son to become a son in the flesh. It was by becoming flesh that Jesus became a Son. Paul said that he was “born according to the seed of David and decreed to be the Son of God” (Rom. 1). Jesus could not have neen God's Son before becoming flesh because ONLY MEN ARE SONS OF GOD. the Roo

I thought Dennison already schooled you on this. I guess it didn't take.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 15 2010,06:04)

Quote (JustAskin @ June 15 2010,05:17) To All, Please try to abide by this information that KJ has issued. Discussion cannot move forward if inadmissable information is brought into play – whether by lack of understanding or for other reasons. [JA – Moderator] JA, Thanks! I appreciate that you understand this. It is only that which Eusebius believed in the end that counts. KJ

Just like you guys to give credit for someone who was mistaken.

Eusebius wrote from his heart what he believed. The early tinitarians CHANGED the very words he wrote to make it fit in better with THEIR beliefs.

But his changed words are what you think is important?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 15 2010,07:41)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 14 2010,11:16) Worshippingjesus said to Mikeboll: Quote Why are you denying the fact that Eusebius had changed his position? Keith, Mike must continue his filibuster. He can't admit that Eusebius changed his position. Did you read the true story I told about an elder at my church who wrote essays which said that Christ was not God in the flesh? This was ten years ago. I submitted a letter of complaint to the governing body at my church and they referred my complaint to a higher governing body in the denomination. That higher governing body called the elder in to examine him and he recanted of his errors. For a while I continued to hold the elder's former errors against him. Then finally a wise elder corrected me saying, “In the end he got it right.” This inferred that the writings of the errant elder before he recanted didn't count. In the end the elder got it right. Anything Eusebius said or wrote before he submitted to and signed the Nicean creed doesn't count. In the end Eusebius got it right. Even sometime before Eusebius must have changed because he submitted his own creed to the council of Nicea and they accepted it as “orthodox.” Then they revised it and Eusebius signed it. So in the end all 300 plus church fathers including Eusebius spoke with ONE voice saying that the word “begotten” in reference to Jesus meant that He is “of ONE substance with the Father.” This goes right along with our view on the word “begotten.” So you and I have ALL the church fathers including Eusebius on our side. Jack Jack Good points. Mike has denied the numbers that did agree! WJ

Hi WJ,

And you guys deny that the Creed was bitterly denounced by many, and actually revoked by later councils, which changed it to state that the Son is, “…of like substance” with the Father, and “we call the Son like  the Father, as the Holy Scriptures call him and teach.”

You also turn a blind eye to the fact that your third god was barely mentioned until 381.  If the trinity is true and inspired, why wasn't the Holy Spirit included from the very first creed?   Hmmmm……..

[KangarooJack]

REMINDER WITH NOTATION ADDED (bold purple):

A Jehovah's Witness concurs that Jesus could not have always been the “only begotten Son”

“If Jesus was always the 'only begotten son' he would have “always” been better than the other angels and his name would “always” have been better than thiers.”

The JW even uses my argument from Psalm 89 regarding king David:

“Also, King David prefigures Jesus in the pre-eminence of his Kingship as regards to Jehovah God. David was neither the first King in Israel, nor was he even the first male born in his family ( I think he was actually the last). Yet Jehovah covenanted to David that he would have a kingship that would last forever. Even more than that he stated at Psalms 89:20,27“

Note: The JW equates the idea of “preeminence” with David being covenanted by Jehovah to be the “firstborn.”

<a href="http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/forum/showthread.php?3797-How-was-Jesus-quot-the-Firstborn-quot-and-the-quot-only-begotten-Son-q
uot” target=”_blank”>http://e-jehovahs-witnesses.com/forum&#8230;.on-quot

Not all JW's are wrong all of the time.    It is self evident that if Jesus had always been the only begotten Son, then He always would have been superior to the angels. But He CLEARLY was lower than the angels in the days of His flesh.

Hebrews 2:9 NWT:

” 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].”

Therefore, the name “begotten Son” in reference to Jesus cannot mean that Jesus is the first to “come into being.” Mikeboll has turned a deaf ear to common sense on this point. But maybe he will consider the word of one of his own.

I'll be back!

the Roo

[NickHassan]

Hi KJ,
Yes he was brgotten of God's Spirit at the Jordan.
But you claim commonsense as your friend?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,10:11)

Hi KJ, The opinions of weak and carnal men offer little to truth. But he was a good enough librarian

Yes Nick,

And he was a great teacher and theologian.  I think we've all lost site of the fact that this thread was never supposred to be about creeds or what Eusebius signed or even what his beliefs about God were.  

It was simply to show whether the phrase “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant “firstborn of every creature” OR “preeminent over mankind”.  And it is abundantly clear that no matter how Eusebius believed about God and His Son, his “before all the ages” wording says he couldn't possibly have  thought that “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant “preeminent over mankind”.

So when Roo starts spouting off about “pasa ktisis ALWAYS refers to mankind”, as if he was one of the NT writers himself, we now know that to be a false statement.

And since we can now understand that the Greek words really DID mean exactly what they said, it is even more clear that Jesus didn't always exist, and therefore cannot be God.

peace and love,
mike

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Many men are hailed as great teachers but their fruit is in doubt.
But was he working in the anointing of God's Spirit?
A man who dithers is no example.

[mikeboll64]

A Jehovah's Witness concurs that Jesus could not have always been the “only begotten Son”

“If Jesus was always the 'only begotten son' he would have “always” been better than the other angels and his name would “always” have been better than thiers.”

[mikeboll64]

This is the same statement with one minor change. I bolded the changed part.

“If Jesus was always GOD he would have “always” been better than the other angels and his name would “always” have been better than thiers.”

Hmmmmm…….

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,13:30)

Hi MB, Many men are hailed as great teachers but their fruit is in doubt. But was he working in the anointing of God's Spirit? A man who dithers is no example.

That's besides the point, Nick. Do you think Eusebius was capable of interpreting the NT language even if he wasn't anointed by spirit?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 15 2010,13:33)

This is the same statement with one minor change.  I bolded the changed part. “If Jesus was always GOD he would have “always” been better than the other angels and his name would “always” have been better than thiers.” Hmmmmm…….

And Roo, I'll bet you didn't even notice the “OTHER angels” part, huh?

But still you choose to post it. Again, hmmm……..

[Author]

Posts