Who is the creator of all things?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 01 2012,21:16)

Also, He was exalted to a higher position because now, He had more roles…

So, from this new higher position, he is still a servant to the one he calls “my God”. That must mean that Jesus was even lower than the head of him before he was placed in a HIGHER position, right?

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 01 2012,21:37)

Prove there is no genitive of subordination.

Prove there is, Kathi.  One can't reasonably take the words “of creation” and just wish for it to be a genitive of subordination, and then make it so.  

The word “of” MOST GENERALLY means “part of” or “possession of”.  Show me how the NETNotes scholars deductively reasoned from actual grammatical proof that 1:15 is a genitive of subordination.  If you cannot, and they cannot, then you are both just WISHING it is a genitive of subordination, WITHOUT ANY DUE CAUSE, just because you WANT it to be.

That is not the way to gain the actual TRUTH of the scriptures, Kathi.

[mikeboll64]

Kathi?

[Lightenup]

Mike,

Quote

Show me how the NETNotes scholars deductively reasoned from actual grammatical proof that 1:15 is a genitive of subordination.

I did, I showed you what the scholars said in the NET notes and you know that His Father is God, the Father, creation is NOT His Father… Now, do you have a scholar that says how it 'can't' be the 'genitive of subordination' and directly counters their claim or not while using the term 'genitive of subordination' and proves to us that He is possessed by creation and not possessed by the Father? Whoever is His Father would be the one He was Firstborn of, this is simple. Because He is the Firstborn OF the Father and used to create creation, that is why He is also the Firstborn OVER all creation, this is also simple.

Kathi

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 14 2012,13:32)

…………proves to us that He is possessed by creation and not possessed by the Father?

Really Kathi?

So if I said “John was the firstborn of all the Chaldeans”, then you would assume that “all the Chaldeans” were John's father?  

Also, why isn't the God OF Jesus the “firstborn of all creation”?  It seems to me that if “firstborn” in Col 1:15 refers to he who is “preeminent” over all creation, then that title would go to the HEAD OF Christ, and not to Christ himself.

Don't you agree?

And finally, one of the most profound things I learned on HN came from you, Kathi. You stated that the word “firstborn” always has the default meaning of “the one born first”, UNLESS there was clear evidence to the contrary.

So, have you gone back on that brilliant and logical statement now? Or do you have clear evidence that someone other than Jesus was born first?

[Lightenup]

Mike,
I do admire how you can have so many conversations going on at one time and keep everyone's perspective straight, some of the time anyway. In this case, you forget that I do agree that the Son of God was born first (and last for that matter). So nothing I have said is contrary to that. Even see that understanding in what I said in my last post here:

I said:

Quote

Whoever is His Father would be the one He was Firstborn of, this is simple. Because He is the Firstborn OF the Father and used to create creation, that is why He is also the Firstborn OVER all creation, this is also simple.

I might add that the Father has GIVEN Him all things yet the Father still has all things. They are both pre-eminant and over all creation. They are a unity, what one does, the other is involved with as we see in creation and salvation.

You said:

Quote

So if I said “John was the firstborn of all the Chaldeans”, then you would assume that “all the Chaldeans” were John's father?

What I most certainly assume, because of the understanding of the firstborn of men, that a Chaldean would be the father of that said firstborn. He would not be said to be the firstborn of all the Chaldeans if the parents were not Chaldeans. Also, the Chaldeans would have had to just form under the name 'Chaldeans' before he was born otherwise you would have to assume that the other Chaldeans were not born from within their parents but got there some other way. We can say that Cain was the firstborn of all men because he was born of a man, and also he was the first to be born of all men. See? And we are never told that Adam was the firstborn of all mankind, are we? That is because he was not born, he was created. Unlike Jesus who was born, not created.

So, 'firstborn of all creation' would also give the understanding that a created being was the father, which we know is not the case. Therefore, 'over all creation' is the most fitting translation. You and I are clear that Jesus' Father was not a creature.

Understand?

Kathi

[terraricca]

KATHI

Quote

So, 'firstborn of all creation' would also give the understanding that a created being was the father, which we know is not the case. Therefore, 'over all creation' is the most fitting translation. You and I are clear that Jesus' Father was not a creature.

God is a being,and any other details except of knowing that it says he is a SPIRIT BEING this would be the limit of our understanding ,SO WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE SON IS THE FIRST OF HIS CREATION AND THAT THE SON CAME DOWN THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO BELIEVE IF WE DO BELIEVE IN THE WORD OF GOD ,

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
Where does scripture say that, “the Son is the first of His creation?”

You are changing scripture to fit your bias, imo.

Kathi

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 16 2012,16:02)

Pierre, Where does scripture say that, “the Son is the first of His creation?” You are changing scripture to fit your bias, imo. Kathi

Kathi

pro;8;22

Col;1;14-15

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
Sorry, those words aren't in those scriptures.

Kathi

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 16 2012,18:31)

Pierre, Sorry, those words aren't in those scriptures. Kathi

Kathi

we see in time

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
If they were in there, time would not make a difference

If those words were in scriptures then you would be able to quote scripture that has those exact words and make them bold for us all to see but you can't do that. The scriptures will not change with time, Pierre, they are already written and they do not say what you claim. Sorry.

Kathi

[terraricca]

Kathi

Quote

So, 'firstborn of all creation' would also give the understanding that a created being was the father, which we know is not the case. Therefore, 'over all creation' is the most fitting translation. You and I are clear that Jesus' Father was not a creature.(not created)

If those words were in scriptures then you would be able to quote scripture that has those exact words and make them bold for us all to see but you can't do that. The scriptures will change with time, Kathi, Sorry. but you follow the letter ,but this is not what the spirit of Christ is,as for the unity in spirit in the son in favor of the father this is not to be denied they are one in spirit but so are all true believers ,but this does not make them God or gods ,but Christ is a god established by God his father in the way that Moses became a God to his brother and others.

Pierre

[Lightenup]

Pierre,
“Over all creation” is in scripture. You yourself quote it that way

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

There you go…bolded.

Is Jesus YOUR god Pierre?

Kathi

[terraricca]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2012,16:19)

Pierre, “Over all creation” is in scripture. You yourself quote it that way Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. There you go…bolded. Is Jesus YOUR god Pierre? Kathi

Kathi

Over all of creation ,means what to you ?

Firstborn ,means what to you ??

Being an image of someone does not make you that one right ??

Jesus is deffinetly my god as Moses was god to his people and his brother,

Pierre

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 15 2012,18:31)

Pierre, Sorry, those words aren't in those scriptures. Kathi

Actually, they are Kathi.

“created me as the first of His works”

“firstborn of every creature” (who created every creature?)

“beginning of the creation BY GOD” (whose creation is Jesus the beginning of?)

[mikeboll64]

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 15 2012,11:37)

Mike, I do admire how you can have so many conversations going on at one time and keep everyone's perspective straight, some of the time anyway.  In this case, you forget that I do agree that the Son of God was born first (and last for that matter).  So nothing I have said is contrary to that.

Then you will agree, that with no context to tell us “firstborn” means anything other than “the one born first” in Col 1:15, Jesus was LITERALLY the ONE BORN FIRST out of every creature? In other words, MANY, MANY creatures have been born since the creation by God, and Jesus was the FIRST creature to be born, right?

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 01 2012,21:16)

Also, He was exalted to a higher position because now, He had more roles…

So, from this new higher position, he is still a servant to the one he calls “my God”.  That must mean that Jesus was even lower than the God who is his HEAD before he was placed in a HIGHER position, right?

[Lightenup]

Quote (terraricca @ Jan. 16 2012,17:31)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 17 2012,16:19) Pierre, “Over all creation” is in scripture. You yourself quote it that way Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. There you go…bolded. Is Jesus YOUR god Pierre? Kathi Kathi Over all of creation ,means what to you ? Firstborn ,means what to you ?? Being an image of someone does not make you that one right ?? Jesus is deffinetly my god as Moses was god to his people and his brother, Pierre

Hi Pierre,
Here are answers to your questions as I understand:

'Over all creation' means that the Son is the Lord of all that was created. He is supreme.

Firstborn means that He is the Son of God which furthermore means that He is God like His Father. Like begets like. God begets God.

Being an image of the invisible God means that what the invisible God is, the Son is also and that the Son is not the Father. Like begets like.

Pierre, what type of 'being' is the Jesus that you have as your god?

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2012,17:44)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 15 2012,18:31) Pierre, Sorry, those words aren't in those scriptures. Kathi Actually, they are Kathi. “created me as the first of His works” “firstborn of every creature”  (who created every creature?) “beginning of the creation BY GOD”  (whose creation is Jesus the beginning of?)

Mike,
Prov 8:22 is translated as 'possessed' and not created in most translations and is in reference to wisdom.  The verse does not say that the son was the first created.

Who created every creature?  The Father and the Son.

Jesus is the beginning of the creation of the Father and the Son.  You assume the first thing that happened was a creative act but it was an act of bringing forth the Son who already was within the Father.  It was not an act of creating but an act of begetting.  Bringing forth the creator was an important step in creation but not a created step.

Kathi

[Lightenup]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 16 2012,17:51)

Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 15 2012,11:37) Mike, I do admire how you can have so many conversations going on at one time and keep everyone's perspective straight, some of the time anyway.  In this case, you forget that I do agree that the Son of God was born first (and last for that matter).  So nothing I have said is contrary to that. Then you will agree, that with no context to tell us “firstborn” means anything other than “the one born first” in Col 1:15, Jesus was LITERALLY the ONE BORN FIRST out of every creature?  In other words, MANY, MANY creatures have been born since the creation by God, and Jesus was the FIRST creature to be born, right? Quote (Lightenup @ Jan. 01 2012,21:16) Also, He was exalted to a higher position because now, He had more roles… So, from this new higher position, he is still a servant to the one he calls “my God”.  That must mean that Jesus was even lower than the God who is his HEAD before he was placed in a HIGHER position, right?

Mike,
you said:

Quote

Then you will agree, that with no context to tell us “firstborn” means anything other than “the one born first” in Col 1:15, Jesus was LITERALLY the ONE BORN FIRST out of every creature? In other words, MANY, MANY creatures have been born since the creation by God, and Jesus was the FIRST creature to be born, right?

Context tells us who He is the firstborn of by telling us that He is the image OF the invisible God. He is the Firstborn OF the invisible God. Many scriptures confirm who He is the Son of and it is not all creation. He is the Firstborn, the Son of God. Why is this so difficult for you to see who He is the firstborn OF? Ask yourself 'who is His Father' and that will help you see who He is the Firstborn of.

Will it help you if I add that the default meaning of the word 'firstborn' would be the one whose parents give birth to first. His parent would be God the Father, btw. Please don't pretend like this is so hard for you.

you said:

Quote

So, from this new higher position, he is still a servant to the one he calls “my God”. That must mean that Jesus was even lower than the God who is his HEAD before he was placed in a HIGHER position, right?

Jesus was and is in a lower position than His Father as a Son would be to His Father otherwise He would not be the perfect Son. Jesus is equal to His father in their nature and that nature insists that they are both supreme deity beings. Being lower in position fits right along with one being the Father and one being the Son who are both God by nature.

Kathi

[Author]

Posts