Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

Participant

Gene said:

Quote

All…….when Jesus described himself, what did he say, did he say he literately preexisted his berth, NO he did not ever say that. But He giving reference to himself said .

Jesus said, “Before Abraham was I AM.”

June 2, 2010 at 4:37 pm#193720

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 02 2010,14:04)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,10:14)

I am still waiting for you to show me. You have said that Moses was a “savior.” Yet Moses included himself among the delivered saying that it was the Messenger of YHWH who delivered them out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16).

Hi Roo,

We are told explicitly that King Saul saved Israel from the Philistines. Not to mention Gideon, Caleb, Johsua and many more who saved others. Doesn't saving someone make you a savior? God promised a Messiah THROUGH whom HE would save us. God is the ultimate savior. Did Jesus teach that he came on his own to do his own will and save us? Or did his God SEND him to do his God's will which was to save us?

peace and love,
mike

TO ALL:

Mike's ststement above is nonsense! Saul delivered the people from the Philistines in the same way that Patton won the battle of El Guettar…WITH AN ARMY! Give me a break!

Mike says also that Joshua was a “savior” though the book of Hebrews explicitly says that he was not:

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

Salvation is depicted as “rest” in this passage. It says that Joshua did NOT give them rest, i.e., salvation.

Back to the ole drawing board for Mike.

the Roo

June 2, 2010 at 6:18 pm#193721

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=70

Participant

Mikeboll said:

Quote

I don't ask anyone to interpret scripture the way Eusebius did. But from his letter we can see that he took Col 1:15 to literally mean that Christ was the “firstborn of all creation”, not “preeminant over mankind” as Roo asserts. Eusebius thought that Jesus was the “first-born of every creature, before all the ages”. That eliminates the possibility that Eusebius thought it to mean “preeminant over mankind”.

TO ALL:

First, Mike has overlooked the fact that Eusebius believed in the “eternal generation” of the Son. Note that Eusebius' creed reads that the Word is “God from God.” Second, Mike seems ignorant of the fact that the Counil of Nicea revised Eusebius' creed according to the way they understood it. All italicized words in the Nicean Creed reflect how they understood Eusebius' intent of the word “begotten”:

“…begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”

The Nicean Creed defined the phrase “of one substance with the Father” in this manner:

“from the inner most being of the Father,” inseparably one”

The Nicean Council defined the phrase “begotten, not made, of one substance” this way:

“sharing one being with the Father, and therefore distinct in existence though essentially one”

Let me repeat: The above is the Nicean Council's interpretation of Eusebius. Therefore, Mike has no support whatosever from Eusebius or the Council for his treatment of “monogenes”.

Nicea's interpretation of Eusebius goes along with what WJ and the Roo have said about “monogenes” meaning that Jesus is the “only Son after God's kind.”

Mike:

Quote

Roo says that in NT times, “prototokos pasa ktisis” ALWAYS meant “preeminant over mankind” because they used the phrase loosely or as an “exaggeration” sometimes, but he has produced no 4th or 5th century evidence of this, only more recent trinitarian scholar's conjecture.

This is gross misrepresentation again. I said that “protokos” sometimes refers to one born first. But it may also refer to one who is appointed to be the first. The OP of this thread demonstrates once again that Mike is given to telling fibs. Here is what I said:

Quote

Though the word “firstborn” literally refers to a child not preceded by another child in birth; it is also applied to a child of honor who is APPOINTED to be the firstborn in a family.

Would Mike like to show us where I said that protokos “always” means preeminent? What is the title to this topic? Where is the word “always” in my statement?
I do confess that “pasa ktisis” ALWAYS means “all mankind.” So far Mike has not disproved me. I will offer Romans 8:19-22 as another example. I will highlight the term “ktisis” or “pasa ktisis” each time it appears

Quote

19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Note that Paul said that the “creation” (ktisis) is waiting to be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God. The context requires that Paul's repeated use of the term “ktisis” or “pasa ktisis” mean “mankind” or “all mankind.” He goes on to say that the creation “hopes” for this redemption. Do rocks and trees cognizantly “hope”? Come on!

The apostle James concurs.

Quote

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

James wrote to the twelve tribes of Israel. They were the “firstfruits” before the Gentiles. They were the firstfruits of His “creatures” (ktisis = mankind).

Paul said that Jesus Christ is the “firstborn of all creation” ( mankind). The term “pasa ktisis” means the same thing in verse 23, “…the gospel which was preached to all creation” (all mankind).

Mike's own source said that the word “firstborn” has to do with one's relation in a family:

Quote

Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.

There it is friends! Mike's own source says that the firstborn of Israel is an Isrealite and the firstborn of the house of Pharoah is one of Pharoah's family. Mike's source says that the firstborn of beasts are themselves animals.

ERGO, CHRIST IS THE FIRSTBORN OF THE FAMILY OF MANKIND! THIS IS SO BASIC AND ELEMENTARY!

Then Mike's source says,

Quote

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=70

There it is again! Mike's own source asks, “What causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15”?

Well, it's certainly not me ascribing a different meaning at Colossians 1:15. I am maintaining the biblical meaning in saying that Christ is the firstborn of the family of mankind. The meaning I am ascribing is supported in verse 23 which clearly shows that “pasa ktisis” must mean “all mankind.”

It is Mike who is changing the meaning of firstborn in Colossians 1:15. He is saying t
hat Christ is the firstborn of every creature including the birds and rocks and trees. But Mike's own source says that this would mean that Christ Himself is a bird and a rock and a tree.

I leave you with this comment from Arthur Custance on Colossians 1:15:

“It seems clear enough that the Great Commission of Mark's Gospel has reference to the human race alone. There is the familiar story of St. Francis of Assisi preaching to the birds, but I doubt if it is really the intent of the original that the Gospel is to be preached to animals as well as to man, commanding them all alike to believe and be saved. If it is, the command has certainly never been taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of Christian people. So at least in Mark the Greek phrase rendered “the whole creation” clearly refers only to humanity, to human society. Nor can one suppose that Paul was including the world of animals in Colossians 1:23. This must surely be equally true of Colossians 1:15, for it would be ABSURD to suppose that the Lord is to be called the firstborn of animals and plants.”

http://custance.org/old/seed/ch8s.html

the Roo

June 2, 2010 at 6:43 pm#193722

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 01 2010,22:11)

So WJ, Jack and Paul…you guys are mistaken. There is for sure at least one “unambiguous” scripture that clearly states that Jesus had a beginning.

Mike

How is it unambiguous if the cream of Hebrew and Greek scolarship denies that Jesus had a beginning?

The NET Bible is a completely new translation of the Bible with 60,932 translators’ notes! It was completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a person of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator). NET

So here are 25 experts who worked with the best MSS that disagree! Not to mention all other Trinitarians of Eusebius day believed in the Co-Eternality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

World renown Greek Grammarian AT Robertson states…

The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pash ktisew, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prwto that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Colossians 1:18 ; Romans 8:29 ; Hebrews 1:6 ; Hebrews 12:23 ; Revelation 1:5 . Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eikwn we find prwtotoko in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logo teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikwn (Image) and to the universe as prwtotoko (First-born).

Also Mike, early Church Fathers that claimed Jesus was born from the Father in no way believe that Jesus had a beginning. So while they say he was born they believe that he is “eternally generated' and not made. The following is excerpts from early Church Fathers writings from the first century including Ignatius a disciple of John the beloved!

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. Thi
s 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 Father, 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!

This is only a few of the Church Fathers Mike, and I am sure that if you research this you will see that the Trinitarian Fathers did not believe that Jesus the Word that was with God and was God had a beginning or was procreated!

June 2, 2010 at 6:56 pm#193723

Participant

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,13:18)

Mikeboll said:

Quote

TO ALL:

First, Mike has overlooked the fact that Eusebius believed in the “eternal generation” of the Son. Note that Eusebius' creed reads that the Word is “God from God.” Second, Mike seems ignorant of the fact that the Council of Nicea revised Eusebius' creed according to the way they understood it. All italicized words in the Nicean Creed reflect how they understood Eusebius' intent of the word “begotten”:

“…begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”

The Nicean Creed defined the phrase “of one substance with the Father” in this manner:

“from the inner most being of the Father,” inseparably one”

The Nicean Council defined the phrase “begotten, not made, of one substance” this way:

“sharing one being with the Father, and therefore distinct in existence though essentially one”

Let me repeat: The above is the Nicean Council's interpretation of Eusebius. Therefore, Mike has no support whatosever from Eusebius or the Council for his treatment of “monogenes”.

Thanks Jack

Before I saw this I was already putting together my post above to show that Eusebius definition of the words “firstborn or begotten” was at odds with the Trinitarian view and the early Church Fathers, but your commentary solidifies that they were all in agreement!

The Arians unfortunately have nothing but conjecture with out any scriptural or Historical backing for their false doctrines.

June 2, 2010 at 7:01 pm#193724

Participant

Hi,
God has a family begotten in His Spirit.[eph3.14]
Jesus is the firstborn

June 2, 2010 at 7:12 pm#193727

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 03 2010,05:56)

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 02 2010,13:18)

Mikeboll said:

Quote

TO ALL:

First, Mike has overlooked the fact that Eusebius believed in the “eternal generation” of the Son. Note that Eusebius' creed reads that the Word is “God from God.” Second, Mike seems ignorant of the fact that the Council of Nicea revised Eusebius' creed according to the way they understood it. All italicized words in the Nicean Creed reflect how they understood Eusebius' intent of the word “begotten”:

“…begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.”

The Nicean Creed defined the phrase “of one substance with the Father” in this manner:

“from the inner most being of the Father,” inseparably one”

The Nicean Council defined the phrase “begotten, not made, of one substance” this way:

“sharing one being with the Father, and therefore distinct in existence though essentially one”

Let me repeat: The above is the Nicean Council's interpretation of Eusebius. Therefore, Mike has no support whatosever from Eusebius or the Council for his treatment of “monogenes”.

Thanks Jack

The Arians unfortunately have nothing but conjecture with out any scriptural or Historical backing for their false doctrines.

Keith,

Yes! Mikeboll and Nick have misrepresented history as they do the scriptures. The word “monogenes” was CLEARLY understood by the early church in the way that you and I have expounded it all along.

Mike needs to take a break from here for a few days. He is messing up all the time now. He needs to take a break and re-group.

Jack

June 2, 2010 at 7:16 pm#193729

Participant

Hi KJ,
Why do you offer the words of those who spoke after Jesus and his brothers?
Are you following them?

June 2, 2010 at 7:21 pm#193730

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2010,14:16)

Hi KJ,
Why do you offer the words of those who spoke after Jesus and his brothers?
Are you following them?

Because they were closer to Jesus and the Apostles and spoke their languages and understood the scriptures better than you do!

June 2, 2010 at 7:26 pm#193731

Participant

Hi WJ,

Apostasy is a poor act to follow.
Go back to the Word.

June 2, 2010 at 7:34 pm#193735

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 03 2010,06:26)

Hi WJ,

Apostasy is a poor act to follow.
Go back to the Word.

Nick,

Your canned replies show that you sweep the issues under the rug.

June 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm#193752

Participant

Hi KJ,
Where did Jesus say that those who came after him would be more reliable than him?

BD will agree but you surprise me.

June 3, 2010 at 12:10 am#193767

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….2;st=80

Participant

WJ quoted:

Quote

Origen who wrote around A. D. 200…

TO ALL:

The pagan view of “begotten” identified above which was condemned by Origen is what Mike says the JW's “actually believe.” On page 9 of our debate Mike quoted a JW source:

Quote

So Jesus, the only-begotten Son, had a beginning to his life. And Almighty God can rightly be called his Begetter, or Father, in the same sense that an earthly father, like Abraham, begets a son. (Hebrews 11:17) Hence, when the Bible speaks of God as the “Father” of Jesus, it means what it says—that they are two separate individuals. God is the senior. Jesus is the junior—in time, position, power, and knowledge.

So the Father is “God Senior” and Jesus is “God Junior. Since Mike says that satan and Jesus are a god in the “same sense” then they must be brothers. There is one thing I can't figure out though. If God is a begetter in the “same sense” as men, then wouldn't he have needed a female god to beget Him a son? Why not? The word “gennao” is the word used in the statement, “Today I have begotten you.” This is the word for procreation by a father and a mother.

Why must many resist the usus loquendi (common usage) of the word “monogenes” in biblical times? It simply meant in reference to Jesus that He was the only Son who after God's kind with no reference to origin.

The JW's

Quote

God is the senior. Jesus is the junior in time

Kangaroo Jack

June 3, 2010 at 1:25 am#193779

Participant

Hi KJ,
Origen was not an anointed man was he?
Go back to the originals

June 3, 2010 at 3:21 am#193791

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2010,17:52)

Hi KJ,
Where did Jesus say that those who came after him would be more reliable than him?

BD will agree but you surprise me.

No one is saying that the early Church Fathers were more reliable than Jesus.

All we are saying is they are more reliable than you and the Arians!

June 3, 2010 at 3:22 am#193792

Participant

Hi WJ,
You are in a position to be able to judge these things?
You do not yet know God and His Son.

June 3, 2010 at 3:40 am#193796

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 02 2010,22:22)

Hi WJ,
You are in a position to be able to judge these things?
You do not yet know God and His Son.

Yea I can judge these things for the scriptures tell us to test the Spirits and your words and doctrine does not pass the the Spiritual or the Scriptural test!

June 3, 2010 at 3:50 am#193798