Who is the creator of all things?

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 23 2012,16:50)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 23 2012,01:54)

Mike,
Begetting the Son may have been considered a work, the first 'work' but that was not a creating out of nothing type of work.

ALL THINGS in heaven and earth came “out from” the Father, Kathi. Jesus is no exception, as even you admit.

I don't know where you get your “created from nothing” argument. Even if God just WILLED empty space to become something, the WILL that caused “nothing” to become “something” came out from God.

Kathi, re-read what you wrote to me. If “possessing” or “creating” Jesus was the first WORK of God, then Jesus wasn't “possessed” or “created” UNTIL God did that work.

Face it, Kathi. Jesus had a beginning, just like Micah 5:2 teaches us.

Mike,
All things are from God the Father, that is clear, but there was only one person who came from the Father by birth as an offspring. All other things came from non-existence to existence. I believe that the Son came from eternal existence within the Father to existence out of the Father before creation. He went from existing within the Father to existing out of the Father. If everything came out of the Father in the same way, then it would be no big truth to declare that which the disciples knew. See what they 'knew' here”

John 15:6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

The origin in Micah 5:2 could be referring to when He began existing 'out of' His Father and not referring to a ultimate beginning of existence, or the passage is referring to the origin of the line of His descendants.

Quote

Kathi, re-read what you wrote to me. If “possessing” or “creating” Jesus was the first WORK of God, then Jesus wasn't “possessed” or “created” UNTIL God did that work.

I addressed this in my last post to you here regarding the word 'as' which is not in the translation with the word 'possessed.'

Kathi

January 24, 2012 at 11:33 pm#274145

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 24 2012,17:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 25 2012,16:09)

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 24 2012,17:01)

Kathi

Quote

Again, the idea the NET translators were intending to convey is that “wisdom existed before creation,…” and “The claim of wisdom in this passage is that she was foundational to all that God would do.” If wisdom existed BEFORE creation, then it is not a part of creation,

so in your opinion God was not a God with wisdom,of his own ?

Pierre,
I believe that the wisdom of God is found in two persons and that is the thrust of the passage. One of the persons with the wisdom of God begat the other person with the wisdom of God.

Kathi

God his Christ father and the wisdom is part of Gods nature and so the wisdom is also found in Christ ,

and in Proverb 8;22 -31 his talking about that first creation “his SON”

Col;1;15-18 is clear about it .

and in John;Jn 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Jn 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”
Jn 1:16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

ALL THOSE SCRIPTURES ARE SAYING THE SAME THING ABOUT CHRIST THE SON OF GOD,

Pierre

Pierre,
What type of being is the Heavenly Father?

When you truly know the answer you will know what type of being is the Son.

Is the Heavenly Father an angel, Pierre?

Kathi

January 24, 2012 at 11:36 pm#274146

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 25 2012,16:33)

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 24 2012,17:22)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 25 2012,16:09)

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 24 2012,17:01)

Kathi

Quote

so in your opinion God was not a God with wisdom,of his own ?

Pierre,
I believe that the wisdom of God is found in two persons and that is the thrust of the passage. One of the persons with the wisdom of God begat the other person with the wisdom of God.

Kathi

God his Christ father and the wisdom is part of Gods nature and so the wisdom is also found in Christ ,

and in Proverb 8;22 -31 his talking about that first creation “his SON”

Col;1;15-18 is clear about it .

ALL THOSE SCRIPTURES ARE SAYING THE SAME THING ABOUT CHRIST THE SON OF GOD,

Pierre

Pierre,
What type of being is the Heavenly Father?

When you truly know the answer you will know what type of being is the Son.

Is the Heavenly Father an angel, Pierre?

Kathi

Quote

When you truly know the answer you will know what type of being is the Son.

so you are telling me you know

January 24, 2012 at 11:54 pm#274156

Blocked

Kathi,

I've grown bored with this discussion. Neither “as” nor “at” are in the Hebrew. Then meaning is clearly that wisdom (Jesus) was the first thing God ever brought forth. God established it (Jesus) before His other works of old.

You believe that Jesus existed as long as God, but for some odd reason, he existed INSIDE of God instead of as a separate being.

As for me, I'll keep believing that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of every creature, the BEGINNING of GOD'S creation, and the first work God ever brought forth. I will rest soundly understanding that, like every other son who has ever been brought forth, there was a time when Jesus also didn't exist. I won't have to twist scriptures, and that way, when the scripture says “his origins are from ancient times”, I'll just believe what it says.

And you feel free to go on twisting things and making up your own scriptures just so you can have a Son who existed as long as his own Father.

January 25, 2012 at 4:33 am#274248

Participant

Mike,
you said:

Quote

Then meaning is clearly that wisdom (Jesus) was the first thing God ever brought forth. God established it (Jesus) before His other works of old.

I agree and this does not challenge my understanding but supports it…good for you to see that Jesus could not possibly be a part of the creation of God since He was before those works.

Quote

You believe that Jesus existed as long as God, but for some odd reason, he existed INSIDE of God instead of as a separate being.

Well, I do think that He existed inside of God the Father as long as the Father existed but unlike what you said, I believe He was a separate being/person while existing within God the Father.

Quote

As for me, I'll keep believing that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of every creature, the BEGINNING of GOD'S creation, and the first work God ever brought forth. I will rest soundly understanding that, like every other son who has ever been brought forth, there was a time when Jesus also didn't exist. I won't have to twist scriptures, and that way, when the scripture says “his origins are from ancient times”, I'll just believe what it says.

I will believe that He is the firstborn of God, the beginning of God's creation as being begotten before creation, not created, which would make the begettal the first work that God brought forth when He begat His only begotten Son and not a creation act.

Quote

And you feel free to go on twisting things and making up your own scriptures just so you can have a Son who existed as long as his own Father.

You are the one insisting on the word firstborn to mean first created which is not in scripture. I know who He is the firstborn of God. It seems that you would have the gospel based on a verse that should say…God so loved the world that He gave creation's firstborn, creation's first begotten son, that whoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Can you see how that is what you are saying.

I don't believe He is creation's firstborn like you do. I believe that He is the firstborn of God…God's firstborn. It is you that is twisting or not understanding scripture. He can't be 'part of creation' if He was before creation, now can He?

Mike, please answer this:
Would you agree that the default meaning of the word firstborn would be the first offspring born to his/her parent?

Thanks,
Kathi

January 25, 2012 at 4:39 am#274249

Participant

Pierre,
So you don't know what type of being the Father is. Then stop acting like you know what type of being the Son is. They are the same type when you finally figure it out correctly you will see that is what being an only begotten Son means. You can't say that He is the only begotten Son of God and understand him to be of a different type of being than the Father who beget Him. That would not be a begotten son.

Again, you do not believe that He is the only begotten Son…you believe that he is the first created creature son. You do not know what a true son is, imo.

Kathi

January 25, 2012 at 4:54 am#274255

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 25 2012,21:39)

Again, you do not believe that He is the only begotten Son…you believe that he is the first created creature son. You do not know what a true son is, imo.

Kathi

Kathy

Quote

So you don't know what type of being the Father is

I never say I don't know ,but if I knew I would not tell you,

because you have already made up your mind in what he his ,and so you did with the son as well,

there is nothing that anyone can really teach you on that subject at te least.

Pierre

January 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm#274322

Participant

Pierre,
Well why don't you just share what type of being the Father is with the other readers then so you can be challenged if perhaps you are missing something or are you not teachable?
Btw, I am teachable but when people who do not know what an only begotten son is, then I look to those who do since that is the truth that the church is founded on.
If a person does not have a true and solid foundation, why would anyone think the rest of their house would stand up as truth?

Seek truth Pierre, don't be afraid to have your understanding challenged with scripture. The truth will set you free.

Kathi

January 25, 2012 at 7:36 pm#274334

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 26 2012,10:49)

Seek truth Pierre, don't be afraid to have your understanding challenged with scripture. The truth will set you free.

Kathi

1Co 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
1Co 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1Co 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
1Co 13:5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
1Co 13:6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
1Co 13:7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
1Co 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,

1Co 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

but what is the LOVE Paul talks about

Heb 2:1 We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away.
Heb 2:2 For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment,
Heb 2:3 how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.
Heb 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

Pierre

January 25, 2012 at 11:05 pm#274358

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 24 2012,21:33)

Mike, please answer this:
Would you agree that the default meaning of the word firstborn would be the first offspring born to his/her parent?

I agree with the way you originally put it: “Firstborn” has a default meaning of “the one born first”.

Now, a question for you:
Kathi, out of all the firstborns of the flock, one of them had to be born the earliest, and therefore be the LITERAL firstborn of the flock. Does calling that one “the firstborn of the flock”, true as it is, imply that “the flock”, as a whole, is his parent? Or does it imply that that one is a MEMBER OF the group called “the flock”? WHICH ONE, PLEASE.

January 26, 2012 at 3:09 am#274426

Participant

Mike,
you asked:

Quote

Kathi, out of all the firstborns of the flock, one of them had to be born the earliest, and therefore be the LITERAL firstborn of the flock. Does calling that one “the firstborn of the flock”, true as it is, imply that “the flock”, as a whole, is his parent? Or does it imply that that one is a MEMBER OF the group called “the flock”? WHICH ONE, PLEASE.

It implies that a member of the flock is the parent that gave birth to him and the firstborn would be equal in nature and be equal to the type of being as the one who beget him. You can assume all that because that is what the word 'firstborn' implies in its default sense.

Furthermore, if he was the firstborn of a group of offspring, then all the offspring would also be equal in nature and in type of being as the parent and he wouldn't be called the only begotten.

Mike, please answer this question:
Do you think that God the Father is a member of creation and that all creation are His offspring?

Kathi

January 26, 2012 at 3:26 am#274427

Blocked

No Kathi,

God is not a member of creation.

Abraham is the father of all Israelites, right? His firstborn son (according to the promise) was Issac, right? So that would make Issac the “firstborn of the Israelites”, right? Yet his father was NOT an Israelite, was he?

And it doesn't really matter WHO you want to argue was truly the “firstborn of the Israelites”, because until that one existed, there was no such thing AS an “Israelite”, and therefore the father of the “firstborn of the Israelites” was NOT an Israelite.

The LITERAL firstborn of the kings of the earth would be the first king, right? But if he is first, then his father WASN'T a king at all.

So forget the parents for a minute, and just answer the question from the last post………………..WHICH ONE, PLEASE?

January 26, 2012 at 7:06 am#274442

Participant

Mike,
you asked:

Quote

God called Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the fathers of the Israelites, Isaac was never called the firstborn of the Israelites.

Exodus 3:16'Go, and thou hast gathered the elders of Israel, and hast said unto them: Jehovah, God of your fathers, hath appeareth unto me, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, I have certainly inspected you, and that which is done to you in Egypt;

Reuben, the oldest son of Jacob's was called Israel's firstborn, not Isaac:

14These are the heads of their fathers’ households. The sons of Reuben, Israel’s firstborn: Hanoch and Pallu, Hezron and Carmi; these are the families of Reuben.

Reuben would not be the firstborn of Israel if his father was not called Israel.

Jesus is the only offspring son of God, not one of many creature sons of God. We can know this because there are many creature sons of God yet the Son is the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, not one of many begotten or created sons and He has His Father's nature and is in the form of God.

your question again:

Quote

Mike, this is a case of you insisting that I select one of two choices . I have answered your question above as to how I felt gave a clearer answer than just choosing one choice as you have written. Take it or leave it but stop asking it over and over.

Was Reuben the literal firstborn of the Israelites…yes. Does that one “the firstborn of the Israelites,” true as it is, imply that the Israelites, as a whole, is his parent…no, although it implies that Israel was his parent. Or does it imply that that one is a member of the group called 'the Israelites?' It implies that firstborn is a member of the group called the Israelites BECAUSE of what his father was…Israel.

In order for the pre-existent Jesus to be a member of the creatures, He would have to be a creature also and not a firstborn but a first created. He is indeed the FirstBORN, not the first created. I have shown you the two Greek words that clarify which means which.

Quote

The LITERAL firstborn of the kings of the earth would be the first king, right? But if he is first, then his father WASN'T a king at all.

No, the literal firstborn of the kings of the earth would be the first prince. You can't be the firstborn of the king if your father is not a king.

Kathi

January 26, 2012 at 9:27 pm#274521

Blocked

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 26 2012,00:06)

Ahhh………….. But was Reuben's father an ISRAELITE? No.

So, does Jesus' father have to be a CREATURE? Also no.

Also, there have been kings whose fathers were never king. Take Prince Charles, for example. If he dies before Queen Elizabeth, then when she dies, Harry will become King of England, WITHOUT HIS DAD EVER HAVING BEEN KING.

Saul was Israel's firstborn king of the earth before God took what was his and gave it to David. And neither Saul's nor David's fathers were kings.

Kathi, because of my first sentence above, your “safety lock” prohibiting Jesus from being a creation because his Father isn't a creation has been succesfully picked by me.

Col 1:15 means that, out of all the creations that have been BORN throughout history, Jesus was the first one.

I'm done with this discussion.

January 27, 2012 at 6:06 pm#274626

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 25 2012,13:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 26 2012,10:49)

Seek truth Pierre, don't be afraid to have your understanding challenged with scripture. The truth will set you free.

Kathi

1Co 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

but what is the LOVE Paul talks about

Pierre

Pierre,
Those are good verses but do not tell me what type of being God is. Please tell me if you know.

Thanks,
Kathi

January 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm#274641

Participant

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 26 2012,15:27)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 26 2012,00:06)

Ahhh………….. But was Reuben's father an ISRAELITE? No.

So, does Jesus' father have to be a CREATURE? Also no.

Saul was Israel's firstborn king of the earth before God took what was his and gave it to David. And neither Saul's nor David's fathers were kings.

Kathi, because of my first sentence above, your “safety lock” prohibiting Jesus from being a creation because his Father isn't a creation has been succesfully picked by me.

Col 1:15 means that, out of all the creations that have been BORN throughout history, Jesus was the first one.

I'm done with this discussion.

Mike,
you said:

Quote

Ahhh………….. But was Reuben's father an ISRAELITE? No.

So, does Jesus' father have to be a CREATURE? Also no.

Would Reuben be an Israelite if his father was not Israel? No. Your example is lacking.
Israel's descendants are Israelites because they share the same father by nature.
Creation and the only begotten Son DO NOT share the same father by nature and thus are not a part of the same group.

Proverbs 8 shows us that 'wisdom' existed BEFORE God's works of old. Wisdom then pre-existed creation and is thus not a part of creation Mike. Prov 8 does not say that 'wisdom' was the first work of old but that it was BEFORE the works of old.

I do believe that shoots a big hole in your theory that the Son is a part of creation. The works of old occurred within time and the Son was there before time…before the works of old.

Also, it is William that is in line to be king, not Harry. If his father dies before the queen and then the queen dies, William will not be called the firstborn king but the firstborn of the Duke and Duchess that became king.

No one was born a king already, aside from Jesus when born as flesh. Firstborns can become kings though.

Quote

Col 1:15 means that, out of all the creations that have been BORN throughout history, Jesus was the first one.

Out of all persons that exist and have been born throughout history, Jesus was the first one and He happens to be the only one born of God as His Father.

Therefore, He is not part of a created group by birth except when He came in the flesh…only by being their creator might He be considered to be part of that goup and thus is over that created group…He is Lord of all, the firstborn OVER all creation. All things were made by Him and for Him.

Those who are a part of the created group would have to be created by God as opposed to be by nature, born of God as a true offspring would be.

Learn that God meant what He said when He said that Jesus was His beloved and only begotten Son. This is the foundational truth that the church is founded on. You deny the true meaning of this by calling Jesus a creature and you do not have the true gospel understanding of God sending His only begotten Son that who should believe on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

I will be thrilled to end this conversation with you as you attempt to drive the readers insane. If you do not know by now who the Son is the firstborn OF and that firstborn is not the same as first created, it will take a miracle.
God still performs miracles though so there is hope

Kathi

January 27, 2012 at 7:31 pm#274651

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 28 2012,11:06)

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 25 2012,13:36)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 26 2012,10:49)

Seek truth Pierre, don't be afraid to have your understanding challenged with scripture. The truth will set you free.

Kathi

1Co 13:13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

but what is the LOVE Paul talks about

Pierre

Pierre,
Those are good verses but do not tell me what type of being God is. Please tell me if you know.

Thanks,
Kathi

Kathi

why do you not answer my question ??

January 27, 2012 at 8:44 pm#274661

Participant

Pierre,
The love Paul talks about is a 'fruit' of the spirt 'of' God, not the type of being He is. Try again.
What type of being is God, Pierre?

Kathi

January 27, 2012 at 9:07 pm#274662

Participant

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 28 2012,13:44)

Pierre,
The love Paul talks about is a 'fruit' of the spirt 'of' God, not the type of being He is. Try again.
What type of being is God, Pierre?

Kathi

kathi

that is not what Paul talks about so answer the question

January 27, 2012 at 11:41 pm#274688