Originally Posted by alicenevada
Wow, antredd-you really put alot of thought into that. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, I don't agree that Christ had no beginning. He was the 'beginning of the creation by God' which means, he had a beginning. He also was referred to as a 'firstborn'. Whichever way you slice it-the word 'born' means 'came into existence'. The word 'first' means before all things. Therefore these words cannot apply to God who has ALWAYS existed.
To me, the scriptures support the conclusion that God created Jesus and the heavenly creatures before he created the earth, with Christ as his master worker. It is a beautiful relationship, indeed. But not an equal or internal one. It's the relationship of father and son. Simple and concise.
Thanks Alicia for replying to my post. I thought I clearly showed that firstborn can mean first in rank, pre-eminent one, heir, and eldest child. I'm surprised you overlooked what I said about God calling Israel His firstborn son; Ephraim being called the firstborn when Scripture clearly teaches that Manasseh was the firstborn, and in Colossians 1:15 Jesus is called firstborn.
I was showing, from examining firstborn as used in Genesis 48:14, Exodus 4:22, and Colossians 1:15, that these Scriptures aren’t dealing literally with chronology of first, second, and third respectively or the first child born into a family. You stated the word 'born' means 'came into existence' and I agree with you. However, would you agree that in these three cases where we see firstborn, it doesn't fit your definition? The word 'first' means before all things. Also, firstborn in these three contexts deals with the direct result of becoming the pre-eminent one. Even if you read down to Colossians 1:18 it clearly teaches that Jesus is first in all things or have preeminence over all things simply because all things were created for, by, and through Him. Colossians 1:15-1:20 all deal with the suppremacy of Christ over all of creation. If he were created, then verse 16 blows that argument clearly out of the water, unless you're reading the NWT that inserts other after all in Colossians 1:16, and looking at any interlinear bible will clearly show that other was not in the original Greek text or manuscript.
I guess you are quoting from Revelation 3:14 where we read that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God".
The word "beginning" here is actually the Greek word "arche", which is where we get our word "architect". The word here can carry the meaning of "origin, source, chief, designer, architect", which shows that Jesus is the One Who is the ORIGIN of all creation, not a creation Himself.
What blew my mind was when I read James Stewart's commentary on Revelation 3:14, and his finding that when we look at the occurrences of ARCHE in the Bible, ARCHE always signifies primacy, whether in time "beginning, " "principium" or in rank" "power," "dominion," "office."
He notes that Rev 3:14 needs to be put in the context of the entire book of Revelation. He lists other places in Revelation where Jesus is called the ruler ARCHON over the Earth's Kings, and how ARCHON overlaps in meaning with ARCHE as can be seen from checking other lexicons.
Stewart also makes an interesting point in that whenever ARCHE refers to a person (ONLY A PERSON CAN BE RULERS), IT ALMOST ALWAYS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH RULE, DOMINION , OR AUTHORIITY OF SOME TYPE. He clearly shows how just from simply looking at the CONTEXT of Rev: 3:14, one would see that the word means ruler instead of beginning.
The clincher for me was Stewart's point about Rev. 3:14 listing three ACTIVE TITLES for Jesus.
These three titles listed in Rev. 3:14 are:
1. THE AMEN
2. The Faithful and True Witness
3. The Beginning ( other possible meanings--origin, source, chief, designer, or architect) over God's creation.
Just from reading the parallelism of the titles suggests that John also meant Jesus to be the origin, source, chief, designer, ruler or architect) over God's creation.
Again, it now becomes even clearer from reading Rev 3:14 and other places in the bible that Jesus isn't a created being. No where in Scripture does it even DIRECTLY teach that Jesus was created by his father. He is begotten, but not created, and begotten doesn't mean created.
If anything, Scripture proves that Jesus, who was right there with his Father, played an active COEQUAL role in creation. If you find yourself disagreeing with me, read Genesis 1:26 where it says Let US make man in our Image
. Who was God talking to in Genesis 1:26? Couldn't have been the angels right?
Therefore, Jesus was right there with God, and as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 clearly teach ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM [JESUS], AND APART FROM HIM [JESUS] NOT ONE THING WAS CREATED THAT HAS BEEN CREATED
. I love that verse that says and apart from Him not one thing that was created has been created
. To me that's the clincher, PROVING WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT ,THAT JESUS WAS NOT CREATED.