Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,22:32)

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

Mike,

Are you just wanting to argue because I sense that you understand the Israelites didn't think of the judges called gods as divine in any sense. I don't think they were confused that the judges were given a role as to speak for God and only a temporary role, not an eternal role. Jesus has an eternal role as God's Word and called “God” in that eternal role in His kingdom by His God. And this one called God IS divine.

Can you tell me if anyone that has eternal life is not in the kingdom of the Son who is called God?

[mikeboll64]

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

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

First, you authoritively claim that you know what monogenes DOESN'T mean, and they accuse me of reading into it?

And you support this with the fact that God ANNOUCED to people present at Jesus' baptism that this IS my Son. He didn't say, “This has just BECOME my Son”, did He?

We know that Jesus was the Son of Man. He said the Son of Man CAME FROM heaven. We know that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. Why wouldn't we also assume, since the Greek words actually say it, that the only begotten Son of God ALSO came from heaven?

I've gotta watch King of Queens now.

good night to you sir
mike

[mikeboll64]

oops,

The Greek words don't say he came from heaven, sorry, that was a bad choice of words. But they do say only begotten, and I don't see any scriptural reason to assume it means anything other than the Greek words mean.

I'm really going this time,

later,
mike

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 14 2010,22:51)

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

Mike,
Don't be sorry to ever step up and defend me…I like it, and it saves me a lot of time too.

I love the first fruits idea because it really conveys that the Son was the first fruit of God, the first that God brought to life and through which He created all other life.  Also, the first that God brought to resurrected life.

WJ doesn't seem to think that first fruits is an idea that can be connected to the idea of firstborn because it is not in the definition.  He may have missed the verse I posted.

Ps 105:36
36 He also struck down all the firstborn in their land, The first fruits of all their vigor.
NASU

This verse is talking about the passover when the God killed all the firstborn children of Egypt.  This verse clearly shows that 'first fruits' is associated with 'firstborn.'  Mike, you can see that…right?

[Lightenup]

WJ and Roo,
You have discussed so many points you make my head spin. Pick your main one and let's start there…please!

[Lightenup]

Here is how the NET translates this verse:

Psa 105:36
He struck down all the firstborn in their land, the firstfruits of their reproductive power.

[Lightenup]

It seems here in this verse that what Roo thinks Jesus is, the 'we' in this verse really are and not Jesus:

James 1:18

NET ©
By his sovereign plan he gave us birth 1 through the message of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

NIV ©
He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

NASB ©
In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.

NLT ©
In his goodness he chose to make us his own children by giving us his true word. And we, out of all creation, became his choice possession.

MSG ©
He brought us to life using the true Word, showing us off as the crown of all his creatures.

BBE ©
Of his purpose he gave us being, by his true word, so that we might be, in a sense, the first-fruits of all the things which he had made.

NRSV ©
In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures.

NKJV ©
Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

The 'we' here are actually more in line with being designated as firstfruits of His creatures.

[SimplyForgiven]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,15:52)

WJ and Roo, You have discussed so many points you make my head spin.  Pick your main one and let's start there…please!

Than ya should start a formal debate.

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=3267

[SimplyForgiven]

This thread is heated!!!!

[mikeboll64]

Hi Kathi,

Seriously, let it go please.  Jesus is not the God that I worship.  Scripture is VERY clear that there is only ONE that we should worship and serve as God.  His name is YHVH and He is the ONLY One with that name, no matter how you, Paul and Roo try to twist the scriptures.

Did you not see my “Son of Man” post where Jesus switches between first and third person wording?  I noticed you didn't respond to it.  So I'm NOT falling for this “Jesus is also Jehovah because of first to third person wording”.

I will worship the one Jehovah God Almighty only.  Not His Son Jesus.  Not His arm Jesus.  Not His servant Jesus.  Not His Christ Jesus.  And not His Holy Spirit.  I will worship nothing OF His – just Him.

I have no problem discussing Zechariah and other scriptures with you, but you are sounding like WJ and Roo with their, “You say he is a god, but he's NOT YOUR god, Mike?”  “Is he a false god, Mike?”  And so on and so forth.  It's getting old because I have answered yours and their points over and over.

Kathi, I like you, but PLEASE let this kind of badgering stop.

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,15:48)

This verse is talking about the passover when the God killed all the firstborn children of Egypt.  This verse clearly shows that 'first fruits' is associated with 'firstborn.'  Mike, you can see that…right?

Hi Kathi,

Yes, I can clearly see it.  It was/is a good point, and they can't refute it.  

You know what I can't get?  I started to learned about God and His Son just from reading the Bible on my own.  I've always just “knew” that only begotten Son meant that Jesus was the only son of God that was directly begotten from the Father.  We know that all other things came from the Father through the Son, so it just made sense to me.  But I can't believe all the people who have come to different understandings about something I thought was written and explained so obviously that it required no thought.

It's a trip, really, to me.  But I can say the same thing about Jehovah.  I just read the scriptures and NEVER got an inkling that there were more than one Jehovah.  Again, I thought that was a no-brainer.  And again, many people have different understandings.  

Oh well.  I like that I have to delve deeper into scripture that I did just reading it to either find support for my beliefs or to scrap them for the scriptural truth.

Anyway, your firstfruits point is good, as are many of your points.

peace and love,
mike

[Arnold]

Quote (JustAskin @ June 02 2010,03:25)

What can I say – Should I say? Shall I make a revelation this day? Light a match, strike a Spark! Truth emerges from the dark How long will it remain – before getting coverd by the stain? But let this serve as a lesson… Who knows the answer to 'Begotten”?

Hey  I like that, but there are Scriptures in Proverbs that tells us that Jesus was brought forth by the Father long before anything was created.  It was Jesus that created all by the power of Jehovah God…. When I read in Proverbs it makes it clear that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation before the World was.  And by Jesus own words He said in John 17:5 that He was with the Father before the world was….That means before all was created.  Why do so many fall over the word firstborn??? Don't you have a firstborn child?  We do, Kathi does…..Nick does…. I seen some of His on a picture….Face book….. Col. 1:15 says firstborn and so does Rev. 3:14 in
Col. 1:18  says that Jesus also was the firstborn of the dead so that He may have preeminence, meaning He was first to be born and first to be resurrected from the dead….. firstborn of the dead…..
Peace and Love Irene

[JustAskin]

Irene,

The problem is in 'refinement' of knowledge.

Taken at it's most simplistic level, it is obvious that 'firstborn' means 'the first in line by birth'.

Ok, hold that thought and run with it through everything in Scriptures. Does it work? always? Why not?

When one comes across Isaac being Abraham's 'firstborn', what do you do? Skip over it and read on.

When you read that Isaac was Abraham's 'Only Son', what do you do? Skip over it and read on.

Step back,
chillax!
From where does all the fuss come?
Check out the Hebrew Custom.

This is nothing new, just re-iteration…

Hebrew custom teaches that the 'first born'(1) Son inherits the 'lions share' of his fathers estate. No problem there.

The other brothers are inconsequential in the annals of the bloodline.

But, if something were to happen to that 'first born' that prevents him taking up his inheritance, then another from among his brothers (not necessarilly, nor automatically, the second in line of birth) would take up the inheritance.

This, then, is being begotten 'firstborn'(2). It is like the 'first born'(1) is no longer consequential.

The inheritance is now with the one distinguished from among his brothers, not by being 'first by birth' but by being 'first by Rank' and this we show by the term 'Begotten', an unfortunate multi-used word in the same vein as 'God' and 'god(s)' and 'LORD' and 'Lord(s)' and 'lords'.

Begotten, as has been shown, means many thing based around 'Coming to be', 'Raised up', 'Being Born'(Physically, Spiritually or Figuratively), 'Being Promiment, preEminent', 'First in line…by rank'

Therefore every reading of 'Begotten' and 'first*born' must be read 'Contextually'.

So to revisit…
Why was Isaac considered to be Abraham's 'Begotten Son'? Contextually…
Because, even though Ishmael was Abraham's 'first born'(1), he was born/ begotten in Sin, through the Slave woman, Hagar. Therefore Isaac had to be 'Begotten'…'raised in rank order' as 'firstborn'(2) and thus to him was the inheritance.

Why then is Isaac also known as Abraham's 'Only Son'?
Because Ishmael 'sinned'(not him literally, but through being the product of a union that God did not authorise), therefore he was 'cut off' and became nolonger…consequential in the annals of Abraham's bloodline…(but that God made a covenance with him also)

So, Isaac is Abraham's Only Begotten Son, even though we know he had other sons. Isaac is the only on 'brought up in rank order above, and among, his brothers.'

Is this concept repeated elsewhere in Scriptures?
Can anyone, someone give one other example, please?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,13:28)

His name is YHVH and He is the ONLY One with that name, no matter how you, Paul and Roo try to twist the scriptures.

What scriptural texts have I twisted? The list them and describe exactly how they have been twisted by me.

Or retract this baseless allegation.

[Ed J]

.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 15 2010,19:17)

Quote “I am” is not the translation of YHVH.  Did Jesus ever say he was the “I will be who I will be”? “I will be who I will be”” is not used in the NT at all, so your point is not a cogent one. “I am” is an appelative used of YHWH in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. It's rendered “ego eimi” in the LXX.

Quote

Pay attention to the details: Revelation 22:20 records: “He who (testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly ” Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

Hi Isaiah 1:18,

Obviously you don't pay attention to the details.
Rev.22:20: He which testifieth these things saith,
Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I God: I “will be”=63
exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

                    JEHOVAH Son=117
Rev.21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and
I(YHVH=63) “will be”=63 his God, and he shall be my son.

                            “YHVH is GOD”=117
PSALM 117 is [The Bible's Center Chapter], and
the [smallest chapter] of the [LARGEST BOOK]!

Witnessing to the world in behalf of YHVH (Psalm 45:17)
117=יהוה האלהים(JEHOVAH GOD) YÄ-hä-vā  hä ĔL-ō-Hêêm!
Ed J (AKJV Joshua 22:34 / Isaiah 60:13-15)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 16 2010,18:31)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,13:28) His name is YHVH and He is the ONLY One with that name, no matter how you, Paul and Roo try to twist the scriptures. What scriptural texts have I twisted? The list them and describe exactly how they have been twisted by me. Or retract this baseless allegation.

Hmmmm…..

Jeremiah said that Christ's NAME is “YHWH our righteousness.” Isaiah said that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to YHWH (Is. 45). Paul applied this to Jesus (Philippians 2).

the Roo

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 16 2010,18:31)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 16 2010,13:28) His name is YHVH and He is the ONLY One with that name, no matter how you, Paul and Roo try to twist the scriptures. What scriptural texts have I twisted? The list them and describe exactly how they have been twisted by me. Or retract this baseless allegation.

Then there is the angel who said that His name shall be called “Jesus, for He shall save HIS people from their sins. The name “Jesus” means “Jehovah saves.” So the angel must have been “twisting” God's truth.

The common canned anti-trinitarian reply is that Joshua also means “Jehovah saves.” But the BIG difference between Joshua and Jesus is this: Joshua could not save them,

8 “For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God.” (Heb. 4:8-9)

Since Jesus gives us rest when Joshua could not, then Jesus is truly and properly “Jehovah saves” and Joshua was but a shadowy type of Jesus.

the Roo

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,00:46)

It seems here in this verse that what Roo thinks Jesus is, the 'we' in this verse really are and not Jesus: James 1:18 NET © By his sovereign plan he gave us birth 1  through the message of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. NIV © He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. NASB © In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. NLT © In his goodness he chose to make us his own children by giving us his true word. And we, out of all creation, became his choice possession. MSG © He brought us to life using the true Word, showing us off as the crown of all his creatures. BBE © Of his purpose he gave us being, by his true word, so that we might be, in a sense, the first-fruits of all the things which he had made. NRSV © In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures. NKJV © Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. The 'we' here are actually more in line with being designated as firstfruits of His creatures.

And why do you think that the word 'Firstfruits” (aparchē) has to equal to 'Firstborn” (prōtotokos) in Col 1:15?

Of the eight times the word “Firstfruits” is found in the NT, Paul uses it 5 times and it is never used to speak to Jesus origin!

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,04:41)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,00:46) It seems here in this verse that what Roo thinks Jesus is, the 'we' in this verse really are and not Jesus: James 1:18 NET © By his sovereign plan he gave us birth 1  through the message of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. NIV © He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. NASB © In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. NLT © In his goodness he chose to make us his own children by giving us his true word. And we, out of all creation, became his choice possession. MSG © He brought us to life using the true Word, showing us off as the crown of all his creatures. BBE © Of his purpose he gave us being, by his true word, so that we might be, in a sense, the first-fruits of all the things which he had made. NRSV © In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures. NKJV © Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. The 'we' here are actually more in line with being designated as firstfruits of His creatures. And why do you think that the word 'Firstfruits” (aparchē) has to equal to 'Firstborn” (prōtotokos) in Col 1:15? Of the eight times the word “Firstfruits” is found in the NT, Paul uses it 5 times and it is never used to speak to Jesus origin! WJ

Keith,

Kathi is not paying attention to what she is doing here. The verse she employs speaks of a becoming in their assumed existence and not about their first coming into existence. So if the word “firstfruits” is equivalent to “firstborn”, then Kathi is working for us.

Jack

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 16 2010,13:01)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 17 2010,04:41) Quote (Lightenup @ June 15 2010,00:46) It seems here in this verse that what Roo thinks Jesus is, the 'we' in this verse really are and not Jesus: James 1:18 NET © By his sovereign plan he gave us birth 1  through the message of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. NIV © He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. NASB © In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures. NLT © In his goodness he chose to make us his own children by giving us his true word. And we, out of all creation, became his choice possession. MSG © He brought us to life using the true Word, showing us off as the crown of all his creatures. BBE © Of his purpose he gave us being, by his true word, so that we might be, in a sense, the first-fruits of all the things which he had made. NRSV © In fulfillment of his own purpose he gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of his creatures. NKJV © Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. The 'we' here are actually more in line with being designated as firstfruits of His creatures. And why do you think that the word 'Firstfruits” (aparchē) has to equal to 'Firstborn” (prōtotokos) in Col 1:15? Of the eight times the word “Firstfruits” is found in the NT, Paul uses it 5 times and it is never used to speak to Jesus origin! WJ Keith, Kathi is not paying attention to what she is doing here. The verse she employs speaks of a becoming in their assumed existence and not about their first coming into being. So if the word “firstfruits” is equivalent to “firstborn”, then Kathi is working for us. Jack

Jack

Good point!

If they become the “firstfruit” who already existed then it blows a hole in the concept!

Blessings Keith

[Author]

Posts