Was Jesus Created?

[terraricca]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2012,20:19)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 26 2012,13:06) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2012,20:01) The Word/Son was with God the Father in the beginning, that means eternal. If there was a “new creation” if was when the human and divine Son became the fertilized egg in Mary's womb. Having returned to his place on high, the Son now has the human experience added to his being. Colter colter Ge 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Ge 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. Ge 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. witch of God statement are wrong ? or is it you Looks like its you that is wrong , because “in the beginning God” was already a plural creator: Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Colter

colter

is that what you refer to wen you say that Christ is a new creation ???

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,20:02)

Hey, that's kinda sounds like this verse… Col 1:18 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.

Ed,

CHILL OUT, MAN!  I'm answering MANY posts in MANY threads right now.  Have you noticed that almost everyone in this thead is directing questions at ME all at once?

To answer your question:
Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Look at how the passage starts and ends, Ed.  Your understanding is that Jesus is preeminent so that in everything he might be preeminent?  That seems a little odd and redundant to me.

Ed, is it possible that “firstborn of every creature” simply means that Jesus was the first creature ever created?

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,12:42)

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 25 2012,19:23) King James Version (KJV) 13It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death shall devour his strength. Actually, you help my point jammin. IF this verse wasn't metaphoric, and IF death was a real living being with sons of his own, then YES, the firstborn of death would belong to the same group that death belonged to. As you say in the other thread, Son of God has the nature of God, right?  Well, the firstborn of death would also have the nature of death.  And the firstborn of creation would have the nature of a created thing.

therefore, it does not always means that firstborn of etc etc is also a member of etc etc.

now you are contradicting your previous argument.

as i have said, the firstborn of death does not mean a member of death.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2012,20:19)

Looks like its you that is wrong , because “in the beginning God” was already a plural creator: Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,…………

And who proceeded to make man in HIS image, Colter?

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:30)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,19:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,19:57) Kathi, When you were born, you were created.  You became a new, INDIVIDUAL creation by being born. The firstBORN of the flock is still a CREATION of God. Mike, I existed before I was born by about 9 months. Kathi, Read the word I capped.  Here, I've made it big and bold for you this time.

Mike,
The baby inside the womb is an individual even before birth. He or she has a mind, body and spirit. Birth brings out an individual person who was within for a time. Firstborn does NOT mean first created no matter how big you make the letters. When we were born, we became a newborn, not a new individual person…we already were that in the womb. Birth doesn't bring something that did not exist into existence. The baby exists before the birth. This is so obvious!

[mikeboll64]

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 25 2012,20:30)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,12:42) Quote (jammin @ Mar. 25 2012,19:23) King James Version (KJV) 13It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death shall devour his strength. Actually, you help my point jammin. IF this verse wasn't metaphoric, and IF death was a real living being with sons of his own, then YES, the firstborn of death would belong to the same group that death belonged to. now you are contradicting your previous argument. as i have said, the firstborn of death does not mean a member of death.

Yes, it WOULD be a member of “death” if in fact death was a real person who had a firstborn son.

Anyway, Colter's point about a “dual-Creator” has prompted me to move forward with the scriptures.

24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
  “‘Why do the nations rage
  and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth take their stand
  and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
  and against his Anointed One.’

27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

[Ed J]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:27)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,20:02) Hey, that's kinda sounds like this verse… Col 1:18 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. Ed, CHILL OUT, MAN!  I'm answering MANY posts in MANY threads right now.  Have you noticed that almost everyone in this thead is directing questions at ME all at once? To answer your question: Colossians 1 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For through him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. Look at how the passage starts and ends, Ed.  Your understanding is that Jesus is preeminent so that in everything he might be preeminent?  That seems a little odd and redundant to me. Ed, is it possible that “firstborn of every creature” simply means that Jesus was the first creature ever created?

Hi Mike, what about this part?

Rev 3:14 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;

G-746 ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
(Strong's) Definition: magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,20:40)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,19:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,19:57) Kathi, When you were born, you were created.  You became a new, INDIVIDUAL creation by being born. The firstBORN of the flock is still a CREATION of God. Mike, I existed before I was born by about 9 months. Kathi, Read the word I capped.  Here, I've made it big and bold for you this time. Mike, The baby inside the womb is an individual even before birth. He or she has a mind, body and spirit. Birth brings out an individual person who was within for a time. Firstborn does NOT mean first created no matter how big you make the letters. When we were born, we became a newborn, not a new individual person…we already were that in the womb. Birth doesn't bring something that did not exist into existence. The baby exists before the birth. This is so obvious!

Kathi,

Until the cord is cut, that baby is not an individual, but attached to its mother, and dependent on its mother for sustenance, oxygen, blood, etc.

But we have moved on to Acts 4 now.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,20:43)

Hi Mike, what about this part? Rev 3:14 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; G-746 ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine Transliteration: arché Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay') (Strong's) Definition: magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

What about it?

Are you suggesting that Strong doesn't list “beginning” as a definition of “arche”?

John uses the word “arche” 14 times in his writings. Each time it has the meaning of “beginning”. (Well, except of course in the Trinitarian translations of Rev 3:14, where they've translated it as “ruler”.)

I guess I don't get the point you think you're making. I agree that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by his God, as he was the first thing God ever created.

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:37)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,19:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:03) That's EXACTLY what I said, Kathi.  I said that EVEN IN situations like David's, where “firstborn” wasn't literal, but used to show preeminence, he was STILL a member OF the group of which he was appointed the firstborn. Mike, He wasn't appointed as the 'firstborn of all kings'. Scripture doesn't say those words. This is what it says: “I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. He was made the firstborn of God, not the firstborn of kings.  It doesn't say that “I also shall make him the firstborn of the kings” does it! You are in error, Kathi. The Hebrew says: also I firstborn make highest of kings of earth The fact that certain translations add the word “MY” before “firstborn” is irrelevant, because it's not what the scripture says, nor is it what is meant. It means that David was appointed as the firstborn (preeminent) of all the kings of the earth.

Mike,
He is the 'highest' of kings. This does not say the firstborn of kings in the Hebrew or the English it says 'highest'.

[mikeboll64]

Ed, from biblos.com:

Strong's Concordance

arché: beginning, origin
Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Short Definition: ruler, beginning
Definition: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, c beginning.

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,20:51)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:37) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,19:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:03) That's EXACTLY what I said, Kathi.  I said that EVEN IN situations like David's, where “firstborn” wasn't literal, but used to show preeminence, he was STILL a member OF the group of which he was appointed the firstborn. Mike, He wasn't appointed as the 'firstborn of all kings'. Scripture doesn't say those words. This is what it says: “I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. He was made the firstborn of God, not the firstborn of kings.  It doesn't say that “I also shall make him the firstborn of the kings” does it! You are in error, Kathi. The Hebrew says: also I firstborn make highest of kings of earth The fact that certain translations add the word “MY” before “firstborn” is irrelevant, because it's not what the scripture says, nor is it what is meant. It means that David was appointed as the firstborn (preeminent) of all the kings of the earth. Mike, He is the 'highest' of kings.  This does not say the firstborn of kings in the Hebrew or the English it says 'highest'.

Kathi,

I won't argue the mundane with you any more.

[Lightenup]

Mike,
Rev 3:14 does not say that He is the beginning creation of the creation of God. It says that He is the beginning of the creation of God. You have to add words to come up with your fallacy.

[NickHassan]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:43)

Quote (jammin @ Mar. 25 2012,20:30) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,12:42) Quote (jammin @ Mar. 25 2012,19:23) King James Version (KJV) 13It shall devour the strength of his skin: even the firstborn of death shall devour his strength. Actually, you help my point jammin. IF this verse wasn't metaphoric, and IF death was a real living being with sons of his own, then YES, the firstborn of death would belong to the same group that death belonged to. now you are contradicting your previous argument. as i have said, the firstborn of death does not mean a member of death. Yes, it WOULD be a member of “death” if in fact death was a real person who had a firstborn son. Anyway, Colter's point about a “dual-Creator” has prompted me to move forward with the scriptures. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:   “‘Why do the nations rage   and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth take their stand   and the rulers gather together against the Lord   and against his Anointed One.’ 27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29 Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30 Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” Who did Peter and John pray to? Did they attribute the creation of the heaven, earth, sea, and EVERYTHING IN THEM to the One they prayed to?  YES or NO? Who did Peter and John pray through? Is the one they prayed through the servant of the One they prayed to?  YES or NO? Does this servant have any choice but to be one of the “EVERYTHING” in heaven, earth, or sea that was created by the One they prayed to?

Hi MB,
1 God v 24
2 Yes
3 David is the first servant mentioned YES
4 David was created but not the Spirit of Christ

The Word was God-uncreated

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2012,20:35)

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:30) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 25 2012,20:19) Looks like its you that is wrong , because “in the beginning God” was already a plural creator: Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,………… And who proceeded to make man in HIS image, Colter? The Son and the Father: “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.”

Gen 1
27 So God created man in his own image,
  in the image of God he created him;

This is what I was referring to, Colter.  “His” image, not “their” image.

Anyway, please address the Acts 4 post I made. (Last post on page 5)

[NickHassan]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:46)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,20:40) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:30) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,19:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,19:57) Kathi, When you were born, you were created.  You became a new, INDIVIDUAL creation by being born. The firstBORN of the flock is still a CREATION of God. Mike, I existed before I was born by about 9 months. Kathi, Read the word I capped.  Here, I've made it big and bold for you this time. Mike, The baby inside the womb is an individual even before birth. He or she has a mind, body and spirit. Birth brings out an individual person who was within for a time. Firstborn does NOT mean first created no matter how big you make the letters. When we were born, we became a newborn, not a new individual person…we already were that in the womb. Birth doesn't bring something that did not exist into existence. The baby exists before the birth. This is so obvious! Kathi, Until the cord is cut, that baby is not an individual, but attached to its mother, and dependent on its mother for sustenance, oxygen, blood, etc. But we have moved on to Acts 4 now.

Hi MB,
So conception is not the beginning for men

[Lightenup]

Mike,

Quote

I won't argue the mundane with you any more.

Great, there is no point to argue it or keep claiming that what you are claiming since it clearly doesn't say what you claim. If you keep claiming this then you will have to be shown that you are claiming falsely. Learn.

[terraricca]

Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2012,20:26)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 26 2012,13:22) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2012,20:19) Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 26 2012,13:06) Quote (Colter @ Mar. 26 2012,20:01) The Word/Son was with God the Father in the beginning, that means eternal. If there was a “new creation” if was when the human and divine Son became the fertilized egg in Mary's womb. Having returned to his place on high, the Son now has the human experience added to his being. Colter colter Ge 1:31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day. Ge 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. Ge 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. witch of God statement are wrong ? or is it you Looks like its you that is wrong , because “in the beginning God” was already a plural creator: Gen 1:26 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Colter colter is that what you refer to wen you say that Christ is a new creation ??? LOL! what a dodge, I had already explained how the term “new creation” may apply   Colter

colter

I like Ford no dodge for me ,

you see ,what I do not like from people is this ;

they start out to use words that do not reflect the scriptures but in a little pinch that they come back later to use for a bigger use ,because they would now assume that what they have said is true and so build on it ,

so you application for ,NEW CREATION is not true not the truth to scriptures ,because Christ the son of God ia not a new but a old creation actually the oldest because he the first

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,20:53)

Mike, Rev 3:14 does not say that He is the beginning creation of the creation of God. It says that He is the beginning of the creation of God. You have to add words to come up with your fallacy.

What are you talking about, Kathi? This is what I meant by “mundane”.

Unless I had a typo somewhere, I've always accepted that Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God. Where did I say different?

[jammin]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:53)

Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,20:51) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:37) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,19:12) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,20:03) That's EXACTLY what I said, Kathi.  I said that EVEN IN situations like David's, where “firstborn” wasn't literal, but used to show preeminence, he was STILL a member OF the group of which he was appointed the firstborn. Mike, He wasn't appointed as the 'firstborn of all kings'. Scripture doesn't say those words. This is what it says: “I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth. He was made the firstborn of God, not the firstborn of kings.  It doesn't say that “I also shall make him the firstborn of the kings” does it! You are in error, Kathi. The Hebrew says: also I firstborn make highest of kings of earth The fact that certain translations add the word “MY” before “firstborn” is irrelevant, because it's not what the scripture says, nor is it what is meant. It means that David was appointed as the firstborn (preeminent) of all the kings of the earth. Mike, He is the 'highest' of kings.  This does not say the firstborn of kings in the Hebrew or the English it says 'highest'. Kathi, I won't argue the mundane with you any more.

mike has learned his lesson kathi

[Author]

Posts