- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I don't believe that anyone can show some scripture that clearly connects the Son of God with a time of His 'appointing' as firstborn as we can with the appointed firstborn that David and Israel are. So, if there was no specific appointment, then the natural meaning of the term 'firstborn' would be the default understanding…that of being the first procreative act of the Father.
Deu 21:17
Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved 1 wife as firstborn and give him the double portion 2 of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power 3 – to him should go the right of the firstborn.
Notice procreative power is not the same as creative power.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2010,13:12) I don't believe that anyone can show some scripture that clearly connects the Son of God with a time of His 'appointing' as firstborn as we can with the appointed firstborn that David and Israel are. So, if there was no specific appointment, then the natural meaning of the term 'firstborn' would be the default understanding…that of being the first procreative act of the Father.
Hi Kathi,Amen, sister!
peace and love,
mikeQuote (Nick Hassan @ May 31 2010,21:21) Hi LU,
Are you a sister of Jesus?
How?
Hi Nick,
I know that is your way of saying that you cannot point to a scripture that speaks of any time when a special designation of the Son as the 'firstborn' took place. Thanks!I am a sister and a servant of the Jehovah our Righteousness by adoption. How about you, are you a brother and servant of the Jehovah our Righteousness?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2010,16:11) 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….
Not so quick. You need to look deeper.“Dedicate to me every firstborn among the Israelites. The first offspring to be born, of both humans and animals, belongs to me.”
The point is that the rule in Old Testament times, the literal first-born belonged to the LORD, and we do see at least one instance of a first-born losing his privilege to another. This is scripture.
Obviously outside of this God sometimes looked for a special person among men who had a heart after his own and David was such a man. But even here, Saul was the annointed King of Israel and it was through him losing his position for not keeping the LORD's command that opened the door for David to be King of Israel. Had Saul remained faithful, then I am sure that he would have continued to remain the King. Even David had opportunity to take Saul's life but did not touch him because he was the annointed of the LORD.
Jesus of course wasn't chosen as the first-born because of his qualities (alone), but was destined as the first son of God. He was literally God's first-born and like a first-born (and only born) he received the full inheritance of his Father and his Father happens to be God.
1 Samuel 13:14
But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD's command.”So yes, the first-born is the literal first-born unless he loses his privilege in which case it can be passed to another. David was certainly another and wasn't the literal first-born.
Quote (Lightenup @ June 01 2010,13:12) I don't believe that anyone can show some scripture that clearly connects the Son of God with a time of His 'appointing' as firstborn as we can with the appointed firstborn that David and Israel are. So, if there was no specific appointment, then the natural meaning of the term 'firstborn' would be the default understanding…that of being the first procreative act of the Father. Deu 21:17
Rather, he must acknowledge the son of the less loved 1 wife as firstborn and give him the double portion 2 of all he has, for that son is the beginning of his father’s procreative power 3 – to him should go the right of the firstborn.
Notice procreative power is not the same as creative power.
You are probably right.It is written that we will be like him and this is actually a mystery as to what we will become exactly, so that should also mean that Christ is a mystery to some degree too.
There is reference that everything was made through him and for him. This would place him before everything if that was literal.
We also know that he was the Word that was WITH God in the beginning because that Word became flesh and the disciples beheld him.“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.
Jesus also proclaimed that he is the life, just to confirm any doubt that he wasn't the eternal life that was with the Father.
T8………The term “firstborn” still references a Position even if you apply it to a literial first born son. Jesus could not have (become) the First Born Son of GOD unless He recieved it after his berth through an adoption process, because he would already have been the First Born or Begotten right? and why would GOD say. “(THIS) day i have begotten you”, not some distant past before his berth on earth, as you seem to believe brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2010,14:38) T8………The term “firstborn” still references a Position even if you apply it to a literial first born son. Jesus could not have (become) the First Born Son of GOD unless He recieved it after his berth through an adoption process, because he would already have been the First Born or Begotten right? and why would GOD say. “(THIS) day i have begotten you”, not some distant past before his berth on earth, as you seem to believe brother. IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Hi Gene,How do you know when God said, “Today I have begotten you”? Could it not have been the first words Jesus ever heard a zillion years ago? How do you know?
Also, how could God have SENT His only begotten into the world if he wasn't already begotten before he was sent?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2010,22:47) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 01 2010,14:38) T8………The term “firstborn” still references a Position even if you apply it to a literial first born son. Jesus could not have (become) the First Born Son of GOD unless He recieved it after his berth through an adoption process, because he would already have been the First Born or Begotten right? and why would GOD say. “(THIS) day i have begotten you”, not some distant past before his berth on earth, as you seem to believe brother. IMO peace and love to you and yours…………………gene
Hi Gene,How do you know when God said, “Today I have begotten you”? Could it not have been the first words Jesus ever heard a zillion years ago? How do you know?
Also, how could God have SENT His only begotten into the world if he wasn't already begotten before he was sent?
peace and love,
mike
Right Mike,
How do we know when God said that to the Son. It could have been on day one of creation right after God said His first word in the beginning, “Let there be light.”Isn't the Son of God the 'Light of the world' and also the 'word' that was 'in the beginning?'
Hi Kathi,
That sounded so good….for a minute. Then I remembered that God created light through Jesus, right? Isn't light one of the “all things in existence”?
Good night Kathi. I will pray for understanding and for the right words and scriptures needed to share that understanding with others.
peace and love,
mikeQuote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2010,23:09) Hi Kathi, That sounded so good….for a minute. Then I remembered that God created light through Jesus, right? Isn't light one of the “all things in existence”?
Good night Kathi. I will pray for understanding and for the right words and scriptures needed to share that understanding with others.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
Remember that the light of day one is not the light of day four, the sun, moon and stars. If the light of day one is the Son, which is before anything came into a completed existence, the light of day four could have been made through the Son.Quote Gen 1:1-19
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
NASUQuote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2010,16:11) 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….
Hi AllThe view of some is that the word “Begotten” when applied to Jesus means born or “God begets a god”!
What is so funny about this is they not only claim God is asexual and try to prove that the word begotten means God gave literal birth to Jesus before time, but then they completely “Hi jack” the word begotten by reinventing the principle of “every kind bearing after its own kind” and give the word begotten a whole new meaning like…
Man begets a lesser man! Or God begets a lesser god!
If you say the Biblical meaning of “Begotten” means to be born then it should be…
Dog begets Dog!
Man begets Man!
God begets God!
And not…
God begets demigod!
So the definition of the word “begotten” according to the Arian view is not a scriptural view at all is it, and isn't even consistent with the literal definition of the word?
WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2010,23:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2010,23:09) Hi Kathi, That sounded so good….for a minute. Then I remembered that God created light through Jesus, right? Isn't light one of the “all things in existence”?
Good night Kathi. I will pray for understanding and for the right words and scriptures needed to share that understanding with others.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
Remember that the light of day one is not the light of day four, the sun, moon and stars. If the light of day one is the Son, which is before anything came into a completed existence, the light of day four could have been made through the Son.Quote Gen 1:1-19
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
NASU
LUIt doesn't matter because verse 2 says the earth and the waters already existed before day one!
Therefore the “nothing came into existence without him” John 1:3 includes the light of the first day!
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2010,15:39) So the definition of the word “begotten” according to the Arian view is not a scriptural view at all is it, and isn't even consistent with the literak definition of the word? WJ
Hi Wj,So what's the trinitarian accepted definition of “genao”?
peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2010,15:42) LU It doesn't matter because verse 2 says the earth and the waters already existed before day one!
Therefore the “nothing came into existence without him” John 1:3 includes the light of the first day!
I agree with Keith, Kathi.Water was present at the time. Water exists.
mike
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2010,23:42) Quote (Lightenup @ May 31 2010,23:32) Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2010,23:09) Hi Kathi, That sounded so good….for a minute. Then I remembered that God created light through Jesus, right? Isn't light one of the “all things in existence”?
Good night Kathi. I will pray for understanding and for the right words and scriptures needed to share that understanding with others.
peace and love,
mike
Mike,
Remember that the light of day one is not the light of day four, the sun, moon and stars. If the light of day one is the Son, which is before anything came into a completed existence, the light of day four could have been made through the Son.Quote Gen 1:1-19
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
15 and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
NASU
LUIt doesn't matter because verse 2 says the earth and the waters already existed before day one!
Therefore the “nothing came into existence without him” John 1:3 includes the light of the first day!
WJ
WJ,Quote NT:1096
gi/nomai
ginomai (ghin'-om-ahee); a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; to cause to be (“gen”- erate), i.e. (reflexively) to become (come into being), used with great latitude (literal, figurative, intensive, etc.):KJV – arise, be assembled, be (-come, -fall, -haveself), be brought (to pass), (be) come (to pass), continue, be divided, draw, be ended, fall, be finished, follow, be found, be fulfilled, God forbid, grow, happen, have, be kept, be made, be married, be ordained to be, partake, pass, be performed, be published, require, seem, be showed, soon as it was, sound, be taken, be turned, use, wax, will, would, be wrought.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)The ginomai in John 1:3 is a coming into being in a 'completed sense', not an incompleted sense. The earth certainly wasn't complete before day one of creation and the waters weren't in their completed state before day one of creation either.
John 1 already establishes the presence of the word and you don't believe that the 'word' brought the 'word' into existence do you? The word existed before all things that came into being yet the word didn't always exist no matter how badly you would want that. The all things that came into being was obviously not including the God that the 'word' was with, yet the God that the 'word' was with, existed…right? Or are you suggesting that even the God that the 'word' was with came into existence through the 'word.' I know that you don't think that which would be foolish right? We have to use some understanding here. If everything came into being through the word, that would naturally mean those things beyond the 'word' and the one that spoke the 'word.'
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 31 2010,23:46) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2010,15:42) LU It doesn't matter because verse 2 says the earth and the waters already existed before day one!
Therefore the “nothing came into existence without him” John 1:3 includes the light of the first day!
I agree with Keith, Kathi.Water was present at the time. Water exists.
mike
Mike,
The deep was there in its incomplete state as well as the earth being there in an incompleted state. It was day two and three that they were completed and called “heaven” and “earth:”Gen 1:6-10
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
NASUQuote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2010,02:55) Quote (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
mike
Mike,Lol your counting?
its a good stradegy dont you think?
i think he got it from me, when i did the same about nick, but mine was more.. well prudent.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2010,23:39) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2010,16:11) 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….
Hi AllThe view of some is that the word “Begotten” when applied to Jesus means born or “God begets a god”!
What is so funny about this is they not only claim God is asexual and try to prove that the word begotten means God gave literal birth to Jesus before time, but then they completely “Hi jack” the word begotten by reinventing the principle of “every kind bearing after its own kind” and give the word begotten a whole new meaning like…
Man begets a lesser man! Or God begets a lesser god!
If you say the Biblical meaning of “Begotten” means to be born then it should be…
Dog begets dog!
Man begets man!
God begets God!
And not…
God begets demigod!
So the definition of the word “begotten” according to the Arian view is not a scriptural view at all is it, and isn't even consistent with the literal definition of the word?
WJ
You're right on that WJ,
God begets God, not a demigod.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
