Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
When there are sacred writings to read why would anyone bother with those of carnal men?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,13:46)

Hi MB, When there are sacred writings to read why would anyone bother with those of carnal men?

Hi Nick,

Are you saying I shouldn't bother with anything you post?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Certainly only what is of scripture is useful.
mem following men finish up in a pit

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,14:06)

Hi MB, Certainly only what is of scripture is useful. mem following men finish up in a pit

And is it not in scripture that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
And what scriptures have you found that support your idea of how this verse should be read?

[JustAskin]

'Name' means 'power'.

Jesus was made 'lower' than the angels, made in the form of flesh, for the purpose of glorifying the Father.

Just as Pharoah was made mighty so God would throw him down, so the Son was made low so God would raise him up.

Pharoah, Made mighty in power, ruled by the 'power of his name', 'power in his name'.

Jesus acquired power through his name, acquired power 'IN' his name and thus became 'higher than the angels'.

Recall that 'he emptied himself' of his divinity.

Jesus was fully man while on earth. Man, in as 'perfect a way as God made Adam', and if some say 'imperfect to allow mankind to have room for change and self development…(for we are gods ourselves…let him who has wisdom understand the simple concept!), then let that be instead, or also.

In this state, all that Jesus did, any man could also do, albeit that man was in sin and fell short of the full light of God.
Jesus demonstrated that, if man believed by faith, then he too could do miracles, that if he truthfully called on the name (power) of the Father, as he always did, then man could acquire the Holy Spirit of the Father and perform wonders.
But even as he expoused and expounded this too his disciples, they, even they, fell short…Peter walking on the water, understanding the purpose of the bread and fish miracles… It was really only after pentecost when the power of the Holy Spirit was poured in them, that they really came into their own.

They, too, where then, 'anointed of God' by a similar anointing as was for Jesus, a baptisms, not of water, but of the Holy Spirit, a cleansing, but not yet a 'rebirth' as 'Begotten Sons of God' as this will only happen after, or at, the first resurrection from the dead.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,19:23)

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

Mike,
My response did not directly address your point, it indirectly addressed it. The Son is God over His kingdom and that is the point. If you are transferred into the kingdom of His Son as Col 1 suggests, then He is your God in His kingdom.

Col 1:13-14
13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NASU

Are you not part of the Son's kingdom Mike? Jesus is God in His kingdom…anyone in the kingdom would naturally be serving the one who was God in that kingdom.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,14:18)

Hi MB, And what scriptures have you found that support your idea of how this verse should be read?

Well Nick,

There's Rev 3:14 for sure. And there's all the scriptures that say Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Is anyone else in scripture called that? Is anyone else said to even be “begotten of God”?

Is that enough?

mike

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
So what does ONLY BEGOTTEN Mean?
Certainly not that he was THE only son who was begotten

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,14:25)

Mike, My response did not directly address your point, it indirectly addressed it. The Son is God over His kingdom and that is the point. If you are transferred into the kingdom of His Son as Col 1 suggests, then He is your God in His kingdom. Col 1:13-14 13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NASU Are you not part of the Son's kingdom Mike? Jesus is God in His kingdom…anyone in the kingdom would naturally be serving the one who was God in that kingdom.

Hi Kathi,

So when God called the judges of Israel gods, they were God over Israel? The Israelites should have worshipped them as God?

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,14:32)

Hi MB, So what does ONLY BEGOTTEN Mean? Certainly not that he was THE only son who was begotten

He was the only son ever begotten by God.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
All mankind is as grass.
Jesus too was of mankind, born of woman.
But we, like him, should have been born again of the living Word of God, the Spirit[1Peter1]

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,20:46)

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

Hi Mike,
Thanks for being my defense attorney…good job! I actually could agree with either of those documents and sign my name to it. WJ and Roo couldn't because of the “begotten before all ages” bit since they don't believe the Son was begotten until Mary (WJ) and the resurrection (Roo).

I guess I don't have to respond to their long posts since this is the case.

Did you see my posts about the firstborn having the sense of firstfruits both over all creation and from among the dead? God is so good to give us insights like that.

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Some study on MONOGENES may show that interpretation is wide of the mark.
We too can be reborn from above, begotten of the Spirit of Christ

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,14:41)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,20:46) 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 Hi Mike, Thanks for being my defense attorney…good job!  I actually could agree with either of those documents and sign my name to it.  WJ and Roo couldn't because of the “begotten before all ages” bit since they don't believe the Son was begotten until Mary (WJ) and the resurrection (Roo). I guess I don't have to respond to their long posts since this is the case. Did you see my posts about the firstborn having the sense of firstfruits both over all creation and from among the dead?  God is so good to give us insights like that.

Hi Kathi,

I forgot all about you! Before I posted your “defense”, I looked through all the other posts to see if you had seen Roo's post and answered. Even then, I knew I should have waited and let you handle it, but I just couldn't. So the first thing I was going to say in my post was “Sorry, Kathi – I couldn't wait”. Then I started copying and pasting a totally spaced it out. Oops.

Anyway, yes I liked the first-fruits post. And yes, God is good for leading us to what we need. It's funny you mention it, because I just posted a thanks to God for the same reason in Deut 6:4 thread.

mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,14:42)

Hi MB, Some study on MONOGENES may show that interpretation is wide of the mark. We too can be reborn from above, begotten of the Spirit of Christ

Et tu, Brute?

Show me scripturally that monogenes COULD NOT have meant only begotten in a “caused to exist” way. Ignatius and Eusebius seemed to differ with you, Nick. Who to believe…..people who actually understood the language of the NT better than we do, or you and Roo?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,14:37)

Hi MB, All mankind is as grass. Jesus too was of mankind, born of woman. But we, like him, should have been born again of the living Word of God, the Spirit[1Peter1]

Hi Nick,

Who else was born of a human woman and God's Spirit as a Father?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
None.
But MONOGENES bears no relationship to that either.

Isaac was a MONOGENES Son[Heb 11.17]
Both were anointed

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 15 2010,15:02)

Hi MB, None. But MONOGENES bears no relationship to that either. Isaac was a MONOGENES Son[Heb 11.17] Both were anointed

Yes, and was Isaac also begotten as in “caused to exist”?

[NickHassan]

Hi MB,
Monogenes does not mean that either.
It seems you are reading your preconceptions into the text.

God declared Jesus as His Son after He had anointed him

[Author]

Posts