first-born of all creation

[Muffled]

Israel is called God's firstborn.. You can take that literally, or not so much.

I don't believe there is any evidence that God sired Jacob and the Bible states that Isaac was the father of Jacob.

 

[Muffled]

May i just ask you guys, if Jesus was not Gods first creation, who was?

I don't believe it was Adam but Adam does serve as the first re-creation of the Adamic race.

Jesus is the first creation that was also begotten by Mary.

 

[Muffled]

NO one.

To date, nothing was every created out of thin air when it comes to humans.

I believe the evidence is to the contrary.

 

[Brickjectivity]

factual actually [Finklestein]

I will take your word for it for purposes of conversation.

No Jon wrote anything. The authors of John wrote it in atleast 3 stages over a long period of time.

Far removed from jesus life. It also deal more with spirituallity and mythology then the other gospels.

It used to viewed as not historical, but recent trends are showing some of the older parts may go back to traditins worth investigating.

I appreciate your integrity and your persistence in pursuing all of the details about how things came to be written, and I think it is important to do that. That is not all there is to it when I'm looking at what 'John says' or what 'Moses says'. If it helps, think of them as corporations with rights and speech. I am discussing what they say. Sometimes it helps to know that such & such was edited after the fact but not always. Sometimes there's no way to tell and so we go with the gist of things as best as we can. I can get that gist wrong or right, but I cannot keep track of the details of all of the various theoretical sources. What I can do is source most of what the gospel writers say from Jewish roots which gives me an advantage in providing a cohesive argument about what they mean. It does not provide an absolute reference about who wrote what or a final word about what to do with the gospels and Christianity and all of the people who spend our young lives praying for miracles and throwing our money into the coffers of ministers. Its true, we work six days a week so that a few ministers can take six days off. I get that, and I hate it and have stopped participating in giving them anything. I think there may yet be a way of turning them towards more meaningful occupations in which they can earn their keep. I think though that these stories are still worth telling and discussing as we have received them.

Moses is part of that whole pseudohistory.

Israelites factually evolved from displaced Canaanites.

They used the Canaanite aplphabte, pottery and deities, and some mythology.

Ok, but 'Pseudohistory' does not do justice to the text. If an adult treats it as history in a modern rational sense, that causes them problems. In ancient times however, I don't think people always thought about things like we do. I think for example that talking snakes and trees that give knowledge are too obvious to be taken for history. Its only in recent times that we have been stupid enough to think otherwise. Maybe its something little children were supposed to believe in literally but not grown ups. For an adult Genesis takes on bigger ideas, and I extend that to Jesus and to Paul. When they talk about apples and serpents, they aren't just talking about apples or just serpents.

Have you ever read a Passover seder booklet? In there you will see that the story is told first person, always first person. "I was a slave in Egypt." Its for the kids and then for the adults later becomes something more than a story line.

Abraham is another legend that has no historicity as written. Monotheism started after 622 BC and it was not widely accepted at first. It took hundreds of years to become otrhodox.

So when we look at how they botched history, how could they even know prehistory?

They did not even know history during periods of writing.

Ok, its not a legend in the same way that the Lochness Monster is a legend. Nesse is merely a legend or story told for shts and giggles. Abraham isn't. He's a teaching tool for the purpose of truthfully dealing with some very important issues. Whether he was actually Abraham, that matters to kids but not to grown ups. We still can use him and his story and the imagery surrounding him as a language to talk about things. He puts the conversation into the right mood for talking about compassion.

 

[james2ko]

If you didn't presuppose that Jesus was God, you would not render it as such.The word is not in the original Greek[ and if it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..and again, since the WT has a history of this kind of stuff, I can only conclude that they added it to fit their doctrine.

1. The JW's are not the only ones with a history of adding text to fit their doctrine. Shall I post a few samples of the text Trinitarians have changed/added to create a nice fit into their theological agenda?

I don't see anything hinting towards a created Jesus in Isa 43:10-11.

2. Of course not. That's due to your lack of knowledge of its Hebrew syntax. And I suggest you stay ignorant because then you'll be accountable to the verse and will be forced to reject the trinity.

You already know my position on Col 1:15...and Rev 3:14 could be interpreted that way, and it could be interpreted another way...

3. The term "proto" is the root of our English word prototype. I'm sure you know what that is. It is the first of its kind created. Israel's was God's first theocracy, God made a first of its kind covenant with David. Even when the term prototokos is used in a figurative sense, it still does not lose its meaning of the first of its kind created. There is only one correct interpretation for the term. But you won't take off your trinitarian glasses long enough to see it.

The objective is clear...find out which direction the evidence points...and the Rev 3:14 scripture is about the best that Anti-Trinity folks have to offer that would even hint to their view.

4. No. It is actually Isa 43:10-11. When these passages are parsed objectively, Christ Himself is undoubtedly stating He was a created "God".

John supposedly wrote Revelations, and he also supposedly wrote the Gospel that bears his name. He didn't add [other] in John 1:3...and neither did Paul in Col 1:15-17, so based on this, plus the countless other Trinity proof texts, I am going to have to NOT interpret Rev 3:14 in the way that you do. There is just to much biblical support for the Trinity that simply cannot be ignore, and scripture has to interpret scripture.

5. If scripture has to interpret scripture, then one would have to reinterpret those so called trinity texts based on Jesus' words in Isa 43:10-11.

I have reasons why I dismiss those particular verses. In order for me to accept it, I would have to downright ignore all of the Trinity-proof texts...and unless you can shoot them down, I have no reasons to not believe that they support the Trinity doctrine.

6. They've all been shot down, hence the existence of groups like the JW's, Unitarians, and many others who reject it.

LOL. I don't think you can rebuke the Trinity proof texts. In order to do that you would have to revise almost the entire bible. I wouldn't say it is impossible tho, because it seems as if the Watch Tower is doing just that...in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

7. LOL. Yeah I don't think I'm in a position to "rebuke" the trinity proof texts either. But I can "refute" them But first things first, before we start talking about the trinity proof texts, you have to refute the big three Isa 43:10-11, Col 1:15, Rev 3:16 which your research or your "link" buddies' research have yet to do.

Ok, so he could have used the existent term...but he also "could" have used [other] too, but did he? No. My argument is; here you have a so called religious "organization" that translates the bible in ways to fit their theology, and this scripture is one of many places in the bible where this is done. So you have a pattern, a history of such unjustified rendering.

8. Why do you keep bringing up the JW's? I am not a JW. And I don't use the NWT as a bible study resource. And no, Christ being created is not a JW theology. It's been around way before Arius brought it mainstream. And as I have conclusively proven, it is biblical.

So at the end of the day, the word that would make my case isn't in the earliest manuscripts, and the word that would make your case (for arguments sake ) isn't in the earliest manuscripts. So who wins? I do, because you only have a couple of verses which you use to make your case..I have dozens. So the proponderence of evidence is on my side.

9. Dozens that have been refuted many times over by those who reject the trinity. I'm also familiar with a "little" Greek Grammar. I'm actually looking forward to picking apart your so called "trinity proof texts" But only after you come up with a refutation of my rebuttal of the big three (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, Isa 43:10-11)

I eat JW's for breakfast

10. I'm not a JW and as you can probably tell, I'm going to be a tough pill to swallow

Umm, you draw that conclusion based on what?

11. Ummm, the Hebrew Grammar inspired in the text? Care to stop the delay tactics and finally offer an interpretation of Isa 43:10-11 that is consistent with its grammar? Please make it your own this time. After all, you said you've done the research, right?

Certainly not Eph 5:23.

12. Please explain how Eph 5:23 explains Christ was not a created "God/Savior"?

You claim you have the truth, but you can't guarantee that you don't have any presuppositions and fallacious reasoning that you are using as a foundation for anything that you say.

13. Please point out any fallacious reasoning with the name of the fallacy so I can look it up.

Beautiful. Then I'd like you to offer responses to the various trinity-proof texts that I have.

14. I'm eagerly waiting to have C.O.W. as a steak dinner with a side of "Greek" salad. Always hits the spot

Its funny, you claim to be defending the truth contained in the originals...the only problem is, THERE ARE NO EXISTING ORIGINAL copies of the bible. We do have early manuscripts, yes...but not the originals. Unless you have them resting on your nightstand or something.

15. Of course there are no existing original manuscripts. Really CW? I thought you were intelligent enough to figure out I was talking about the "original" languages, not manuscripts. You just proved me wrong for the first time

Second, again...to many other trinity-proof texts..just to many to just throw all way on the account of some unjustified renderings.

16. There are none that stand the scrutiny of proper interpretation and parsing.

 

[John Martin]

The first born of creation does not refer to the physical body of Jesus and even to psychological self of Jesus which are conditioned by time and space. They have a beginning and they have an end. The first born of creation is radiance of the divine, which is co-eternal with God. If we describe God, as the Sun the first born is like the Moon, which reflects the Sun. It is the image and likeness of God. The whole of creation comes from that first born.
St.John says, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. This Word is the first born of God and ultimately one with God. As the first born of God it reflects the divine and also the source of all manifested world including our physical universe and physic bodies.
The physical body of Jesus belongs to the process of evolution and so it cannot be the first born of creation. The physical body of Jesus cannot be before Abraham. The psychological self of Jesus, which is conditioned by the Jewish collective consciousness, is also not the first born of creation. It is the reflection of the 'Word' in the body and mind complex. The consciousness of Jesus transcended his physical identification and also his psychological identification and realized being one with the Word, the first born of creation. His consciousness went beyond even that also and realized being one with God. Hence the Word of God which St.John speaks and the first born of creation that St.Paul speaks, do not refers to the physical body of Jesus. The refer to the presence of the eternal spirit in him. It was there before Abraham was. it was there before Adam was and it was there before the Big Bang began. We are the combination of two energiesne is vertical energy that connects with God and another is horizontal that connects us with the Big Bang. Each one of us is a cross. If we identify with the horizontal we feel that we are the product of time and space moving towards into the future. If we identify with the vertical then we realize we are timeless, eternal. The body and soul of Jesus are the horizontal beam of the cross. The eternal aspects is the vertical beam of the cross. His horizontal beam became the vehicle of the vertical beam. He was the first born of creation and also the product of evolution. In my view the realization of this possibility does not limit only to Jesus but a possibility to every human being. Every human being has the possibility to realize being the first born of all creation and also ultimately one with God. It is not becoming God. No one can become God. It is just like a ray of the Sun that comes from the Sun and goes back to the Sun.We are like prodigal sons or daughters.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The physical body of Jesus belongs to the process of evolution and so it cannot be the first born of creation.

To add a different argument with same result: John's gospel describes Jesus as 'The Light that came into the world', not 'The word'. Then he says 'The word became flesh and dwelt among us', which is the difficult part in the English translations. Some commentaries note that it literally means the word was 'Tabernacle'd among us', which removes the difficulty since that is like saying 'You are a temple of living stones' or very similar. So then as you have said "His body was the product of evolution and therefore...." you could substitute the above point from John, and that is how some people have drawn the same conclusion that Jesus body cannot be the first born of creation. There are some other arguments, too.

 

[John Martin]

To add a different argument with same result: John's gospel describes Jesus as 'The Light that came into the world', not 'The word'. Then he says 'The word became flesh and dwelt among us', which is the difficult part in the English translations. Some commentaries note that it literally means the word was 'Tabernacle'd among us', which removes the difficulty since that is like saying 'You are a temple of living stones' or very similar. So then as you have said "His body was the product of evolution and therefore...." you could substitute the above point from John, and that is how some people have drawn the same conclusion that Jesus body cannot be the first born of creation. There are some other arguments, too.

Thank you I appreciate your explanation.

 

[JM2C]

May i just ask you guys, if Jesus was not Gods first creation, who was?

Before time began? NONE!

The Holy One, blessed be He, has always existed and continues to exist eternally outside of the perimeters of time, for He Himself created time ex nihilo. Wise Rambam identifies time with motion, particularly motion of the spheres (cf. Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter XXX, p. 212).

So let us not be ignorant; let us see that time began when motion began.

This is in agreement with the pagans as well, for the Philosopher himself believed that time itself could not be imagined without a beginning (cf. Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed, Chapter XXX, p. 212).

The Holy One, blessed be He, decided from the beginning that His creation would be bound by the perimeters of time, for “there is […] a time for every affair under the heavens” (Ecclesiastes 3.1).

I forgot to mention how incorrect R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is when he states that “Seven things were created before the world was created. They are: The Torah, Gehinnom, the Garden of Eden, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, Repentance, and the Name of the Messiah” (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter III, p. 10-11).

If one believes in the truth of the Holy Book, then one would ignore such ridiculousness. R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos is creating fictions when he says that these things existed prior to creation.

Where is your proof R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos? “To which of the holy ones will you appeal?” (Job 5:1).

As R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos should know, the Holy Book only says, “When God began to create the heaven and earth” (Genesis 1:1). There is no mention of these things existing before the creation. ”

IOW, before time began, NONE. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ was or is not a created being because He is God.
Jn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I hope you are not suggesting that the Lord Jesus Christ is the spritual brother of Lucifer.

 

[JM2C]

John's gospel describes Jesus as 'The Light that came into the world', not 'The word'.

Hi, can you explain this to me, 'The Light that came into the world', not 'The word'. Thanks

 

[JM2C]

The first born of creation does not refer to the physical body of Jesus and even to psychological self of Jesus which are conditioned by time and space. They have a beginning and they have an end. The first born of creation is radiance of the divine, which is co-eternal with God. If we describe God, as the Sun the first born is like the Moon, which reflects the Sun. It is the image and likeness of God. The whole of creation comes from that first born.


St.John says, in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. This Word is the first born of God and ultimately one with God. As the first born of God it reflects the divine and also the source of all manifested world including our physical universe and physic bodies.
The physical body of Jesus belongs to the process of evolution and so it cannot be the first born of creation. The physical body of Jesus cannot be before Abraham. The psychological self of Jesus, which is conditioned by the Jewish collective consciousness, is also not the first born of creation. It is the reflection of the 'Word' in the body and mind complex. The consciousness of Jesus transcended his physical identification and also his psychological identification and realized being one with the Word, the first born of creation. His consciousness went beyond even that also and realized being one with God. Hence the Word of God which St.John speaks and the first born of creation that St.Paul speaks, do not refers to the physical body of Jesus. The refer to the presence of the eternal spirit in him. It was there before Abraham was. it was there before Adam was and it was there before the Big Bang began. We are the combination of two energiesne is vertical energy that connects with God and another is horizontal that connects us with the Big Bang. Each one of us is a cross. If we identify with the horizontal we feel that we are the product of time and space moving towards into the future. If we identify with the vertical then we realize we are timeless, eternal. The body and soul of Jesus are the horizontal beam of the cross. The eternal aspects is the vertical beam of the cross. His horizontal beam became the vehicle of the vertical beam. He was the first born of creation and also the product of evolution. In my view the realization of this possibility does not limit only to Jesus but a possibility to every human being. Every human being has the possibility to realize being the first born of all creation and also ultimately one with God. It is not becoming God. No one can become God. It is just like a ray of the Sun that comes from the Sun and goes back to the Sun.We are like prodigal sons or daughters.

Your theory has some mysticism in it.

 

[John Martin]

Your theory has some mysticism in it.

Thank you for elevating my thoughts to mysticism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi, can you explain this to me, 'The Light that came into the world', not 'The word'. Thanks

Not really. Its just what John's narrative from John chapter 1 says.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 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.Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

That is a short piece of John chapter 1. It sets up a creation narrative with imagery like Genesis in which light separates day from night, and this light is also revisited in John chapter 3 the famous 'John 3 : 16' verse comes from there and then 3 : 19 says "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." light being the ministry of Jesus or Jesus himself. Here Jesus is portrayed as a prophet, and people either listen or they don't which makes some people part of the day and some part of the night. The light is a judgement of life or death. The new creation is day for anyone who receives Jesus message and night for anyone else. The word comes and dwells with them without judging.

Tying that together, wisdom is available to anyone who asks as it dwells with people who live in the light. It is the non-judging-you-may-have-it wisdom described by James chapter 1. Both authors hold up one standard: those who come into the light and those who shrink from it, with wisdom as a free and open thing not reserved for a select few.

 

[JM2C]

made a mistake posting this here

 

[JM2C]

Thank you for elevating my thoughts to mysticism.

Can you please give some thoughts on these verses?

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[John Martin]

Can you please give some thoughts on these verses?

1Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
1Jn 1:2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
1Jn 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Thank you for asking me. I shall share my views.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. The JW's are not the only ones with a history of adding text to fit their doctrine. Shall I post a few samples of the text Trinitarians have changed/added to create a nice fit into their theological agenda?

Please, be my guest.

2. Of course not. That's due to your lack of knowledge of its Hebrew syntax. And I suggest you stay ignorant because then you'll be accountable to the verse and will be forced to reject the trinity.

I have an argument for the Trinity that is independent of biblical translations or versions, and as long as this is the case, then Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other ancient transcripts are irrelevant.

3. The term "proto" is the root of our English word prototype. I'm sure you know what that is. It is the first of its kind created. Israel's was God's first theocracy, God made a first of its kind covenant with David. Even when the term prototokos is used in a figurative sense, it still does not lose its meaning of the first of its kind created. There is only one correct interpretation for the term. But you won't take off your trinitarian glasses long enough to see it.

Doesn't really matter, because as I said, propoderance of the evidence.

4. No. It is actually Isa 43:10-11. When these passages are parsed objectively, Christ Himself is undoubtedly stating He was a created "God".

I read it again just in case I missed something the first time, and found out that I didn't. I see no anti-trinity implication within the two verses. Please enlighten me on how you think that Christ is calling himself a created "God".

5. If scripture has to interpret scripture, then one would have to reinterpret those so called trinity texts based on Jesus' words in Isa 43:10-11.

Again, please enlighten me.

6. They've all been shot down, hence the existence of groups like the JW's, Unitarians, and many others who reject it.

Hmm, then how about I start a thread making a case for the Trinity, and there you can have a chance to shoot down every single case that I make. Are you a man or a mouse? :beach:

7. LOL. Yeah I don't think I'm in a position to "rebuke" the trinity proof texts either. But I can "refute" them

My bad..I meant "refute".

But first things first, before we start talking about the trinity proof texts, you have to refute the big three Isa 43:10-11, Col 1:15, Rev 3:16 which your research or your "link" buddies' research have yet to do.

I really don't see why you think Isa 43:10-11 is on your side of things. I just don't see it, so as I said, enlighten me. As far as Col 1:15 is concerned, as mentioned previously, it completely contradicts John 1:3, where John states that without Christ, nothing was made that has been made....if Jesus isn't God, then all things could have still been made, because God could have made things things without Jesus, right? So for John to say that without Jesus nothing was made that has been made would be synonymous with saying "Without God nothing was made that has been made", and that fits perfectly, after Jesus was called God in John 1:1 anyway. Jesus is called God in John 1:1, and then it just follows from that that Jesus made all things, because as we all know, "God" made all things.

It harmonizes perfectly. No biblical guru's needed, just let the bible speak for itself, but I guess that is asking for to much when you have people adding words ("a" and "other") to it to give it that false theological push that they desire.

The only thing that even hints to the view of Jesus being created, in my opinion, is Rev 3:16, not all translations have "beginning of God's creation"...some have "ruler of God's creation"...and even if such a rendering is even remotely possible, then that is enough for my skepticism that it should harmonize with the rest of the many trinity-proof texts.

8. Why do you keep bringing up the JW's? I am not a JW. And I don't use the NWT as a bible study resource. And no, Christ being created is not a JW theology. It's been around way before Arius brought it mainstream. And as I have conclusively proven, it is biblical.

Oh, trust me, JW's are not the only ones that can get it. Anyone can get it. :yes:

9. Dozens that have been refuted many times over by those who reject the trinity. I'm also familiar with a "little" Greek Grammar. I'm actually looking forward to picking apart your so called "trinity proof texts" But only after you come up with a refutation of my rebuttal of the big three (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, Isa 43:10-11)

"The big three" hahahahahahahaha. Niceeee. They've already been refuted, time to move to greener pastures, my friend :yes:

11. Ummm, the Hebrew Grammar inspired in the text? Care to stop the delay tactics and finally offer an interpretation of Isa 43:10-11 that is consistent with its grammar? Please make it your own this time. After all, you said you've done the research, right?

Still harping on Isa, huh? Lets see...

Isaiah 43:10-11

10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord,
and apart from me there is no savior [/quote]

Ohhh, I get where you are coming from now, the whole "Before me no god was formed" business, right?

The only problem is, the following verses, like 16, states "This is what the Lord says, he who made a way through the sea, a path through the mighty waters, who drew out the chariots and horses and army and reinforcements together..."

So the person speaking in verse 16 is the same person speaking in 10-11, right...so if that is Jesus talking throughout the context, as you admit, then Jesus is God because throughout the entire context Exodus, it is God who brought the Israelites out of Egypt and it is God who parted the Red Sea..."God" who? Well, according to verse 16..."God Jesus".

So, that doesnt help you at all, my friends...and not only that, but look at the following chapter..Isa 44:6...is the Lord speaking in that verse the same one speaking in the previous chapter? Which is it..the Father or the Son? You tell me.

12. Please explain how Eph 5:23 explains Christ was not a created "God/Savior"?

"For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior".

Huh?

13. Please point out any fallacious reasoning with the name of the fallacy so I can look it up.

I was responding to something you said before that...I dont remember what it was.

14. I'm eagerly waiting to have C.O.W. as a steak dinner with a side of "Greek" salad. Always hits the spot

LOL just let me know when you want me to make that thread, buddy.

15. Of course there are no existing original manuscripts. Really CW? I thought you were intelligent enough to figure out I was talking about the "original" languages, not manuscripts. You just proved me wrong for the first time

That is why you specify.

16. There are none that stand the scrutiny of proper interpretation and parsing.

We will see about that :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

its only unclear when you read Proverbs 8 as pertaining only to 'wisdom'

Yet Jesus, a living intelligent being, is called 'the word'

How do you know that 'wisdom' is not being used as a metaphor in Prov chapter 8?

Do you really think that God needed to 'create' wisdom? And do you really think that wisdom has affection for mankind??? And when proverbs says that we should 'listen to wisdom', does that not imply that 'wisdom' is an individual who we can learn from? If you can accept that its possible, then the bible does inform us of who the very first of Gods creations is.

To many feminine pronouns, Pegg. It is a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.

 

[Pegg]

To many feminine pronouns, Pegg. It is a figure of speech, not meant to be taken literally.

what's not to be taken literally??


That God created wisdom or the Word???

 

[james2ko]

I have an argument for the Trinity that is independent of biblical translations or versions, and as long as this is the case, then Hebrew, Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, or any other ancient transcripts are irrelevant.

1. It is perfectly logical for you to have an argument for the trinity independent of scripture because the trinity doctrine is not found in neither the Hebrew or Greek. The point in a debate is to refute your opponent not yourself.

Doesn't really matter, because as I said, propoderance of the evidence.

2. So in other words you accept the validity of the meaning of prototokos but it doesn't matter because you believe other evidence disproves it. If you deem it valid, it actually does matter because this would render your evidence against it moot. Contradicting yourself in a debate isn't a good idea either.

I read it again just in case I missed something the first time, and found out that I didn't. I see no anti-trinity implication within the two verses. Please enlighten me on how you think that Christ is calling himself a created "God".

3. Christ explicitly states He was a one of a kind "created" [yatsawr-verb-nifal stem, third person, perfect tense] God by someone other than Himself in the past. This third person was obviously the Father. A created Christ means He was "a" God, giving credence to the versions containing the indefinite article "a" after God in Joh 1:1. This also tells us He has not existed from eternity, hence no trinity. There's no other way around this verse, believe me I looked. I did not want to give up my binitarian view, as I thought it was just as correct as you think about the trinity. But pride has to be put aside and let the text interpret itself without injecting in our presuppositions.

I really don't see why you think Isa 43:10-11 is on your side of things. I just don't see it, so as I said, enlighten me.

4. Ok, I'll try to enlighten you "again".

Isa 43:10 "You are My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed[yawtar], Nor shall there be after Me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, And besides Me there is no savior.​

The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in what grammarians call the third person, nifal stem, perfect tense. The third person simply means the subject (Christ) is referring to someone other than Himself as the producer of the action (created). The nifal stem gives the verb a nuance of something being created. It also gives the verb a passive form making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action.

The perfect tense implies a completed past action. What does this all mean? The subject (EL/Christ) is telling us someone other than Himself (third person-The Father) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He (The Father) create One like Him (Christ) in the future! In other words, Christ was created/formed as one of a kind! That Christ was created is confirmed by Paul and John (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14)!

Unless you can come up with an alternate parsing of this verse, we have to conclude it is stating that Christ was a created God.

As far as Col 1:15 is concerned, as mentioned previously, it completely contradicts John 1:3, where John states that without Christ, nothing was made that has been made....if Jesus isn't God, then all things could have still been made, because God could have made things things without Jesus, right?

5. The two verses do not contradict. The law of non contradiction states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. Col 1:15 implies Christ was the first being created. He then, with the Fathers help, created everything else at a later time. No contradiction. Here's an illustration to make it even more plain:

So for John to say that without Jesus nothing was made that has been made would be synonymous with saying "Without God nothing was made that has been made", and that fits perfectly, after Jesus was called God in John 1:1 anyway. Not if they have always been and will always be two separate distinct persons. Jesus is called God in John 1:1, and then it just follows from that that Jesus made all things, because as we all know, "God" made all things. No it states God made all things

6. Once again. You are dictating your doctrine into the text. Instead of allowing the text to dictate the doctrine. There are two beings spoken of in Joh 1:1-3. They are both called "God". Just as you would have a Father named Mr Smith senior and His son Mr Smith junior. Both are "Smiths", one greater (older, wiser, more authority) than the other. Verse 2 states the lesser God (Jesus) was with the greater God in the beginning, and verse 3 tells us the greater God made all things through the lesser God--Christ. In other words, both Father and Son were involved in the creation of the universe evidenced by the plural term "elohim" in Gen 1:1.

The Father was the source of His Son's creative power hence consistent with the text when it states "all things were made through Him"--Christ (Joh 1:3). The last part of the passage can be translated, "and nothing was created except through Him-Christ. In other words, Christ was the only being given the power by the Father to create everything.

It harmonizes perfectly. No biblical guru's needed, just let the bible speak for itself, but I guess that is asking for to much when you have people adding words ("a" and "other") to it to give it that false theological push that they desire.

7. No it doesn't because you are attempting to make two distinct persons into one. What does make sense is if Jesus and the Father were both members of the God family. The Father was the first member of the God (Smith) family. The Father then created (Pro 8:22;Isa 43:10; Col 1:15; Rev 3:16) Christ (Smith Jr) as the second member of the God family. Hence both are considered "Gods/Smiths". One greater than the other (Joh 14:28). The Father, who was indirectly involved in the creation, has lived forever in the past (Ps 90:2) Christ, who was directly involved, has not (Isa 43:10).

The only thing that even hints to the view of Jesus being created, in my opinion, is Rev 3:16, not all translations have "beginning of God's creation"...some have "ruler of God's creation"...and even if such a rendering is even remotely possible, then that is enough for my skepticism that it should harmonize with the rest of the many trinity-proof texts.

8. That's like a police officer accusing and arresting the first bystander he sees at a crime scene. I'm sorry to say, but this approach is reflected in your poor biblical hermeneutics.