Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

Blocked

Also for Is 1:18

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 03 2010,12:25)

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

Hi All,

Nick I agree completely. There is only one reason for me quoting Eusebius . Roo, Paul and WJ like to quote the newer trinitarian scholars who say that “firstborn of all creation” didn't really mean that in Biblical Greek. I have seen no evidence of why they insist on this. These scholars make this assumption based on the way “all creation” is sometimes used in the earliest LXX manuscripts we have – those from the 4th century.

So I have quoted a man who lived in the 4th century and is thought to be “the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time…”

My two questions do not really require very much thought. They are pretty simple. Eusebius wrote:

We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father,

#1. Do you agree that Eusebius took “only begotten” to literally mean “procreated” or “caused to exist” by the Father? Yes or No.

#2. Do you agree that Eusebius took “firstborn of all creation” to mean [a] “firstborn of all creation”, or to mean “preeminant over all mankind”?

I am not asking you to agree with Eusebius, only to honestly tell me what you think HE thought those two phrases to mean.

Jack, Keith, Paul, anybody else….Can you do this? It's only two questions. One requires only a yes or a no, the other an [a] or a .

peace and love,
mike

June 5, 2010 at 7:28 pm#194306

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

Participant

Mikeboll said:

Quote

#1. Do you agree that Eusebius took “only begotten” to literally mean “procreated” or “caused to exist” by the Father? Yes or No.

TO ALL:

Mike was not there was he? He is revising history. All blue lettering is word for word from Documents of the Christian Church:

Eusebius' creed was orthodox, but it did not deal explicitly with the Arain position. It was taken as its base, and put forward by the council in this revised form (additions and alterations in italic type):

We believe in one God, the Father All-Sovereign, the maker of things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is, of the substance1 of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance2 with the Father, through whom all thhings were made, things in heaven and things on earth….

1 'from the inmost being of the Father,' inseparably one.
2 sharing one being with the Father, and therefore distinct in existence though essentially one.

Documents of the Christian church page 25

Please note that the word “begotten” to Eusebius and the Niceans meant “of one substance with the Father.” This goes right along with WJ and myself that “monogenes” in reference to Jesus means “the only Son after the Father's kind.”

Would someone please show how Eusebius and the Council that adopted his creed supported Mike's view of “monogenes”? Mike is failing miserably at his attempt to revise history.

No Eusebius did not take “only begotten” to mean “procreated” or “to cause to exist.”

———————————————————-

About Christ being the firstborn of all mankind I again give Mike's own JW source with my comments:

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 that 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

Mike:

Quote

#2. Do you agree that Eusebius took “firstborn of all creation” to mean [a] “firstborn of all creation”, or to mean “preeminant over all mankind”?

Eusebius could have thought the “firstborn” meant “supreme over all mankind”

Quote

For who beside the Father could clearly understand the Light which was before the world, the intellectual and essential Wisdom which existed before the ages, the living Word which was in the beginning with the Father and WHICH WAS GOD, the first and only begotten of God which was before every creature and creation visible and invisible, the commander-in-chief of the rational and immortal host of heaven, the messenger of the great counsel, the executor of the Father’s unspoken will, the creator, with the Father, of all things, the second cause of the universe after the Father, the true and only-begotten Son of God, the Lord and God and King of all created things, the one who has received dominion and power, with divinity itself, and with might and honor from the Father; as it is said in regard to him in the mystical passages of Scripture which speak of his divinity: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”2525 John i. 1. “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vi.ii.html

The most important thing to me is that Eusebius believed that Jesus was God. Therefore, he did not mean what Mike means by the term “monogenes
.”

the Roo

June 5, 2010 at 7:49 pm#194314

Participant

Hi KJ,
Why do you rely on mere men to teach you when God has promised you will not need them if you know the Spirit./[1Jn]

June 5, 2010 at 8:05 pm#194320

JustAskin

Participant

Hi All,

I read somewhere that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE GOD. (How come then “we saw him and beheld him”)

And that Jesus was WITH GOD and He WAS GOD (Mike – I know, I know!) The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy asks “…and who is this God person anyway?” and despite the ragged humour it is a worthy question – If Jesus IS God – how can he also be WITH GOD and so WHO IS GOD?
Was the Father also WITH GOD? Why doesn't Scriptures tell us so – It says that the Holy Spirit was WITH God but it DOESN'T SAY THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS GOD? This is all weird – innit, mate? can someone write this out better for me?

And that Jesus was “Eternally Begotten” (Even when he was Dead in the Grave)

And that Jesus is “Eternally in the Bosom of the father – yet always GOING FORTH” (even when he was Dead in the grave!)

And also “No man hath seen God at any time;” But some say that Jesus IS GOD and “WE beheld Him” –

Sorry to add to above: I like this one:
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him” (John 1:18).
Does that read strange to anyone?

And again this:
“Whenever God has been seen by men(errr…), it has been through the Son who has revealed Him.
So, if I look through a window and see a tree – then that Window IS THAT TREE? – IDGI!

June 5, 2010 at 10:13 pm#194342

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius_of_Caesarea#Doctrine

Blocked

Hi Roo,

Boy, that's a whole lot of smoke, mirrors and false accusations for one post. Even for you!

First, you are the one posting evidence of how the church blatantly CHANGED what Eusebius wrote so it would fit in with their man-made doctrine. All I did was re-post a letter from Eusebius that WJ posted in his Matt 28:19 thread. This letter makes it clear that Eusebius thought Jesus was “God FROM God”. It further destoys your scholars who say monogenes didn't really mean only begotten. Why? Because he seconds the thought with genao, which you hold DID STILL MEAN BEGOTTEN IN NT TIMES.

Then he says that Jesus was “the firstborn of every creature BEFORE ALL THE AGES”. So much for “preeminant over mankind”, huh? Did mankind exist “BEFORE ALL THE AGES”? So pasa ktisis must have really meant every creature to Eusebius. And prototokos must have really meant firstborn since there was nothing to be preeminant over “BEFORE ALL THE AGES”.

Why is that important? Because he actually wrote this in the same century that the LXX MSS you say prove pasa ktisis means “all mankind” were written. :laugh:

So Eusebius says that Jesus is God FROM God, begotten (genao) by the Father, and the “firstborn of every creature BEFORE ALL THE AGES”. Yet, you for some odd reason still say this:

Quote

The most important thing to me is that Eusebius believed that Jesus was God. Therefore, he did not mean what Mike means by the term “monogenes.”

To me, the word “therefore” that you used makes it sound like if I showed proof that Eusebius DID NOT believe that Jesus was God, “therefore” he DID mean what Mike says about monogenes, right? Good, here goes:

Eusebius was intent upon emphasizing the difference of the persons of the Trinity and maintaining the subordination of the Son (Logos, or Word) to God (Eusebius never calls Jesus theos) because in all contrary attempts he suspected either polytheism (three distinct gods) or Sabellianism (three modes of one divine person). The Son (Jesus), as Arius asserted, is a creature of God whose generation, for Eusebius, took place before time.

[Eusebius believed] This Logos, as a derivative creature and not truly God as the Father is truly God, could therefore change…

After nearly being excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius submitted and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicea in 325.

Read it and weep, Jack. He did NOT believe in the trinity the way you believe it. He considered your beliefs “Sabellianism” and not in line with scripture. Hmmm…..this from one who was thought to be the “greatest Greek teacher and the most learned theologian” of his day.

THEREFORE

Eusebius DID mean only begotten when he used monogenes, right?

peace and love,
mike

June 6, 2010 at 5:11 am#194404

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 05 2010,17:13)

THEREFORE

Eusebius DID mean only begotten when he used monogenes, right?

Hi Mike

So what, even if what you say is true the term “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus until after he came in the flesh!

How about listening to some real evidence Mike.

What does Ignatius say about Jesus and his origen, “Born yet not Born”?

Ignatius was a disciple of John the beloved and a friend of Peter and possibly saw Jesus in the flesh.

What about all the other Church Fathers that disagree with your interpretation of Monogenes or Protokos? Many of them were around the 1st and second century.

Where are there any Fathers that spells out your doctrine Mike?

Most all of them call Jesus their God, yet you say Jesus is “a god” like satan but not your god!

June 6, 2010 at 8:35 am#194414

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/nicene_bate.html

Participant

Mikeboll said:

Quote

THEREFORE

Eusebius DID mean only begotten when he used monogenes, right?

TO ALL:

Eusebius SIGNED the Nicean Creed. I repeat: Eusebius SIGNED the Nicean creed which explicitly said that “begotten” means that Jesus is of “ONE substance substance” with the Father:

Quote

The Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325. – The council was summoned for June 19, 325. After some preliminary meetings in the cathedral church, the formal session was opened by the emperor in the palace. He appeared in royal splendour, was welcomed by Eusebius of Caesarea in a courtly speech, replied in Latin, and then left the council to its work, probably under the presidency of Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. The sessions lasted till the 25th of August. The twenty canons which were passed decided some minor points of precedence, discipline, and usage: for instance, the sixth secured to the bishop of Alexandria his traditional jurisdiction over the Churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, as being parallel to the large Italian jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome. The council also decreed that Easter should always be kept on the Sunday following the next full moon after the 21st of March, and offered a liberal com-

[123]

promise to the followers of one Meletius, an Egyptian bishop who had organised a schism like that of the Donatists. But the main concern of the session was with the Arian controversy; and here a result was reached which few members of the council could have foreseen.

The proposed creed. – The majority of the council were doubtless prepared for a compromise. They were not Arians; and when Eusebius of Nicomedla asked them to accept an Arianising expression of belief, they repulsed him with indignation. Yet they were not of Athanasius’ mind, and they would have preferred to endorse some simple formula by which the Divinity of Christ might be guarded without an express condemnation of Arianism. The leader of this pacific majority, Eusebius of Caesarea, came forward with a formula which seemed likely to accomplish this – the baptismal creed of his own church of Caesarea.

The origin of oreeds. – Baptism had from the earliest age been preceded by a confession of faith. The oral delivery of this creed or ‘password’ to the catechumen, and the recitation by which he owned his belief in it (traditio and redditio syinboli), formed the last stage in his preparation. The varying ‘symbols’ used by different churches were all based on the baptismal formula of S. Matthew xxviii. 19; but from the second century onwards there was a constant tendency to adapt and expand the form of creed so as to guard against heretical misconceptions. Thus the influence of Gnosticism on the old Roman creed (the ancestor of our ‘Apostles’ creed’) was traceable in the phrases ‘one God’ and ‘maker of heaven and earth.’ In the east, the pressure of controversy led to a fuller expansion of disputed clauses.

The creed of Eusebius of Caesarea. – The creed which Eusebius presented to the Nicene Council was of this expanded character, and ran as follows: ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of (from) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all ages; through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation

[124]

was made flesh and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory, to judge the living and dead; and in the Holy Spirit.’

The creed revised. – If this creed had been accepted as it stood, the council would have met in vain: there was no clause in it which all parties could not in some sense accept. Athanasius and his party, convinced that vital questions were at stake, determined that the council should pronounce on a definite issue. They therefore stood out for the acceptance of the creed in a revised form, and the insertion of phrases which the Arians could not evade. The debate turned on the insertion of one famous word, homoousion. An Arian might hold that the Son is of like essence (homoiousios) with the Father: to confess Him of one essence with the Father was to assert that He shares with Him that which no created being, however exalted, could share. Both at the council and in later disputes the word homoousion was keenly opposed, and that chiefly on two grounds: (1) that it was not Scriptural; (2) that a synod of Antioch in A.D. 269 had condemned its use by Paul of Samosata. The defence in later days (for the debate at Nicaea is not recorded) was that it expressed the mind of Scripture, and that Paul of Samosata had used it in an obviously heretical sense. The debate in the end forced the middle party to choose between a virtual acquittal of Arius and the ratification of a creed which they suspected and disliked. They chose the latter alternative: the revised form of the Caesarean creed asserted that the Son of God is ‘only – begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father – ‘begotten, not made, being of one essence (homoousion) with the Father’; and at the end the following abjuration was added: ‘But those who say that “there was once a time when He was not,” and “before He was begotten He was not,” and “He was made of things that were not,” or maintain that the Son of God is of a different essence (from the Father), or is a created being, or liable to (moral) change,—these the Catholic and Apostolic Church declares to be anathema.’

The defeat of Arianism. – Arius’ two friends, Secundus

[125]

and Theonas, refused to sign this creed. Eusebius of Caesarea had grave scruples, as his almost apologetic letter to his people shows; in the end he submitted to explanations, and SIGNED. The emperor’s policy had succeeded so far: the Church had spoken its mind, and Constantine enforced its decision by sending Arius, Secundus, and Theonas into exile. Three causes contributed to the decision of Nicaea: the will of the emperor, who desired a definite result for the sake of peace; the readiness of the moderates to suppress the extreme Arians at any cost; and the strong conviction of Athanasius and his few followers, who knew that the homoousion was the only possible safeguard for the apostolic faith. But Athanasius was ahead of his age, and was destined to suffer persecution and repeated exile for his convictions; for the moderates were soon carried away by a strong Arian reaction, and the emperor was always prepared to oppress what seemed to be the losing side.

TO MIKE:

EUSEBIUS SIGNED THE REVISED CREED WHICH DEFINED ONLY BEGOTTEN AS “ONE SUBSTANCE” WITH THE FATHER!

Now move on and answer the fact that your own people define “firstborn” as one's relation in a family.

YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS:

Quote

ANSWER!

the Roo

June 6, 2010 at 8:41 am#194415

Participant

Hi KJ,
Are you joining with him in this folly?
Follow Jesus who never spoke of any trinity.

June 6, 2010 at 1:35 pm#194425

Blocked

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 06 2010,16:11)

Hi Mike

So what, even if what you say is true the term “Monogenes” is never given to Jesus until after he came in the flesh!

How about listening to some real evidence Mike.

What does Ignatius say about Jesus and his origen, “Born yet not Born”?

Ignatius was a disciple of John the beloved and a friend of Peter and possibly saw Jesus in the flesh.

What about all the other Church Fathers that disagree with your interpretation of Monogenes or Protokos? Many of them were around the 1st and second century.

Where are there any Fathers that spells out your doctrine Mike?

Hi WJ,

You are avoiding the point of this whole exercise. As I have said many times, it is not important to me HOW Eusebius, Ignatius or the church fathers believed. What is important about this quote from Eusebius is that the words “monogenes” and “prototokos pasa ktisis” actually meant what they say in the 4th century.

That (along with the many, many Biblical scholars who translated God's Word thoughout the ages), contradicts the recent trinitarian claims that “monogenes” and “prototokos” had nothing to do with being “caused to exist”.

Do you agree that a man who lived in the 4th century and who was thought to be a foremost authority on the scriptures believed both phrases to be speaking of Jesus' beginning?

If no, what particular words in his quote lead you to believe this?

If yes, then honestly admit this, and stop spreading the lies about “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” having nothing to do with being “caused to exist”.

peace and love,
mike

June 6, 2010 at 1:58 pm#194427

Blocked

Hi Roo,

It's funny how you and WJ only copied the last words of my post, instead of all the info that was impertinant.

You said over and over:

Quote

EUSEBIUS SIGNED THE REVISED CREED WHICH DEFINED ONLY BEGOTTEN AS “ONE SUBSTANCE” WITH THE FATHER!

Yes Roo. Did you maybe miss this part of my post?

After nearly being excommunicated for his heresy by Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius submitted and agreed to the Nicene Creed at the First Council of Nicea in 325.

You said:

Quote

Now move on and answer the fact that your own people define “firstborn” as one's relation in a family.[/color][/b]

YOUR OWN SOURCE SAYS:

Quote

ANSWER!

Really? ANSWER!? After you have STILL not answered my two simple questions about Eusebius' quote? Okay, even though I've answered this in our debate many times, I'll do it again.

The firstborn is part of the group. Jesus is the firstborn of ALL CREATION. Therefore, he is part of the group of ALL CREATION. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And you always ignore the other fine point “my own people” make. If “firstborn of all creation” means “supreme over mankind”, then why is the title ONLY given to the Son? Aren't the Father and Holy Spirit equally “supreme over mankind”?

Your turn. I've asked two simple questions about Eusebius.
ANSWER!

peace and love,
mike

June 6, 2010 at 8:16 pm#194451

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

Participant

Mikeboll said:

Quote

The firstborn is part of the group. Jesus is the firstborn of ALL CREATION. Therefore, he is part of the group of ALL CREATION. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Mike,
Your statement above is nonsense and you know it. Your JW source does not apply the word “firstborn” as you when they say that the firstborn is “part of a group.” Just own up to it! In our debate you said that you disagree with them. So just own up to the fact that you change the meaning of protokos in Colossians 1:15 when your own source says you should not.

Again I give arthur Custance:

Quote

Your view that Jesus is the firstborn of animals and plants is ABSURD and YOU KNOW IT!

Mike:

Quote

If “firstborn of all creation” means “supreme over mankind”, then why is the title ONLY given to the Son?

I have answered this. You reject my answers and then say I have not answered. I said that in the Hebrew culture the fully investitured son takes over in the place of the father but this does not mean that the father is not supreme.

Paul CLEARLY said that Jesus is the firstborn in order that in all things He might have the preeminence. But you choose to reject Paul's words. It is Paul who said that He is preeminent! Even JA has come to see this:

JA said:

Quote

So, once again, Jesus is preeminent in all things, the only begotten of man,…'Saving his People from out of Egypt' (Even as he was escaped to safety to Egypt at his birth, was 'taken to Egypt, like Joseph…and Egypt became a byword for a sinful state) he escaped his people from that sinful state, 'from out of egypt' (read Revelation)

https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….8;st=30

In our debate you said that God has made Jesus your Lord. Explain how Jesus is your Lord if He is not preeminent?

Mike:

Quote

After you have STILL not answered my two simple questions about Eusebius' quote?

You give fragments from Eusebius out of their historical context. There was a progressive development in the Christology of Eusebius. It has been noted that THREE STAGES occurred in the development of the Christology of Eusebius. Note the three stages carefully especially the last stage which shows that Eusebius came to agree with the Council of Nicea and signed it and remained a supporter from that time and onward:

Quote

To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his works written during this period (for instance, the Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica), as in the works of Origen himself and other anteNicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son. And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's Concilia, xiii. 316 sq.; English translation in McGiffert, op. cit. p. 70). Meanwhile at the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition, and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia, and Theophania).

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Eusebius_of_Caesarea

So you will need to do better than provide fragments from Eusebius. Eusebius SIGNED the revised creed. Let's see how many ways I can put this:

* Eusebius SIGNED the revised creed.
* Eusebius AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE to the revised creed.
* Eusebius PUT HIS “JOHN HANCOCK” on the revised creed.
* Eusebius SUBMITTED to the revised creed and SIGNED it.
* Eusebius RETRACTED His former position and SIGNED the revised creed.

THEREFORE, any fragmented quotes you provide from Eusebius before the final stage
in the development of His Christology is inadmissable! I repeat: Fragmented quotes before the final stage of the development in Eusebius' thinking IS INADMISSABLE!

the Roo

June 6, 2010 at 8:27 pm#194453

Participant

Hi KJ,
Therefore?
We know he was not an anointed man of God so why would you expect him to be consistent in truth?

Where did this new rule come from??

June 6, 2010 at 8:29 pm#194454

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 07 2010,07:27)

Hi KJ,
Therefore?
We know he was not an anointed man of God so why would you expect him to be consistent in truth?

Where did this new rule come from??

Nick,

Mike is the one filibustering by incessantly invoking Eusebius. I am happy to move on and get back to scripture.

June 6, 2010 at 8:35 pm#194456

Lightenup

Participant

The Son is the firstborn of God…over all things in heaven and earth. God from God, not firstborn within a group of created beings. A firstborn is procreated and He is God's firstborn and thus procreated of God Himself. God says His Son is the only begotten Son of God.

June 6, 2010 at 10:05 pm#194458

Participant

Hi LU,
Then why have you been offering us two gods?

June 6, 2010 at 11:07 pm#194475

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreme

Blocked

Kangaroo wrote:

[/quote]
Hi Roo,

More smoke and mirrors? You are a master magician – of that I will readily attest. Years of practice, I assume.

You said:

Quote

Your view that Jesus is the firstborn of animals and plants is ABSURD and YOU KNOW IT!

Flashbacks of our glorious debate that you ran out on. Let me try a different approach.

As a man, are you a part of the group of things that God caused to exist? (Remember, that group consists of not only plants and animals, but maggots, fungus, the ebola virus, etc.) Are you a part of that group of “created things”?

Since you will no doubt rant and rave and do anything to avoid the question, I will answer for you. Yes, you are. Guess what? So is Jesus. He is also a part of the group of things that God caused to exist. And since he was the first thing God ever caused to exist, he is the FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.

You said:

Quote

I said that in the Hebrew culture the fully investitured son takes over in the place of the father but this does not mean that the father is not supreme.

Well, what does supreme mean?

su·preme1 /səˈprim, sʊ-/ Show Spelled[suh-preem, soo-] Show IPA
–adjective
1.highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief.

So why is ONLY the Son “highest in rank and authority” over mankind? Why are not the Father and the Holy Spirit equally supreme? Based on the other writings of Paul, do you think Col 1:18 means that Jesus is supreme OVER the Father? Probably not. Then it must mean he is supreme over everything else BUT the Father, who was the One who set him in this supreme position in the first place. I wish Paul would have used the disclaimer from 1 Cor 15:27 in more places. He should have said (for people like you), “Now when I say supreme, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT MEAN SUPREME OVER THE FATHER, WHO IS THE EVEN MORE SUPREME ONE WHO SET JESUS UP AS SUPREME OVER EVERYTHING ELSE”.

Quote

Mike:

Quote

After you have STILL not answered my two simple questions about Eusebius' quote?

You give fragments from Eusebius out of their historical context. There was a progressive development in the Christology of Eusebius. It has been noted that THREE STAGES occurred in the development of the Christology of Eusebius. Note the three stages carefully especially the last stage which shows that Eusebius came to agree with the Council of Nicea and signed it and remained a supporter from that time and onward:

I don't care, Roo! Don't you get it? I know you do, but you are being obstinant. I at least expected something like I got from WJ: Well, even if you are right…… But you won't even acknowledge the plain truth that in the 4th century “prototokos pasa ktisis” meant “firstborn of all creation” and “monogenes” meant “only begotten”. That's all I'm trying to prove – not whether Eusebius' views are correct.

And I have proved that the words stand as they are in the Bible, whether you ever admit it or not.

That being said, the fact that Jesus was begotten by his Father and was the firstborn of all creation sure shoots a big hole in your trinity theory, doesn't it?

And knowing these two phrases mean what they mean, Rev 3:14 most likely should be translated as “the beginning of the creation of God”, just like the KJV, ESV, ASV and many other translations put it. That's a slam dunk, brother!

peace and love,
mike

June 6, 2010 at 11:27 pm#194489