Protokos in colossians 1:15 means preeminent

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ June 07 2010,07:35)

God from God, not firstborn within a group of created beings.

Hi Kathi,

We finally find an issue that we can unite on, and instead of lending support to the evidence supplied by Eusebius, you go off into la la land again.

Is Jesus a part of the group of things that God caused to exist, or not?

peace and love,
mike

June 7, 2010 at 2:40 am#194519

Participant

Mikeboll said:

Quote

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”.

No Mike! It appears that to ONE church father monogenes meant “only begotten.” Note that I said, “it appears….” The Chruch fathers with one voice said that “only begotten” in reference to Jesus meant that He was “of one substance” with the Father.” It appears as if Eusebius in the end believed that too.

Mike:

Quote

I don't care, Roo!

I don't care either Mike. I don't care what ONE man appeared to have believed about the word monogenes. Heck, I don't ultimately care that the Niceans believed. I care ONLY what monogenes meant before and up too the time the new testament was written. I care only about the usus loquendi (common usage) of the word. The common usage of the word monogenes in biblical times was “one of a kind.” In reference to Jesus it meant to that He is the only Son after God's kind. PERIOD!

I care only what Paul meant by the term “protokos” in Colossians 1:15. He CLEARLY said that Christ is the “firstborn” IN ORDER THAT in all things He might have the preeminence.” The firstborn was the LEGAL HEAD of the family.

Let's go back to my op to this thread:

Simri was APPOINTED the “chief” son though he was not the literal firstborn:

Quote

“Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the CHIEF, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the CHIEF;)” 1 Chronicles 16:10

The word “chief” is CLEARLY being used synonomously with the word “firstborn.” Simri was APPOINTED “chief”, that is, the firstborn in the place of the literal firstborn son.

Are you going to deny that firstborn means “preeminent” in this instance?

David was the youngest of many brothers but was APPOINTED God's firstborn:

Quote

“And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep” (1 Samuel 16:20)

” 20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him…

27Also I will APPOINT him my firstborn, HIGHER than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:20, 27).[/i]

Are you going to deny that David as God's APPOINTED firstborn was PREEMINENT over the kings of the earth?

Again, Paul CLEARLY said that Christ is the firstborn “IN ORDER THAT IN ALL THINGS HE MIGHT HAVE THE PREEMINENCE.”

PAUL'S WORDS ARE IN YOUR FACE MIKE!

Again, I don't care about the fragments quotes you give from what ONE man in the fourth century seemed to have believed. I care ONLY how monogenes was used in biblical times. In biblical times it meant “ONE OF A KIND.”

* 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.

the Roo

June 7, 2010 at 2:53 am#194520

Lightenup

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2010,18:33)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 07 2010,07:35)

God from God, not firstborn within a group of created beings.

Hi Kathi,

We finally find an issue that we can unite on, and instead of lending support to the evidence supplied by Eusebius, you go off into la la land again.

Is Jesus a part of the group of things that God caused to exist, or not?

peace and love,
mike

Mike,
I may agree with Eusebius or not, I don't determine my beliefs on what other's say although I might consider what they say.

Anyway, a son procreated by God Himself would be another God. A being created by God Himself would be a first of his kind and not another God. Big difference!

Jesus is NOT part of the group of created things. Jesus is part of a group on procreated things and that group is composed of one…the only begotten Son of God. The Son as the only procreated son of the Father is over all things in heaven and on earth that have been created. Do you not agree? I thought you understood that.

June 7, 2010 at 3:14 pm#194570

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2010,08:35)

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

Mike

First of all you are taking the testimony of one man and denying the testimony of many including the more credible, one being Ignatius!

I don't care what you think Eusebius believed.

What does the majority of the forefathers believe about the words and most importantly what does the scriptures say.

Jack has also pointed out that Eusebius signed off on the creed.

Secondly your definition of the word “monogenes”, “caused to exist” is a little mesleading because “Strongs” doesn't give that definition as to imply that before he came in the flesh he was “caused to exist”.

As I said and you seem to be ignoring, the word “Monogenes” or “ginomai” in relation to Jesus is only found during and after his incarnation in the flesh. I have shown you this from Phil 2:6-8 and John 1:14.

So it could be said that Jesus “Came into existence”, as a man when he came in the likeness of sinful flesh and was found in fashion as a man, making him the Only “monogenes” (unique) Son of God. Phil 2:6-8

But you are trying to force the word on Jesus in the beginning of time which is wrong and you have no scriptural basis for doing that!

June 7, 2010 at 4:10 pm#194574

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 06 2010,18:33)

Quote (Lightenup @ June 07 2010,07:35)

God from God, not firstborn within a group of created beings.

Hi Kathi,

We finally find an issue that we can unite on, and instead of lending support to the evidence supplied by Eusebius, you go off into la la land again.

Is Jesus a part of the group of things that God caused to exist, or not?

peace and love,
mike

Mike why do you insist that the words “Monogenes” or “ginomai” “caused to exist” applies to all of creation?

Don't you understand that Jesus is the “Monogenes” (only begotten) Son of God?

Which means he cannot be part of the “All things” that came into being. He is “Unique” Mike and not part of the all things that came into existence by and through him!

June 7, 2010 at 5:29 pm#194577

Participant

WorshippingJesus said to Mikeboll:

Quote

Keith,

Exactly! Strong says that “monogenes” means “sole” or “only.” Sure he indicates that the “genes” part of the word is from “ginomai” which means “to come to be.” But Strong does NOT apply that idea to the compound word. He simply says it that means “only” which is according to the usus loquendi of the word in biblical times.

But Mike is as the proverbial ostrich which has its head buried in the sand.

ALL the church fathers signed off on the revised creed which defined “only begotten” in reference to Jesus to mean, “of ONE substance with the Father.” That Eusebius signed off on the revised creed should end all dispute. But Mike wants to keep up his filibuster.

Jack

June 7, 2010 at 5:47 pm#194578

Participant

TO ALL:

The Greek “pasa ktisis” in the new testament ALWAYS refers to “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?

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.

the Roo

June 7, 2010 at 5:52 pm#194579

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

Participant

TO ALL:

Arthur Custance shows that Mike's view of “pasa ktisis” (all creation) is skewed and totally ABSURD:

“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.”

the Roo

June 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm#194580

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

Participant

TO ALL:

Mike says that Eusebius believed that Jesus had a beginning. Mike gives fragmented quotes from Eusebius which are taken out of their historical context. Mike's revision is easily refuted by two simple points:

1. Eusebius presented his own creed to the Council of Nicea which was a trinitarian council. His creed was accepted as “ORTHODOX” by them. How could Eusebius have been accepted as orthodox if He believed that Jesus had a beginning at the time he submitted his creed to the council?

Quote

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

2. The Council revised Eusebius' creed and Eusebius Himself signed off on it. How could Eusebius have signed off on the revised creed if he believed that Jesus had a beginning at the time he signed it?

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).

the Roo

June 7, 2010 at 7:32 pm#194582

kerwin

Participant

Do not forget that your enemy is erroneous doctrine even if it is your own and let God deal with those who reject the true gospel of the Anointed One.

June 7, 2010 at 7:54 pm#194583

Participant

Hi JK,
So you select a time in his life when he was lead astray?
Why follow him?

June 7, 2010 at 8:23 pm#194586

Participant

Quote (kerwin @ June 07 2010,14:32)

Do not forget that your enemy is erroneous doctrine even if it is your own and let God deal with those who reject the true gospel of the Anointed One.

Kerwin

Agreed, one should reject the false Jesus that is being preached!

June 7, 2010 at 8:28 pm#194587

Participant

Hi WJ,
Jesus as God was never preached by the anointed ones.
Whom do you serve?

June 7, 2010 at 8:33 pm#194588

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 07 2010,15:28)

Hi WJ,
Jesus as God was never preached by the anointed ones.
Whom do you serve?

How do you know since you do not believe the Bible is reliable because you say certain text shoudn't be there?

June 8, 2010 at 12:38 am#194627

Blocked

Hi Kathi,

The question was:

Is Jesus a part of the group of things that God CAUSED TO EXIST?

Yes or no will work nicely.

You said:

Quote

Anyway, a son procreated by God Himself would be another God. A being created by God Himself would be a first of his kind and not another God. Big difference!

So all of King David's sons were immediately kings of Israel the second they were procreated? No, they were all human beings, just as Jesus was immediately a spirit being, like his Father and God. That doesn't make him God any more than David's sons became Kings of Israel or a part of the same being as David when they were caused to exist.

Don't you realize that Jesus himself said he was the beginning of the CREATION of God? And it's not me, but Paul who says he was the firstborn of all CREATION. The Eusebius letter is only to disprove the trinitarian claim that it meant “preeminent over mankind” in the Biblical Greek. So as I've said at least 6 times in this thread: I don't care if you agree with Eusebius' view or not, BUT, do you agree that he took the words “prototokos pasa ktisis” in Col 1:15 to literally mean Jesus was the first thing God ever created or not? He couldn't possibly have thought the Greek words meant “preeminent over mankind” if it was his belief that this happened “BEFORE ALL THE AGES”, could he?

Do you agree that he took the word “monogenes” to literally mean “only begotten” or not?

Do you agree that when he seconded the “monogenes” with “genao”, he doubly confirmed that he thought Jesus was caused to exist by the Father?

Again, I am NOT asking you to see things the way Eusebius did, just to acknowledge that to man who's native language was the same language that the NT was written in, “prototokos pasa ktisis” and “monogenes” definitely spoke of Jesus' beginning. Could you do me that one little favor? Just read the quote and answer the questions….PLEASE.

peace and love,
mike

June 8, 2010 at 1:01 am#194628

Participant

Hi WJ,
When did you start to doubt the bible?
When you found no trinity there?

June 8, 2010 at 2:19 am#194632

Blocked

Hi Roo,

You said:

Quote

No Mike! It appears that to ONE church father monogenes meant “only begotten.”

THANK YOU! That is half of what I was hoping for. The other half is this:

Do you think based on the fact that Eusebius thought Jesus was the “firstborn of every creature BEFORE ALL THE AGES”, he took “prototokos pasa ktisis” in Col 1:15 to literally mean “firstborn of all creation”? He couldn't have thought it to mean “preeminent over mankind” if he thought it happened BEFORE ALL THE AGES, could he?

You said:

Quote

The Chruch fathers with one voice said that “only begotten” in reference to Jesus meant that He was “of one substance” with the Father.”

Let's see:
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 substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on earth….

Now, let's break it down.

1. One God, the Father Almighty – so far, so good

2. maker of things visible and invisible – good

3. AND one Lord – the “and” clearly tells of two, and only one of them is “Almighty” – good

4. Son of God – common sense will tell you that a Son is not the same being as his Father – good

5. begotten (GENAO) of the Father – first, they also use the word “genao” which you agree STILL meant “begotten” in NT times, right? Second, Jesus is begotten OF the Father. If he is OF the Father, then he is not the same being AS the Father. Is the Father ever said to be OF God the Son or OF God the Holy Spirit? – good

6. of the substance of the Father – just as your son is of the substance of you – good

7. God OF God, Light OF Light, true God OF true God – all the OF's tell a true story, so – good

8. begotten, not made – I can live with that (but there's that word “genao” again) – good

9. of one substance with the Father – that one depends. Would you consider your son of one substance with you? Like you are both of the one “human” substance? Regardless, it definitely DOESN'T say they are the same being, so – good

10. through whom all things were made – the word THROUGH contrasted with the Father who is the maker of all things also tells a truth. Scripture teaches that all is FROM the Father THROUGH Jesus, so – good

There you have it. The creed is scripturally sound IMO. A little foggy on #9, but otherwise directly in line with scripture. There's only one problem with it from your point of view. Nowhere does it ever imply that God is a trinity of three co-equal, co-eternal persons. It doesn't even imply a “binity” of two equal members of a godhead. And your God #3 isn't even mentioned. Yet you claim that this trinity thinking came not from man, but from scripture. If that is the case, why wasn't the Holy Spirit part of the creed right from the jump? Why was it added in as God #3 55 years later?

Furthermore, aside from omitting “prototokos pasa ktisis”, it says the same basic thing as Eusebius' letter. Do you get that?! It FURTHER confirms that “monogenes” meant “only begotten” because, like Eusebius' letter, it CONFIRMS IT WITH THE USE OF “GENAO”. Not once, but twice! :laugh:

You said:

Quote

I don't care what ONE man appeared to have believed about the word monogenes.

Okay, but this creed that you revere was signed by more than one man, right?

You said:

Quote

I care ONLY what monogenes meant before and up too the time the new testament was written.

And you keep posting 4th century information that proves it DID mean only begotten. Do you think it meant one thing in 100 AD and something completely different in 325 AD? How long has only begotten meant “only begotten” in English now? Why would you assume the meaning in Greek wouldn't last 225 years? And don't forget, you're getting YOUR info that it didn't mean only begotten in NT times from your understanding of 4th century manuscripts! The same 4th century in which it apparently DID mean only begotten.

You said:

Quote

I care only what Paul meant by the term “protokos” in Colossians 1:15. He CLEARLY said that Christ is the “firstborn” IN ORDER THAT in all things He might have the preeminence.”

You are actually speaking of 1:18, which says:
18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Does this have to do with supremacy in everything “involving those who would be later raised from the dead”, or everthing in existence? Does it mean that he is supreme OVER God? Does it mean he is God? You only need to read 1:19 to clear things up.

19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,

See? All cleared up. Jesus is supreme why? Because God (someone other than Jesus – note that it does say “God”, not “the Father”), was pleased to have all of His good qualities dwell in Jesus. So that makes it pretty clear that Jesus is not God. So you have to make an educated guess with the limited info we have, Roo. Does it mean that Jesus is supreme OVER his God? Or is he supreme in everything having to do with others who will be raised from the dead, because he was the “firstborn from among the dead”?

You said:

Quote

Are you going to deny that firstborn means “preeminent” in this instance?

Well, it says that Simri was not the firstborn – meaning the one born first and therefore guaranteed certain rights over ones born later – but he was MADE, or APPOINTED as the one who recieved the firstborn rights.

Kathi said this better than I ever could during our debate. She said in page two of this thread:

Quote

I don't believe that anyone can show some scripture that clearly connects the Son of God with a time of His 'appointing' as firstborn as we can with the appointed firstborn that David and Israel are. So, if there was no specific appointment, then the natural meaning of the term 'firstborn' would be the default understanding…that of being the first procreative act of the Father.

Can you understand that in every instance you give, someone who is not the firstborn (the one born first) is APPOINTED with the rights of the firstborn (the one born first). Jesus wasn't ever APPOINTED with firstborn rights because the real “firstborn of all creation” messed up. He has firstborn rights simply because he is the one born first.

You said:

Quote

You've ended two posts with this now. And I say to both, maybe you missed this part of my Eusebius info:

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.

peace and love,
mike

June 8, 2010 at 2:27 am#194633

Blocked

Hi WJ,

You said:

Quote

First of all you are taking the testimony of one man and denying the testimony of many including the more credible, one being Ignatius!

I don't care what you think Eusebius believed.

What does the majority of the forefathers believe about the words and most importantly what does the scriptures say.

Jack has also pointed out that Eusebius signed off on the creed.

All answered in my post to Jack, above.

You said:

Quote

And it doesn't imply otherwise, either. Strong simply says that the word “monogenes” in referrence to Jesus means “the only begotten Son of God”.

You said:

Quote

As I said and you seem to be ignoring, the word “Monogenes” or “ginomai” in relation to Jesus is only found during and after his incarnation in the flesh.

Really? So what did Jesus mean when he said that because God loved the world so much, He SENT His only begotten Son into it? How could He have SENT His only begotten Son into the world if His Son wasn't yet “begotten”?

peace and love,
mike

June 8, 2010 at 3:02 am#194634

Participant

Hi MB,
Don't wear yourself out trying to teach the deaf.

June 8, 2010 at 3:03 am#194635

Blocked

Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 08 2010,04:47)

TO ALL:

The Greek “pasa ktisis” in the new testament ALWAYS refers to “all mankind.”

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

Quote

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?