first-born of all creation

[james2ko]

The text never says that He is a created spirit

Read it in context. The next verse (Col 1:16) implies, the firstborn of all creation (vs 15)--the first being ever created (Christ)-- created everything visible and invisible (angels/spirit beings). Who or what else but a "created" spirit being has the ability and power to create other spirit beings?

and I know of no text that does.

I believe Isa 43:10-11 is very explicit, once we dig into its grammar:

"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 [H410 ”EL”-singular] formed,[H3335-yatsar-nifal stem] 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 the third person, nifal stem, perfect tense. The third person simply means someone other than the subject/author (Christ) as the producer of the action (created).

The nifal stem in this passage gives the verb a nuance of its subject being created, which would give the verb a passive form, making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action. The perfect tense implies a completed past action. Putting the pieces together begins to form a most surprising picture that many Christian commentators refuse to accept and have come up with all sorts of illogical and incontextual interpretations in order to uphold their belief Christ was not created.

The subject (EL/Christ), through the prophet, 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 God! That Christ was a created spirit being is implicated by Paul and John (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Heb 3:2) and other scriptures.

In fact there is a passasge that says He has always existed.

There are several passages that I believe have been misinterpreted by sincere, well-meaning but biased theologians. I believe I have thoroughly studied all of them. When interpreted through the lens of the original languages and their context, not one implicitly, much less explicitly, state He (Christ) has always existed. But perhaps I missed one. Please provide your best reference.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

That's my point. If you are going to say that Jesus is the firstborn of creation you need to include all of creation including the impure things.

Impurity is not a creation. It is a corruption.

Intangibles are by-products of misuse. It is a mistake to in a literal sense view intangibles as created.

All tangible things are good within their intended purpose and use.

It is not God's fault when man fails to know the intended use of things and abuses their use.

 

[Tumah]

Impurity is not a creation. It is a corruption.

Intangibles are by-products of misuse. It is a mistake to in a literal sense view intangibles as created.

All tangible things are good within their intended purpose and use.

It is not God's fault when man fails to know the intended use of things and abuses their use.

There are pure animals. There are impure animals. They were created that way.
Gen. 7:8 "From the animal that is pure and from the animal that is not pure..."
See Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 for more info regarding impure animals.

 

[paarsurrey]

first-born of all creation

There is no significance of that.

Regards

 

[Mountain_Climber]

There are pure animals. There are impure animals. They were created that way.
Gen. 7:8 "From the animal that is pure and from the animal that is not pure..."
See Lev. 11 and Deut. 14 for more info regarding impure animals.

You miss my point.

My point is that you cannot judge the animals by law for the law does not apply to the animal who is living up to God's purpose in creating it and is therefore guiltless in his eyes.

We cannot apply that same concept to men who when they live like the animals are living impure to God's intended purpose for man and therefore can be judged by law for sin.

The law was written to man, not to lower animals.

Man is impure, not by being created that way, but by his refusal to live to God's will for him.

Animals may be impure for man's purpose and use by God's design, but not impure to their own purpose and use by God's design.

 

[Tumah]

You miss my point.

My point is that you cannot judge the animals by law for the law does not apply to the animal who is living up to God's purpose in creating it and is therefore guiltless in his eyes.

We cannot apply that same concept to men who when they live like the animals are living impure to God's intended purpose for man and therefore can be judged by law for sin.

The law was written to man, not to lower animals.

Man is impure, not by being created that way, but by his refusal to live to God's will for him.

Animals may be impure for man's purpose and use by God's design, but not impure to their own purpose and use by God's design.

What in the world does this have to do with anything??
The point was that G-d created animals that are objectively impure as Gen. 7:8 demonstrates. That being so, if Jesus is the first-born of all creation and first-born are of the same type of later-borns, then Jesus is also partly impure.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

What in the world does this have to do with anything??
The point was that G-d created animals that are objectively impure as Gen. 7:8 demonstrates. That being so, if Jesus is the first-born of all creation and first-born are of the same type of later-borns, then Jesus is also partly impure.

Genesis 7:8 says nothing but the truth from the standpoint of what is clean and unclean for men to be around or to do.

Some animals instinctively do not eat their own fecal. They were not designed of God to need to do so. They are safe for us to be around from that standpoint.

Other animals were designed to have to eat their own fecal in order that their digestive tracts are able to acquire the digestive bacteria it needs. That is necessary for them but poses a threat to our health to get too close to them. So Noah would have to handle having them on the Ark with extra care and that is why fewer of them were taken onto the ark. That is just one of the many ways they can be unclean. But that is unclean from the standpoint of humans to be near them which is why the Old Law Covenant turned it into a spiritual picture of how bad association affects us. The commandment of the law to refrain from the wrong handling and eating of these things, the spiritual man would know was provided by God to make the spiritual man who desires to be pure in God's eyes, continually mindful of the corrupting affects improper handling of the association and the eating of the ways of unclean men.

This is why Peter was able to understand the vision of the unclean animals of which God told him to take eat, that these unclean animals pictured the Gentiles: Acts 10:8-28. Acts chapter 11 touches on this again.

That is also why, with respect to meat and to other men, Paul said: Romans 14:14 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

This is the basis of eating Christ's flesh as the bread from heaven. Jesus Christ is the one association given among men we are to cherish most and eat of his ways, if we would learn to be pure.

I would like to also explain how God used the animals, whom he created to have these natures, as a teaching medium for Adam in conjunction with the two trees that had specially attached meanings. But I will first see how much you are able to digest before placing more on the platter to you.

 

[Tumah]

Genesis 7:8 says nothing but the truth from the standpoint of what is clean and unclean for men to be around or to do.

Some animals instinctively do not eat their own fecal. They were not designed of God to need to do so. They are safe for us to be around from that standpoint.

Other animals were designed to have to eat their own fecal in order that their digestive tracts are able to acquire the digestive bacteria it needs. That is necessary for them but poses a threat to our health to get too close to them. So Noah would have to handle having them on the Ark with extra care and that is why fewer of them were taken onto the ark. That is just one of the many ways they can be unclean. But that is unclean from the standpoint of humans to be near them which is why the Old Law Covenant turned it into a spiritual picture of how bad association affects us. The commandment of the law to refrain from the wrong handling and eating of these things, the spiritual man would know was provided by God to make the spiritual man who desires to be pure in God's eyes, continually mindful of the corrupting affects improper handling of the association and the eating of the ways of unclean men.

This is why Peter was able to understand the vision of the unclean animals of which God told him to take eat, that these unclean animals pictured the Gentiles: Acts 10:8-28. Acts chapter 11 touches on this again.

That is also why, with respect to meat and to other men, Paul said: Romans 14:14 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

This is the basis of eating Christ's flesh as the bread from heaven. Jesus Christ is the one association given among men we are to cherish most and eat of his ways, if we would learn to be pure.

I would like to also explain how God used the animals, whom he created to have these natures, as a teaching medium for Adam in conjunction with the two trees that had specially attached meanings. But I will first see how much you are able to digest before placing more on the platter to you.

It seems you didn't put that much food on the plate.
The English word "unclean" here is being used incorrectly. The Hebrew word is not in any way associated with cleanliness. The word means "impure" and it is used in contrast with its antonym "pure". It is also used in contrast with "holy".
The animals are labeled "pure" and "impure". Not "clean" and "unclean." The verse is not making any comment whatsoever on their hygienic state.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

It seems you didn't put that much food on the plate.
The English word "unclean" here is being used incorrectly. The Hebrew word is not in any way associated with cleanliness. The word means "impure" and it is used in contrast with its antonym "pure". It is also used in contrast with "holy".
The animals are labeled "pure" and "impure". Not "clean" and "unclean." The verse is not making any comment whatsoever on their hygienic state.

Nah, What you have here said does not alter the point one iota.

You were the one that in your post 166 introduced Gen. 7:8 which clearly says, "Genesis 7:8 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth.."

Pure water is clean water. It is that simple. Either word means, "free from contamination." That is regardless of what that contamination be and what of an animal contaminates a man does not of necessity contaminate an animal to itself, but only to man.

Tumah said: “If you are going to say that Jesus is the firstborn of creation you need to include all of creation including the impure things.”

That is correct. Jesus was created before any heavenly spiritual or material physical thing.

Jesus was the very first thing God created, period.

The purpose for which God designed some things is immaterial. That does not matter. Jesus is before all created things because he was first born and then all else was created by him as God's right hand given that honor along with that power.

The Greek “ktizo” does not have to mean “creature” like the KJV translates it. It means “original formation” and can refer to any creation living or non-living.

The Greek “ktizo” can be a mere act of building as in a fabrication like at Hebrews 9:11.

The problem is that everyone seems to be viewing “ktizo” at Colossians 1:15 as if it has to mean a specific kind of creation, as in specifically creatures the likeness of the first born. But the fact that he was born first and then all other things created by him is irrelivent to the type of thing created.

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." (ASV)

Colossians 1:15 "who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;
16 because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.
17 And he is before all, and all things subsist together by him." (Darby)

Colossians 1:15 "Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the Firstborn and Lord of all creation.
16 For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers -- all were created, and exist through and for Him.
17 And HE IS before all things and in and through Him the universe is a harmonious whole." (Weymouth)

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together." (World English Bible)

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,
16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted." (Young's Literal translation)

In verse 16 the word "whether" is the Greek "eite" which means "if too" or "whether these things happen to be"

The word "eite" is being used to relate the thought that all things visible or invisible (living or non-living) can and does include those things mentioned. In other words, the absolute existence of absolutely every thing is only made possible to exist by Jesus having created all things. All things owe their existence to him, including the ungrateful evil that is created by those ones he created. Paul is telling you that Jesus accepts responsibility for it all. Even for the abusive governments which could not have stood but for his having created the things they abuse.

And you wonder why he was willing to take the sins of the world to himself to end our insanity?

 

[Tumah]

Nah, What you have here said does not alter the point one iota.

You were the one that in your post 166 introduced Gen. 7:8 which clearly says, "Genesis 7:8 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth.."

Pure water is clean water. It is that simple. Either word means, "free from contamination." That is regardless of what that contamination be and what of an animal contaminates a man does not of necessity contaminate an animal to itself, but only to man.

Gen. 7:8 does not say "clean/not clean". It says "pure/not pure." The Hebrew word is "TaHOR" not "NaKI"
You see, the verse in 7:8 does not say "animals that are not pure to you", it says "animals that are not pure". They are objectively impure. You are sticking words that it doesn't say in there. The fact that they are impure may mean that some peoples may not eat them. But the verse here is not attaching any subjective meaning to the state of the animals purity. In other words, these animals were created in a state of some type of contamination.

Tumah said: “If you are going to say that Jesus is the firstborn of creation you need to include all of creation including the impure things.”

That is correct. Jesus was created before any heavenly spiritual or material physical thing.

Jesus was the very first thing God created, period.

You will notice, every first that is born, is similar to the later-born. A first born human is human just like later born humans. A first born monkey is a monkey just like later born monkeys. Ergo, Jesus is himself partly contaminated. Since he is firstborn of contaminated animals as well.

The purpose for which God designed some things is immaterial. That does not matter. Jesus is before all created things because he was first born and then all else was created by him as God's right hand given that honor along with that power.

The Greek “ktizo” does not have to mean “creature” like the KJV translates it. It means “original formation” and can refer to any creation living or non-living.

The Greek “ktizo” can be a mere act of building as in a fabrication like at Hebrews 9:11.

The problem is that everyone seems to be viewing “ktizo” at Colossians 1:15 as if it has to mean a specific kind of creation, as in specifically creatures the likeness of the first born. But the fact that he was born first and then all other things created by him is irrelivent to the type of thing created.

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist." (ASV)

Colossians 1:15 "who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;
16 because by him were created all things, the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or principalities, or authorities: all things have been created by him and for him.
17 And he is before all, and all things subsist together by him." (Darby)

Colossians 1:15 "Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the Firstborn and Lord of all creation.
16 For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers -- all were created, and exist through and for Him.
17 And HE IS before all things and in and through Him the universe is a harmonious whole." (Weymouth)

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by him were all things created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together." (World English Bible)

Colossians 1:15 "who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,
16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,
17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted." (Young's Literal translation)

In verse 16 the word "whether" is the Greek "eite" which means "if too" or "whether these things happen to be"

The word "eite" is being used to relate the thought that all things visible or invisible (living or non-living) can and does include those things mentioned. In other words, the absolute existence of absolutely every thing is only made possible to exist by Jesus having created all things. All things owe their existence to him, including the ungrateful evil that is created by those ones he created. Paul is telling you that Jesus accepts responsibility for it all. Even for the abusive governments which could not have stood but for his having created the things they abuse.

And you wonder why he was willing to take the sins of the world to himself to end our insanity?

Whatever.
Honestly, do you think I read the sermons?

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Gen. 7:8 does not say "clean/not clean". It says "pure/not pure." The Hebrew word is "TaHOR" not "NaKI"
You see, the verse in 7:8 does not say "animals that are not pure to you", it says "animals that are not pure". They are objectively impure. You are sticking words that it doesn't say in there. The fact that they are impure may mean that some peoples may not eat them. But the verse here is not attaching any subjective meaning to the state of the animals purity. In other words, these animals were created in a state of some type of contamination.


You will notice, every first that is born, is similar to the later-born. A first born human is human just like later born humans. A first born monkey is a monkey just like later born monkeys. Ergo, Jesus is himself partly contaminated. Since he is firstborn of contaminated animals as well.


Whatever.
Honestly, do you think I read the sermons?

Well, I guess I cannot answer you then.

I must accept what I am powerless to change.

 

[oldbadger]

................................................................
John the Baptist is preaching repentance for forgiveness of 'Sins' (as opposed to making sacrifices). In other words he is preaching a Judaism that converts all gentiles to equal spiritual status with Jews without them having to sacrifice animals or wear special clothes etc..................................................

Hi Bricks......
Where did you get the above?
John the Baptist was not preaching a Judaism to include Gentiles!
He was campaigning for privileged Jews to return to Judaism from their Hellenist fashions and ways......... and their corruption!

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Hi Bricks......
Where did you get the above?
John the Baptist was not preaching a Judaism to include Gentiles!
He was campaigning for privileged Jews to return to Judaism from their Hellenist fashions and ways......... and their corruption!

That is right, In fact, even Jesus in the flesh was not the Messiah of the Gentiles.
Matthew 15:22-24 "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi Bricks......
Where did you get the above?
John the Baptist was not preaching a Judaism to include Gentiles!
He was campaigning for privileged Jews to return to Judaism from their Hellenist fashions and ways......... and their corruption!

I have missed you, man. Thanks for the soapbox, by-the-way.

The gospel of John says that JB is 'the Voice calling in the wilderness' which is an allusion to Isaiah 40 which also says "And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together." Isaiah 40 contextualizes John B's ministry. The word 'Gospel' probably comes from Isaiah 40. It has always been part of Abraham's vision (and the Jews' vision) to bless all people everywhere, not just Jews. In fact, there is always this sense hanging over the Jews heads that the LORD can start over without them, so its just not about them. It is true that JohnB is literally preaching to Jews to repent, but he's also preaching Isaiah 40 -- that all people will see the glory of the LORD. This means JohnB is suggesting that all prophecies are coming to a head, Israel's sufferings in the furnace of affliction are over. Isaiah 40 says "You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem...here is your God!" By saying JohnB is the voice in the wilderness, the gospel is also saying Israel has completed his mission, his sufferings for purification are over; but these sufferings are for the world's sake not merely for Jews. How can they be over if salvation hasn't come to the world?

The concept of 'Poor' and 'Rich' come into this, too. Jews are 'Rich', because they have Torah and guidance. Gentiles are 'Poor', because they have only rule upon rule and are barely civilized. If I survey the prophets including Abraham and all of them, there is no fundamental difference between a Jew and a Gentile except for this kind of wealth. There's no difference in blood, in appearance etc. Rich and poor are tied to high and low in the context of Christianity, illustrated several ways Isaiah 40 being just one reference. In the gospel of JohnB and Jesus the difference between rich and poor is to come to an end. This is one way of describing the gospel. Isaiah 40 figures big in Christianity and is paraphrased in James when he talks about equality between rich and poor, by which he means wise and unwise. Isaiah says "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." James says "the rich should take pride in their humiliation...For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away." He means the divide between poor and rich, wise and unwise, is no longer needed. Paul echoes this teaching "Neither poor nor rich." It all starts with John the Baptist being the Voice in the Wilderness.

Does this mean that I personally don't want anyone telling me anything? No, it does not. Am I rich? Heck, no. Am I poor? I don't know.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

The gospel of John says that JB is 'the Voice calling in the wilderness' which is an allusion to Isaiah 40 which also says "And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together." Isaiah 40 contextualizes John B's ministry. The word 'Gospel' probably comes from Isaiah 40. It has always been part of Abraham's vision (and the Jews' vision) to bless all people everywhere, not just Jews. In fact, there is always this sense hanging over the Jews heads that the LORD can start over without them, so its just not about them. It is true that JohnB is literally preaching to Jews to repent, but he's also preaching Isaiah 40 -- that all people will see the glory of the LORD. This means JohnB is suggesting that all prophecies are coming to a head, Israel's sufferings in the furnace of affliction are over. Isaiah 40 says "You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem...here is your God!" By saying JohnB is the voice in the wilderness, the gospel is also saying Israel has completed his mission, his sufferings for purification are over; but these sufferings are for the world's sake not merely for Jews. How can they be over if salvation hasn't come to the world?

What you want to remember here is that this is the application to the true spiritual seed of Abraham you are speaking of. Compare: Romans 9: 7-8; Romans 4: 16

However, you must take what John was doing in this following light: Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

John the Baptist, as reported by the Apostle John, plainly told us the purpose of his baptism: John 1:7 “The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him<[him = the Light, Jesus] might believe.” John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. Remember Galatians 3: 16 above? We are all to believe through that seed. Compare: Hebrews 13: 20-21; Titus 3: 5-6

That is a very finite point which it appears you are missing.

John's baptism was specifically for Israel: Luke 1:15-16 “For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.”

John's baptism was done in the name of repentance for sins against the Old Law Covenant and applied only to those under that Old Law Covenant pointing them to the baptism into Jesus whereby the blood of Jesus could cleanse them of their sins. Acts 2: 37, 38 is not John's baptism but is the baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit which brings ones into Jesus whereby his blood washes away their sins: Ephesians 1:7 “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace”

Galatians 4:7 “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

That is such a delicate point that if you let emotion to my post stir you any at all you will miss it.

The concept of 'Poor' and 'Rich' come into this, too. Jews are 'Rich', because they have Torah and guidance. Gentiles are 'Poor', because they have only rule upon rule and are barely civilized. If I survey the prophets including Abraham and all of them, there is no fundamental difference between a Jew and a Gentile except for this kind of wealth. There's no difference in blood, in appearance etc. Rich and poor are tied to high and low in the context of Christianity, illustrated several ways Isaiah 40 being just one reference. In the gospel of JohnB and Jesus the difference between rich and poor is to come to an end. This is one way of describing the gospel. Isaiah 40 figures big in Christianity and is paraphrased in James when he talks about equality between rich and poor, by which he means wise and unwise. Isaiah says "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." James says "the rich should take pride in their humiliation...For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away." He means the divide between poor and rich, wise and unwise, is no longer needed. Paul echoes this teaching "Neither poor nor rich." It all starts with John the Baptist being the Voice in the Wilderness.

Does this mean that I personally don't want anyone telling me anything? No, it does not. Am I rich? Heck, no. Am I poor? I don't know.

I like much of what you said there about the Rich Man and Lazarus. It shows real effort on your part. I think I will hold back making any comments on it for the present as overall it is very close to how I see that parable.

Good job. Most do not see that nearly as clear as you do.

 

[oldbadger]

I have missed you, man. Thanks for the soapbox, by-the-way.

The gospel of John says that JB is 'the Voice calling in the wilderness' which is an allusion to Isaiah 40 which also says "And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all people will see it together." Isaiah 40 contextualizes John B's ministry. The word 'Gospel' probably comes from Isaiah 40. It has always been part of Abraham's vision (and the Jews' vision) to bless all people everywhere, not just Jews. In fact, there is always this sense hanging over the Jews heads that the LORD can start over without them, so its just not about them. It is true that JohnB is literally preaching to Jews to repent, but he's also preaching Isaiah 40 -- that all people will see the glory of the LORD. This means JohnB is suggesting that all prophecies are coming to a head, Israel's sufferings in the furnace of affliction are over. Isaiah 40 says "You who bring good news to Zion, go up on a high mountain. You who bring good news to Jerusalem...here is your God!" By saying JohnB is the voice in the wilderness, the gospel is also saying Israel has completed his mission, his sufferings for purification are over; but these sufferings are for the world's sake not merely for Jews. How can they be over if salvation hasn't come to the world?

Hmmm. When folks tell me how One person's actions circa 4BC are in direct connection to a prophesy from the distant past, I immediately think of how most mediums work. Folks can spin mostly anything from anything, and thus produce any theme as required. I personally could not use Isiah's prophesies to show that Chelsea Football club will win the FA Cup in 2019, but if Chelsea does actually win the FA cup then I'll bet that some wag somewhere would be able to show how how Daniel, Isiah or whoever knew about this forthcoming event!

John the Baptist was campaigning against the fat, corrupt, quisling priesthood and upper classes who had (more or less) sold out to the invaders. Those who wandered from the ways of the Lord would suffer, sin lead to illness. And so he gave folks a chance to start over through ritual immersion, cleansing, and thus healing. He was so influential that Antipas felt the need to remove him. Clearly Josephuis thought him to be much more influential than Jesus.

The concept of 'Poor' and 'Rich' come into this, too. Jews are 'Rich', because they have Torah and guidance. Gentiles are 'Poor', because they have only rule upon rule and are barely civilized. If I survey the prophets including Abraham and all of them, there is no fundamental difference between a Jew and a Gentile except for this kind of wealth. There's no difference in blood, in appearance etc. Rich and poor are tied to high and low in the context of Christianity, illustrated several ways Isaiah 40 being just one reference. In the gospel of JohnB and Jesus the difference between rich and poor is to come to an end. This is one way of describing the gospel. Isaiah 40 figures big in Christianity and is paraphrased in James when he talks about equality between rich and poor, by which he means wise and unwise. Isaiah says "The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever." James says "the rich should take pride in their humiliation...For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich will fade away." He means the divide between poor and rich, wise and unwise, is no longer needed. Paul echoes this teaching "Neither poor nor rich." It all starts with John the Baptist being the Voice in the Wilderness.

Paul? Paul!!????
The master of allusion, illusion and spin.

Does this mean that I personally don't want anyone telling me anything? No, it does not. Am I rich? Heck, no. Am I poor? I don't know.

If you have a free mind, body and spirit then I reckon that you are rich.
But such wealth seems to flow from all cultures and spiritual paths. Look at the Buddhists...?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hmmm. When folks tell me how One person's actions circa 4BC are in direct connection to a prophesy from the distant past, I immediately think of how most mediums work. Folks can spin mostly anything from anything, and thus produce any theme as required. I personally could not use Isiah's prophesies to show that Chelsea Football club will win the FA Cup in 2019, but if Chelsea does actually win the FA cup then I'll bet that some wag somewhere would be able to show how how Daniel, Isiah or whoever knew about this forthcoming event!

Now you are looking at the historical spin. I'm merely approaching the apologetic. I do not assume them to be the same or related. JohnB appears in the gospel of John written by a completely different John. The gospel is written as a story with allusions to things written by prophets, so as in Golf I'm playing the ball where it lies. If you want a historical context I cannot possibly go through so much information! I have no clue what literally happened, but I can put myself in the story as an observer and try to be an informed audience for John. John refers me to Isaiah 40, and he says JohnB is the voice in the wilderness. That makes him very important to the apologetic.

John the Baptist was campaigning against the fat, corrupt, quisling priesthood and upper classes who had (more or less) sold out to the invaders. Those who wandered from the ways of the Lord would suffer, sin lead to illness. And so he gave folks a chance to start over through ritual immersion, cleansing, and thus healing. He was so influential that Antipas felt the need to remove him. Clearly Josephuis thought him to be much more influential than Jesus.

Somebody clearly was opposed to them. I've heard of the Siccari (throat cutters) and the Pharisees (multiple kinds). There are also the Maccabees. These are groups we know of who despised political alliances with Rome, Persia, Macedon etc. I would say they are like Americans or Brits today who loathe alliances with dictators. Jesus preaches a gospel of peace, which seems to be one of coexistence with the Romans. He does condemn the priests and the fat-cats, however he preaches a kingdom not of his age. This is where things get difficult with him being the messiah and all. One phrase that sticks with me is 'Unless a grain of wheat fall to the ground and die it cannot bear fruit' which seems to be his approach to saving the world. Its not only his personal death. Its like he's saying "We (Israel) must die like a seed, and then we will spring more strongly out of the ground." What is your opinion on that?

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Just by way of clarification according to the Greek grammar:

I said in post 176, "John the Baptist, as reported by the Apostle John, plainly told us the purpose of his baptism: John 1:7 “The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him<[him = the Light, Jesus] might believe.” John 1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. Remember Galatians 3: 16 above? We are all to believe through that seed. Compare: Hebrews 13: 20-21; Titus 3: 5-6"

John 1:
6 egeneto anqrwpoj apestalmenoj para qeou onoma autw iwannhj

(Came to be) (man) (having been sent forth) (beside) (God) (name) (to him) (John)


7 outoj hlqen eij marturian ina marturhsh peri tou

(This [one]) (came) (into) (witness) (in order that) (he might witness) (about) (the)


fwtoj ina pantej pisteuswsin di autou

(Light) (in order that) (all) (might believe) (through) (him)


What is being said by the grammar rules is that John is sent forth to bear witness to the Light that all men may believe in God through the Light.

Notice the inflection of the word “God” in verse 6 is the same as the inflection of that final “him” and notice that the final “him” in verse 7 is inflected back to “the Light” in verse 7 by the same genitive case masculine gender as is the definite article preceding “the Light”.

I am not just giving my opinion as to what that verse says. I am telling you what the Greek text shows it does say. Now you can better see why I related it to what Peter said at1 Peter 1:21 "who through him are believers in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God." (ASV)

There is a lot of finite detail which gets missed and allows for confusion among those that do not stick to the original languages to draw their conclusions.

That means there is much to discuss about what it really means to believe "in" Jesus. Especially when we always are careful to take close notice of the Greek prepositions that are used.

 

[Tumah]

Well, I guess I cannot answer you then.

I must accept what I am powerless to change.

That's true.
Although theoretically it shouldn't be that hard to answer a question without including a sermon. But if you can't change that, well that's just part of who you are.

 

[paarsurrey]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

Colossians was not written by Jesus, this concept is a mythological invention of the clergy/Church. There is no significance of this term.

Regards