Is Jesus God?

[james2ko]

Acts2:36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.


God hath made.............Jesus............Lord and Christ.


Jesus Christ never created Anything.


Col.1:15. who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16for 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(into) him; 17and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the " beginning," the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say , whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.

1. In verse 16, "through him" indicates a channel or agent. I believe it means Christ was doing the legwork of creating, while The Father provided the power for Christ to do so. The last phrase "unto him" could also be rendered "for him". Christ's sacrifice afforded Him the privilege of inheriting all things (1 Co 15:27).

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

Hence all things were ultimately created "for" Him. BTW...Yoshua.. Paul is saying verbatim the term "all things" here is not absolute and has exceptions, just as it does in Col 1:16. This is why there is no harm done inserting the term "other" between all and things in Col 1:16 ("all other things").

Remember, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One and the Same?

2. I believe Christ was the channel or agent The Father used to create the universe (Joh 1:3). Being that the pre-incarnate Christ was also God's Holy Spirit (Isa 63:9-10), I'm beginning to believe (not dogmatic) the pre-incarnate Christ was the Spirit of God moving over the waters in Gen 1:2, and perhaps the "God-elohim" who spoke all of the words in the creation account. This corroborates Joh 1:3 and Col 1:16.

 

[zahra67]

I'm interested in hearing thoughts about (1) Where this idea comes from and (2) If you agree with it and why/why not. I have heard it described like this: Because of the Trinity, Jesus is God, and all the things done in the Old Testament were therefore done by Jesus prior to his human incarnation. Thoughts?

about prophet jesus and his honorable mother mary peace be upon them in the holy quran.
.
jesus peace be upon him is one of the highest messenger of god.
he is messenger of god and his great servant, not his sun.
islam completed the previous religions and confirms them, its not against them!
god has many prophet for guidance of mankind toward prosperity in this life and salvation in afterlife.
but prophet mohammad peace be upon him is the final messenger and his religion and mission is to be mercy for all creation.
and also god confirms it in the holy quran, chapter 21, verse 107.
god is only one and unique.
he has no family and not born.
in chapter 112 that we recite most of times in our daily prayers we read:

SURA 112. AL-IKHLAS (SINCERITY)
1. Say: He, Allah, is One. 2. Allah is He on Whom all depend. 3. He begets not, nor is He begotten. 4. And none is like Him.
and now some verses about prophet jesus and his mother mary peace be upon him in the holy quran.

in chapter 3, verses 33 until 60 God almighty says:
Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations. Offspring one of the other; and Allah is Hearing, Knowing. When a woman of Imran said: My Lord! surely I vow to Thee what is in my womb, to be devoted [to Thy service]; accept therefore from me, surely Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing. So when she brought forth, she said: My Lord! Surely I have brought it forth a female-- and Allah knew best what she brought forth-- and the male is not like the female, and I have named it Marium, and I commend her and her offspring into Thy protection from the accursed Shaitan. So her Lord accepted her with a good acceptance and made her grow up a good growing, and gave her into the charge of Zakariya; whenever Zakariya entered the sanctuary to [see] her, he found with her food. He said: O Marium! whence comes this to you? She said: It is from Allah. Surely Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure. There did Zakariya pray to his Lord; he said: My Lord! grant me from Thee good offspring; surely Thou art the Hearer of prayer. Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones. He said: My Lord! when shall there be a son [born] to me, and old age has already come upon me, and my wife is barren? He said: even thus does Allah what He pleases. He said: My Lord! appoint a sign for me. Said He: Your sign is that you should not speak to men for three days except by signs; and remember your Lord much and glorify Him in the evening and the morning. And when the angels said: O Marium! surely Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of of the world. O Marium! keep to obedience to your Lord and humble yourself, and bow down with those who bow. This is of the announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you; and you were not with them when they cast their pens [to decide] which of them should have Marium in his charge, and you were not with them when they contended one with another. When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him [of one] whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near [to Allah. And he shall speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age, and [he shall be] one of the good ones. She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son [born] to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is. And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel. And [make him] a messenger to the children of Israel: That I have come to you with a sign from your Lord, that I determine for you out of dust like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird with Allah's permission and I heal the blind and the leprous, and bring the dead to life with Allah's permission and I inform you of what you should eat and what you should store in your houses; most surely there is a sign in this for you, if you are believers. And a verifier of that which is before me of the Taurat and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you, and I have come to you with a sign from your Lord therefore be careful of [your duty to] Allah and obey me. Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right pathBut when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said Who will be my helpers in Allah's way? The disciples said: We are helpers [in the way] of Allah: We believe in Allah and bear witness that we are submitting ones. Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the messenger, so write us down with those who bear witness. And they planned and Allah [also] planned, and Allah is the best of planners. And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay [on earth] and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. Then as to those who disbelieve, I will chastise them with severe chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have no helpers. And as to those who believe and do good deeds, He will pay them fully their rewards; and Allah does not love the unjust. This We recite to you of the communications and the wise reminder. Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was. [This is] the truth from your Lord, so be not of the disputers.
now some verses from chapter maryam.
yes! the title of chapter 19 of the holy quran is maryam.
And mention Marium in the Book when she drew aside from her family to an eastern place So she took a veil [to screen herself] from them; then We sent to her Our spirit, and there appeared to her a well-made man. She said: Surely I fly for refuge from you to the Beneficent Allah, if you are one guarding [against evil. He said: I am only a messenger of your Lord: That I will give you a pure boy. She said: When shall I have a boy and no mortal has yet touched me, nor have I been unchaste? He said: Even so; your Lord says: It is easy to Me: and that We may make him a sign to men and a mercy from Us, and it is a matter which has been decreed. So she conceived him; then withdrew herself with him to a remote place. And the throes [of childbirth] compelled her to betake herself to the trunk of a palm tree. She said: Oh, would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite forgotten! Then [the child] called out to her from beneath her: Grieve not, surely your Lord has made a stream to flow beneath you; And shake towards you the trunk of the palmtree, it will drop on you fresh ripe dates: So eat and drink and refresh the eye. Then if you see any mortal, say: Surely I have vowed a fast to the Beneficent Allah, so I shall not speak to any man today. And she came to her people with him, carrying him [with her]. They said: O Marium! surely you have done a strange thing.
O sister of Haroun! your father was not a bad man, nor, was your mother an unchaste woman. But she pointed to him. They said: How should we speak to one who was a child in the cradle? 30. He said: Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet. And He has made me blessed wherever I may be, and He has enjoined on me prayer and poor-rate so long as I live; And dutiful to my mother, and He has not made me insolent, unblessed. And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life. Such is Isa, son of Marium; [this is] the saying of truth about which they dispute. It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is. And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.

and allah mentioned mary a great exemplar for the believers.
in chapter 66, verse 12, in the holy quran, the all merciful god says:
. And Marium, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and she accepted the truth of the words of her Lord and His books, and she was of, the obedient ones.

and also the best website about study about islam and islamic books is:
www.al-islam.org
please fill free to email me for your questions and requested books about islam.
[email protected]
best wishes and devine mercy and blessings i pray for you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

1. In verse 16, "through him" indicates a channel or agent. I believe it means Christ was doing the legwork of creating, while The Father provided the power for Christ to do so. The last phrase "unto him" could also be rendered "for him". Christ's sacrifice afforded Him the privilege of inheriting all things (1 Co 15:27).

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

Hence all things were ultimately created "for" Him. BTW...Yoshua.. Paul is saying verbatim the term "all things" here is not absolute and has exceptions, just as it does in Col 1:16. This is why there is no harm done inserting the term "other" between all and things in Col 1:16 ("all other things").

Excellent!

2. I believe Christ was the channel or agent The Father used to create the universe (Joh 1:3). Being that the pre-incarnate Christ was also God's Holy Spirit (Isa 63:9-10), I'm beginning to believe (not dogmatic) the pre-incarnate Christ was the Spirit of God moving over the waters in Gen 1:2, and perhaps the "God-elohim" who spoke all of the words in the creation account. This corroborates Joh 1:3 and Col 1:16.

The fact that you are adjusting your understanding, in the light of further study, shows a humility that many lack.

Although I'm not agreeing with your conclusion.



You might find this interesting. It discusses, using the Scriptures, the term 'spirit,' including God's 'Holy Spirit.'

http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200004211?q=God's+active+force&p=par

 

[Notaclue]

1. In verse 16, "through him" indicates a channel or agent. I believe it means Christ was doing the legwork of creating, while The Father provided the power for Christ to do so. The last phrase "unto him" could also be rendered "for him". Christ's sacrifice afforded Him the privilege of inheriting all things (1 Co 15:27).

1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.​

Hence all things were ultimately created "for" Him. BTW...Yoshua.. Paul is saying verbatim the term "all things" here is not absolute and has exceptions, just as it does in Col 1:16. This is why there is no harm done inserting the term "other" between all and things in Col 1:16 ("all other things").



2. I believe Christ was the channel or agent The Father used to create the universe (Joh 1:3). Being that the pre-incarnate Christ was also God's Holy Spirit (Isa 63:9-10), I'm beginning to believe (not dogmatic) the pre-incarnate Christ was the Spirit of God moving over the waters in Gen 1:2, and perhaps the "God-elohim" who spoke all of the words in the creation account. This corroborates Joh 1:3 and Col 1:16.

(Quote)
2. I believe Christ was the channel or agent The Father used to create the universe (Joh 1:3). Being that the pre-incarnate Christ was also God's Holy Spirit (Isa 63:9-10), I'm beginning to believe (not dogmatic) the pre-incarnate Christ was the Spirit of God moving over the waters in Gen 1:2, and perhaps the "God-elohim" who spoke all of the words in the creation



Is.59:20. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, 'and 'my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Was the Word and the Holy Spirit the Same?

After Jesus died they became One. The fulfillment of the 'Promise'.(Acts2:36)

Gen.1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Do you believe God created the Heavens and the Earth in the Beginning?

Gen.1:2. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Do you believe God created the darkness and the face of the deep?

Do you believe God created the face of the waters?

Why would you not believe, that God created the Spirit of God in the beginning?


(Quote)
The last phrase "unto him" could also be rendered "for him". Christ's sacrifice afforded Him the privilege of inheriting all things (1 Co 15:27).



Col.1:16...................τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται·

εἰς......1519 eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union") to a particular purpose or result.



Peace.

 

[Yoshua]

It's not nice to post lies about other people. Mormons believe that Jesus is and has always been God. Your source is a pathetic attempt to misrepresent Mormonism. It is mean-spirited and hateful. You should be ashamed for being so gullible as to buy into it.

Hi katzpur,

Nice meeting you again. Sorry for that post. I'm just clarifying with Jeager regarding his posted weblink that we can see in Post no. 2122. It is not coming from me or my source. I don't think that the weblink contain about Mormons and JW's but cited a lot of belief issues here.

 

[Katzpur]

Hi katzpur,

Nice meeting you again. Sorry for that post. I'm just clarifying with Jeager regrading his posted weblink that we can see in Post no. 2122. It is not coming from me or my source. I don't think that the weblink contain about Mormons and JW's but cited a lot of belief issues here.

Hello, Joshua. Apology accepted. It is, however, a fact, that the link I clicked on (in post 2123) took me to a website that was absolutely full of lies and distortions about Mormon beliefs. I just don't understand why people eat that stuff up the way they do, and believe every word of it.

 

[Yoshua]

Hello, Joshua. Apology accepted. It is, however, a fact, that the link I clicked on (in post 2123) took me to a website that was absolutely full of lies and distortions about Mormon beliefs. I just don't understand why people eat that stuff up the way they do, and believe every word of it.

Yeah. This is why we'r here to clarify, and explain it to them. Thanks. Katzpur

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hello, Joshua. Apology accepted. It is, however, a fact, that the link I clicked on (in post 2123) took me to a website that was absolutely full of lies and distortions about Mormon beliefs. I just don't understand why people eat that stuff up the way they do, and believe every word of it.

Yes, Katzpur, I noticed that too. A lot of half-truths and outright lies about the JW's, also.

I'm thinking about going line-by-line, provide a refutation to the lies, and an explanation to the few that were true.

Maybe we should each do that for our beliefs....id be interested in reading yours.

Whaddaya' think? Worth the effort?

 

[james2ko]

Is.59:20. And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.21As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, 'and 'my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Was the Word and the Holy Spirit the Same?

1. Both the preincarnate and incarnate Christ had a curious habit of referring to Himself in the third person. The incarnate Christ referred to His human self in the third person (Mat 8:20;9:6;10:23 and many others). The incarnate Christ also referred to Himself, as the Holy Spirit, in the third person (Joh 14:16;15:26;16:7).

Therefore it would be logical for the preincarnate Christ to refer to Himself as the incarnate Christ (The Reedemer) in the third person, as we see in Isa 59:20-21. So to answer your question, yes, I believe they are the same.

After Jesus died they became One. The fulfillment of the 'Promise'.(Acts2:36)

2. I believe after He died, the glory He had from the day He was created, as the Father's Holy Spirit, was restored (Joh 17:5). Isa 63 identifies the pre-incarnate Christ as the Father's Holy Spirit:

Isa 63:8-10 For He said, "Surely they are My people, Children who will not lie." So He became their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the Angel of His [The Father's] Presence [Christ] saved them; In His love and in His pity He [Angel of His Presence] redeemed them; And He bore them and carried them All the days of old. 10 But they rebelled and grieved His [The Father's] Holy Spirit [Christ]; So He turned Himself against them as an enemy, And He fought against them.​

A beautiful parallel is created when we consider the preincarnate Christ, as an Angel, reedemed and was the Savior and Holy Spirit leading OT Israel, while doing the same through His incarnation and sacrifice for NT Israel.

Gen.1:1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.Do you believe God created the Heavens and the Earth in the Beginning?

3. The preincarnate Christ, as The Father's agent (meaning the Father was indirectly involved), created the heavens and earth in the beginning.

Gen.1:2. The earth was [became] formless and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. Do you believe God created the darkness and the face of the deep? Do you believe God created the face of the waters?

4. I believe the grammar supports the verb "was" in verse two can also be rendered "became" or "had become" (ROT-Rotherham Bible). So God did not create a void and formless earth. The scriptures actually confirm this (Isa 45:18). He initially created it perfect and beautiful. We can suspect this is true because the angels shouted for joy (Job 38:7). Sometime after the perfect creation, angels rebelled and the initial perfect creation in Gen 1:1, "became" void and formless.

Why would you not believe, that God created the Spirit of God in the beginning?

5. I'm not following your logic. I believe the glorified Christ (preincarnate and post resurrection) and the Holy Spirit are the same person. I also believe the preincarnate Christ was a created spirit being (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14). Hence the Father created the Holy Spirit (Christ) in the beginning--the Father's first creative act , which is why Christ is identified as the Beginning (Rev 3:14).

The Holy Spirit's creation occurred sometime before "the beginning" of the creation of the heavens and earth in Gen 1:1. And yes time, in some form, did exist prior to the creation of the heavenly bodies we humans utilize to measure it (Jo 17:24; 1Pe 1:20; 2Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2).

Col.1:16...................τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· εἰς......1519 eis (a preposition) – properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union") to a particular purpose or result.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance : A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases -- (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, til, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to),...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) Expressing motion (literally or figuratively).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: εἰς, a preposition governing the accusative, and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit: into, to, toward, for, among.​

6. "Unto" is one possible translation. The term is also translated "for" 70 times in the KJV. I believe "for Him" best describes the resurrected Christ's reward for His unwavering obedience and voluntary sacrifice.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, Katzpur, I noticed that too. A lot of half-truths and outright lies about the JW's, also.

I'm thinking about going line-by-line, provide a refutation to the lies, and an explanation to the few that were true.

Maybe we should each do that for our beliefs....id be interested in reading yours.

Whaddaya' think? Worth the effort?

Absolutely. But probably a new thread would be a better place. What do you think?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Absolutely. But probably a new thread would be a better place. What do you think?

Yes, a new thread.... I wasn't even thinking of that, but of course! Great idea.

A new category too, right? Which one do you think?

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, a new thread.... I wasn't even thinking of that, but of course! Great idea.

A new category too, right? Which one do you think?

I think Comparative Religions would be a good place for it. There's no debate allowed there, and we could simply post to learn and to inform.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I think Comparative Religions would be a good place for it. There's no debate allowed there, and we could simply post to learn and to inform.

Ok, I just found it....but it's sort of an out-of-the-way site, not visited by too many -- there are only three thread topics! We could always post a link to it if questions should arise, I guess. I have posted on it, come to think about it.

 

[Yoshua]

What in my response did you not get? "Arche" does not mean source or origin. My claim is that arche in Rev 3:14 means "beginning" in the same sense we understand the word "beginning" to mean in english. This is because all things were created through Jesus by God, read John 1:3 again as you clearly aren't seeing it. I've clearly demonstrated how Jesus cannot be the source of creation and that it's the Father whom all things are from.

"..But for us, "There is only one God, the Father. Everything came from him, and we live for him. There is only one Lord, Jesus Christ. Everything came into being through him, and we live because of him.." (1 Cor 8:6 GWT)

Hi NWL,

arché: beginning, origin
Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Short Definition: ruler, beginning
Definition: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.

746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent"). http://biblehub.com/greek/746.htm

The Greek word arche means "first in position,""leader,"”chief.” Jesus is presenting His authority over creation as Creator; He is the cause of the creation. Jesus can’t be like an assistant to God (Father).

If all things came from God and through Jesus, then how could it be said that Jesus is the source? If I give a gift to someone to give to you who is the source of the gift? The one who originally gave the gift! Likewise if all things came from the Father and through Jesus, who is the originally source? The Father!

Hence why Jesus says regarding the Father "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), why? Because the Father is the source and fountain of life, "..For with you [YHWH] is the fountain of life; in your light we see light.." (Psalms 36:9)

It has to do with how we differ with the existence of God. One God who exists in the person of Jesus Christ.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, but but Ephraim is still part of the same family/group that Manesseh was in, they were both sons of Jacob. I'm asking for something specific. Remember, my claim is that when you're called firstborn of something you are always part of the group that you're firstborn over, Jesus was called the "firstborn of creation", therefore Jesus must be part of creation. I also make the claim that there isn't a single example where someone is firstborn of a group/class, and they themselves aren't part of the group/class that they're firstborn of. You're implying, that even though Jesus was the "firstborn of creation" this doesn't put him in that group that he's firstborn over, I deny this as there isn't a single worldly or biblical example of this ever taking place.

Thus, I asked you to show me an example where anything, biblical or no-biblcal, is firstborn of a group/class and they themselves are not part of that group. Your example of Manasseh and Ephraim do not fit this criteria since they belong to the same family/group/class. Yes Ephraim was second born and became firstborn in the sense of preeminence but he was still part of the group that he became firstborn in thus agreeing with my claim and not yours.

How could Jesus be part of the group if He was not created just like Adam who truly created by God. Jesus was conceived through incarnation. I don’t see how the term “first created” was being used to support for “firstborn.”

Col. 1:15-18
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. NIV

Jesus is before all things, how could He is created being if He is before all things? This is about Christ’s supremacy and preeminence. Its clear.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yes I do. Do I think the KJV is accurate and scholarly acceptable. Yes I do. Do I think the KJV is in some places inaccurate. Yes. Every translation has its gems and flaws. . You'll learn this as you continue to grow in your studies. Joh 1:1 was translated "a god" in several "unpopular" translations. But yes Jesus is "a" God, not "the" God. "The" God would be the Father.

Hi James,

Why put an “a” for God? So you did not agree that the Word was God?

Do you think Eve being the mother of herself is logical? Did you even understand my post about Gen 3:20? Or are you simply ignoring it? Just as Eve could not be the mother of herself when it is mentioned she is the mother of "all living", so is Christ not the Creator of Himself when it says He created "all things".

It is accepted that Eve is the mother of all human race since she is created by God as the first woman.

It says she is the mother of all living, and yet you forced to change the meaning to become a mother of herself? Where did you get that notion of a mother of herself while you know that God created woman Eve?

Likewise, Christ was the Creator of "all things" so the phrase “all things” would exclude Himself and the One who created Him--The Father. by James

Just to clarify again, based on your statement here, do you believe that Christ was the Creator of all things?

That's a very weak argument from silence. Using your reasoning I could say, If Jesus is not first created, why didn't Paul use proto with ktizo to say, " Christ was not proto kitso". The reason Paul did not use this word is because it did not exist at the time (semantic anachronism)! It is never used anywhere in Scripture and did not even come into use until centuries later in the Stromata by Clement about 200 AD, when he used both words (prototokos/protokistos) interchangeably.

I don’t think that it is bec. of non-existence at that time, it is because the word “firstborn” has a special meaning to the Hebrews (or the Jews) and Christians alike. This is a very strong proof that it is nearest to the context.

1) A firstborn son, for example, enjoys certain special privileges (Gen. 25:23; 31, 34, 49:3; Deut. 21:17; 1 Chronicles 5:1)

2) "Firstborn of the poor" signifies the most miserable of the poor (Isa. 14:30)

3) It may also mean that it is of high price and value (Micah 6:7; Zech. 12:10)

4) An object of special love (Gen. 25:28; Jer. 31:9,20); Dignity of the Church (Heb. 12:23)

5) With respect to the most sacred official function (Num. 3:12,40-45; 8:16-18) and to mean the most terrible of diseases (Job 18:13)

Let's not forget David (Ps 89:27-29). These passages actually describe the “creation” of new positions of honor or status these subjects did not hold at one point in their past. The Scriptures reveal God “created” a first-of-its-kind relationship with David and his descendants . The nation of Israel , including the 10 tribes commonly referred to as Ephraim (Hos 11:8,12), was “brought into existence” as God’s first “theocracy”, which also gave them pre-eminence over other nations (Deu 7:6; 26:19; Ex 19:6; Isa 43:15; Jer 2:3). In other words, prōtotokos never loses its primary connotation of a beginning of existence of some person, place, or thing!

Ps. 89:20
I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have anointed him
.
Ps. 89:27-29
27And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
28 I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail.
29 I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure.

David, who was the last one born in his family. He was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence. The word “creation” does not fit with the appointment and anointing that God had given to David. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created. I believed it is obviously out of the context here. It is not a creation of new position and created a first kind of relationship with David but the "higher than all the kings of the earth." Same with Jesus that He is the pre-eminent in all things.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/treasury-of-david/psalms-89-27.html

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Hello Yoshua.

Regarding John 1:1.....


Grammar, as in every language, makes all the difference.

Philip B. Harner, in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.” Why not at John 1:1? Do these translators have an a-priori commitment to some teaching? By not being consistent, it seems so.

Roman Catholic priest and much-acclaimed scholar John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold print and italics are mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
He was a Trinitarian, but was scholarly enough to see how this passage should be rendered.

( His "Dictionary of the Bible" is a fascinating book!)

Hi Hockey,

Can you show to me what is the Greek format of John 1:1 for better understanding of the text?

If that would be the case based on your message above, then why John 1:6, 1;8a, 1:8b, 1:12 and 1:13 did not have an “a” before God—to be consistent with their grammar rules??

Thanks

 

[Oeste]

If you actually knew what the article was saying you wouldn't be asking, the fact you have to ask shows you too are like Yoshua.

Actually it just means I understand the article and didn't know what you were saying.

The articles states "the word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority", this is false and is the point I referred to as inaccurate.

No it’s actually TRUE. You may disagree with the article NWT, but that doesn’t make the article “inaccurate”.

The word "prototokos" CAN mean firstborn in the sense of priority and authority but it typically refers to something that is the first in a group.

Well if it can signify priority how can you say the article is “inaccurate”?

The Writer of the article made no mention that the word "

prototokos" can refer to both things. The writer states "In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child" but makes no mention that this refers to the Greek word "prototokos".

I’m not understanding you. The writer was absolutely correct that the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child”. Could it be? Of course. Did it have to be? No, as Yoshua has already pointed out.

Also, you state the writer “makes no mention that this refers to the Greek word “prototokos”. Since the article is a discussion about firstborn, what else is the reader to think??? Of course it’s about “prototokos”!

HELPS Word-studies
4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly,first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).
4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).
[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

As you can see prōtótokos can mean firstborn in the sense of time and also preeminence.

But like James2ko, you’re rolling out your own theology and defined prototokos as a part or member in/of a group. Your definition is not only at variance with Watchtower theology (since it lacks “first created”), but Christian theology as well.

Your reasoning shows your lack of thinking ability my friend.

No, your ad-hominin simply tells us a lot more about you.

 

[Oeste]

The problem you've created is assuming that when the word "firstborn" is used of something/body that it implies the person/thing needs to be begotten by the group it's firstborn of, this is not the case and not how the word is used in scripture as I will demonstrate.

I haven’t assumed anything. I’m querying you NWT. I want to know more about what you think and WHY you think it. That’s all. As I explained to James2ko, I would much rather learn than teach.

You cannot take an expression that can be applied to a person to another person and then apply it to person in relation to a group. Once again the error you made was comparing a person (singular) to a group (plural). A person is not a group, nor a group a person. Thus to compare the two on the merits of similarity of position is absurd. Look at the following verses:

(Psalm 89:27) "..And I will place him as firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.." Is King David here the offspring of Kings since he's the firstborn King? No.

(Exodus 11:5) "..and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die.." Are all the firstborns in scripture here the offspring of Egpyt? No.

(Colossians 1:18) "..He [Jesus] is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.." Since Jesus is firstborn of the dead does that make him the offspring of the dead? No.

As you can see above, just because someone is called firstborn doesn't mean that the group that ther're firstborn of, namely Kings, Egypt and the Dead begat any of them. I understand where you're coming from with the whole "If I am the firstborn “of Mary”, then I am the offspring of Mary, and if I am the firstborn “of creation” I am the offspring of creation", but you can't parallel a statement taken from a person, applied to a person, to statement regarding a group to a person.

Well since I didn’t understand what you were saying I had to ask. Asking questions, btw, does not mean I have a lack of thinking ability. It's been my experience that those afraid to ask questions (out of fear of looking stupid) are the quickest to fall behind in class.

You state I can't apply a statement about a person to a group. However I can take a common attribute of the group and apply it to each individual member of that group. For instance, the group “Every firstborn son of Egypt, from pharaoh to cattle” is going to have all firstborn sons and calves. The common attribute is “firstborn”. You would be correct in saying I can’t take an attribute (like 4 legs) from an individual member (cattle) and apply it to the group, because not everything in the group has 4 legs

If however we were to take the example found in Exodus 11:5 where it states “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die” and compare it to what is said of Jesus in Col 1:15, it makes perfect sense and destroys your argument that Jesus being the firstborn of creation in a temporal sense would mean that Jesus was an offspring of creation.

Well, I wasn’t claiming Jesus was an offspring of creation…I just wanted to be sure that wasn’t something you were claiming. But I think Exodus 11:5 will be an excellent scripture for us to compare with Col 1:15.

This is because we’re comparing the same principles applied to a group, namely Egypt, to another group, namely creation

. The statement “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die” doesn’t imply in any way, shape or form that every firstborn son in Egypt was the offspring of Egypt but rather that the firstborn sons were Egyptians. Likewise, Jesus being the firstborn of all creation doesn’t imply he was parented or the offspring of creation but rather was simply part of it.

You're now making up two different definitions for firstborn. One for Egypt, another for Creation. If the firstborn of Egypt simply means they were parented by Egyptians, then the firstborn of Creation means the same. You can't apply one set of criteria for Egypt and then apply different criteria for Creation. Be consistent NWT. Compare the same principles to Creation as you did Egypt. I like consistency in arguments.

We'll discuss these "groups" you call Jesus and Creation later.

Correct! If Jesus (as man) is preeminent among all who died, he of course would have had to die. As God He is preeminent (supreme; first in priority/order) over all things.

Simply no, God is not prototokos over all things, this statement is ridiculous. God cannot die, not even the least studied trinitarian would be foolish enough to make such a statement as they claim that Jesus divinity was not the thing that died, but rather, that it was his humanity that died. God CANNOT die, you just implied that he did so that he could be first in all things.[/quote]

Nah. Read what I wrote again NWT. I stated Jesus as a man died. I didn't say God died.

Could you show me a single example in the bible where someone is the firstborn of a group and they’re not part of the group they’re firstborn in/of?

I don’t see how this question helps anyone determine whether firstborn means offspring or priority

Of course you don't, you don't even fully grasp my argument.

Well I think this is obvious… which is why I’m asking you to explain it.

As I've already stated, to be firstborn of a group, regardless of what sense, be it temporal or in rank, you are always part of the group that your firstborn of. In Psalm 89:27 the firstborn sons of Egypt are Egyptians, the firstborn King was a King, Jesus the firstborn of the dead was dead, to be a firstborn kitten you need to be a kitten, to be the firstborn in your family I need to be a part of your family. I could you example after example and the result will always be the same, if you are firstborn of something, you are ALWAYS part of the group that you're firstborn of/in.

If you’re defining “firstborn” in terms of rank, I have no problem. If you define “firstborn” as “first created’ then the logic breaks down. If you define “firstborn” solely as “part of a group you’re born of/in” in the hope of satisfying a preconceived bias, then not only do I have a problem with it, but so won’t every reasonable Christian, Witness, and theologian on the planet (with the possible exception ofJames2ko).

So taking your example again, where firstborn means “part of a group you’re born of/in”, the firstborn sons of Egypt must have been part of Egyptians that can produce sons, the firstborn son of a King must be part of the King that can produce sons, the firstborn of the dead must be part of the dead that can produce prodigy, and the firstborn of creation must be part of creation that can produce a God like Jesus.

But that’s not the only problem. You defined both creation and Jesus as “groups”. Therefore there must be individual elements in the group called “Creation" producing male gods, just as there are individual elements in the group called Egypt producing male sons and cattle.

However, when I define prototokos as “preeminent”…first in priority and rank…all that goes away.

This is a universal rule and can be used in any example. There isn't a single example in history where someone/thing is firstborn of a group and they themselves are not part of the group. Thus, Jesus being the "firstborn of creation" would mean that he is part of creation.

It took me a little while to understand what you were saying here, but I graph arguments out, and now believe I understand your position. Unfortunately it presents a flaw that I’m hoping you can help us through.

You are correct in saying someone/thing is firstborn of a group they are part of that group. If we look at the graphic example I gave above, there must be common elements in order to be a member of that group, otherwise the individual element is not a member of the group. If no elements share a common element, then quite simply there is no group.

However, you’ve moved the focus from firstborn to parts. We are not discussing whether the son of Pharaoh is a part of Pharaoh. All the sons of Pharaoh, firstborn or not, including his daughters, can be considered a “part” or extension of Pharaoh.

The firstborn (sons) of Egypt are “part” of Egypt because Egypt (or one or more of its particular elements) is able to produce sons. Likewise, carrying your argument forward, the firstborn (Jesus) of creation is part of creation because creation (or one or more of its particular elements) is able to produce gods. The whole notion strikes me as absurd.

I suspect this is why the Watchtower (or anyone else) has refused to developed your particular theology…it just has too wide a hole. At least the Watchtower tried to patch it a bit with their “first created” business..

But there is another problem. God said “the firstborn of Egypt shall die…” If we define “firstborn” as you have…simply a part of a group… then all of Egypt would have perished. Why? Because the daughters of Egypt are part of Egypt, the cattle of Egypt are part of Egypt and so on. They are all part of the group called Egypt. So it wouldn’t have mattered whether they were temporally first or first by rank. They would have all died, and that my friend is a hole anyone with a large enough truck will drive through.

 

[Oeste]

Therefore I asked Yoshua to show me a single example of this taking place in the bible, if he could then his argument might hold some weight when applied to Col 1:15, he can't/hasn't so his point is void

If Yoshua applies prototokos as preeminent (which he has) then Jesus is considered preeminent (first in rank or order) over creation in the same way Egypt’s sons were preeminent (first in rank or order) over Egypt.

They may have been wondering why the question was asked. Albert Einstein might be considered the firstborn (preeminent) of scientists, but he would still be part of the group of scientists. No one here is claiming otherwise. Likewise since Christ is the preeminent of all those who have died, he is the firstborn of the dead, not the first offspring of the dead, because the dead don’t produce offspring any more than a created universe produced Jesus.

Again, the error you have here is thinking that my argument lies upon the word "firstborn" to mean that the person/group that the firstborn is of,is its parent and the firstborn its offspring. I've clearly demonstrated that this isn't the case and is your illogical error to assume such a thing.

Wow! Okay, but this is not how the Watchtower defines prototokos. Apparently there is some division amongst Jehovah Witnessess about the meaning of prototokos as HockeyCowboy and Jaegar readily agree with you. So while I think your definition is wrong, I must applaud your ability to do a little independent thinking.

.But let’s say you are correct, and we assume, just for the sake of argument, that Jesus is a created being. When I compare Exodus 11:5 with Col 1:15 I am still confronted with a problem.

[GALLERY=media, 7532]ScreenCap206 by Oeste posted Jun 24, 2016 at 3:43 AM[/GALLERY]​

The illustration shows that by using your definition of firstborn...part of/in a member of group...all the firstborn of Egypt would have died.

But there are more problems.

In ALL instances, when we have a created item, the created item is born from the group. Never is the group born from the created item. So the firstborn of Egypt means the firstborn sprung from the group Egypt, but it does not mean Egyptian fathers sprung from their firstborn. The Egyptian fathers had to be there first in order to produce firstborn(s).

The firstborn of Mary means the firstborn sprung from Mary, but not Mary from the firstborn. Mary had to be there first in order to produce a firstborn.

The firstborn of Kings means all firstborn sprung from Kings, but not the Kings from the firstborn. Again the Kings had to be there first.

Likewise the firstborn of creation would mean the firstborn (Jesus) sprung from creation, and not creation from Jesus. Creation had to be there first.

By definition to be firstborn of a group/person you by default have to be in/from that group/person.

Even when I insert your aberrant definition of “prototokos” it doesn’t help. Jesus (firstborn) simply becomes a “part” that sprung from the group (creation). So we have creation creating Jesus which is absurd, and the big hole that we drove a truck through earlier is now wide enough to support the 7th fleet. Jesus could never have created creation if he is a firstborn “part” of creation. The firstborn doesn’t create the group NWT, the group creates the firstborn.

James2ko says this all makes sense to him, so perhaps he can help explain this to us. I hear he’s very good with synonyms.

First you tell us a very knowledgeable poster doesn’t know much about scripture, and then you tell us the poster didn’t understand an article he read. If I were to make such a statement it would tell you a lot more about me than it would the poster.

Do you think it rude of me to point out that someone doesn't know scripture and that they don't understand an article, which is clearly wrong? I'm sure what it would communicate to people is that I either know more than the one who I claim "doesn't know scripture" or that I'm arrogant. As I've shown how the article WAS wrong I'm safe to say that I'm not the latter.

The article was not “clearly” wrong. In fact, it is clearly correct. However you declared Yoshua didn’t understand the article (when it was plain to me he did), gave your reasons, then proclaimed your logic “undeniable” for all the world to hear.

Such thinking reminds me of the Titanic crew member who told boarding passengers: “God Himself could not sink this ship!”

I expect all of us are going to disagree with someone, somewhere, on something at some time. As such, we’ll have generous opportunities to gleefully trash each other’s arguments in the polite, civilized, and respectful manner to which we have all become accustomed.

What's more civilized, telling someone they don't know scripture, or to say they dumb, stupid or any other label some people apply to ignorance?

Are you really asking me to choose between two spiritually immature and childish responses???