- This topic has 574 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 12 months ago by david.
- AuthorPosts
- March 26, 2012 at 3:02 am#287787LightenupParticipant
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,21:46) 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.
Mike,
Once the cord is cut the baby is still dependent on the mother or a caretaker…for several years.Like Nick said…conception is the beginning of the baby, not the birth.
-a mother of five (three still very much dependant ) I can show you my tax form for proof of that, ha!
March 26, 2012 at 3:03 am#287789mikeboll64BlockedKathi and jammin,
I'm waiting for your 5 answers to the post at the bottom of page 5.
(I've gone back and numbered them after Nick showed me he couldn't count. Just kidding, Nick)
March 26, 2012 at 3:04 am#287790mikeboll64BlockedQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,21:02) Mike,
Once the cord is cut the baby is still dependent on the mother or a caretaker…for several years.
For oxygen and blood, Kathi?March 26, 2012 at 3:04 am#287792Ed JParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:49) 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.
Hi Mike,Preeminence, not first created!
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.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMarch 26, 2012 at 3:05 am#287793LightenupParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,22:00) 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?
Mike,
You say that He is the beginning of the creation of God but you believe that means that He is the beginning creation of the creation of God. It doesn't say that.March 26, 2012 at 3:06 am#287794Ed JParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:51) 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.
Hi Mike,Go farther down the page to get to Strong's…
(Strong's) Definition: magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMarch 26, 2012 at 3:08 am#287795Ed JParticipantHi Mike,
Don't just ignore what you don't like. ““
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMarch 26, 2012 at 3:08 am#287796mikeboll64BlockedQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,21:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:49) 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.
Hi Mike,Preeminence, not first created!
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.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
And how does your post suggest that, Ed?Please don't bother me with mundane questions. You make a BIG point about me answering this other part of your post, and it says nothing about being “preeminent”.
March 26, 2012 at 3:09 am#287797NickHassanParticipantHi MB,
Yes Jesus was also mentioned as a servant and those who were in Christ prayed in him that power would be given through him.The Word was God
March 26, 2012 at 3:11 am#287799mikeboll64BlockedQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,21:08) Hi Mike, Don't just ignore what you don't like. ““
God bless
Ed J
See Ed? This is the crap I'm talking about. I'm VERY busy right now, trying to keep up with all the posts. And here you are, WASTING MY TIME on nonsense posts like this one. WHY?YES, you think “firstborn of all creation” means “preeminence”. I don't.
You think “beginning of the creation of God” means “preeminence”. I don't.
How is disagreeing with you “ignoring what I don't like”?
They can mean either thing, right? So we disagree on their meaning, and that's all there is to it.
Now, would you be so kind as to address the Acts 4 post I've made at the bottom of page 5?
March 26, 2012 at 3:13 am#287800LightenupParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,22:04) Quote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,21:02) Mike,
Once the cord is cut the baby is still dependent on the mother or a caretaker…for several years.
For oxygen and blood, Kathi?
Mike,
Babies in the womb are individuals, not independent but still the baby is an individual before birth. After birth the baby is dependent on more than blood and oxygen. If you leave a newborn alone, he or she can breathe and his blood flows fine but he can't move around much, clean himself, feed himself, rent a movie, etc. Eventually without someone to help him, he will die. Having someone else help you breath or clean your blood does not mean you become less than an individual. Individuals are hooked up to life support a lot but they are still individuals.Learn please!
March 26, 2012 at 3:14 am#287801terrariccaParticipantQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 26 2012,21:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,22:00) 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?
Mike,
You say that He is the beginning of the creation of God but you believe that means that He is the beginning creation of the creation of God. It doesn't say that.
March 26, 2012 at 3:15 am#287802Ed JParticipantHi Mike,
I gave you the definition of “Beginning” in Revelation 3:14,
which you believe supports your supposition. And when
you read the context of Colossians: preeminence is
shown as what “Firstborn” in verse 15 means.But of course you will ignore this as you do
with all information that you don't agree with.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMarch 26, 2012 at 3:15 am#287803mikeboll64BlockedQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,21:05) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,22:00) 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?
Mike,
You say that He is the beginning of the creation of God but you believe that means that He is the beginning creation of the creation of God. It doesn't say that.
Mundane again, Kathi.YES, “beginning OF THE creation of God” surely means that Jesus was the first thing God created.
The “beginning OF THE creation of pet rocks” was the first pet rock ever created.
This is how I understand the very words, and there is no way you can say this understanding is flawed. You might understand those same words in a different way, but you cannot PROHIBIT someone from understanding them the way I understand them. They can mean EXACTLY what I think they mean.
Now PLEASE! Address the post at the bottom of page 5, and leave all this mundane crap behind us.
March 26, 2012 at 3:16 am#287804terrariccaParticipantQuote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 26 2012,21:09) Hi MB,
Yes Jesus was also mentioned as a servant and those who were in Christ prayed in him that power would be given through him.The Word was God
Nyou know why Christ was men's (humanity) servant ??
March 26, 2012 at 3:17 am#287805jamminParticipantwhat is your question mike??
now you know what to do mike .never add your words to the scripture.
March 26, 2012 at 3:17 am#287806mikeboll64BlockedQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,21:06) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,13:51) 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.
Hi Mike,Go farther down the page to get to Strong's…
(Strong's) Definition: magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Sorry Ed, but I'm done with you for now. I'm too busy to play games.DO YOU ASSERT THAT “BEGINNING” IS NOT A VIABLE DEFINITION OF “ARCHE”? IF NOT, THEN PLEASE……………..
March 26, 2012 at 3:18 am#287807Ed JParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 26 2012,14:11) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 25 2012,21:08) Hi Mike, Don't just ignore what you don't like. ““
God bless
Ed J
See Ed? This is the crap I'm talking about. I'm VERY busy right now, trying to keep up with all the posts. And here you are, WASTING MY TIME on nonsense posts like this one. WHY?YES, you think “firstborn of all creation” means “preeminence”. I don't.
You think “beginning of the creation of God” means “preeminence”. I don't.
How is disagreeing with you “ignoring what I don't like”?
They can mean either thing, right? So we disagree on their meaning, and that's all there is to it.
Now, would you be so kind as to address the Acts 4 post I've made at the bottom of page 5?
Hi Mike,I didn't see any Acts 4 post on the bottom of page 5?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgMarch 26, 2012 at 3:18 am#287808LightenupParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Mar. 25 2012,22:03) Kathi and jammin, I'm waiting for your 5 answers to the post at the bottom of page 5.
(I've gone back and numbered them after Nick showed me he couldn't count. Just kidding, Nick)
Mike,
First we need you to get this, that firstborn does not translate as first created and Rev 3:14 does not say 'beginning creation' and therefore cannot be used to prove that He was the beginning creation.Do you get this, Mike?
March 26, 2012 at 3:19 am#287809mikeboll64BlockedQuote (Lightenup @ Mar. 25 2012,21:13) Learn please!
Acts 4, Kathi. Bottom of page 5. - AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.