Transcendence versus immanence

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Keith, I believe that the light of day one is tied to the Son of GOD being the firstborn of all creation because of GOD clueing me in to that 16 1/2 years ago.  It is inference to you but it is an answer from God to me. I was searching for the meaning of the “Firstborn of all creation” for a good month when I heard the whisper in my ear “You are the Light of the world” after my son just told me that on day one of creation, God said “Let there be light.”  I understand that you think it to be an inference…it is more to me and it changed my life.  I wouldn't be discussing it so strongly if I thought it were just an inference and GOD didn't actually lead me to that. Kathi

Kathi,
So your authority is not scripture alone? The word “firstborn of all creation” in reference ot Christ simply means that he is the Supreme of all mankind.  One who is “firstborn” is not such to animals or rocks or trees, but to men. Therefore, “all creation” means “all men.” He is the supreme brother of men.. Paul used the same word “pasa ktisis” when he said that the gospel had been preached to all creation (Colossians 1:23). Jesus mandated that the gospel be preached to every creature (pasa ktisis). These statements show that “all creation” is limited to men.

So when it says that Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation” it means that he is the supreme brother of all men (the elect specifically).

Quote

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29)

Jesus is the firstborn of men! That whisper in your ear 16 1/2 years ago was not from God. It was from your own over active imagination. And your imagination has really been active lately. You're saying now that Jesus originated out of God's body as if God has a womb. You are saying now that Psalm 104 teaches that there were two Gods involved in creation. You're going off the deep end. Please get back on track!

thinker

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 05 2009,19:15)

Lightenup said: Quote Keith, I believe that the light of day one is tied to the Son of GOD being the firstborn of all creation because of GOD clueing me in to that 16 1/2 years ago.  It is inference to you but it is an answer from God to me. I was searching for the meaning of the “Firstborn of all creation” for a good month when I heard the whisper in my ear “You are the Light of the world” after my son just told me that on day one of creation, God said “Let there be light.”  I understand that you think it to be an inference…it is more to me and it changed my life.  I wouldn't be discussing it so strongly if I thought it were just an inference and GOD didn't actually lead me to that. Kathi Kathi, So your authority is not scripture alone? The word “firstborn of all creation” in reference ot Christ simply means that he is the Supreme of all mankind.  One who is “firstborn” is not such to animals or rocks or trees, but to men. Therefore, “all creation means “all men.” He is the suprerme brother of men.. Paul used the same word “pasa ktisis” when he said that the gospel had been preached to all creation (Colossians 1:23). Jesus mandated that the gospel be preached to every creature (pasa ktisis). These statements show that “all creation” is limited to men. So when it says that Jesus is the “firstborn of all creation” it means that he is the supreme brother of all men (the elect specifically). Quote For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29) Jesus is the firstborn of men! That whisper in your ear 16 1/2 years ago was not from God. It was from your own over active imagination. And your imagination has really been active lately. You're saying now that Jesus originated out of God's body as if God has a womb. You are saying now that Psalm 104 teaches that there were two Gods involved in creation. You're going off the deep end. Please get back on track! thinker

Thinker,
For you to decide that I did not hear from God BUT that it was my imagination continues to discredit your opinions about anything you say here. I know for a fact that it was not my imagination because it seemed to come out of left field so to speak and not from a thought process. Sorry, but your inaccurate conclusion that you so boldly exclaim only shows your lack of hearing from God yourself. At least Keith hasn't had the foolishness to judge me this way. I am 100% positive the whisper did not come from me or anyone else in the room. I wouldn't have the confidence to stand on this so firmly if it were my imagination. I know the difference and you are totally off on your judgement. Get off the bench…you don't belong there.

Christ is firstborn over ALL creation, not just mankind. He is over the animals, the earth, the sky and all things IN heaven and earth. You speak out of both sides of your mouth. In one post you are claiming that the Son created all things and in Him all things hold together and in this post quoted above you say that what He is supreme over is “limited to men.”

Here is what came out of one side of your mouth:

Quote

Btw, don't forget that Hebrews says that it is the Father who claims that Jesus laid the foundations of the earth. Someone forgot to tell the Father that this is not the case. I give Albert Barnes again on the word “foundations” in Hebrews 1:10, Quote The meaning here is, that the Son of God was the original creator or founder of the universe. He did not merely arrange it out of pre-existing Materials, but he brought it into existence by his own word and power (Barnes Notes on Hebrews, p. 43) thinker

This came out of the other side of your mouth:

Quote

The word “firstborn of all creation” in reference ot Christ simply means that he is the Supreme of all mankind. One who is “firstborn” is not such to animals or rocks or trees, but to men. Therefore, “all creation means “all men.” He is the suprerme brother of men.. Paul used the same word “pasa ktisis” when he said that the gospel had been preached to all creation (Colossians 1:23). Jesus mandated that the gospel be preached to every creature (pasa ktisis). These statements show that “all creation” is limited to men.

IMO both sides of your mouth should remain silent on the issue.

My opinion,
Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2009,18:44)

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2009,14:07) Hi Keith and Thinker, Keith writes: Quote Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2009,12:08) 24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth” When there were no springs abounding with water” (Yep, definitely before Genesis 1:2 because there was no water). There was the “deep” before day one but the deep was one body of water, it was not “depths” plural.  It was after day one that the water became separated and became “depths” plural. What? It clearly says there were “NO DEPTHS” period! No Depths means ‘Zero”, which clearly says that he was there before even Genesis 1:1, 2 which shows there was a face of the deep. Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 04 2009,12:08) 25 “Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth; 26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world. (again before Gen 1:2 but for sure before the light of day) Gen 1:9-10 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. KJV The dry land was made and called earth after day one.  It was made on day three. Come on Kathi, are you just shutting your eyes here? It says “, …Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, “AND LET THE DRY LAND APPEAR”: and it was so. 10 And God called “THE DRY LAND EARTH”; The dry land was already there in Genesis 1:2 but the earth was without form for the waters covered the entire earth! First of all regarding the “deep” in Gen 1, the deep here seems to me to be including all the water that eventually becomes our atmosphere and our seas. This all encompassing water is a much different picture, in my mind anyway, of what becomes the “depths” that Prov. 8 speaks about.  I am going to give an illustration that might help picture how different the “deep” is from the “depths”: Picture a bowl of firm jello with a formless glob suspended in the center.  The jello is the water which is called the deep in Gen 1.   The formless glob is the earth.  That all encompassing water is much different than the seas that we understand now.  What we understand now as bodies of water did not exist till after day one of creation when the waters were separated.  So if I say that God said “Let there be light” before there were seas that would be true.  The depths are deep places and we know them as seas and oceans.  We have no experience with the deep that was referred to in Gen 1 but we do have experience with what is called the depths in Prov 8.  So, therefore, there is a big difference between the deep of Gen 1 and the depths in Prov. 8.  The Light was there before the depths but not before the deep.  The difference is significant, IMO. Now regarding the subject of Prov 8 (which I see as the Son of God) existing before the earth and fields and fine dust were made, I think that the earth was “made” as in a sense of completion, i.e. formed, after day one.  There could not have been fine dust if the formless earth was covered with water before day one. Prov 8:22-31 22 “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. 23 “From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth. 24 “When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water. 25 “Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth; 26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the world. 27 “When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep, 28 When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, 29 When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always before Him, 31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth, And having my delight in the sons of men. NASU Kathi Hi Kathi More oppologetics. Before the depths, No depths, Zero, wisdom was there and why would it not be? God has always had wisdom in himself from eternity and brought it forth in the begining of all things including Time, space and matter! Kathi, the Hebrew word for deep in Genesis 1:2 is “tĕhowm” and means… 1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea a) deep (of subterranean waters) b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea) c) primeval ocean, deep d) deep, depth (of river) e) abyss, the grave I hate to bear the bad news but it is the same word used in this verse… “When there were no depths, (tĕhowm)” I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Proverbs 8:24 Wisdom was there before Genesis 1:1,2. WJ

Keith,
Sorry you are confused but even though the deep and the depths both have the same root word, they mean totally different things.  For instance the atmosphere heaven is not the same heaven containing the sun, moon, and stars.  They are the same word for heaven but two totally different meanings.

Before the depths came from the separation of the waters, there were no depths, there was just the deep.  These are the same Hebrew word but not only is one plural and one not, they describe two different concepts. One concept existed before day one and the other concept didn't. You don't equate the atmosphere with the seas yet they both came from one body of water.  Day one came before the atmosphere and the seas were established…day one came before the “depths.”  There was no atmosphere and no seas before day one.  They came from the one body of water called the deep but they are not  equal to the one body of water that they came from.  

So you are right in saying that “before the depths, no depths.”  Day one is before the depths.  If I rephrase that to say “before the atmosphere and the seas, there were no atmosphere or seas.”  Day one was before the atmosphere and the seas came into existence.  The Deep was there but no atmosphere or seas.  

God has always had wisdom and that is true but the subject of the Proverbs passage had a beginning.  Realize that wisdom throughout proverbs is spoken of as being female but in the Proverbs passage that we are speaking of, the term “master craftsman” is used.  That is another of those hints.  Solomon chose feminine words to describe wisdom except there…it should make ya wonder.  Do you know of anywhere else wisdom is portrayed by Solomon in the masculine sense?
Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 05 2009,18:44)

Hi Kathi More apologetics. Before the depths, No depths, Zero, wisdom was there and why would it not be? God has always had wisdom in himself from eternity and brought it forth in the beginning of all things including Time, space and matter! Kathi, the Hebrew word for deep in Genesis 1:2 is “tĕhowm” and means… 1) deep, depths, deep places, abyss, the deep, sea a) deep (of subterranean waters) b) deep, sea, abysses (of sea) c) primeval ocean, deep d) deep, depth (of river) e) abyss, the grave I hate to bear the bad news but it is the same word used in this verse… “When there were no depths, (tĕhowm)” I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Proverbs 8:24 Wisdom was there before Genesis 1:1, 2. WJ

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2009,23:28)

Keith, Sorry you are confused but even though the deep and the depths both have the same root word, they mean totally different things.  For instance the atmosphere heaven is not the same heaven containing the sun, moon, and stars.  They are the same word for heaven but two totally different meanings.

Kathi, I am not confused at all. Why did I sound confused? I just understand what plain English is.

Deep is included in Depths. You are right the Greek word for Heaven is all inclusive of the sky or even the third heaven where the Lord himself dwells

But if I said…

“When there were no (heavens), (tĕhowm)” I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Proverbs 8:24

Then it is plain English that “No Heavens” means “No heavens”.

And it is still plain English that wisdom existed before day 1.

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 05 2009,23:28)

God has always had wisdom and that is true but the subject of the Proverbs passage had a beginning.  Realize that wisdom throughout proverbs is spoken of as being female but in the Proverbs passage that we are speaking of, the term “master craftsman” is used.  That is another of those hints.  Solomon chose feminine words to describe wisdom except there…it should make ya wonder.  Do you know of anywhere else wisdom is portrayed by Solomon in the masculine sense? Kathi

These hints are not facts as you would like them to be. Thank you for admitting that “Wisdom” has always been with God, so now we have to try and understand how that the wisdom here in Proverbs is not the same wisdom that has always been with God. Maybe the writer will show us how the wisdom was born out of the body of God. Seriously Kathi, you are building huge straw man arguments here.

You mention the master craftsman should make me wonder. Not really, no more than I wonder how the masculine is also feminine like being a housewife. That is because the personification of wisdom is not a real person and if it was then we have a hermaphrodite. That’s just a joke!

Kathi, I was a master craftsman in wood working for 10 years of my life, and I can tell you that I never had to have anyone start my work for me and then I finished it, because if “Wisdom” is the master craftsman that created all things, then it is the same “Wisdom” that was with God from everlasting!

Blessings WJ

[Lightenup]

Keith,
You say that you were a master craftsman in wood working for 10 years and that no one ever had to start your work for you and then you finished it. May I point out to you that someone had to supply the wood for you and give you some wisdom on how to use the tools and put things together I believe that the Father supplied the materials and gave the wisdom and it was that wisdom that was acquired that enabled the Son to be the master craftsman.

Also, wisdom comes from God as well as resides within Him. I believe the wisdom near the end of Prov 8 that we have been discussing is from God not the wisdom within Him but it possibly is the wisdom poured out to the Son becoming the wisdom of the Son. You may claim that you have wisdom from God but that does not make you the God who is the source of that wisdom. The Son is the wisdom of God, He is not the God that the wisdom is “of.”

What am I doing up so late? It was that darned cafe' mocha I'll bet…arrrgh! I didn't even think it was that great
Yawning
God bless,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

For you to decide that I did not hear from God BUT that it was my imagination continues to discredit your opinions about anything you say here.

Kathi,
The written word decides. You discredit yourself by saying that the Son came out of God's “body” and that there are two Gods involved in creation in Psalm 104. The written word is the judge. Just stick with the Scriptures. We must labor to study His word in order to find its meaning. He would not give you an advantage over the rest of us by whispering in your ear. And when you say this you imply that your interpretations are infallible. Yet you say that I discredit myself.

Quote

Christ is firstborn over ALL creation, not just mankind. He is over the animals, the earth, the sky and all things IN heaven and earth.

The firstborn in Hebrew thought was the supreme brother and the head of the covenantal family. Christ rules in the hearts of men alone. Come on! We want to know what “firstborn” meant to the Hebrew and not what God told Kathi in her ear. The term “all creation” in verse 15 means the same thing it means in verse 23 when Paul said that the gospel was preached to “all creation.” Was Paul saying that the gospel was preached to the animals and the earth and the sky? Show that “pasa ktisis” in 15 & 23 do not mean the same thing. Give real evidence and not whispers.

Quote

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.  In one post you are claiming that the Son created all things and in Him all things hold together and in this post quoted above you say that what He is supreme over is “limited to men.”

I hold that Christ created all that exists animate and inanimate by the word of His power. But He is “firstborn” over men. There is nothing at all inconsistent with this. Prove that this is contradictory. Paul explicitly said that we must be conformed to His image in order that He might be the firstborn of many BRETHREN. Did you get that ? He is the firstborn of BRETHREN. Christ does not rule in the hearts of rocks. These do not have a covenantal relationship with Him. The word “firstborn” has covenantal reference alone.

Show from Colossians 1 that “all creation” in verses 15 and 23 do not mean the same thing.

I don't buy your claim that God whispers the meaning of His word in your ear. We must labor to find the meaning. That which you say God “whispered” to you contradicts Paul. Jesus said that He spoke what He hears from the Father. You are saying that you speak what you hear from God. See now why I take issue? You put yourself on a par with the prophets.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

TO KATHI:

God said to Pharoah,

Israel is my son, even My firstborn. Let My son go”, Exodus 4:22.

Does this mean that the nation of Israel was firstborn over the physical creation? Or is this referring to the preeminence God would give to Israel over the nations of men?

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
The written word decides.
It gives no support to your very strange ideas about God

[Lightenup]

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 06 2009,05:38)

TO KATHI: God said to Pharoah, Israel is my son, even My firstborn. Let My son go”, Exodus 4:22. Does this mean that the nation of Israel was firstborn over the physical creation? Or is this referring to the preeminence God would give to Israel over the nations of men? thinker

Thinker,
Are you trying to say that the Hebrews did not know that the term firstborn meant the first out of the womb as the most common meaning and they just thought that it meant the supreme brother??? Good grief! Do some research.
Here, I'll make it easy for you:
Ex 13:2
2 “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”
NASU

Ex 13:12-13
12 you shall devote to the Lord the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the Lord.
13 “But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.
NASU

Num 3:12
12 “Now, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall be Mine.
NASU

Num 8:16-18
16 for they are wholly given to Me from among the sons of Israel. I have taken them for Myself instead of every first issue of the womb, the firstborn of all the sons of Israel.
17 “For every firstborn among the sons of Israel is Mine, among the men and among the animals; on the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified them for Myself.
18 “But I have taken the Levites instead of every firstborn among the sons of Israel.
NASU

So, you see, the term “firstborn” meant the “first issue of every womb” to the Hebrew as the natural meaning. Sometimes there was a substitution made for the true firstborn but we are made aware of that in the context if that is the case.

Israel as a nation was DECLARED to be God's firstborn “nation” and had preeminence over the nations of men. Before Israel was declared to be God's firstborn as a nation the understanding of what a true firstborn was and how important that one was to God was drilled in their minds. The knew very well that the firstborn meant the first out of the womb and that was a very special position for an offspring in God's mind. When He doesn't mean firstborn as out of the womb, He makes that clear in regards to an animal or a person.

The Son of GOD is the firstborn of all creation as the very Son of GOD. He is supreme over all creation not just the brethren (remember that He was GIVEN authority of all things and eventually will destroy or redeem those things, even the earth) The Son of Man is firstborn of the dead also which made us brothers with Him in His kingdom and not just a created being that would get destroyed. The Son of God is both, the firstborn of all creation and the firstborn from the dead so that He might be first in all things.

The one who was used to make all things come into being is also supreme over all those things that He made to come into being, not just part of those things. You seem to think that the earth rules the one who was used to establish the earth. That is backwards thinking. Are the mountains and the seas supreme over Him? NO! Who can destroy whom? The Son destroys the mountains and the seas, the heaven and the earth, they do not destroy Him.

You say:

Quote

We must labor to study His word in order to find its meaning. He would not give you an advantage over the rest of us by whispering in your ear. And when you say this you imply that your interpretations are infallible. Yet you say that I discredit myself.

I did labor to study what firstborn of all creation meant, fervently, before I heard the whisper and I was learning that the message of the New Testament was telling us that Jesus was the actual Son of God and that the two that are in charge are Father and Son, not first person and second person co-eternal. Eternal generation is not the message from scripture. It was after a month of fervent study that I heard the whisper. My interpretation of the meaning of the whisper, considering the timing of the whisper, led me to think that the Firstborn of all creation was the Light of day one. My interpretation may be right or wrong but the whisper definitely occured and it was definitely not my imagination. I don't think I could have even thought of that on my own. I am not placing myself equal to a prophet. I am just someone who heard from God on a matter. Do you think that you heard from God on the matter of your alcohol abuse? Are you making yourself equal to a prophet because you got a whisper? I would think not and neither am I. You heard from God in a whisper regarding your alcohol abuse, I heard from God in a whisper regarding my search for truth about the meaning of the term “firstborn of all creation.” You may not agree with my interpretation and the implications of what I heard but nevertheless, I did hear the whisper. I connected the dots and came up with a theory and you certainly have not disproved it. Your lack of sense on the matter do more to encourage my theory than disprove my theory.

Keep on with the nonsense if you will but it only helps me stand stronger when you do not acknowledge the main understanding that the Hebrews had regarding the term “firstborn” as the “first issue of the womb.” You seem to totally gloss over that most obvious, natural meaning in exchange for the unnatural meaning as someone who was merely chosen as a firstborn and not the first issue of the womb. You say that I have to learn what the Hebrews meant by the term. Geeesh!

Learn Thinker,
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Are you trying to say that the Hebrews did not know that the term firstborn meant the first out of the womb as the most common meaning and they just thought that it meant the supreme brother???  Good grief!  Do some research.

Kathi,
What? You still stick with this idea that God has a body and now a womb? I demonstrated to you last May that Jacob became Isaac's firstborn. Jacob was not the first who came out of the womb. Yet He was the firstborn,

Quote

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. (Exodus 4:22)

Israel (Jacob) was NOT the first to come out of the womb. He became the firstborn by the decree of God. As God's firstborn Israel was to be OVER all the families of the land. Am I to infer that when God said  “Israel is My firstborn” that he came out of God's womb? Jesus did not come out of God's womb. He is the firstborn by the decree of God and as such He is supreme over all the family of God. Paul explained what he meant by saying that Christ is the HEAD of the body, the church. The church does not consist of trees and rocks and geccos.

You do the research. I have been studying the Bible all my Christian life.

It would be nice if you would prove that “pasa ktisis” in verses 15 & 23 do not mean the same thing. In verse 15 Paul said that Christ is firstborn of “all creation” (pasa ktisis). In verse 23 Paul said that the gospel was preached to “all creation” (pasa ktisis). Was Paul saying that the gospel was preached to rocks and deserts and lizards? No! Pasa ktisis in both verses refer exclusively to mankind. Christ is the firstborn, that is, the supreme head over all mankind, His brothers specifically.

Quote

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many BRETHREN. (Romans 8:29)

You have said that God has a body from which Christ came. Now you infer that He came out of God's body as if God has a womb. You have said that Psalm 104 teaches that two Gods were involved in creation. Yet my view that as God's firstborn Christ is our covenantal head is weird?

Please don't tell me to do research when you rely on a whisper that has taken you to such ridiculous conclusions.

Lightenup said:

Quote

Learn Thinker,

I have shown myself no more unteachable than you. In fact, I once conceded a point to you.

Btw, you gave examples where the term “firstborn” refers to those who came out of the womb first. IT DON'T MATTER. God said, “I am the God of Abraham, ISAAC and JACOB.” The last two, Isaac and Jacob were God's firstborn though they did NOT come out of the womb first.

thinker

[Lightenup]

Thinker,
You said:

Quote

Btw, you gave examples where the term “firstborn” refers to those who came out of the womb first. IT DON'T MATTER. God said, “I am the God of Abraham, ISAAC and JACOB.” The last two, Isaac and Jacob were God's firstborn though they did NOT come out of the womb first.

You say that Isaac did not come out of the womb first?  Did you really mean that??? Tell me who came out of Sarah's womb before Isaac. She was barren until Isaac was conceived.  You say that you have studied the Bible all your Christian life, well the story of Sarah not having her only child till she was very old is a popular Sunday School story.
Gen 16:1-2
Sarai and Hagar 16 Now Sarai, Abram's wife had borne him no children, and she had an Egyptian maid whose name was Hagar.
2 So Sarai said to Abram, “Now behold, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children.
NASU

So after you see that Sarai's firstborn out of her womb was Isaac, maybe you will want to rephrase you above “bold” quote.  After that you can look for where Jesus tricked his Father into giving Him the blessing of the Firstborn.  If you can't do that then do not compare the way Jesus is the firstborn to the way Jacob is the firstborn.

Jesus as the Son of God was the firstborn of all creation.
Jesus as the Son of Man was the firstborn out of the womb of Mary..
Jesus as the firstborn of many brethren was the firstborn from the dead.

You have asked me to discuss pasa ktisis from verse 15 and verse 23.
In verse 15 I believe that “of all creation” is the correct translation since the Greek case of both words is in the genitive which uses the word “of” when translating.
In verse 23 I believe that “to every creature” is the correct translation since the Greek case of both words is in the dative which uses the word “to” when translating.

This translation gives a good general meaning of the passage, IMO:

Col 1:15-23
15
Who is the image of the unseen God coming into existence before all living things;
16
For by him all things were made, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, authorities, lords, rulers, and powers; all things were made by him and for him;
17
He is before all things, and in him all things have being.
18
And he is the head of the body, the church: the starting point of all things, the first to come again from the dead; so that in all things he might have the chief place.
19
For God in full measure was pleased to be in him;
20
Through him uniting all things with himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, uniting all things which are on earth or in heaven.
21
And you, who in the past were cut off and at war with God in your minds through evil works, he has now made one
22
In the body of his flesh through death, so that you might be holy and without sin and free from all evil before him:
23
If you keep yourselves safely based in the faith, not moved from the hope of the good news which came to you, and which was given to every living being under heaven; of which I, Paul, was made a servant.
BBE

Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2009,03:31)

Keith, You say that you were a master craftsman in wood working for 10 years and that no one ever had to start your work for you and then you finished it.  May I point out to you that someone had to supply the wood for you and give you some wisdom on how to use the tools and put things together I believe that the Father supplied the materials and gave the wisdom and it was that wisdom that was acquired that enabled the Son to be the master craftsman.

So are you saying that the Father was not the master craftsman in Gen 1:1, 2? And if he was then who supplied him with the materials and the wisdom?

You missed my point entirely. The master craftsman didn’t need any “help with his creative work from start to finish”. There are no hints anywhere in scriptures that the Creation was performed by 2 Creators or 2 master craftsmen. There are no hints in the Bible that in Gen 1:1, 2 the heavens and earth was created by YHWH and then the “light” in day one created the rest.

We are talking about the Creator here. So how many master craftsmen created the Universe Kathi? Do you have more than one Creator? Trinitarians teach there is “One God” that created all things, and you are teaching there are two.

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; “that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself”; Isa 44:24

”Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein”, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. Neh 9:6

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2009,03:31)

Also, wisdom comes from God as well as resides within Him.

So is the wisdom that resides in God different from the wisdom that comes from him?

Can you explain how that works? This ought to be interesting!

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2009,03:31)

I believe the wisdom near the end of Prov 8 that we have been discussing is from God not the wisdom within Him but it possibly is the wisdom poured out to the Son becoming the wisdom of the Son

.  
So the wisdom in God is different from the wisdom that comes from him? So the wisdom from him was poured out to the Son, (which would mean there was a time the Son had no wisdom), and then the wisdom from God became the wisdom of the Son. So if the wisdom is “of the Son' now then how can the wisdom “be the Son” which it (wisdom) is of?

Tell me how the wisdom from God is not the same as the wisdom in God? Tell me how the wisdom in God is different from the wisdom of the Son? And tell me how Jesus can be the wisdom in Prov 8 and yet the wisdom of Prov 8 that is of him?

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2009,03:31)

You may claim that you have wisdom from God but that does not make you the God who is the source of that wisdom

.
No kidding. But you said that the wisdom from God was poured out to the son and became the wisdom of the Son. How is the wisdom of the son not the same as the wisdom of God? And if the wisdom of God is now the wisdom of the Son then that makes him God!

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2009,03:31)

The Son is the wisdom of God, He is not the God that the wisdom is “of.”

But you said the wisdom from God became the wisdom of the Son, so how can the wisdom of the Son, be the Son?

I am still curious as to how the wisdom of God in him is different than the wisdom from him.

If Gods wisdom is also his word, which I believe it is, then his wisdom is eternal and has always been with him just as his word has. If Jesus is the wisdom and the Word then he is eternal and has always been with him. Gods wisdom is from everlasting or God is not from everlasting, for God has never been without wisdom or his Word.

Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. (before Gen 1:1, 2) I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. (before Gen 1:1, 2 Prov 8:22, 23

Before his way and his works of old, before the earth was, wisdom, the same wisdom that created all things was there.

Before the earth Kathi, the earth and YHWHs works and ways existed before the light!

So clear!

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 06 2009,03:31)

What am I doing up so late?  It was that darned cafe' mocha I'll bet…arrrgh!  I didn't even think it was that great   Yawning     God bless, Kathi

I know what you mean. It is obvious you are tired for you have created a conundrum.

Blessings Keith

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup,Aug. wrote:

[/quote]
Lightenup said:

Quote

You say that Isaac did not come out of the womb first. Did you really mean that??? Tell me who came out of Sarah's womb before Isaac. She was barren until Isaac was conceived.  You say that you have studied the Bible all your Christian life, well the story of Sarah not having her only child till she was very old is a popular Sunday School story

Kathi,
I stated the matter of Isaac incorrectly. Isaac came out of the womb first but he was not Abraham's firstborn. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn. After Ishmael was cast out of the covenant Isaac became Abraham's firstborn.

Lightenup said:

Quote

After that you can look for where Jesus tricked his Father into giving Him the blessing of the Firstborn.  If you can't do that then do not compare the way Jesus is the firstborn to the way Jacob is the firstborn.

Nonsense! The point behind my examples was to show that the word “firstborn” does not necessarily mean “the first to come out of the womb” and that there is more than one way to become the firstborn. My point was to show that Isaac and Jacob though not firstborn became firstborn to God. And if you are going to press your definition that it means “first to come out of the womb” then Jesus was not firstborn UNTIL His human birth. If Jesus was literally firstborn as you say then He could not have been pre-existent.

Christ was not “firstborn” out of God's womb for God is spirit and does not have a womb. So Christ's position as “firstborn” had to come about some other way. And I have shown that there is more than one way to become firstborn. Isaac, Jacob and Christ were firstborn BY THE DECREE OF GOD.

Your are saying that Christ is firstborn because He came out of God's womb. Such nonsense should make you cringe. It certainly makes me cringe.

Lightenup said:

Quote

Jesus as the Son of God was the firstborn of all creation. Jesus as the Son of Man was the firstborn out of the womb of Mary.. Jesus as the firstborn of many brethren was the firstborn from the dead.

*As the Son of God Jesus was firstborn of all creation (His brothers). But it was by the decree of God and not by being delivered in birth from God's womb. This is sheer nonsense!

*The scriptures no where say that Christ is firstborn as Son of Man from the womb of Mary. The Son of man is FROM HEAVEN (John 3:13; 6:62).

*And His being firstborn from the dead is no different than His being firstborn as the Son of God over “all creation” (His brethren). The dead are His brethren. Right?

Christ was firstborn in only ONE RESPECT and that is by the decree of God. And He is firstborn in only ONE RELATION and that is to His brethren.

Lightenup said:

Quote

You have asked me to discuss pasa ktisis from verse 15 and verse 23. In verse 15 I believe that “of all creation” is the correct translation since the Greek case of both words is in the genitive which uses the word “of” when translating. In verse 23 I believe that “to every creature” is the correct translation since the Greek case of both words is in the dative which uses the word “to” when translating.

You have a funky Greek grammar like another person on this board. Greek case does not change the meaning of a word. Case has reference simply to how a word functions in a sentence.

Example:
Christ is Lord of men (genetive)
Christ was preached to men (dative)

The meaning of the word “men” does not change with case.

Pasa ktisis in verses 15 & 23 mean the same thing. In verse 23 it means “men” for the gospel was not preached to rocks and dust and snakes. And it means men in verse 15 because Christ is not the firstborn of all molecules but only those molecules which are of the family of God.

I offer you Albert Barnes on the phrase “firstborn of all creation”

Quote

In early times, the firstborn son was the officiating priest in the family, in the absence, or in the death of the father. There can be no doubt that the apostle here has reference to the usual honours and distinctions conferred on the firstborn (Barnes' Notes on Colossians p. 247)

Note that Barnes says that the “firstborn” was the officiating priest “in the family.” Is Christ the officiating priest over rocks and lizards Kathi? You press the “first to come out of the womb” aspect and say that this is what the Hebrews would have understood. Yet you deny the more obvious fact that they knew that the firstborn was the FAMILY head. Paul said that He is the head of the body, the church.

Your treatment of Colossians is wrong. The Father attributed the creation of the FOUNDATION of the earth to the Son. This means that ALL things came into existence through Him. He did not merely re-arrange things after the foundation was created. He created the foundation.

AND I WILL TAKE THE FATHER'S WORD OVER YOUR “WHISPERS” ANY DAY!

thinker

[Lightenup]

Thinker you said that you will take the Father's word over my “whispers” any day. The whisper was “You are the light of the world.” No discrepancy there with God's word.

Ya know, I will take the Father's word over non-biblical adjectives trying to describe God…i.e. triune, co-eternal, co-equal, three-in-one, etc. You should too. You might understand things a lot clearer if you do. It is not much use to continue the discussion of the past few days with you and Keith. We are getting nowhere and it takes too much time only to get nowhere. IMO I think that once someone accepts the non-biblical adjectives to describe God they can't accept anything that would oppose those non-biblical adjectives. The funny thing is that you and Keith scrutinize every word I write and put me to the test but I do not believe that you have put your trinity doctrine to the same scrutiny. If you did then you would admit that it is not God's message because it is filled with adjectives not even found in the scriptures.

You won't find these adjectives in the Bible yet they are main adjectives in the trinity doctrine:
triune
do-eternal
co-equal
three-in-one
first person
second person
third person
etc.

Put your doctrine to the test in the same way that you test those here. It may help you to see what others have seen and set you free and then maybe we can get somewhere.

Kathi

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Lightenup @ Aug. 08 2009,01:44)

Thinker you said that you will take the Father's word over my “whispers” any day.  The whisper was “You are the light of the world.”  No discrepancy there with God's word.   Ya know, I will take the Father's word over non-biblical adjectives trying to describe God…i.e. triune, co-eternal, co-equal, three-in-one, etc.  You should too.  You might understand things a lot clearer if you do.  It is not much use to continue the discussion of the past few days with you and Keith. We are getting nowhere and it takes too much time only to get nowhere. IMO  I think that once someone accepts the non-biblical adjectives to describe God they can't accept anything that would oppose those non-biblical adjectives.  The funny thing is that you and Keith scrutinize every word I write and put me to the test but I do not believe that you have put your trinity doctrine to the same scrutiny.  If you did then you would admit that it is not God's message because it is filled with adjectives not even found in the scriptures. You won't find these adjectives in the Bible yet they are main adjectives in the trinity doctrine: triune do-eternal co-equal three-in-one first person second person third person etc. Put your doctrine to the test in the same way that you test those here.  It may help you to see what others have seen and set you free and then maybe we can get somewhere. Kathi

Kathi

Seriously, this is hypocritical, for you in the previous post have given us all kinds of extra-biblical termonology and oppologetics.

Shall we list them for you, like “reproduced him from his own Body” Etc.?

I think it is sad that you just bail out of the conversation like this and give us the “”once someone accepts the non-biblical adjectives to describe God they can't accept anything that would oppose those non-biblical adjectives” attitude!

How do you think you are any different by not changing your belief because of a whisper?

Have we at any time brought up the “non-biblical adjectives” that you mention? Can you recall the last time one of us has even mentioned those terms?

We have been showing you and discussing with you Biblical terms like Jesus is God, not “a god” or a begotten god born from the Fathers own body!

Give me a break! How lame!

What makes you think that you are so right and we are so wrong?

Is your doctrine perfect? Maybe you are the one who is blind!

We have scripture to support what we believe and you have shut your eyes to them IMO. I have tested my doctrine with scripture.

You have failed to prove your points and now you want to give us this pompuos, you are blind attitude?

How sad! Fired up!

WJ

[Lightenup]

You keep forgetting Keith, you have most recently spoken about my “extrabiblical” words. I support them with scriptures over and over. Just read through the last several pages. You are also forgetting I do not claim that I have a doctrine but a theory, the trinity is considered a doctrine when it should be at most, a theory. Big difference!

I just don't want to waste my time. I have shown you many verses, I have answered your many questions, but how many pages of words must there be discuss the difference lets say between non-separated body of water and separated bodies of water, i.e. the deep and the depths. Good grief…you make the simple complicated just like your doctrine. IMO

Keep it simple. Sorry you are sad but I'm on to something else for now.
Kathi

[KangarooJack]

Lightenup said:

Quote

Thinker you said that you will take the Father's word over my “whispers” any day.  The whisper was “You are the light of the world.”  No discrepancy there with God's word.

Kathi,
Assuming you have given me the full content of the whisper you have inferred things and have drawn conclusions which do not necessarily follow.  

Lightenup said:

Quote

Ya know, I will take the Father's word over non-biblical adjectives trying to describe God…i.e. triune, co-eternal, co-equal, three-in-one, etc.  You should too.  You might understand things a lot clearer if you do.  It is not much use to continue the discussion of the past few days with you and Keith. We are getting nowhere and it takes too much time only to get nowhere.

The Father's word is that His Son “laid the FOUNDATION of the earth.” You say that the Son only built upon the foundation. So your claim to accept the Father's word is yet to be proven by you. I personally am happy because of the progress we have made in this discussion. Nick says that trinitarians don't agree with each other. He and all others now know differently. Keith and I have always spoken with one voice and one doctrine. You have shown that anti-trinitarians are a “Heinz 57” mix and that even some form of polytheism may come from it. It is anti-trinitarians that do not agree. One anti-trinitarian here is a Muslim. Some anti-trinitarians confess Christ's pre-existence and others deny it. Most are monotheistic but you are polytheistic.

Lightenup said:

Quote

Put your doctrine to the test in the same way that you test those here.  It may help you to see what others have seen and set you free and then maybe we can get somewhere.

This is what I have been doing here. Now you're bailing out. My doctrine is left standing.

Lightenup said:

Quote

I have shown you many verses, I have answered your many questions,

No! You have drawn invalid inferences. For instance, you inferred from Psalm 104 that “you” and “he” refers to two Gods. How careless! One would think that an intelligent person such as yourself would triple check and even quadruple check before making such a bold and “way out there” assertion. One would think that an intelligent person such as yourself would check the original language and several translations before arriving at such a conclusion. “You and “he” was your only evidence for saying that two Gods were involved in creation. I had to do your homework for you and supply the orginal Hebrew text and three translations which agree with the Hebrew text (ASV, KJV NWT). I showed that there was no second God called “he” involved in the creation because “he” literally should be rendered “who.”

Kathi, you are neither a Trinitarian or an Arian. You are not even an anti-trinitarian in the monotheistic sense that others here are. You are an anti-trinitarian who is a henotheistic polytheist. Your views have no church fathers like Trinitarianism and Arianism. Your views therefore are an illegitimate son.

The chief problem with your view is that you fail to see that all that Christ is to His people He is that by decree and by oath. Christ is the Begotten Son and the Firstborn BY DECREE and not by being born out of God's womb. (Ps. 2:7). He is High Priest and Chief Executor of the covenant BY OATH and not by being born of Levi.

Please immerse yourself in the book of Hebrews!

your friend,
Jack

[GeneBalthrop]

WJ………In your and thinkers case it Not a (THEE) its a THEM. Neh 9:6 Interesting!. You guys just can't get the concept of ONLY ONE TRUE GOD>.

Peace and love to you and yours………………….gene

[Cindy]

In Galatians 4:22  It is written that Abraham had two Son's:” the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman.  

verse 23 But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to flesh.  And he of the free woman through promise.

verse 24 which things are symbolic.  For these are the two Covenants, the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—

verse 25  for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is, and is , and is in  bondage with her Children.

verse 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

verse 27  For it is written:”  Rejoice, O barren,
                                     You who do not bear!
                                     Break forth and shout,
                                     You who do not travail!
                                     For the desolate has many
                                          more children
                                     Than she who has a husband.”

I brought this up to let you know that in Christ we are free.  When you who believe in a trinity certainly have a lot to learn.  Calling others by names, has never been my style and I really despise it.  So I hope that you will in the future think before you do so.  I already know what those that believe in the trinity are going to say to me.  But I am in Christ and it really does not matter to me, one way ore another.  So be my Guest!!!!

Peace and Love Irene

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Gene @ Aug. 10 2009,02:14)

WJ………In your and thinkers case it Not a (THEE) its a THEM. Neh 9:6  Interesting!. You guys just can't get the concept of ONLY ONE TRUE GOD>. Peace and love to you and yours………………….gene

Gene,
Explain 1 John 5:20 which says that Jesus is the “true God and eternal life.” Explain also why you haven't commented on Kathi's view that two Gods were involved in creation?

thinker

[Author]

Posts