- This topic has 579 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Mike…….Wisdom is an “atribute”, it is not a person. Anyone can posses wisdom, it is one of the Seven Spirits of God, scripture tells, that …..the hiden atributes “OF GOD”, are seen by the things he created. Certanly Jesus had wisdom in him, that he recieved by the Spirit of God that dwelled “IN” HIM, but to say he “himself” is wisdom is false .
Prov 1:1- 7, describes what wisdom is , it, not any person at all, it what a person can poses. It is one of the “seven spirits” or “intellects” of God, SIMPLE AS THAT.
Peace and love to you and yours Mike……….gene
Jodi: Hi Mike,
I do not believe at all that Paul is speaking of two creations in Colossians 1.
The context clearly shows Paul is speaking of one creation, giving further clarity of that creation spoken of in verse 15 in verse 18, where Paul is speaking of he who was raised from the dead receiving his inheritance…
Coll 2:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is THE BEGINNING, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Hi Jodi. Your interpretation does not match the words of the text. Let me remove some of the words of the text to show you…
Colossians 1:15, 18… The Son is the firstborn of every creature… And he is the firstborn from among the dead.
The word “AND” makes clear that Jesus is both the firstborn of every creature AND the firstborn from among the dead. Furthermore…
Colossians 1:15-16… The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, for through him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through him and for him.
Read in light of your understanding: Jesus was appointed as the firstborn of every creature when he was raised from the dead because, thousands of years before he even existed, everything in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, was created through him and for him.
Your interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny.
Jodi: Psalms 2 is a prophecy…
Jesus was anointed of the Spirit and sent out into the world where he would be persecuted unto his death by wicked rulers for the works he did through the Spirit. They had no clue that he would rise from the dead to become a kings of kings and bring forth wrath upon the wicked.
Pslam 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. 7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
You are arguing my point for me, Jodi. Your words, “he WOULD rise from the dead TO BECOME a king” precisely fits Jesus being raised from the dead, exalted as king (“I have set my king on Zion”), and the words, “this day I have begotten you”.
Jodi: Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost…
This also fits Psalm 2:7 exactly. Jesus was begotten from the dead, given the promise of the Spirit without measure, and exalted as king on Zion.
Jodi: Acts 13:33 God 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.
This one needs no commentary, because it spells it out that Jesus being begotten from the dead and exalted as king on Zion IS what Psalm 2:7 is talking about.
Jodi: Mike, Jesus is great because he was raised from the dead receiving the promised Spirit…
How do you reconcile Jesus receiving the Spirit “without measure” when he was baptized and Jesus receiving the promised Spirit upon being begotten from the dead? Obviously, “without measure” cannot mean what you claim it does, right?
Jodi: He is great as the promised son of David to whom God promised to give his mercies to and make him into a begotten Son. He is declared that Son upon him rising from the dead and being begotten of God’s Spirit.
You are again arguing my point, acknowledging with your own words that Jesus was declared (ie: decreed) to be that begotten Son of God when he was begotten from the dead. Compare…
Psalm 2:7… I will declare the decree the LORD hath said unto me: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
I’m blessed by these discussions, because conversations with both you and Kathi (people on completely opposite sides of the spectrum) have convinced me that Psalm 2:7 most certainly refers to when Jesus was begotten from the dead and installed as king on Zion – ruling from the right hand of the God who exalted him.
Mike: Jesus couldn’t possibly be God then, since no man has ever seen God (John 1:18 – written long after John and thousands of men on earth had seen Jesus). John’s claim also includes Abraham and Jacob – and is supported by Yahweh Himself, [who explicitly said that no man can see His face and live]…
LU: Evidently, the Father is unseen, His image…the Son, can be seen.
That sidesteps the point I’m making. John said that no man had ever seen GOD, but that this OTHER PERSON has made GOD known to us.
If “God” truly is a combo of Father and Son, then John’s statement is a LIE, because thousands of people HAVE seen “God”.
Note the clear contradiction between your doctrine and the Biblical teachings…
Colossians 1:15… The Son is the image of the invisible God…
Kathi 1:15… The Son is the image of the invisible member of the Godhead…
John 1:18… No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made God known to us.
Kathi 1:18… No one has ever seen the invisible member of the Godhead, but the only begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made the invisible member of the Godhead known to us.
Kathi, how do you explain these clear contradictions between your doctrine and the Bible? How do you explain the fact that John 1:18 clearly and undeniably distinguishes the Son as someone OTHER THAN God, whom he made known to us?
Mike: Men have, however, seen spirit messengers of Yahweh in the Bible, and often address these messengers of Yahweh as “Yahweh”.
LU: There are messengers that pass on YHVH’s words and there is the image of YHVH, the Son who is speaking…
All of God’s spirit sons are made in His image, hence, “Let US make man in OUR image”. The bottom line is that you acknowledge that messengers OF Yahweh are often addressed AS Yahweh in scripture. Surely you would also acknowledge that Jesus IS a messenger of his and our God, Yahweh, right? So IF there was ever a time in the OT where Jesus was addressed as Yahweh (which can’t possibly be proven), there would be no valid scriptural reason to assume anything other than that he was just another messenger of Yahweh being addressed as Yahweh, right?
Your doctrine is not standing up to scrutiny, Kathi. With every point I make, it is being exposed as nothing but your personal desire for scripture to be saying something that it clearly isn’t actually saying. This sums up your doctrine…
In this verse, it is just a messenger of Yahweh being addressed as Yahweh. But in this verse, I imagine that the one being addressed as Yahweh is Jesus, and therefore, despite knowing that Jesus was also a messenger of Yahweh, this particular verse means that Yahweh IS his actual name and that he is a member of this “Yahweh Unity” thing that I’ve made up out of thin air.
Mike: Do you have any NT scriptural support that the Jews of Jesus’ time on earth were aware of a “Yahweh Unity”, and knew that one of the Yahwehs could be seen by men, while the other could not?
LU: John 14: 7-11
“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.”
Since Jesus is the image of the Father and portrayed the character of the Father, spoke the Father’s words and did the Father’s actions, Philip has essentially seen the Father through all of that.
You have accurately explained the passage. Jesus also says, “When you see me, you see the One who sent me.” Of course Jesus ISN’T actually the Father, right? And so this passage doesn’t even come close to hinting at a “Yahweh Unity God” made up of one invisible person and one visible person, does it?
Does there exist any NT scripture that actually DOES support the notion that the Jews of Jesus’ time on earth were aware of a “Yahweh Unity God”, and knew that one of the Yahwehs could be seen by men, while the other could not?
Mike: All that being said, let’s run with your understanding that the Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be the Yahweh who could be seen by men.
Did Jesus affirm their accusation or deny it?
LU: Jesus confirmed that He is properly called “God.” If the created beings were called god, how much more the uncreated and only begotten Son of God would be called “God,” even “YHVH God.”
We’re getting there. First, who exactly were these “created beings” that were called gods (not “god”) by Yahweh in Psalm 82? (It’s important to know who/what they were to see if your explanation works. Thanks.)
Mike: Why did you start in verse 20, and also disregard what I just showed you from verses 18 and 19?
Jodi: I did not disregard this, I explain my position to this scripture directly when I said and put in bold, ” We are directly told that the PURPOSE of the virgin birth was for a SIGN and being that it was a virgin birth, it would therefore have to be of the power of God’s Spirit in order to occur!”
As to verse 19, “Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.”
I didn’t see the point in brining this up since the angel comes to clarify things for Joseph.
My point was that Joseph WASN’T the biological father of Jesus. We know this because Mary became pregnant before they had sex, and because Joseph, knowing she was pregnant by someone other than him, was contemplating divorcing her.
The Bible teaches that Jesus was the offspring of Mary and God – not of Mary and Joseph. Are you attempting to refute this scriptural teaching?
Jodi: Jesus is the prophet like that of Moses.
Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Acts 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Yes indeed. Our disagreement lies in whether or not Jesus existed BEFORE God caused Mary to become pregnant with him. So let me add another verse to the two you’ve listed above…
Hebrews 1:1-2… On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the world.
Yes, Jesus was the “latter day prophet” that God told Moses about. But also yes, God created the world through this very Jesus.
Jodi, the non-preexistence interpretation of scripture can be nullified with one single statement Jesus made…
Luke 3:8… And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
See, your entire argument is: Scripture says the coming messiah would be a human being from the line of David!
And you produce many volumes of scriptures saying this very thing. But we all AGREE with that premise and all of those scriptures, Jodi. You’re not actually making the argument you think you are, because we are ALL in agreement on these things.
The problem is that you ignore (or twist into unintelligible nonsense) the many other scriptures that make it undeniably clear that Jesus existed in heaven BEFORE he lived in the form of a man from the line of David.
So now consider those words from your Lord above. If God WERE to raise up children of Abraham from those stones…
1. Would they be true living human beings? Of course they would.
2. Would they have come from the line of Abraham? Of course they would have.
3. Would they have come into existence by extraordinary means? Yes.
4. And would they have preexisted their humanity as something other than human beings, namely, stones? YES!
Do you understand those things, Jodi? Gene? They WOULD BE humans. They WOULD BE of the line of Abraham. They WOULD HAVE become humans in a non-traditional way. And they WOULD HAVE preexisted their humanity as something OTHER THAN the humans they later became.
Likewise, Jesus WAS a human. Jesus WAS of the line of David. Jesus DID become a human in a non-traditional way. And Jesus DID preexist his humanity as something other than the human he later became.
So since NONE of your “the messiah will be a human being” scriptures actually change anything; and since none of us disagree with any of those scriptures in the first place, let’s focus our attention on the scriptures that teach of Jesus’ existence BEFORE he was made in the form of a human being.
Jodi: Hi Mike,
Sounds great, start the thread!
I decided to start addressing your preexistent points here, but I’m happy to delve into it in a separate thread if you (or Kathi) prefer. (Sorry, I’m addressing past posts in chronological order, and just now came to this post of yours. But it’s not hard to copy and paste my previous post to a new thread, because that point is what I’d start a preexistent discussion with anyway.)
Mike: I call Jesus all of those things because the scriptures call Jesus all of those things.
LU: Scripture does call Jesus the Servant to YHVH and that He is…the servant by creating all things and in many other ways. Yet you don’t believe Jesus created one thing.
Actually, Jesus’ own apostles and disciples called him the servant of God in a prayer in which they also said that this very same God whom Jesus serves created heaven, earth, sea, and everything in them. (Acts 4:24-30)
Kathi, is Jesus clearly identified in that prayer (by Peter, John and a bunch of Jesus’ own disciples) as someone other than the God they said created all things? Yes or No, please.
LU: Also, you say that you call Jesus the terms by which the Bible calls Jesus but then you admit to not really calling Him all things that the Bible calls Him, such as our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I call him only what he IS called in the Bible. The latter words of your statement are a misunderstanding on your part, and not something Jesus is actually called in scripture.
Besides, this started because YOU got upset with me calling him things that you admit he IS called in scripture. Must I call him ALL the things he is called in scripture every time I mention him? 🤔
LU: You claim that Jesus is “a god” but not your god. Do you also claim that Jesus is “a savior” but not your savior? Whose “god” do you claim that He is if not yours?? Whose Savior is He if not yours??
For the eleventeenth time, Jesus is indeed called a god in many scriptures. Jesus is indeed one of the many saviors God has sent on behalf of His people. I do not call him my god because I follow the hierarchy Paul laid out in 1 Cor 8:6. For us there is one God… and one Lord. It makes sense to me to reserve the title “my God and Savior” for Jesus’ own God, and revere Jesus with the slightly lower title “my Lord and Savior”. After all, it was Jesus himself who told me that my God was also his own God, Kathi. So who is “my God”? The One whom Jesus explicitly told me was “my God”.
Mike: I would like you to acknowledge that I AM calling Jesus exactly what the Bible calls him before asking why I DON’T call him this thing you think Peter called him.
LU: You just claimed to call Jesus “EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE CALLS HIM” but you DON’T call Jesus exactly what the Bible calls Him. You call Him SOME of the things that the Bible calls Him… leaving out that He is YHVH, and our God and Savior, for instance.
Jesus isn’t called Yahweh in scripture, nor is he called our God and Savior. So yes, I leave those things you’ve imagined out of it. But again, calling him “EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE CALLS HIM” does not mean calling him “EVERY SINGLE NAME BY WHICH HE IS CALLED IN THE BIBLE EVERY SINGLE TIME I MENTION HIM”.
LU: Not sure why you want me to give you credos for undserstating the role of Jesus by leaving out that Jesus is our God and Savior and YHVH.
I don’t believe Jesus is called either of those things in scripture, and so I have no reason to call him those things myself.
LU: Btw, I have used all or most of those names in your list somewhere in my many posts, in quotes of scripture especially. I tend to focus on the names that people here deny in order to show that they deny some main doctrines of the Bible and are missing the bigger and magnificent picture of who the only begotten Son of God is to be honored as.
Likewise, I tend to focus on the names that people here deny (or twist into nonsense) to show that people who say things like, “Yeah, he’s the servant OF the Most High God, but he also IS that Most High God too!” are denying the main doctrines of the Bible, and missing the bigger and magnificent picture that God so loved the world that He sent – not Himself or one member of a Binity Godhead – but HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON so that we could be saved.
The God you worship and serve as your Creator didn’t send His only begotten Son so that we can be saved, Kathi. The God of the Bible did.
Nice chat.
Mike: Here are some names Yahweh was called in the OT…
Would you consider any of those a matter of Yahweh changing His name to a different name?
LU: You copy a list of names (plural) and then not see that each of those names are different and new to the others?
Nice word play. I believe I used the words “CHANGING His name TO a different name”. Please answer the question as it was asked. Thanks.
LU: He was YHVH but not always YHVH our Righteousness. Trump was always Donald Trump but not always President Donald Trump. Seems like a clear idea to understand.
Adding the title/office of “President” isn’t changing the name of Donald Trump. Nobody in their right mind would ever say, “Hey, remember when Donald Trump CHANGED HIS NAME to President Donald Trump, and then CHANGED IT BACK to Donald Trump?”
Secondly, I agree that Trump was always DJT, but not always President DJT. I disagree with your claim that Jesus was always YHVH. I’m still going through the posts chronologically, so I’ll find out soon enough if you were able to find any scriptures that make it EXPLICITLY clear that Jesus was indeed always named Yahweh.
Mike: Kathi, can you provide a single verse that refers to the Most High using either “God” or “Yahweh” where it MUST BE either referring to the Son or to the Unity of both of them? (In other words, it is explicitly spelled out for us.)
LU: Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever… therefore God, Your God, has anointed You…
The fact that this person’s own God anointed him makes it clear that the person can’t be the Most High God – who has no God of His own.
LU: In the beginning, O Lord, You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands…
We’re looking for verses which MUST BE (“explicitly spelled out for us”) referring to the Son using either “God” or “Yahweh”. This isn’t explicitly about the Son, nor is “God” or “Yahweh” even used.
LU: 2 Peter 1:To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours…
KJV… through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ…
But let’s say for argument’s sake that it could be conclusively proven that Peter actually did call Jesus “our God and Savior” in one verse, only to immediately distinguish Jesus from God in the very next verse (“Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord”), and throughout the entirety of rest of his writings. IF that could be proven to be the case, it would immediately indicate that this particular “God and Savior” couldn’t possibly be the MOST HIGH God and Savior – since it was clear to Peter (again, that prayer in Acts 4) that Jesus was not the MOST HIGH God who created everything, but instead that Most High God’s servant.
LU: Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
Same answer as above. If Thomas was indeed referring to Jesus as “god”, then it can’t possibly be understood as the Most High God… at least not by John who recorded the event. Why? Because John immediately followed that event with these words…
John 20… 30Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John explicitly told us that his gospel was written so we’d believe that Jesus was – not the Most High God – but the anointed one and son OF the Most High God.
LU: YHVH as a Unity:
For Yahweh your God, he is God of gods, and Lord of lords…
together with this:
[The Lamb] is Lord of lords and King of kings…
That’s it? Is that REALLY the only verse on which your entire “Jesus is Yahweh Jr” doctrine is based? Wow, Kathi. Just wow.
First of all, Yahweh is explicitly called a HE in that very verse, clearly indicating to rational people that it is talking about a single male person. I know you like to claim that a DUO can be referred to with a singular pronoun, but you can’t show any instance of this in scripture, or in the history of the world. And even if you were able to, it would only make it a very distant and very unlikely possibility – which would be vastly overshadowed by the much more likely and near-certainty that it refers to a single male person.
Secondly, Yahweh our God is BOTH a God of other gods AND a Lord of other lords – all by Himself. He is also called the “God of gods and Lord of kings” in Daniel 2:47. Does that mean that the Father is the God of gods part and Jesus is the Lord of kings part?
Thirdly, Moses wrote Deut 10, Kathi. And we’ve already determined that the Yahweh Moses knew and spoke with “face to face” as friends do was the same Yahweh that told Moses that man cannot see His face and live. Are you suggesting that Moses, God’s “friend”, knew that Yahweh was a combo of God of gods who couldn’t be seen and Lord of lords who could be seen – and he just kept that little detail to himself as he repeatedly referred to Yahweh as a “He”?
Wow Kathi. You were hammering home the words “Jesus was always named YHVH” in almost every post I answered from you today – as if repetition will make it true. And it turns out that your basis for this claim is ONE OT verse that is clearly and undeniably referring to a “HE” who happens to be both a God of other gods and a Lord of other lords.
Oh my… 😳
Mike: So then every single reference to the Most High in the entire Bible using either “God” or “Yahweh” could be referring to the Father alone, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Son? And then that would be why they always refer to “God” and “Yahweh” as a He?
LU: Yes, it “could be” referring to the Father…
Then what else possibly needs to be said, Kathi? Your doctrine is based on one single verse that you purposely misinterpret, and which you admit could be referring only to the Father after all.
LU: …however in all of His titles, the Father is never that title, alone nor do they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Son.
You have no scriptural support that “in ALL of His titles, the Father is never that title alone”. Those are just empty words that you are saying because you WANT them to be true.
LU: For instance, the title “Father,” requires the presence of the Son. “Creator” requires the participation of the Son, etc.
The title “Father” does indeed presume a child… ANY child – not just one particular son. The title “Creator” doesn’t require any outside participation – although we are told that God created all things through His holy servant Jesus. But always remember these words from Tertullian…
He who creates is one, and he through whom the thing was created is another.
God is the one who created. The one through whom God created is another, ie: someone other than the God who created.
LU: YHVH is referred by singular pronouns because that is how a unity is often addressed. YHVH can also use a singular pronoun when referring specifically to the Father or the Son.
Well how convenient for you. The singular pronoun could refer to just the Father, or to just the Son, or to the both of them together! 🤯
Now all you have to do is show some support that a group of TWO persons have ever been referred to by singular pronouns.
LU: The name Israel is referred by singular pronouns when referring to the nation, a unity of people who descended from Jacob or who joined themselves with those people. The name Israel is also referred by a singular pronoun when referring to Jacob alone, the father of the nation of Israel.
And what of the nation of Chad, in Africa? Let’s say it was named after an actual dude named Chad. Would you then say, “Chad ARE engaged in a civil war”? Or would you say, “Chad IS engaged in a civil war”? And since it would be the latter, would you attribute that correct wording to “using a singular verb for a unity of people”?
Also consider this verse…
Lamentations 2:5 NIV… The Lord is like an enemy; he has swallowed up Israel [masculine singular]. He has swallowed up all her [feminine singular] palaces and destroyed her [feminine singular] strongholds. He has multiplied mourning and lamentation for Daughter [feminine singular] Judah [masculine singular].
Is Israel a “he” or a “she”? Is Daughter Judah a “he” or a “she”?
Let’s suffice it to say that comparing the use of the singular pronoun “he” for the nation of Israel (or the singular pronoun “her” for its palaces) to your claim that a group of TWO persons can be (and are) referred to with the singular “he” is the epitome of comparing apples to oranges.
Find us another group of TWO persons that is referred to with the singular “he/him/his” so we can compare apples to apples and sort it out.
Until that time, we have no choice but to accept the everyday normal default that Yahweh/God is referred to by “he/him/his” because Yahweh/God is a singular male entity.
Hi Mike,
Thank you for elaborating more on why you think Proverbs 8:22-31 is specifically speaking about Jesus and addressing the word translated as possessed in verse 22 is inaccurate and should be translated as created.
I can agree that the word created is accurate over that of the word possessed for sure and can see how such definitely helps to further support your position. You probably won’t be too surprised though lol, that I still do not believe that these scriptures in Proverbs are speaking of Jesus and thus supporting a pre-existence.
I will respond directly to the quotes from you below,
YOU: “Does it make sense that God “created” the “Spirit of Wisdom” in the beginning – as if it didn’t already exist?”.
“So now, using a proper translation, like the NET’s, “The LORD created me as the beginning of his works, before his deeds of long ago”, how can it possibly be talking about literal wisdom, or “the Spirit of Wisdom”? On the other hand, Jesus is directly and explicitly called “the wisdom of God”, right?”
“And Christ is also called “the firstborn of every creature”, and calls himself “the beginning of the creation of God”.”
ME:
I hope you don’t mind that I would like to start with the last quote from you that I sited and put in bold above. I will then address Proverbs 8 in it’s own post. Covering this first will help you understand my position with Proverbs 8, at least I hope so!
The context of, “the beginning of the creation of God”, is him as the FIRST begotten of the dead into a new creation, a new earth and a new Jerusalem.
Rev 1: 4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; 5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Rev 3: 12 Him that over cometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Col 2: 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Rev 21: 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
God making all things new began with the resurrected Jesus, he was the beginning of God making all things new, a new man with eternal life, a new heaven, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem. This is the context of Rev 3:14 established prior in chapter 1. Jesus is THAT beginning, a firstborn overall of that creation which we who over cometh are promised to inherit, which is what Paul first spoke of in Colossians 1 giving the context for the rest of the chapter,
1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be PARTAKERS of the INHERITANCE of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us INTO the KINGDOM of his dear Son: 14 In whom WE HAVE REDEMPTION through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:..18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Once again please note the context to which Paul establishes before speaking of Jesus and a creation. He speaks of our inheritance, which is unto a creation of a new earth. He speaks of us entering into the kingdom of God’s Son, which is also unto a creation of a new earth where Jesus is king of kings. He speaks to our redemption through his blood, which is what allows us to enter the new earth. Paul is not then immediately after establishing all that going back to the first creation, the one of sin and death that would end and stating Jesus was a firstborn unto that creation.
Paul is speaking of ONE creation in Colossians 1, he is speaking of the creation that we are promised to inherit, a new beginning a new creation! Jesus is the firstborn of that eternal creation, where God made all things by reason of him, for Jesus of Nazareth was foreknown to bring redemption through his blood (Acts 2) by which we then have access to enter his eternal kingdom. All things created for him because he will be a king of kings over the new eternal earth. Scripture tells us that God had declared this end from the beginning which itself is a beginning.
Mike: Hey there Carmel. I’m going to pick just a few of Jesus’ titles out of your long list to discuss…
Bread of God – John 6:33; 50
Christ of God – Luke 9:20
Holy One of God – Mark 1:24
Image of God – 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15
Lamb of God – John 1:29
Son of God – Luke 1:35
Wisdom of God – 1 Corinthians 1:24
Word of God – Revelation 19:13
All of these contain the phrase “of God”.
What does that phrase mean to you?
Pro Tip: I Replace the word “God” with the word Carmel” in each of those, determine what it would mean, and then apply that to your answer.
Carmel: A PHRASE ATTRIBUTED TO THE TITLE OF AN UNFATHOMABLE……..
ACCORDING TO YOU, WHAT APPLIES TO GOD IT IS QUITE ORDINARY, IN FACT THAT ORDINARY, THAT IT COULD QUITE EASILY BE REPLACED WITH ANYTHING FROM THIS WORLD EVEN WITH A MERE NAME ATTRIBUTED TO A HUMAN, I MEAN;
CORRUPTED, MORTAL, SINNER, AND ALL THINGS GOD HAS NOT A SPECK OF, NEVER MIND:
That’s a whole bunch of inane drivel that is better translated as:
You got me, Mike. If I address your brilliant point directly and honestly, I will expose myself as nonsensical for pretending that an X OF God could actually BE the very God he is the X OF.
But let’s examine a couple of Jesus’ titles to see if your refusal to directly address my point on the grounds that “things are different for God” actually holds any merit.
The title “priest OF God” has been held by many in the Bible, including Jesus. This title refers to someone who is not God Himself, but instead a mediator between God and mankind. Can you list any of the many priests OF God in the Bible who actually WERE the very God they were also the priest OF?
The title “prophet OF God” has been held by many in the Bible, including Jesus. This title refers to someone who is not God Himself, but instead someone other than God, who conveys God’s prophesies to mankind. Can you list any of the many prophets OF God in the Bible who actually WERE the very God they were also the prophet OF?
The title “messiah/christ OF God” has been held by many in the Bible, including Jesus. This title refers to someone who is not God Himself, but instead someone other than God, who was anointed BY God. Can you list any of the many messiahs/christs OF God in the Bible who actually WERE the very God they were also the messiah/christ OF?
The title “son OF God” has been held by many in the Bible, including Jesus. This title refers to someone who is not God Himself, but instead someone other than God, who is one of God’s offspring. Can you list any of the many sons OF God in the Bible who actually WERE the very God they were also the son OF?
So you can see, Carmel, that there isn’t some special “taboo” spiritual awakening crap that makes it impossible for you to directly and honestly address my point. There is only a person who understands the point, doesn’t like where that point leads and what it means for his doctrine, and is therefore unwilling to directly and honestly address that point.
Jodi: I hope you don’t mind that I would like to start with the last quote from you that I sited and put in bold above. I will then address Proverbs 8 in it’s own post. Covering this first will help you understand my position with Proverbs 8, at least I hope so!
Hi Jodi. I have addressed some of the stuff in this post already today, which you’ll read when you get to it. But yes, I understand that when you read “firstborn of every creature” and “beginning of the creation of God”, you interpret those words to be talking about a NEW creation – despite the scriptures not including the word “new”, or making any obvious indication that the speaker is indeed talking about a new creation. In fact, Paul explicitly distinguishes Jesus being the firstborn of creation in general from Jesus ALSO being the firstborn from among the dead. His statement equates to, “Jesus is this… and Jesus is also this other thing too.”
But I do understand your argument. I just don’t see the support for it in those scriptures you quoted that you do.
Jodi: I can agree that the word created is accurate over that of the word possessed for sure and can see how such definitely helps to further support your position. You probably won’t be too surprised though lol, that I still do not believe that these scriptures in Proverbs are speaking of Jesus and thus supporting a pre-existence.
Well, it’s at least a start, right? 🙂
Jodi: Hi LU,
I noticed what you said to Mike, your comparison of Israel and YHVH…
So yes, Israel is one person Jacob, and then Israel also represents Jacob and his children.
So if we were to make a direct comparison,
YHVH is one person and then YHVH also represents Him and His children. If we are indeed giving a direct comparison this would mean that YHVH never represents just YHVH’s child it would always represent either just him or him and his son together, so there would be no time that YHVH could represent just the son in scripture.
While I truly appreciate the spirit of the argument, I fault the conclusion. Most of the time God referred to Israel as a nation using a singular pronoun, the actual Israel (Jacob) was dead and gone, and so “Israel” most certainly referred only to Jacob’s children without referring to Jacob himself.
But to tweak your argument, it NEVER referred to Jacob and/or only ONE of his children – so Kathi is truly arguing apples to oranges in this case. She needs to first present an example where a group of TWO are referred to with a singular “he/him/his”, and then after that, produce CLEAR and EXPLICIT scriptural support that this is indeed, beyond any shadow of a doubt, what is (at least sometimes) happening when Yahweh is referred to with “he/him/his”.
Cheers.
Hi Mike,
As I am working on my next post to you in response to Proverbs 8 directly, I decided to check the thread again after my last post.
Scripture doesn’t have to state, when it comes to declaring Jesus as a firstborn, that it is unto the new creation, the context established beforehand makes it completely obvious.
In Revelation 3 just prior it speaks of the NEW Jerusalem which is of the new creation to which thereafter they state Jesus Christ is the firstborn of and two chapters prior they speak of Jesus as the first born of the dead.
In Col 1, Paul speaks to our inheritance to which is unto a new creation, then to us being translated to the Son’s Kingdom which is in the new creation, and then to our redemption through his blood which was needed so that we could enter the new creation, then it’s stated this man who shed his blood is the firstborn. The man who shed his blood to bring our redemption was raised receiving the promised Holy Spirit and eternal life, as such he is a firstborn of all creation and exists in the invisible image of God.
WHY in the world after that build up, speaking of future events in a new earth, would the word of God then revert back to speak about Jesus being the firstborn of what is to be a DEAD creation and not be speaking of him as firstborn according to the laid out context of an ETERNAL creation that he is king over??
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
