The Light

Participant

My dear brothers, WJ, Golla and Gene,

(WJ I don't always answer you but there are different reasons, usually the posts move so rapidly that I get distracted, or I don't have the time right then but not because I don't want to discuss it with you, I just wanted you to know that).

Thank you for bothering to read about my “revelation” if indeed you did. I see that Col 1:15+ speaks about firstborn chronologically in my opinion. Jesus is an example of the firstborn lamb that was slain. That was meant chronologically. The lamb was the first out of the womb. That is chronological. Firstborn from the dead, I think has to do with Jesus being the first after His resurrection to be returned to the Father to live eternally. Jesus went to the Father just after He told Mary by His tomb not to touch Him,for He had not yet ascended to His Father yet. I don't think that the dead have been returned to the Father yet. When we die, we are absent from the body and present with the Lord but not necessarily with God, the Father yet. Jesus presents His bride sometime in the future. That is when everyone that was earthly sons of God return to the Father. Jesus says “I am the way, the truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me.” Our goal is to get to the Father. So, I believe that the term firstborn from the dead is also a chronological term meaning the first to return to the Father and given eternal life. This passage in Col. is also about His pre-emenince, no doubt.

So, the fact remains that firstborn CAN MEAN first out of the womb, and that coming out of the parent's womb DEFINETLY makes one a son (or daughter), and the firstborn is said to be Holy to the Lord and it IS the firsborn male lamb that is given as a sacrifice, well the evidence is overwhelming to me that firstborn, as it relates to Christ in Col., is more about the chronological type. He is the only begotten Son, He is holy, He was a perfect sacrifice. He wasn't called “firstborn” because the Father had other sons beforehand but chose Jesus because He merely was the fullfillment of a promise and the others weren't like Isaac. Jesus was the firstborn and only begotten Son. The only one born/begotten of God.

I agree, I believe that Jesus can do nothing of Himself and He did not create anything IN heaven or ON earth on His own. His Father showed Him what to do, empowered Him to do it, and was with Him. The Firstborn was God's right hand during creation. I see an awesome Father/Son relationship here in creation.

You men have probably taught your son (if you have any) to build a model plane or ship or car at some point. Your child, when he was very young probably couldn't have done it without you being right there step by step. When you both finished the project, didn't you show it off and both of you feel a sense of glory/pride in it. Dad, you felt the glory of being able to share your wisdom and ability with your son, your son felt the glory of giving you glory and doing what you wanted him to do. Yes, it is different showing your child how to create a zoo of animals and move some mountains around and spin the stars into Orion but being a Father that is also God, well, He should be able to show His son how to make something a whole lot bigger than a mere model of something, after all.

Regarding the phrase “This is my Son, today I have begotten thee” took place sometime after the resurrection of Jesus probably when He returned to the Father after He saw Mary by the tomb. It was a saying given to King David, if I remember correctly, and has something to do with a formal kingly type of introduction as a victorious king. See the NET Bible's notes regarding the mention of it in Psalms and also in the New Testament.

Now regarding the Greek:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
ov estin (5748) eikwn tou qeou tou aoratou, prwtotokov pashv ktisewv,

Some translate the firstborn of all creation as “firstborn over all creation.”

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
ov estin (5748) eikwn tou qeou tou aoratou, prwtotokov pashv ktisewv,

The Greek word “pashv” is an adjective here and is in the genitive case which shows possession. “Of all” is the proper translation, “of” is the word to put in front of the word “all” to show possession. Over in “over all creation” would be a PREPOSITION, not an adjective. A preposition shows relationship of one thing to another regarding position, not possession that the genitive case would dictate. Please refer to these websites. They will show you that within the Strong's definition, “over” is not even listed as an option. Also, you will be able to see that “of all” comes from pashv, and that it is parsed in the Adjective (not preposition) : Genitive (shows possession) : Singular : Feminine form.
http://www.studylight.org/isb….&ol=grk
http://www.studylight.org/isb….5&nt=na
http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=3956

And then, with all that in mind, I DID HAVE that “revelation” when I asked God (not man) but God, what He meant by the term “firsborn” of all creation. First a new set of glasses came on me while reading the Bible and then the whisper into my ear, CLEARLY not from my own thoughts, “you are the light of the world” at the very moment after my son pointed out that on day one of creation God said, “Let there be Light.”

Can you see that I have thought this through. My legs on this are strong. I haven't taken this lightly but tested it.

God bless, LU

June 8, 2008 at 7:52 pm#91879

Participant

Quote (gollamudi @ June 08 2008,14:39)

It can't mean position or rank. That needs a preposition not a word written in the possessive case. I know that you aren't savvy with grammar or Greek as you have admitted but you are dealing with a translation of Greek. It is helpful to know about grammar and Greek to be able to test your theory.

June 8, 2008 at 10:14 pm#91904

seek and you will find

Participant

Quote (Gene Balthrop @ June 09 2008,05:37)

Adam….Col 1:15….> is saying Jesus is the firstborn ( image) of all of (Gods creation).To truly (IMAGE) Him. Then goes to show that by God everything was created and that includes Jesus being created as the firstborn of many that will (IMAGE) GOD to Come. This text has been twisted by trinitarians to try to make Jesus equal to God the Father for centuries. and to make it appear as if Jesus is GOD. Pure Lies, Jesus said there is (ONLY ONE TRUE GOD) and He was not talking about Himself either. Did he not say “I of MYSELF CAN DO (NOTHING). Did he really mean that and at the same time He created everything. so i guess Jesus was just lying to us right. COME ON.

peace to al who understand the truth………gene

I get just a little bit offended when a Brother says things like you just did.
Quote: peace to all that understand the truth. So those that are searching and disagree with you are not Christians? And the peace of God is not in them? Come again my friend. First of all, all have fallen short of the glory of God. All that believe in Christ and have been Baptized and have excepted Christ in their lives, are Christians, even if they do not agree with you on certain doctrines. It is not my fault that you can't understand the preexsisting of Jesus.
Peace and Love Mrs.

June 9, 2008 at 8:53 am#92023

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 09 2008,07:52)

Quote (gollamudi @ June 08 2008,14:39)

Hi Kathi,
I once again agree with you that I don't know greek and Latin but that doesn't stop me from understanding the scriptures in the light of God's Holy Spirit through which many men of God led the people of God in the History. I don't agree on your logics that Jesus was the literally born first on the day One of creation. I better stick to my earlier old Trinity doctrine which gives better understanding of the scriptures than what many non-trinitarians are doing by creating more than one God which Bible denies. Jesus told us that Father is only the True God and also the one and Only (Jn 17:3, 5:44). I can't accept the human logic though you claim them as some revelations, every thing to be tested by the written word of God. You can not deviate from the overall concepts of God. I don't find any scripture in the O.T where the Son of God was born in a mystical way as you all claim, unless you people misinterpret the scriptures.
You know the Trinitarians also believe there is no single scripture that Jesus was born prior to his birth through Mary as a man. That's why they go beyond scripture and claim that Son was existing eternally with the Father.
Firstborn in the family is not always first to be born but is also the pre-eminence which Jacob got from his brother. Jesus is God's firstborn in this creation to be first(supreme) in rank that was the God the father's will and plan He wanted to make Jesus first among many children whom He is going to bring forth through His Son. It talks about God's New creation in which the eternity lasts.
I can not just agree with that interpretation of Gen 1:3 to the Son of God as the light.
Sorry my Sis
Adam

June 10, 2008 at 12:10 am#92126

Participant

Adam,
Well, at least you have been told about the idea that the Son of God was born of God on day 1 as the Light.

Maybe you can tell me what that light is. You are aware that the sun, moon and stars were created on day four, right. Are you aware that a heavenly light-being appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus and said that He was Jesus?
Acts 9:3-5
As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are You, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,

Are you aware that Jesus was transfigured into a heavenly light-being on the mount of transfiguration in front of witnesses.

Mt 17:2
And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

Are you aware that in revelation we will have no need of the sun because the Lord will be our lamp?
Re 21:23
And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

Are you aware that we are to be sons of day and not sons of night?

1Th 5:5
for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;

Something else I found last night.

Hebrews 1:10
And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

the Greek word for “laid the foundation” is “eqemeliwsas”
eqemeliwsas is parsed as: Verb : 2nd Person : Aorist : Active : Indicative : Singular
http://www.studylight.org/isb….0&nt=na

Strong's Number: 2311 qemelio/w

Verb 3:63,322
Definition
to lay the foundation, to found
to make stable, establish

The Son of God laid the foundation in an active way, He was there and actively involved, not in a passive way as through the plan or hopes of a future son.

I am interested in your answers.
God bless you,
LU

June 10, 2008 at 4:43 pm#92225

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 10 2008,12:10)

Adam,
Well, at least you have been told about the idea that the Son of God was born of God on day 1 as the Light.

Are you aware that Jesus was transfigured into a heavenly light-being on the mount of transfiguration in front of witnesses.

Mt 17:2
And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

Are you aware that we are to be sons of day and not sons of night?

1Th 5:5
for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;

Something else I found last night.

Hebrews 1:10
And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;

the Greek word for “laid the foundation” is “eqemeliwsas”
eqemeliwsas is parsed as: Verb : 2nd Person : Aorist : Active : Indicative : Singular
http://www.studylight.org/isb….0&nt=na

Strong's Number: 2311 qemelio/w

Verb 3:63,322
Definition
to lay the foundation, to found
to make stable, establish

The Son of God laid the foundation in an active way, He was there and actively involved, not in a passive way as through the plan or hopes of a future son.

I am interested in your answers.
God bless you,
LU

Hi Kathy,
These are some of my comments on your queries raised above.
1.You asked me “what the light is?”
My answer: the light was literal light that God created on day one just like darkness which was already existing by that time. Remember in Gen 1:3-5, God separated this light from darkness and also called it “day”
2. You also said that “God created Sun, moon and stars on day 4”
My comment: Yes God created Sun, moon and stars to separate day from night, for signs, for seasons, for days and years (Gen 1:14-15). I don't find any problem here in God's creation.
3. You mentioned about Jesus appearing to Paul as light in Acts.
My comment: Yes glorified Jesus has the light of glory in him even you can see the angels of God appeared in flashes of light to men in many places (like in Lk 2:9). Jesus also said “we are the light of the world” as he is also the light of the world (Matt 5:14, Jn 8:12) Jesus was the light world or we are the light of the world doesn't make us or Jesus literal light which was created on the Day 1. See also Jn 1:5-7 “God is light in Him there is no darkness..” is talking about His purety, holiness, truth not literal light.
4. You said “Are you aware that Jesus was transfigured into a heavenly light-being on the mount of transfiguration in front of witnesses?”
My comment: It was a vision in which Jesus was transfigured and appeared in light of glory to the three disciples (Matt 17:9). I believe it's only vision about the future glory of Jesus at his resurrection (Jn 17:1-5).
5 You also said “Are you aware that in revelation we will have no need of the sun because the Lord will be our lamp?
Re 21:23″
My comments: Yes I believe that “God will be the source of illumination and Lamb of God will be a lamp in the New Jerusalem”
6. You also said “for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness
My reply: yes I am aware but it is not talking about the literal light and darkness but about righteousness/alertness and sin/sleep (1 Thess 5:4-6).
7. You said “Hebrews 1:10
And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS.
The Son of God laid the foundation in an active way, He was there and actively involved, not in a passive way as through the plan or hopes of a future son”
My comment: This portion of scripture is taken from Ps 102:24-25. In fact this Psalm is a prayer of the afflicted pouring out his complaints before YHWH, it can not be applied to son of God but to God alone who created the heavens and earth alone without anyones help (Is 44:24).
My Sis please remember Jesus was not existing as a being before his birth through Mary otherwise God could have declared to us in O.T as well as through Jesus' own words. I don't see a single reference to jesus declaring that he was existing as a some being prior to his birth unless you misinterpret them.
Pre-existence is another mythology where by you make Jesus somebody other than human which nullifies God's sovereignity in this whole creation that another God-being was with Him and was actively involved in creation as you and others claim.
I don't agree with this another man-made doctrine.
Take care
Adam

June 10, 2008 at 6:43 pm#92236

NickHassan

Participant

Hi GM,
So he could not because your dogma says he did not exist?
Sounds like a weak foundation to me.

June 10, 2008 at 7:54 pm#92245

Participant

Golla,
Unfortunately, we are at an impass. Yes I also believe that some references are referring to a figurative light but I do think that there is more to His light than just figurative. He is going to be our “lamp” in New Jerusalem and so we will not need the sun. I do not feel that you are able to be reasoned with, IMO. You have no need for understanding grammar or the nuances of the original Greek. All in God's timing, though. At least I have made these things known to you.
God bless you,
LU

June 11, 2008 at 2:57 pm#92330

Participant

Hi LU,
I have already quoted that Jesus will be our “Lamp” in New Jerusalem and God will be the source of illumination (light). I have not disagreed with you on that, you can see my earlier post. What I submit here is you can not take away the “Natural Light” that was created like darkness which also created by the same God (Is 45:7). I only submitted that you were speculating on this “light” as Jesus or son of God which I can not just accept with your reasoning.
Peace to you
Adam

June 12, 2008 at 4:12 am#92407

Participant

Hi Adam,
That's ok if you don't accept that the light is the son of God. I'm not sure that I would either if just another person sincerely thought so and can show several verses that could allude to it being so. I would probably think that it may be possible though and test it or at least tuck it away in my mind and not disregard it altogether since there are alot of verses that refer to the Son of God as the light and that light seems to be physical and spiritual. For anyone to hold on to it like I have, it probably needs to be revealed to them by God. That is how I received it and I have the faith now to believe it. It makes sense to me because God has given me faith to believe it. Also, I have tested it and find that it stands up to tests.

Abide in love,
LU

June 12, 2008 at 6:17 am#92419

Participant

Hi Sister,

You say that your theories stand up under tests, but I have not seen it here as I have followed along. In fact there are those who believe your ideas are Gnostic in nature, but I don't know about that.

Keep your faith strong. Someday you may need to revisit this idea of the Son of God being the light….you may need to change your ideas according to new insight into the Word. Be open to God's leading. Sometimes when we hang onto something so tightly, we won't let go no matter what (pride sets in and we must remain “right”). It's no good. Remain faithful to what has been given, but also remain open to more insight. I'm just trying to encourage you, I hope it's coming out right? I'm tired tonight and should really head to bed instead of posting.

Take care,
Mandy

June 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm#92435

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 12 2008,16:12)

Abide in love,
LU

Hi Sis Kathy,
Sorry for discouraging you(as you feel). But that is not my intention, we all are here irrespective of our understanding based on certain previous knowledge or revelations whatever you quote. I am not abruptly asking you to change your mind on your understanding on these concepts but I am provoking your thinking in the light of God's word. That's all.
In fact I have gone through all your posts fully and infered what is the mind behind them. See the words of Mandy she also wants to encourage you not to discourage.
Take care Sis.
Adam

June 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm#92439

Participant

Hey Mandy and Adam,
I know that you are trying to encourage me to see how others do not agree with me but if that is your “test” on whether something is true or false, well that is subjective and not unbiased and objective. If you want to show me some real evidence, in other words, show me how you have tested my theories objectively in light of the original language and clear Bible passages and we can discuss it. You ought to know that I do not lean on other people's understanding but on God's word and the objective tests and not popular opinion. If you can't do that, then please realize that you may be missing something. Truly, I have been very encouraged by others who can see that the Son of God is called the begotten God. I don't expect to be supported if you can't even accept that. There are many on here that believe that the Son of God was only a mere man and just a created being. I have noticed that those that think He was only a mere man do not use grammar proofs or speak of the nuances of the Greek language and then use it to test their theories. Have you noticed that? Doesn't that make you wonder.

So, I look forward to discussing with you if you show me objective tests as to where I am failing. I have said many times that I am not infailable. Your subjective, popular opinion tests are not going to change anything. Sorry. However objective tests will at least give me some reason to seek God with an open heart and mind.

I want to be right because being wrong gets me nowhere but I want to be right for the glory of God.
LU

June 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm#92447

Participant

Hi Kathy,
That's better than ever and that's the right spirit. Yes certainly we will debate on these issues. I have already provided some initial arguements for that. Ok we start may be more closure to the destination.
Thanks
Adam

June 12, 2008 at 4:33 pm#92456

Participant

Good morning Kathi,

Quote

If you want to show me some real evidence, in other words, show me how you have tested my theories objectively in light of the original language and clear Bible passages and we can discuss it.

This may offend you, of course I don't mean it to, but you seem very defensive. Only wanting to converse with those who seem to know the original language. You know Kathi, God speaks to folks who know nothing of Hebrew and Greek. Wisdom and knowlege can puff one up. In fact Jesus said that sometimes things were hidden from the learned and given to little children. It's good to study and I certainly want to encourage you to keep learning, but I also want to encourage you to be open to other's and their ideas. There are brother's here that have studied and have tested your theories with scripture. However because they do not know the original language their proofs and ideas are merely what? Not good enough or not as good as your proofs and ideas? I don't know. I'm just encouraging you to not put down other's ideas, thoughts, opinions. Who knows? God may speak through one of his children. He may speak through one of them to reach you?

Sometimes I have noticed that even with Hebrew and Greek the interpretations of what words mean can be up for debate. Are you saying there are absolutes in the orignal languages? If so, why do we have so many different versions of the bible? There must be some wriggle room left even in the original languages?

Quote

With all due respect sis, this is a poor attitude. Anyone can spark a reason for you to seek God with an open heart and mind. They do not need to be students of the original languages or excellent debater's to perhaps give an insight or word for the Lord. Remember that the men Jesus chose were fisherman. He chose those dear men to spread his gospel, to feed his lambs. Don't rule us little people out, Kathi. My “popular opinion” has sometimes helped those struggling with scriptures. You never know, God even used a donkey, right? :;):

All I'm saying is don't limit God. Look for inspiration all around you – even from those of us who don't know a lick of Hebrew. Believe me, insight and wisdom are not only given to those who score a 10 on the technicals of grammar.

Those who earnestly seek him will get a reward. I'm sure that you have a wonderful reward waiting for you, sis. Press on!

Love,
Mandy

June 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm#92465

Participant

Mandy,
Yes there are absolutes in the original languages and yes there is some wiggle room and no I am not a scholar. I realize that there is great value in the original text and how it was written. I believe that if a word is written in the past tense, we do not have the freedom to change that to future tense. If a word is written as an adjective, we do not have the freedom to change that to a preposition. If a word is a neuter noun, we ought to use neuter pronouns. If a word is written in the active voice, we ought to not change it to a passive voice. Otherwise, we are tampering with the original language and assuming our ways are better. If God shows truth to those who score a 10 on grammar then it WILL line up with the original truth found in the original language in the grammar also. God's truth will NOT go against His written word.

So, Mandy, do you believe that we should let past tenses be past tenses or is it ok to change them? Actually, it is fine if someone doesn't know grammar well but to disregard it and not line up with it is poor testing of one's understanding. IMO

Keep on studying Mandy and I will also. He will show Himself strong as well as His written word.
Have a great day!
Kathi

June 12, 2008 at 6:09 pm#92475

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ June 13 2008,05:26)

If God shows truth to those who score a 10 on grammar then it WILL line up with the original truth found in the original language in the grammar also. God's truth will NOT go against His written word.

Sigh….

You missed my point entirely, but that's Okay.

You have yourself a great day, too. My son is in a baseball semi-finals playoff game tonight against a really strong team. It's going to be a fun night. Man, I hope we win!!

Mandy

June 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm#92476

Participant

Hi Mandy,
I wish all the best for little Nathan.
Love to you
Adam

June 12, 2008 at 6:15 pm#92478