Jesus - First Born?

[Brian2]

The uncreated Spirit realm is called ‘Heaven’.

And going to state this before you ask: ‘HEAVEN’ is not ‘HEAVENS’.

‘Heavens’ is the sky (Solar system), the galactic arena, and the universe as a whole.

So, no! God did not ‘Create HEAVEN’!

Creation is a material world (space earth) and limited by laws - laws of Physics… bounded, measurable and limited.

But angels and the like have been created, yes?

 

[Soapy]

But angels and the like have been created, yes?

Angels are created by God.

However, Angels are Spirit only. They are not Material creations.

 

[idea]

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

Yet, in the same trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was never born because he is God, who is not a creation!

Are these two contradictory claims from one belief system?

Adam was the first born.

 

[Brian2]

Angels are created by God.

However, Angels are Spirit only. They are not Material creations.

True angels are spirits which have been created for Jesus, just as the physical creation is created for Jesus.
Col 1:15 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.

 

[Soapy]

True angels are spirits which have been created for Jesus, just as the physical creation is created for Jesus.
Col 1:15 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.

No, Brian2. Angels were created by God, for God’s purpose in managing the varied aspects of the created world and for ministering to humanity.

It is after Jesus has ventured into and completes the mission that God sent him, dies, is raised up to glory in Heaven, and brings a close to the age, does that God gives him the angels as his own (Matthew 13:41)

But till then, the angels are the ownership of God, not Jesus:

• “Of the angels he says, “He [God] makes his [God] angels winds, and his [God] ministers a flame of fire.”” (Hebrew 1:7)
• ‘Do you not know that I could call on my Father and he would send me a legion of angels …’ (Matt 26:53)

In Luke 4: 9-12, the Devil dares Jesus to jump off the high place to TEST THAT GOD would send HIS (God’s) angels to save Jesus. Jesus retorts that it is not good to test that God would send His angels. It’s not Jesus calling his angels!

• “For it is written: “’He [God] will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully;” (Luke 4:10)

It is not said that Jesus would call angels to his aid - but rather, that his Father (God) who owns them, would send them to aid Jesus if Jesus called upon his spiritual Father.

I’m sure you know that and have read that!

 

[Oeste]

• Jesus though did originate from heaven, and knew the difference. He had been a spirit being, and had supported his Father’s creative works.
  • (Proverbs 8:23-31) 23 From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. 24 When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water. 25 Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, 26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil. 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters, 28 When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep, 29 When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth, 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time; 31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men.

This latter quote, from the prophet Solomon, does not claim that Jesus created anything but was a ‘worker’ next to God. A claim that ‘Jesus created all things’ cannot be substantiated by this. And, is another nail in the coffin of the claims of Trinitarians.

Hi Soapy,

Did you forget?

Earlier you cited this post from Quora, and claimed Psalm 8:23-31 shows Jesus was created and "installed" as Lady Wisdom. who was then brought forth by God.

I am still wondering why you believe Jesus was created as a woman, and when this created Jesus transitioned into a man.

Also, does this mean that Eve was not actually the first created woman, but Jesus?

 

[Soapy]

Hi Soapy,

Did you forget?

Earlier you cited this post from Quora, and claimed Psalm 8:23-31 shows Jesus was created and "installed" as Lady Wisdom. who was then brought forth by God.

I am still wondering why you believe Jesus was created as a woman, and when this created Jesus transitioned into a man.

Also, does this mean that Eve was not actually the first created woman, but Jesus?

You are still trying to say I said it. But worst than that - you are using cynicism and sarcasm because you’ve nowhere else to go!

You are knowingly trying to make a claim on me because you fear the uncovering of trinity fallacy.

What I presented was TRINITY CLAIMS that Jesus was born : BEGOTTEN OF GOD FROM BEFORE THE AGES!

You are desperate to say that is MY CLAIM… why?

((No need to answer as I said if already!!))

 

[Eli G]

Hi Soapy,

Did you forget?

Earlier you cited this post from Quora, and claimed Psalm 8:23-31 shows Jesus was created and "installed" as Lady Wisdom. who was then brought forth by God.

I am still wondering why you believe Jesus was created as a woman, and when this created Jesus transitioned into a man.

Also, does this mean that Eve was not actually the first created woman, but Jesus?

That is ridiculous.

Even in the NT Jesus is called "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) ... If the wisdom is a lady in Hebrew, is it a lady in Greek too? Did you see how ridiculous is that argument?

Many Biblical Scholars, even Catholic, acknowledge that the Wisdom in Prov.8 is a metaphorical representation of Jesus Christ himself. Catholic Bibles even include footnotes identifying Jesus as the wisdom here in this passage and other Protestants theologians and translations do the same.

 

[Eli G]

Talking about Jesus as FIRST in various things is not something new.

When Paul wrote about the headship of Jesus to the Christians in Colossae, he pointed out that it was not a "headship" in the sense of being the agent, but in another sense:

Col. 1:18 (...) so that he might become the one who is first in all things.

That Greek word meaning "first" is not a word for chief or head, but it is the term signaling the first one in a line, the ordinal number. So Jesus is part of what comes later, not the agent who made appear the rest. The Agent was his Father, as we learn when we read more about Jesus' resurrection and his brothers who become like him, after him ... like here:

Hb. 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song.”

Actually, never in the Scriptures it is said that verything was created BY Jesus, but THROUGH Jesus, and there is a big diference among BY and THROUGH.

 

[Soapy]

That is ridiculous.

Even in the NT Jesus is called "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) ... If the wisdom is a lady in Hebrew, is it a lady in Greek too? Did you see how ridiculous is that argument?

Many Biblical Scholars, even Catholic, acknowledge that the Wisdom in Prov.8 is a metaphorical representation of Jesus Christ himself. Catholic Bibles even include footnotes identifying Jesus as the wisdom here in this passage and other Protestants theologians and translations do the same.

Oh, it’s ok! Trinitarians get like that when they lose a debate! I’ve seen it over and over and just take it in my stride.

 

[Soapy]

Talking about Jesus as FIRST in various things is not something new.

When Paul wrote about the headship of Jesus to the Christians in Colossae, he pointed out that it was not a "headship" in the sense of being the agent, but in another sense:

Col. 1:18 (...) so that he might become the one who is first in all things.

That Greek word meaning "first" is not a word for chief or head, but it is the term signaling the first one in a line, the ordinal number. So Jesus is part of what comes later, not the agent who made appear the rest. The Agent was his Father, as we learn when we read more about Jesus' resurrection and his brothers who become like him, after him ... like here:

Hb. 2:10 For it was fitting that the one for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the Chief Agent of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both the one who is sanctifying and those who are being sanctified all stem from one, and for this reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 as he says: “I will declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will praise you with song.”

Actually, never in the Scriptures it is said that verything was created BY Jesus, but THROUGH Jesus, and there is a big diference among BY and THROUGH.

Ah, now you hit in the main point: Remember that these are TRINITARIANS - It’s their ‘DUTY’ to attempt to find a way to poke trinity into an area which expressly declares GOD (or the Father) as the sole arbiter. Thus, the words, ‘THROUGH WHOM’ were ‘ADDED’ by the Trinitarian translators … Do you see that they are an ADD ON piece of text… FORCED INTO the verses.

The creation was indeed ‘FOR HIM’… that is, whomever was ‘Son of God’ pertaining to humanity (since indeed there are many Angel/Spirit Sons of God) but expressly the one whom the Father loved the most: The most Beloved - which is the definition of ‘FIRSTBORN’ (different from ‘FIRST BORN’ (which is a chronological begetting). Note that the first male child of an Israelite Father in the days was also the most beloved since ‘He opened the womb’. But the first born most often appears to sin - and ANOTHER IS BROUGHT UP IN POSITION OF LOVE TO REPLACE HIM ‘as MOST BELOVED’. Search the scriptures and see it in action:

• Adam
• Cain
• Ishmael
• Esau
• …Joseph’s eldest brother
• … David’s eldest brother
• … even the Ephraim and Judah

Yes, Adam, first born sinless human… sinned - Jesus, second born sinless man: the LAST ADAM - replaces the first born Adam as most beloved of God (indeed, would God not have loved his ‘IMAGE’ at his creation and until his creation rebelled and sinned?)

God, the Father (Father means ‘Creator’; ‘Bringer into being’; ‘Life giver’) made the world to be ruled over by a Son of creation. It was made FOR the Son whom God loved the most… but Trinitarians NEED to say what they say but disregard ALL REASONING as to why ‘Jesus - their GOD’ would desire so much to rule over CREATION… which is a hugely tiny entity in relation to HEAVEN (which it is said he rules over already!) No! To say that Jesus desired rulership over ‘his own creation’ even though he is GOD who can creation a zillion WORLDS, is a DEMOTION of rulership. And not only that but yet again it DISTINGUISHES Jesus as a Material-minded ‘GOD from the trinity belief of a Spiritual God! And separates ‘Jesus -God’ out of the ‘Three person God’… two person God who rule Heaven while Jesus rules over creation….

It’s no wonder Trinitarians NEVER discuss the purpose of Jesus desiring rulership over creation!!

WHY OH WHY is this so hard to understand - I know why….!!!!

 

[Oeste]

That is ridiculous.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Even in the NT Jesus is called "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24) ...

That is correct.

If the wisdom is a lady in Hebrew, is it a lady in Greek too?

Absolutely! If Jesus is a woman when we read about her in Hebrews, then she should be a woman when we read about her in Greek. Conversely, if Jesus is a man when we read about him in Greek, then he should also be a man when we read about him in Hebrew.

I see no reason to switch genders when reading from Hebrew to Greek, and there is no indication that having or lacking wisdom changes your sex or sexual orientation.

Provers 8 is definitely describing a woman, and not a man, so the woman in Proverbs cannot possibly be Jesus, unless Jesus at some point transitioned from female to male.

Any such transition, as you say, is ridiculous, which is why we know the wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a an ecomium, and not evidence Jesus was created.

Did you see how ridiculous is that argument?

Yes, which is why I was waiting for @Soapy or anyone who believes Proverbs 8 shows a created Jesus to kindly explain to readers when Jesus made this supposed transition from woman to man.

@Soapy's has made it clear that he will or cannot ability make any such explanation.

 

[Soapy]

Yes, which is why I was waiting for @Soapy or anyone who believes Proverbs 8 shows a created Jesus to kindly explain to readers when Jesus made this supposed transition from woman to man.

@Soapy's has made it clear that he will or cannot ability make any such explanation.

Soapy is not a trinitarian.

Soapy posted Trinitarians claims - Claims they use in debate and in their preaching BUT deny when contested.

Oeste knows this and is trying to claim that Soapy made the claims that Soapy posted as evidence of what Trinitarians say.

Soapy does not claim anything to do with Jesus being born before the ages nor obvious that Jesus made the world.

Soapy claims that Jesus DID NOT create the world NOR was pre-existent before the ages.

Soapy claims that the Father; YHWH, the only true God of the Israelites, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, the holy prophets, Jesus Christ… made all things FOR THE SON OF MAN WHOM HE LOVED THE MOST (FIRSTBORN) whom He, God will APPOINT AS HEIR, THE RULER OVER ALL CREATION:

• “He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father. Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.’”

 

[amazing grace]

True angels are spirits which have been created for Jesus, just as the physical creation is created for Jesus.
Col 1:15 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.

In the context of the verses you quoted from Col. 1 - Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (v18).

 

[Soapy]

True angels are spirits which have been created for Jesus, just as the physical creation is created for Jesus.
Col 1:15 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.

Angels Created FOR Jesus?

Physical Creation FOR Jesus?

Cart before the horse scenario!!

But at least you didn’t say that Jesus created the angels and the physical world.

GOD created the angels to aid him in His great work and to oversee the ‘stations’ over the world, like every large human organisation with heirarchial orders of administration - we are , after all, ‘Image of God’!!

The Son, the MOST BELOVED of God, whomever it turned out to be - The world was created for him!! A physical human image of God ruling a physical world… God, the creator, remaining as ruler over the Spirit world.

 

[Oeste]

Soapy is not a trinitarian.

FINALLY!

We have something we can agree on Soapy. The earth didn't shake, the heavens didn't roll.

In fact, agreeing on this very important fact wasn't all that hard, was it?

Soapy posted Trinitarians claims -

Soapy did not post "Trinitarian claims". Soapy posted what Soapy thought were Trinitarian claims. Unfortunately, Soapy appears unable to distinguish what he thinks are "Trinitarian claims" from actual claims made by Trinitarian doctrine. This is why Oeste has asked Soapy, on numerous occasions, to post the source of his so-called "Trinitarian claims".

Oeste knows this and is trying to claim that Soapy made the claims that Soapy posted as evidence of what Trinitarians say.

Oeste knows "what the Trinity doctrine claims" and "what Soapy claims it claims" don't actually jibe.

Oeste also knows that Soapy does not speak for Trinitarians. Rather the doctrine speaks for itself. So when Soapy says "Trinitarians believe..." it should be taken with a massive dose of salt, because Soapy has shown he does not check his sources to see if what he claims Trinitarians believe is something Trinitarians actually do believe.

Soapy does not claim anything to do with Jesus being born before the ages nor obvious that Jesus made the world.

Soapy claims that Jesus DID NOT create the world NOR was pre-existent before the ages.

Soapy claims that the Father; YHWH, the only true God of the Israelites, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, the holy prophets, Jesus Christ… made all things FOR THE SON OF MAN WHOM HE LOVED THE MOST (FIRSTBORN) whom He, God will APPOINT AS HEIR, THE RULER OVER ALL CREATION:

• “He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your father. Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.’”

Well there you go Soapy!

You've made your Christology clear. You are an ADOPTIONIST.

Why didn't you just say so?

Adoptionism is a minority Christian belief that Jesus was born merely human and that he became divine—adopted as God's son—later in his life. By these accounts, Jesus earned the title Christ through his sinless devotion to the will of God, rather than be his pre-existent status as the eternally begotten Son of God. Adoptionists typically portray either Jesus' baptism or his resurrection, or both, as the key moment(s) in the process of his divinization. Source​

Adoptionism is considered a heresy, argued and condemned at the the Council of Nicaea in 325. Today there are many variants of Adoptionism, but the core tenants of the original heresy remain: Jesus was human and nothing more, had nothing to do with mankind's creation, and was "noticed" and "adopted" as God's "firstborn" because he was leading a sinless life.

In any event, it appears we will be waiting forever for you to source your so-called claims on what Trinitarians actually believe. As such, I don't see where readers have much choice then to conclude your statements about Trinitarians were manufactured out of thin air.

 

[Brian2]

In the context of the verses you quoted from Col. 1 - Jesus is the firstborn from the dead (v18).

Yes Jesus is the first one to come back to life as an immortal human.

 

[Brian2]

Angels Created FOR Jesus?

Physical Creation FOR Jesus?

Cart before the horse scenario!!

But at least you didn’t say that Jesus created the angels and the physical world.

GOD created the angels to aid him in His great work and to oversee the ‘stations’ over the world, like every large human organisation with heirarchial orders of administration - we are , after all, ‘Image of God’!!

The Son, the MOST BELOVED of God, whomever it turned out to be - The world was created for him!! A physical human image of God ruling a physical world… God, the creator, remaining as ruler over the Spirit world.

Col 1: 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.

That quote does mean that Jesus existed before everything else and everything else was created in or through Him and for Him.
What do you think it means when it says everything was created in/through Him?
What do you think it means when it says everything was created for Him? (including the invisible things in heaven)

 

[amazing grace]

Yes Jesus is the first one to come back to life as an immortal human.

Yep - Jesus was raised immortal and became a life giving, i.e. the last Adam became a life giving spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45b ESV)

 

[Eli G]

I couldn't agree with you more.


That is correct.



Absolutely! If Jesus is a woman when we read about her in Hebrews, then she should be a woman when we read about her in Greek. Conversely, if Jesus is a man when we read about him in Greek, then he should also be a man when we read about him in Hebrew.

I see no reason to switch genders when reading from Hebrew to Greek, and there is no indication that having or lacking wisdom changes your sex or sexual orientation.

Provers 8 is definitely describing a woman, and not a man, so the woman in Proverbs cannot possibly be Jesus, unless Jesus at some point transitioned from female to male.

Any such transition, as you say, is ridiculous, which is why we know the wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a an ecomium, and not evidence Jesus was created.



Yes, which is why I was waiting for @Soapy or anyone who believes Proverbs 8 shows a created Jesus to kindly explain to readers when Jesus made this supposed transition from woman to man.

@Soapy's has made it clear that he will or cannot ability make any such explanation.

Oh, Lord, you reconfirm yourself ...

Let me explain it to you in a diferent way: in Italian and also in Spanish most objects have gender (a grammatical gender), and that is something that does not happen in English ... Think in a flower, for example. A flower is an object that has not gender in English, so it is Neuter; BUT in Spanish the word for flower which is FLOR has a feminine gender and if you want to add an article or adjective to the noun FLOR in Spanish, it must be feminine also, to agree with the gender of the noun ... YET in Italian, the flower is Masculine ( IL FIORE) , so you cann't use neuter or feminine articles or adjectives with it, but Masculine ones.

Look:

English: the flower (Neuter)
Spanish: la flor (Feminine)
Italian: il fiore (Masculine)

Let's go farther: if I impersonated a flower in Italian, most likely I would impersonate it as a boy or a man, dressed like a man and with a masculine voice, because the Italian public would have no problem assimilating the mental image of the object FLOWER as a male... but if I do it in Spanish, I cann't represent the flower as a male, because for the Spanish-speaker the flower is a feminine object, so it would have to be represented as a delicate girl, with a skirt and a feminine voice. You understand? The same object with a diferent gender representation due to the image that the features of the specific language project in the minds of its speakers.

The Wisdom in Pro.8 is a metaphor; Is it a feminine metaphor? Yes, it is, but it's just a metaphor. Can't Scripture use a metaphor for a "female" gendered quality as the personification of a male? It is a metaphor, not about feminizing what it represents.

Read again:

1 Cor. 1:24 (...) Christ is (...) the wisdom of God.

Does this text say that Jesus is Feminine because he is the wisdom of God? (WISDOM is feminine in Greek as it is in Hebrew)