- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 22 2011,23:15) No Pierre,
It simply shows that He was there in the beginning. It says nothing about Him not being there before that. Also, 'of creation' is not there either.Stick to scripture, this will help you.
Kathi
Kathi.
Quote Stick to scripture, this will help you. I DO, I DO,
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Col 1:16 For by 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 by him and for himPierre,
Read…the word 'firstborn' does not say 'first created' this is another place where you have to change the words to suit your doctrine.The message of the passage is that the 'image' of God is over all creation and that the 'image' of God created all things in heaven and on earth…I think that the term 'firstborn' confuses you and you replace it with 'first created' in your mind. It is simply not there. The word is 'firstborn' and not 'first created.'
Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 21 2011,21:35) Mike,
Why do you forget that the Son emptied Himself of something. If He emptied Himself of something, then He had less of the 'something' than He did before.
And YOU forget that it was AFTER he died that he was exalted to an EVEN HIGHER position than the one he left.If, from this EVEN HIGHER position, he still needs his own God to place his enemies at his feet, and still needs to rule in his own God's power and name, then that shows he was even lessor to his own God before than after.
Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 21 2011,22:44) WJ looks like you are in full glamor,with your favored colors,just like the pope,
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 21 2011,23:15) No Pierre,
It simply shows that He was there in the beginning. It says nothing about Him not being there before that.Stick to scripture, this will help you.
Kathi
“God created me as the first of His works”. “He is the firstborn of every creature.” “His origins are from ancient times.” “Today I have begotten you.” “I am the beginning of the creation by God.”All of these words mean that there was a time when Jesus wasn't.
Stick to scripture, this will help you.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 21 2011,23:40) I think that the term 'firstborn' confuses you and you replace it with 'first created' in your mind.
“Firstborn OF every creature” most definitely refers to the first creature ever created.You replace the common sense words of scripture with your own imagination in an attempt to FORCE the scriptures to teach what you'd like them to teach. Unfortunately for you, they don't.
Mike,
you said:Quote
“Firstborn OF every creature” most definitely refers to the first creature ever created.That is what you say and I believe that would mean that he is the first baby from every creature if he was the firstborn of every creature ever created. And if he were the first baby from every creature, then he would not be the first created but one of his parents would be. The firstborn of every creature would be the:
first baby camel from the mommy and daddy camel
first baby horse from the mommy and daddy horse
first baby giraffe from the mommy and daddy giraffe
first baby spider from the mommy and daddy spider
first baby fish from the mommy and daddy fish
first baby human from the mommy and daddy humanand the list goes on and on…
Now Mike, look at that list and tell me that you know that the only begotten Son is not a giraffe, or a spider, or a fish, or a human, etc. but your insistence on your doctrine would logically follow that line of thinking and he would be calling all sorts of creation 'mom' and 'dad.'
The term 'firstborn' implies like parents, i.e. of the same nature as the offspring. The term first created doesn't imply like parent, i.e. of the same nature. We are told that the Son is the exact representation of the nature of God…He is like His parent whom He calls 'Father.' If the word is the genitive as 'of' then creation would possess Him but we are told that all creation was made for Him. not He belonging to all creation but all creation belonging to Him. Read it:
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Never does it say that all things possess Him. He possess all things. He is the one who possesses and all things considered including context, 'over' is the genitive of subordination that better suits this verse's translation. Read the NET notes of that here:
3 tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.
from here: http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.p….erse=15
If you can't get past this we are spinning our wheels. It is obvious who the firstborn is the firstborn 'of' and that would be the one He calls Father. Simple and logical!
Quote You replace the common sense words of scripture with your own imagination in an attempt to FORCE the scriptures to teach what you'd like them to teach. Unfortunately for you, they don't. What exactly am I replacing that is not found in scripture here? Scripture says:
NET ©
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
NIV ©
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Kathi
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 23 2011,20:04) Mike,
you said:Quote
“Firstborn OF every creature” most definitely refers to the first creature ever created.That is what you say and I believe that would mean that he is the first baby from every creature if he was the firstborn of every creature ever created. And if he were the first baby from every creature, then he would not be the first created but one of his parents would be. The firstborn of every creature would be the:
first baby camel from the mommy and daddy camel
first baby horse from the mommy and daddy horse
first baby giraffe from the mommy and daddy giraffe
first baby spider from the mommy and daddy spider
first baby fish from the mommy and daddy fish
first baby human from the mommy and daddy humanand the list goes on and on…
Now Mike, look at that list and tell me that you know that the only begotten Son is not a giraffe, or a spider, or a fish, or a human, etc. but your insistence on your doctrine would logically follow that line of thinking and he would be calling all sorts of creation 'mom' and 'dad.'
The term 'firstborn' implies like parents, i.e. of the same nature as the offspring. The term first created doesn't imply like parent, i.e. of the same nature. We are told that the Son is the exact representation of the nature of God…He is like His parent whom He calls 'Father.' If the word is the genitive as 'of' then creation would possess Him but we are told that all creation was made for Him. not He belonging to all creation but all creation belonging to Him. Read it:
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Never does it say that all things possess Him. He possess all things. He is the one who possesses and all things considered including context, 'over' is the genitive of subordination that better suits this verse's translation. Read the NET notes of that here:
3 tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.
from here: http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.p….erse=15
If you can't get past this we are spinning our wheels. It is obvious who the firstborn is the firstborn 'of' and that would be the one He calls Father. Simple and logical!
Quote You replace the common sense words of scripture with your own imagination in an attempt to FORCE the scriptures to teach what you'd like them to teach. Unfortunately for you, they don't. What exactly am I replacing that is not found in scripture here? Scripture says:
NET ©
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation,
NIV ©
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.Kathi
kathiso who was Christ mother and father
???Pierre
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 24 2011,22:54) Pierre,
Father God and according to the flesh…His mother was Mary.
Kathihow is this possible ??
is God a man ? that he as the need of a women ??
what service did Mary supplied to God ??
Pierre
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 22 2011,20:04) Read the NET notes of that here: 3 tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.
Tell me how they/you KNOW this, Kathi? For sure the word “pasa” is genitive. But, tell me how you can grammatically KNOW that it is a “genitive of subordination” in 1:15?See Kathi? The 25 Trinitarian scholars who put together NETNotes WANT it to be a “genitive of subordination”. Do you know WHY they want that?
It's because, unlike you, they KNOW that were it NOT a genitive of subordination, then it would clearly be saying that Jesus was “OF creation”.
They recognize this and try to twist it in their own way, by asserting what cannot possibly be proven. You try to twist it in your own way, by saying things like:
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 22 2011,20:04) The term first created doesn't imply like parent, i.e. of the same nature. We are told that the Son is the exact representation of the nature of God…He is like His parent whom He calls 'Father.'
But you don't follow your reasoning through. If Jesus wasn't the first creation of his God, then one of the OTHER angels of God must have been, right? Why then, would THAT angel be a son of God, and be called a “divine being”?Job 1:6 Common English Bible (CEB)
One day the divine beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.Angels also have the nature of God, Kathi. They are divine spiritual beings who are sons of God.
It is my understanding (and the scriptural teaching) that Jesus was the FIRST of these divine beings. It is your understanding that a DIFFERENT angel must have been the first, because you deny Jesus being the first. If Jesus wasn't the first son God ever brought forth, then one of the OTHER angels must have been.
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 21 2011,21:35) Mike,
Why do you forget that the Son emptied Himself of something. If He emptied Himself of something, then He had less of the 'something' than He did before.
And YOU forget that it was AFTER he died that he was exalted to an EVEN HIGHER position than the one he left.If, from this EVEN HIGHER position, he still needs his own God to place his enemies at his feet, and still needs to rule in his own God's power and name, then that shows he was even lessor to his own God before than after.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Dec. 22 2011,03:12) Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; John 13:3
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 15:16WJ
Keith,Amen brother!
Jack
Mikeboll wrote:
Quote God Almighty has NEVER needed to have anything “GIVEN” to Him. Nor has He ever needed another to place His enemies at His feet.
Jesus would have NEVER needed anything “GIVEN” Him until He first gave it up OF HIS OWN VOLITION (Philippians 2).When will it sink in?
Jack
Quote (942767 @ Dec. 25 2011,09:41) #1 The Heavenly Father through His Word (the expression of God-not a separate person).
So Jesus (a person) is not the expression of God?Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ Dec. 25 2011,05:29) Mikeboll wrote: Quote God Almighty has NEVER needed to have anything “GIVEN” to Him. Nor has He ever needed another to place His enemies at His feet.
Jesus would have NEVER needed anything “GIVEN” Him until He first gave it up OF HIS OWN VOLITION (Philippians 2).When will it sink in?
Jack
Jack, you forget that it was AFTER Jesus died that he was exalted to an EVEN HIGHER position than the one he left.If, from this EVEN HIGHER position, he STILL needs his own God to place his enemies at his feet, and STILL needs to rule in his own God's power and name, then that shows he was even lessor to his own God before he was exalted, than he is now that he has been exalted to an even HIGHER position.
Look at it this way: In the beginning, Jesus was a 5 to his God's 10. Then he was lowered to a 3 to his God's 10. Then he was raised to a 7 to his God's 10.
At every point in Jesus' existence, he has been lessor than the God who created him in the first place.
Let THAT sink in.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 24 2011,11:22) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 21 2011,21:35) Mike,
Why do you forget that the Son emptied Himself of something. If He emptied Himself of something, then He had less of the 'something' than He did before.
And YOU forget that it was AFTER he died that he was exalted to an EVEN HIGHER position than the one he left.If, from this EVEN HIGHER position, he still needs his own God to place his enemies at his feet, and still needs to rule in his own God's power and name, then that shows he was even lessor to his own God before than after.
Mike,
If the perfect Son who has deity nature, ever did not consider His perfect Father who also has deity nature as one in a greater position than Him, the Son would cease from being the perfect Son. Also, He was exalted to a higher position because now, He had more roles…He was not a mediator or Savior from sins for all mankind beforehand but now He is that also.Kathi
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 24 2011,11:19) Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 22 2011,20:04) Read the NET notes of that here: 3 tn The genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (pash” ktisew”) is a genitive of subordination and is therefore translated as “over all creation.” See ExSyn 103-4.
Tell me how they/you KNOW this, Kathi? For sure the word “pasa” is genitive. But, tell me how you can grammatically KNOW that it is a “genitive of subordination” in 1:15?See Kathi? The 25 Trinitarian scholars who put together NETNotes WANT it to be a “genitive of subordination”. Do you know WHY they want that?
It's because, unlike you, they KNOW that were it NOT a genitive of subordination, then it would clearly be saying that Jesus was “OF creation”.
They recognize this and try to twist it in their own way, by asserting what cannot possibly be proven. You try to twist it in your own way, by saying things like:
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 22 2011,20:04) The term first created doesn't imply like parent, i.e. of the same nature. We are told that the Son is the exact representation of the nature of God…He is like His parent whom He calls 'Father.'
But you don't follow your reasoning through. If Jesus wasn't the first creation of his God, then one of the OTHER angels of God must have been, right? Why then, would THAT angel be a son of God, and be called a “divine being”?Job 1:6 Common English Bible (CEB)
One day the divine beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.Angels also have the nature of God, Kathi. They are divine spiritual beings who are sons of God.
It is my understanding (and the scriptural teaching) that Jesus was the FIRST of these divine beings. It is your understanding that a DIFFERENT angel must have been the first, because you deny Jesus being the first. If Jesus wasn't the first son God ever brought forth, then one of the OTHER angels must have been.
Mike,Quote Tell me how they/you KNOW this, Kathi? For sure the word “pasa” is genitive. But, tell me how you can grammatically KNOW that it is a “genitive of subordination” in 1:15? See Kathi? The 25 Trinitarian scholars who put together NETNotes WANT it to be a “genitive of subordination”. Do you know WHY they want that?
It's because, unlike you, they KNOW that were it NOT a genitive of subordination, then it would clearly be saying that Jesus was “OF creation”.
They recognize this and try to twist it in their own way, by asserting what cannot possibly be proven. You try to twist it in your own way, by saying things like:
Quote (Lightenup @ Dec. 22 2011,20:04)
The term first created doesn't imply like parent, i.e. of the same nature. We are told that the Son is the exact representation of the nature of God…He is like His parent whom He calls 'Father.'Prove that they are twisting it Mike, of course you can't but you state it like you can. Prove there is no genitive of subordination. You are judging their hearts and mine also of twisting the grammar.
Mike, is all that was created during that first creation week of the same nature? If not, why not?
Quote But you don't follow your reasoning through. If Jesus wasn't the first creation of his God, then one of the OTHER angels of God must have been, right? Why then, would THAT angel be a son of God, and be called a “divine being”? All the angels are called sons of God but none of them, even the first created are called 'the' only begotten Son of God. They were not begotten. They were created.
Quote Job 1:6 Common English Bible (CEB)
One day the divine beings came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Adversary also came among them.Angels also have the nature of God, Kathi. They are divine spiritual beings who are sons of God.
Being divine spiritual beings does not equate them as having the nature of deity. If they did, they could not have sinned. Divine in the case of the angels merely means heavenly beings, as I understand it.
Quote It is my understanding (and the scriptural teaching) that Jesus was the FIRST of these divine beings. It is your understanding that a DIFFERENT angel must have been the first, because you deny Jesus being the first. If Jesus wasn't the first son God ever brought forth, then one of the OTHER angels must have been. I believe Jesus was the first and only Son BEGOTTEN. He was begotten from within the Father and always existed in some way within the Father eternally beforehand. After that, all else was created, NOT BEGOTTEN, including everything visible and invisible.
What the NET translators said about the genitive of subordination makes complete sense in this context. Jesus is the Firstborn of God, not of all creation. Creation is not His father.
Kathi
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
