- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi LU,
I do not think we can know.We need to ponder Acts 13
26Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.
27For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30But God raised him from the dead:
31And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
God told them he had a Son and of his death and resurrection and they should also have known about him, but they did not recognise the Holy Spirit in scripture or the holy one of God and they killed him
Nick,
Do you think that it is impossible for God to truly birth a son of His own…a true son from His own being before anything else came into life? Ponder the term “Firstborn of all creation.”
LUHi SEEKING
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2009,14:38) Seperation: to make a distinction between Independent: not dependent: as not requiring or relying on something else
Are you prepared to show how the Father didn’t rely on Jesus to carry out his work and his will?
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
1 Peter 1:19-20 (KJV) But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,God foreordained Jesus, no help from Jesus.
We have already gone over this scripture…The Greek word for 'foreordained' is 'proginōskō' which means…1) to have knowledge before hand
2) to foreknow
a) of those whom God elected to salvation
3) to predestinate
Now your bias assumes that Jesus wasn't with the Father and did not know, plan and choose to come down from heaven, yet we find in Phil 2:6-8, John 1:1, 14, John 6:33,38,50,51,62 John 17:5, 1 John 1:1-3 Heb 10:5 that Jesus did know and choose to come therefore he and the Father “Foreknew” his destiny!
But I notice you did not address this point, as you have failed to address many of my points.
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (ESV)God had the foreknowledge of the plan and worked out the plan, no help from Jesus.
See above. It was Jesus who was delivered up and crucified yet you say, “God worked out the plan with no help from Jesus.If you believe this then you have to white out this…
Therefore doth my Father love me, because “I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself”. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. John 10:17, 18
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in ChristGod made known HIS mystery and purpose, he set it forth –
no help from Jesus.
It doesn’t say “he set it forth”, it says “which he set forth in Christ”. How did God make known the mystery? He set it forth in Christ.So then you see it as the Father working independently of Jesus. I see it as Jesus came to reveal the will and purpose of God for he is the visible image of the invisible God. Can you see that? Jesus came to reveal the mystery of the Fathers will for he knew his will and purpose! Whatever Jesus sees the Father do he does.
My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, “IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY KNOW THE MYSTERY OF GOD, NAMELY, CHRIST, Col. 2:2
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
Romans 13:1 (KJV)
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.The powers are ordained by God, no help from Jesus
No help from Jesus? There is your bias reading into the text the Father without the Son when you see the word “God” (Theos).
Remember Jesus said…
The Father loveth the Son, and “HATH GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND”. John 3:35
”ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE”: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH”. Matt. 28:18
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
1 Cor. 2:7 (KJV)
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:The wisdom spoken was ordained by God, no help from Jesus
See above, Jesus is the Mystery that was hidden before the foundation of the world, the mystery that was with the Father before he said “I come to do thy will O’ God” and then came down from heaven to make known who God is.No one has ever seen God, but “GOD THE ONE AND ONLY”, who is at the Father's side, “has made him known”. John 1:18
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
In each and all of these incidences, the Father did these things “without relying on Jesus.
False, Jesus is found to take part in every scripture you mentioned. See Above.Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
He foreordained Jesus “independently” also making a “seperation” or distinction between Himself and Jesus.
This is false, and based on your assumption that Jesus was not with the Father in the beginning and did not take part in the planning with the Father and then freely choosing to empty himself and come down from heaven to accomplish the Fathers will and work.
Jesus knew why he came into the world. He was not acting independently for he was sent, and the Father was not acting independently for Jesus came to do his work.Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
Jesus is “monogenes” because of the “independent” action of the father
Is there a scripture for this?Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
clearly making a “seperation” or distiction between who is the father and who is the son.
Agreed!Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
The father ordained the mystery “independent” of Jesus. The Father ordained the powers “independant” of Jesus, etal.All the above mentioned actions in the scriptures are attributed to God “independant” of Jesus.
False! See above!Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
The only way around that is to grant your contention that Jesus is God and was there performing the actions.
And there is the pivotal point of contention.
The Scripture says…In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the “WORD WAS GOD”. The same was in the beginning with God. “ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE”. John 1:1-3
Yes that is the pivotal point. For I believe that if nothing was made without him then he also knew and took part in the plan and purpose of God for he is the Word that was\is with God and was\is God.
Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
You mention my cherry picking, yet I notice you are equally skilled at it.
So you admit that you cherry pick? No, I have addressed all of the scriptures and points that you make in your post, whereas you ignore about half to two thirds of the scriptures and points I make in my posts.Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
You mention my denials, yet I notice you are equally skilled at it.
So you admit that you deny certain scriptures? I believe all the scriptures that you post, however I see them in light of all the scriptures whereas you cannot seem to do this because of the lies you have been taught about Jesus and his nature. IMO.Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
I have read numerous challenges by others left totally unanswered and unaddressed.
This is true. I have to pick certain debates for lack of time. Since there are not very many Trinitarians here that makes it a little tough to answer every post. I admit some post are challenging and takes a lot of time and prayer and meditation before answering.Quote (SEEKING @ April 14 2009,10:46)
For a while, I will just be reading and see of you can catch up.Seeking
I doubt if you will be just reading. And I doubt if I will catch up!Blessings WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:11) Nick,
Do you think that it is impossible for God to truly birth a son of His own…a true son from His own being before anything else came into life? Ponder the term “Firstborn of all creation.”
LU
Hi LU,
Nothing is impossible with God.God had other sons as shown in Jb38 and Jesus is the firstborn son.
He is the prince of princes.
Hi Keith,
You said:Quote As it now stands “All Power and all Authority and all things are in Jesus hands”. So do you believe by that statement that the power and authority of the Father are also in Jesus' hands?
All for now,
KathiQuote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,00:24) Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:11) Nick,
Do you think that it is impossible for God to truly birth a son of His own…a true son from His own being before anything else came into life? Ponder the term “Firstborn of all creation.”
LU
Hi LU,
Nothing is impossible with God.God had other sons as shown in Jb38 and Jesus is the firstborn son.
He is the prince of princes.
Hi Nick,
Would you say that God birthing His own Son from His own being would be the same as creating His own Son? Don't you think that birthing a son would be like reproducing like and creating a son (like angels) would be making something of a different likeness than the creater. I think that if God had a true son before anything else with life came into being, he would come through the process of reproduction and not through the process of creation. In other words, we did not bring our children about through the process of creation, we brought them about through the process of reproduction. In that way, they are true sons and daughters of ours.LU
Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 13 2009,22:36) WJ,
Ps 2
7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.Before God did this there was no Son.
Nick,
What was He before God did this?
LUQuote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,00:56) Hi LU,
The Son surely did not exist in any form before he was begotten of God
Hi Nick,
I agree…He was always a son. A son by reproduction and not be creation.
LUQuote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:41) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,00:24) Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:11) Nick,
Do you think that it is impossible for God to truly birth a son of His own…a true son from His own being before anything else came into life? Ponder the term “Firstborn of all creation.”
LU
Hi LU,
Nothing is impossible with God.God had other sons as shown in Jb38 and Jesus is the firstborn son.
He is the prince of princes.
Hi Nick,
Would you say that God birthing His own Son from His own being would be the same as creating His own Son? Don't you think that birthing a son would be like reproducing like and creating a son (like angels) would be making something of a different likeness than the creater. I think that if God had a true son before anything else with life came into being, he would come through the process of reproduction and not through the process of creation. In other words, we did not bring our children about through the process of creation, we brought them about through the process of reproduction. In that way, they are true sons and daughters of ours.LU
Hi LU,
The Son is only said to have been uniquely begotten and not created and as God is Spirit it would seem likely that like the lesser angels he was like to God as spirit.Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:27) Hi Keith,
You said:Quote As it now stands “All Power and all Authority and all things are in Jesus hands”. So do you believe by that statement that the power and authority of the Father are also in Jesus' hands?
All for now,
Kathi
Hi KathiIs there any other infinite power and infinite authority but Gods?
What I said was…
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 13 2009,17:53) As it now stands “All Power and all Authority and all things are in Jesus hands”. I do not believe that Arians understand what that means.
When you think of an infinite God with infinite Love and infinite power, pure logic says that the “infinite” could not be given to the “finite”. Yet the professed believers go out of their way to reduce the infinite to being finite. IMO
When we think of God we are limited in our finite minds to grasp the infinite nature of God. We can only make sense of certain terms by trying to relate to them like Father and Son.
Those terms are for us and not for an infinite God. In fact those terms in relationship to the Father and man was not hardly known by the Hebrews. It is vaguely mentioned in the Hebrew scriptures. It wasn't until Jesus was born as the Son of God that the terms Father and Son are brought to light.Jesus said…
The Father loveth the Son, and “HATH GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND”. John 3:35
”ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE”: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH”. Matt. 28:18
I do not presume to understand how the Father who is infinite in power and authority can give it away.
So therefore I think the highlighted terms in the scriptures above are there for us to grasp some understanding of who and what God is. Jesus has all of the infinite power and infinite authority of God, which means he would have to be infinite. If he is infinite then it would mean like the Father he has always been infinite.It was by Jesus also that all things were made and without him nothing was made that was made.
Since all things are infinite and include, time, space and matter, then that would mean to me that Jesus would have to be infinite.
Go to the ends of the universe in your mind and then ask what is on the other side, and then what is on the other side of that, and then what is on the other side of that? See what I mean? There is no end. The heavens declare his glory.
So that leaves me with no option but to see Jesus as equal to God and in fact as God, one with the Father and the Spirit.
All things are upheld by the word of his power and by him all things consist! What a mighty God we serve!
Most do not grasp how powerful and mighty this Jesus is. IMO
WJ
Hi WJ,
You say
“When we think of God we are limited in our finite minds to grasp the infinite nature of God. We can only make sense of certain terms by trying to relate to them like Father and Son.”Cobblers.
Read the bible.
The Father is our God and His son's God.Hi Keith,
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.You said:
Quote It was by Jesus also that all things were made and without him nothing was made that was made. Since all things are infinite and include, time, space and matter, then that would mean to me that Jesus would have to be infinite.
Do you think that it could be possible that the “all things” that were made could be limited to things that are “in” heaven, and “on” earth as this passage in Col. states:
Col 1:15-18
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
NASUBlessings,
KathiHi again Keith,
You said:
Quote Jesus said… The Father loveth the Son, and “HATH GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND”. John 3:35
”ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE”: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH”. Matt. 28:18
I do not presume to understand how the Father who is infinite in power and authority can give it away.
So therefore I think the highlighted terms in the scriptures above are there for us to grasp some understanding of who and what God is. Jesus has all of the infinite power and infinite authority of God, which means he would have to be infinite. If he is infinite then it would mean like the Father he has always been infinite.So would you say that the Father is the giver of all power and the Son is the receiver of all power?
Last question for now
,
KathiQuote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,01:06) Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:41) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,00:24) Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:11) Nick,
Do you think that it is impossible for God to truly birth a son of His own…a true son from His own being before anything else came into life? Ponder the term “Firstborn of all creation.”
LU
Hi LU,
Nothing is impossible with God.God had other sons as shown in Jb38 and Jesus is the firstborn son.
He is the prince of princes.
Hi Nick,
Would you say that God birthing His own Son from His own being would be the same as creating His own Son? Don't you think that birthing a son would be like reproducing like and creating a son (like angels) would be making something of a different likeness than the creater. I think that if God had a true son before anything else with life came into being, he would come through the process of reproduction and not through the process of creation. In other words, we did not bring our children about through the process of creation, we brought them about through the process of reproduction. In that way, they are true sons and daughters of ours.LU
Hi LU,
The Son is only said to have been uniquely begotten and not created and as God is Spirit it would seem likely that like the lesser angels he was like to God as spirit.
Thanks Nick for your answer. Would you agree that the Son is the only begotten of God?Blessings,
LUWJ………It also says ……..God does (ALL THINGS) after the council of (HIS OWN WILL). In other words He Doesn't ask (ANYONE) else for their opinions, and that includes Jesus. And also notice it doesn't say (there own will) it says (HIS) own will. Hear O Israel the LORD our GOD is (ONE) LORD, Not two or three triune anything. IMO
peace and love to you and yours…………………………………………gene
Quote (SEEKING @ Mar. 17 2009,05:05) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 16 2009,09:36) Quote (SEEKING @ Mar. 16 2009,09:04) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 15 2009,11:41) Quote Man is a plural unity. Man is called both “him” (singular) and “them” (plural). So God is also called “Him” and “Us”. Another vastily inaccurate statement!
Gen 1:27 So God created man (adam – singular)
in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female ( the two sexes of adam) he created them.Man is NOT called singular and plural. Man is called SINGULAR.
The two sexes are referred to as “them” and, quite naturally,
are plural.False premise adds up to false conclusions.
Seeking,What you said above is exactly what I said. The two sexes are ONE man. So the plural Persons called “elohim” are ONE God.
thanks bro,
thinker
Negative! Man referred to as the 'Kind” is SINGULAR.
The sexes referred to in the “Kind”, male and female,
considered together are plural.ELOHIM is NOT plural –
Trinitarians and others claim that the Hebrew noun ‘Elohim’, rendered ‘God’ (Strong’s #430) in the first clause of Genesis 1:26, denotes more than one God Person (typically thought of or explained as “3 in 1” or “2 in 1” as in “one” family). In support they point to the second clause of verse 26, “Let us make man in our image”, being plural. It is true that in both English and Hebrew this second clause contains the plural subject ‘us’ and that this governs the plural verb ‘make’- But these are not governed by ‘Elohim’ (God) of the first clause. What is not realized, or otherwise mentioned in this issue is that in the first clause, “And God said”, ‘Elohim’ governs the singular Hebrew verb ‘’amer’ (Strong’s # 559), which is rendered ‘said’ in English. So linguistically there is no basis for claiming that ‘Elohim’ denotes, represents, or contains more than one God Person (entity).
It is also claimed that the Hebrew ‘Elohim’ is a uniplural or collective noun and that such nouns (e.g. the English noun ‘crowd’) often govern singular verbs. This claim contradicts leading Hebrew grammars, which claim that throughout the OT and when referring to the true God, the Hebrew noun 'Elohim' behaves as a singular noun, and governs only singular verbs, singular adjectives and singular pronouns. And only when 'elohim' refers to a number of pagan gods or humans (e.g. judges), that it behaves as a plural noun; and then governs plural verbs, plural adjectives and plural pronouns. So grammatically ‘Elohim’ is never a collective (uniplural) noun. That in reference to the true God, the noun ‘Elohim’ is singular, is well illustrated in Genesis 1:29, where this noun governs the singular pronoun ‘I’.Here follows a selection of Hebrew grammars from which these claims may be further verified: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch, 2nd English edition by A.E. Cowley, paragraph 124 (g); Weingreen's Hebrew Grammar under 'God' in its English-Hebrew vocabulary; C.L Seow's A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, 1992 printing, the vocabulary on page 19; James D Martin's Davidson's Introductory Grammar, 27th edition, 1995 reprint, page 52.
So grammatically, too, there is no justification for claiming that in Genesis 1:26 'God' (Elohim) denotes more than one God Person. Indeed throughout the OT ‘Elohim’ always denotes just one God Person.Note: The author of these articles listed below is an American now living in Israel. He is fluent in English, Modern Hebrew, and Biblical Hebrew. He is a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar and Semitic language expert
But Americans who are experts in Hebrew disagree… for instance,“When we consider v. 26, we are faced with two interpretive dilemmas that have historically plagued ancient and modern commentators. First, what or who is the referent of the plural pronouns “let us” and “our image and our likeness”? Second, what is the significance of the terms “image” and “likeness” for understanding the unique place of human life in the divine scheme of creation? In what way can the author claim that mankind corresponds to God? The two issues are interrelated since in order to understand the “image” we must also hold before us the question of its Maker's identity.
Regarding the verb “make,” we have already observed at 1:1 that the verbs “made” (‘āsâ) and “created” (bārā’) are in parallel both structurally and semantically in 2:4a, b. Here the parallel between v. 26 (“Let us make”) and v. 27 (“So God created”) indicates that they are virtual synonyms. Nevertheless, a significant difference here is that the verb “make” is grammatically plural. “Created” is highlighted in v. 27 by its repetition three times, and in v. 26 the plural form of the verb distinguishes “make.” This is the first of four passages in the Old Testament where the plural is found in divine dialogue. Subsequently in Genesis the plural “like one of us” occurs in 3:22, and the plural verb “let us go down” is attested in 11:7. Finally, in Isaiah's vision of the heavenly throne the prophet hears the divine request, “And who will go for us?” (Isa 6:8).
Among commentators the plural reference is variously understood: (1) a remnant of polytheistic myth; (2) God's address to creation, “heavens and earth”; (3) a plural indicating divine honor and majesty; (4) self-deliberation; (5) divine address to a heavenly court of angels; and (6) divine dialogue within the Godhead. It is unlikely when we consider the elevated theology of 1:1–2:3, that any polytheistic element would be tolerated by the author; therefore, the first option can be ruled out. The second option is flatly contradicted by v. 27, where God alone is identified as the Creator. The plural as used to show special reverence (honorific plural) is flawed since the point of the verse is the unique correspondence between God and man, not the majesty of God. The fourth viewpoint considers “Let us make” a plural of self-deliberation, depicting God anthropomorphically as someone in contemplation. This is supported by the change to the singular (“his own image”) in v. 27, which indicates that the figure of “deliberation” is completed. In ancient myths divine deliberation prefaces the creation of humans. Self-deliberation is attested in the Old Testament (e.g., Pss 42:5, 11; 43:5), but there is no attestation that the plural form is used in this way.
The fifth interpretation regarding a heavenly court of angels is more likely, though not sufficientl
y convincing. Impressive evidence from the Old Testament and parallels from Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology point to the idea of a heavenly court where plans are made and decisions rendered. Furthermore, some argue that Psalm 8's commentary on the passage indicates that ’ĕlōhîm refers to angels. A difficulty with this view is the inclusion of angels in the phrase “our image” in 1:26. In what sense is the human being created in the image of angels? Appealing to 6:1–4 only begs the question since it is not clear that the “sons of God” are angels. The overriding problem with this view is that there has been no mention of an angelic court in chap. 1, and the text is clear that mankind is made in God's image (“his image,” v. 27). More important, the narrative has shown by its theological stance that God has no antecedent partner or source for creation. The sudden introduction of a heavenly court diminishes the force of the presentation. To answer this, some suggest that though he consulted with the heavenly court, God alone created man and hence he alone is the source of the “image.” But such a resolution is odd since it undermines the very contention of the angel view, namely, that God consulted with the heavenly court when in fact the consultation had no appreciable meaning.
Finally, we consider the traditional contention that the plural refers to a divine plurality. The interpretation proposed by the Church Fathers and perpetuated by the Reformers was an intra-Trinity dialogue. However, this position can only be entertained as a possible “canonical” reading of the text since the first audience could not have understood it in the sense of a trinitarian reference. Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage. This was the essential line of argument among the Reformers, who expanded this thought by appealing to the New Testament for corroboration. Our passage describes the result of God's creative act by both plural and singular pronouns: the plural possessive “our image” in v. 26 and the singular pronoun “his image” in v. 27. Here the unity and plurality of God are in view. The plural indicates an intradivine conversation, a plurality in the Godhead, between God and his Spirit. By its reference to “the Spirit of God” preparing the “earth” for the creative word (1:2), the narrative permits a coparticipant with God in creation. Moreover, Prov 8:30 speaks of the personified “Wisdom” as God's coparticipant in creation. The later poets and prophets attribute the source of life to the “Spirit” (e.g., Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; Ezek 37).
—New American Commentaryabout the author: Dr. Kenneth Matthews is professor of OT at Beeson Divinity School, Samford University. He is an acknowledged expert in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Text Criticism, biblical Hebrew, and the literary study of the OT, having written or edited books and articles in those areas. He is the coauthor of The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll and the co-editor of Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. His commentary on Genesis 1-11 is a masterpiece of theological exposition that is guided by an extensive knowledge of ancient Near Eastern languages, literature, and culture and by a sensitivity to the literary features of the text and its canonical context. He has provided the church a classic treatment of these intriguing and challenging chapters of this foundational Bible book….
blessings,
kenQuote (Lightenup @ April 15 2009,01:09) Hi Keith,
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.You said:
Quote It was by Jesus also that all things were made and without him nothing was made that was made. Since all things are infinite and include, time, space and matter, then that would mean to me that Jesus would have to be infinite.
Do you think that it could be possible that the “all things” that were made could be limited to things that are “in” heaven, and “on” earth as this passage in Col. states:
Col 1:15-18
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
NASUBlessings,
Kathi
Hi kathiThat is a good question.
The Greek word for “heavens” or “heaven” is 'ouranos', it is a masculine noun which means…
1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it
a) the universe, the world
b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced
c) the sidereal or starry heavens
2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings
Paul not only says he made those things which are visible but also those things which are invisible.
Unitarains somehow read into this the “New Creation”, but the word “New Creation” is not found in these verses.
There are two times Paul mentions a “New Creature” or it can be translated “New Creation” and that was in 2 Cor 5:17 and Gal 6:15. The Greek word in those scriptures is different from the word created in Col 1:16
However to be fair it is the same Greek word that Paul uses in Col 1:15 when it reads he is the “firtsborn of every creature”.
The problem they have with this is the term “New Creation” is not there either.
Kathi, you take this scripture from a preexistant standpoint meaning Jesus is the firstborn of the current creation, the Unitaraians take it as he is the firstborn of the “New creation”.
I simply think that the truest interpretation of the text in its context is neither. The word firstborn here IMO and many other experts does not mean a birth but in fact Paul is drawing from a Hebrew term meaning preeminence.
For in the same context he uses the term “firstborn from the dead”, and we know he was not the first one to arise from the dead but in fact had the preeminece over all those in the ressurection because it was because of him that anyone rose from the dead for he was the resurrection and the life and had power over death.
Concerning the term “firstborn over the creation” the NET states…
28tn 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). The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.
So back to your question, I think that the above trumps any idea that Paul was meaning that the “all things” were limited to just heaven and earth and in fact John 1:1-3 to me check mates the notion.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the “WORD WAS GOD”. The same was in the beginning with God. “ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND *WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE*”. John 1:1-3
Blessings WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 15 2009,01:13) Hi again Keith, You said:
Quote Jesus said… The Father loveth the Son, and “HATH GIVEN ALL THINGS INTO HIS HAND”. John 3:35
”ALL THINGS THAT THE FATHER HATH ARE MINE”: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16:15
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, “ALL POWER IS GIVEN UNTO ME IN HEAVEN AND IN EARTH”. Matt. 28:18
I do not presume to understand how the Father who is infinite in power and authority can give it away.
So therefore I think the highlighted terms in the scriptures above are there for us to grasp some understanding of who and what God is. Jesus has all of the infinite power and infinite authority of God, which means he would have to be infinite. If he is infinite then it would mean like the Father he has always been infinite.So would you say that the Father is the giver of all power and the Son is the receiver of all power?
Last question for now
,
Kathi
Hi KathiWhile Jesus was in the flesh I would say yes. He emtied himself and came in the flesh.
However now I believe that Jesus has all authority and power and is the giver of all authority and all power.
There is no indication that the Father gave him anything before he came into this world but in fact says that he was in the form of God and was God. Now he has returned to his previous glory!
Remember without him was not anything made that was made.
The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are one!
Blessings WJ
Quote (Lightenup @ April 15 2009,01:18) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,01:06) Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:41) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 14 2009,00:24) Quote (Lightenup @ April 14 2009,16:11) Nick,
Do you think that it is impossible for God to truly birth a son of His own…a true son from His own being before anything else came into life? Ponder the term “Firstborn of all creation.”
LU
Hi LU,
Nothing is impossible with God.God had other sons as shown in Jb38 and Jesus is the firstborn son.
He is the prince of princes.
Hi Nick,
Would you say that God birthing His own Son from His own being would be the same as creating His own Son? Don't you think that birthing a son would be like reproducing like and creating a son (like angels) would be making something of a different likeness than the creater. I think that if God had a true son before anything else with life came into being, he would come through the process of reproduction and not through the process of creation. In other words, we did not bring our children about through the process of creation, we brought them about through the process of reproduction. In that way, they are true sons and daughters of ours.LU
Hi LU,
The Son is only said to have been uniquely begotten and not created and as God is Spirit it would seem likely that like the lesser angels he was like to God as spirit.
Thanks Nick for your answer. Would you agree that the Son is the only begotten of God?Blessings,
LU
Hi LU,
Scripture does not say Jesus was the ONLY begotten son.ONLY BEGOTTEN is one word in greek encompassing some uniqueness in his origin.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
