U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-26-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Cicero, NY
625 posts, read 1,605,615 times
Reputation: 221

Advertisements

Sorry I thought you were referencing something else
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2008, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Pleasant Shade Tn
2,214 posts, read 5,003,722 times
Reputation: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by antredd View Post
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.
Yes firstborn can mean many things. But all of them refer to being the result of someone else's labor...and therefor inferior in a number of respects. I did noT overlook what you said about Ephraim and have heard these arguments before when believers of the Trinity doctrine are presented w/ scriptures such as the one in Revelation. However, simply seeing that things were created 'thru' Jesus, makes it seem impossible to me that he could therefore be the ultimate source of that creation. Otherwise, it would seem rather redundant to use the terms 'through' AND 'for' in the same sentence of Colossians 1:16. (As far at the insertion of the word 'other' in the NWT, this word is included in brackets, which shows that while there is sound reason to believe the translation SHOULD include the word in the verse, not all translations do. However, there are those that do feel the word should be included and the NWT is respectful of this. The greek word here rendered 'all things' is 'pan'ta', and inflected form of 'pas'. At Luke 13:2, many translators render this same term as 'all other', 'any other', or 'anyone else'.) Also, the fact that the word firstborn is never ascribed to the Father or the Holy Spirit shows the definite distinction between these and the Son.

I appreciate your references to Mr Stewarts research and I've read this as well. One thing I agree about it the position of authority that Christ has throughout the book of Revelation, especially. However, this is in keeping w/ the fact that he has been 'given' that kingly authority by his father so it has not much bearing on my beliefs, since that position is God's to give. However, one thing I feel is very pertinent is that Christ is referred to as the 'beginning', such as in the three titles you referenced. No matter which way you slice it, 'beginning' does not apply to God. He had no beginning.

Jesus' subjection to his Father is a repeated theme throughout the gospel accounts. I especially appreciate the magnitute of this in Mark 13:32, which states that there are some things that are not known by Christ but are known by the Father. Therefore, my feelings that Jesus and God are not the same but are 'one' in purpose...in unity...still stand.

I believe the scriptures we referenced show that Christ was created. However, if you don't agree, then merely the word 'begotten' should serve to prove this. The defintion of begotten is 'to sire', 'to have been naturally fathered' or 'produced'. All of these words, by thesarus research, are linked to 'creation' and point to a source of life. The source of Jesus' life was God. Without God, Christ could not have come into existence.

Genesis 1:26 simply harmonizes w/ my feelings that Christ was there w/ his Father during the creation of the earth and that he had a direct hand in the creation process. All things were created 'through' him, right? So I believe God was talking to his Son in that verse. But yes, the angels were there as well so it could well have been a general statement to the entire assembly. Either way, I don't think it's meant to be confusing or point to a co-equality between the two-an idea that would be direct contradiction to Christ's own statement at John 14:28 which says that the Father is 'greater than I am'. So for me, that is one of many 'clinchers' that help to reach the conclusion that Christ was his father's creative 'hand', the one through which God brought us into existence. BUT HE IS NOT GOD.

I have spent alot of time on these boards in the last two weeks and I know my productivity has gone way down here at work. Therefore, I'm going to abandon the boards for a while. If you or anyone else cares to continue these discussions, intelligently of course, I'm happy to oblige. You may send me a private message and we can discuss any questions or thoughts that way.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 09:29 AM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,468,646 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrice View Post
Christ's crucifixion was the fulfillment of the OLd Testament. His crucifixion was going to restart the mechanism for the forgiveness of sins--which would mean no person would be going to Hell. And God, through this crucifixion, showed that God loved mankind so much he was willing to let his Son be killed for them. My question is why would Satan want any of these things? He wouldn't, and he would do everything in his power to prevent such an act from occurring--such as tempting Jesus, and Pilate's indecision( or doubt) in regards to this matter. If anything Jesus was born to be crucified for our sins--God's divine plan at work. And from this perspective Judas was fulfilling God's plan for both his son and mankind, God had hardened his heart like he had done to pharaoh. If this plan was thwarted then Jesus could not have fulfilled his first mission on this earth.
I am confused, if Jesus just had to die for us, then why go through ALL the agony. I mean Jesus was pretty much dead before they nailed Him to the tree. Why the punishment, the agony, why the Spiritual death. The bible said, Jesus didn't even look human, He was beaten so badly? Why didn't he just die. Wasn't God losing His Son in death enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Cicero, NY
625 posts, read 1,605,615 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
I am confused, if Jesus just had to die for us, then why go through ALL the agony. I mean Jesus was pretty much dead before they nailed Him to the tree. Why the punishment, the agony, why the Spiritual death. The bible said, Jesus didn't even look human, He was beaten so badly? Why didn't he just die. Wasn't God losing His Son in death enough?

Because God didn't choose Jesus' method of execution--the jews will through the romans did that. The outcome may have been Gods but the means was entirely mankinds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 10:19 AM
 
8,989 posts, read 12,468,646 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrice View Post
Because God didn't choose Jesus' method of execution--the jews will through the romans did that. The outcome may have been Gods but the means was entirely mankinds
The method of execution was the cross, but Jesus was pretty much dead before the cross and the spiritual death He suffered was way worse.

This is what we believe. God put Jesus on that tree. Jesus stepped in and paid our fine, Jesus took upon Him God's wrath that was really meant for us. It pleased God to see Jesus on the cross because God hates sin, therefore He must punish sin and since Jesus took on our sins, Jesus became sin and God had to punish sin which was Jesus. God punished Jesus badly so that we wouldn't have to go to hell for breaking His Laws, if we put our trust in Christ and receive His blood.. again a wrath that was meant for us.

Last edited by Fundamentalist; 10-27-2008 at 10:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008
The Jewish leaders would be a better term as all the Apostles, Disciples, and including the 144k were/are Jewish.

There's only one who comes to kill, steal, and destroy.
Do you know who that is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrice View Post
Because God didn't choose Jesus' method of execution--the jews will through the romans did that. The outcome may have been Gods but the means was entirely mankinds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2008, 11:45 PM
 
3,262 posts, read 5,112,674 times
Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by alicenevada View Post
Yes firstborn can mean many things. But all of them refer to being the result of someone else's labor...and therefor inferior in a number of respects. I did noT overlook what you said about Ephraim and have heard these arguments before when believers of the Trinity doctrine are presented w/ scriptures such as the one in Revelation. However, simply seeing that things were created 'thru' Jesus, makes it seem impossible to me that he could therefore be the ultimate source of that creation. Otherwise, it would seem rather redundant to use the terms 'through' AND 'for' in the same sentence of Colossians 1:16. (As far at the insertion of the word 'other' in the NWT, this word is included in brackets, which shows that while there is sound reason to believe the translation SHOULD include the word in the verse, not all translations do. However, there are those that do feel the word should be included and the NWT is respectful of this. The greek word here rendered 'all things' is 'pan'ta', and inflected form of 'pas'. At Luke 13:2, many translators render this same term as 'all other', 'any other', or 'anyone else'.) Also, the fact that the word firstborn is never ascribed to the Father or the Holy Spirit shows the definite distinction between these and the Son.

I appreciate your references to Mr Stewarts research and I've read this as well. One thing I agree about it the position of authority that Christ has throughout the book of Revelation, especially. However, this is in keeping w/ the fact that he has been 'given' that kingly authority by his father so it has not much bearing on my beliefs, since that position is God's to give. However, one thing I feel is very pertinent is that Christ is referred to as the 'beginning', such as in the three titles you referenced. No matter which way you slice it, 'beginning' does not apply to God. He had no beginning.

Jesus' subjection to his Father is a repeated theme throughout the gospel accounts. I especially appreciate the magnitute of this in Mark 13:32, which states that there are some things that are not known by Christ but are known by the Father. Therefore, my feelings that Jesus and God are not the same but are 'one' in purpose...in unity...still stand.

I believe the scriptures we referenced show that Christ was created. However, if you don't agree, then merely the word 'begotten' should serve to prove this. The defintion of begotten is 'to sire', 'to have been naturally fathered' or 'produced'. All of these words, by thesarus research, are linked to 'creation' and point to a source of life. The source of Jesus' life was God. Without God, Christ could not have come into existence.

Genesis 1:26 simply harmonizes w/ my feelings that Christ was there w/ his Father during the creation of the earth and that he had a direct hand in the creation process. All things were created 'through' him, right? So I believe God was talking to his Son in that verse. But yes, the angels were there as well so it could well have been a general statement to the entire assembly. Either way, I don't think it's meant to be confusing or point to a co-equality between the two-an idea that would be direct contradiction to Christ's own statement at John 14:28 which says that the Father is 'greater than I am'. So for me, that is one of many 'clinchers' that help to reach the conclusion that Christ was his father's creative 'hand', the one through which God brought us into existence. BUT HE IS NOT GOD.

I have spent alot of time on these boards in the last two weeks and I know my productivity has gone way down here at work. Therefore, I'm going to abandon the boards for a while. If you or anyone else cares to continue these discussions, intelligently of course, I'm happy to oblige. You may send me a private message and we can discuss any questions or thoughts that way.

I really appreciate the nice dialogue we are having. I am so happy to see that you can intelligently defend your position without being condescending toward me for my different belief from yours. You state that the "definition of begotten is 'to sire', 'to have been naturally fathered' or 'produced'. All of these words, by thesarus research, are linked to 'creation' and point to a source of life. The source of Jesus' life was God. Without God, Christ could not have come into existence."

I am sure you have looked up the Greek word for "(only) begotten," and it is 'monogenes'.
'Mono' translates 'single, unique, sole, singular' and speaks of nature, not birth.

'Genes' (genos) translates clan, offspring, house, genus, class, kind, family, progeny, sort, species, direct/collateral descent, tribe, race, stock, kin, and speaks of nature, not source.

In both words, we see that reference is to nature. Jesus, in my belief, is like his Father-God in nature (homoousios - being of one substance); not to be confused with the idea of 'homoiousious' that I have read in your Watchtower literature (being of a similar substance; being like the Father in substance only, but not in nature). If we look at the example of Abraham and Isaac, we see that Isaac became Abraham's 'only-begotten son' through birth. This means that, at some time, Isaac wasn't 'only-begotten' since he wouldn't have been born. Jesus never became because Jesus had always been - Jesus IS. We have only to read of Jesus identifying Himself with being just like his Father-God in John 8:58 where He speaks of Himself as the "I am"; a direct reference to Exodus 3:14, identifying Himself totally with God in substance and nature.

We can also see this idea reinforced in John 10:30, making it very clear that the Father and the Son are ONE, who have been there from the very beginning, Micah 5:2; John 1:1, 18; 17:5. Jesus has been set up from "everlasting" Proverbs 8:23, with His belief in the total unity and uniformity of Himself and the Father. Another way of looking at Jesus is clearly seeing that he's the only begotten of God in the sense that no other is. He's the way, the truth, and the life; and that he's unique in the sense that he is all that God is, and He alone is this.

We have only to look at expressions such as, "Alpha and Omega", "First and Last" and "Beginning and End" to realize that Isaac couldn't be compared with Jesus. It would be like comparing apples and oranges; or, more to the point, the Creator with the creature! In terms of the use of the expression 'Son' in "only-begotten Son", unlike Isaac, this doesn't speak of a second-generation essence, which has been generated in the form of a 'son', since there wasn't a time that Jesus wasn't the Son as the Father had always been the Father. Could this be said of Isaac, or any others for that matter? You make a very good point about when Christ is referred to as the 'beginning', such as in the three titles I referenced. No matter which way I slice it, 'beginning' does not apply to God. He had no beginning.

However, every time that Greek word for beginning (ARCHE) is used, it is used in the context of a title being given to Jesus-not in the context of Jesus having a created beginning from God. Jesus is called the Apha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the END. Each time we see the Greek word ARCHE, it 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. That was the main reason I quoted Stewart so that you could see how from the contexts of Colossians 1:15-19 and Rev 3:14 beginning in no way refers to Jesus having a starting point in the sense of being created by God.

Now going back to 'only begotten son.' We become 'sons' through adoption; Isaac became Abraham's 'only-begotten son' through birth and familial inheritance. Jesus had always been so couldn't become. His Sonship was natural (an affirmation of His deity or 'God' nature). This relationship is referred to as 'anthropomorphic', where the God nature is represented in human terms and characteristics. Charles C Ryrie (Basic Theology) refers to the Orientals and Ancient Semitics who saw in the term 'son' the idea of likeness and sameness of nature and equality of being. James Oliver Buswell in his, "A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 1:105", showed that the Ancients looked upon the use of the word 'son' not in the sense of subordination or inferiority but 'of the order of' - "sons (of the order) of the prophets" (1 Kings 20:35), "sons (of the order) of the singers" (Nehemiah 12:28).

Therefore, when one takes into account the differences between the examples of the Watchtower and their explanation of Jesus as "only-begotten Son" with Isaac as "only-begotten son" and that of the true nature of the eternal God, we can see that there can never be any realistic comparison between the two. The Christian God isn't a demi-god who partially bridged the gap between God and sinner, but God and Saviour Who was able to confidently proclaim in John 19:30, "It is finished" (Gr. 'tetelestai'- paid in full), after speaking to His Father and telling Him in John 17:4 that He (Jesus) had completed His task here for us, His creatures. If He were not fully God, then how was one sacrifice sufficient (Hebrews 10:10-13, 14)? What of our salvation through an imperfect and inferior 'god'?

Jesus never became, but IS. 'IS' in terms of His eternity; His sameness with the Father and of the same likeness as his father; His Godness; His identical, indivisible monadic, begotten Deity; both within Each Other as an inherent dwelling as both Brightness and Light, as the Father is to the Son and as the Son is to the Father. Jesus is truly the "only-begotten Son" and true God; both the Son of God and God the Son.

You state that "simply seeing that things were created 'thru' Jesus, makes it seem impossible to you that he could therefore be the ultimate source of that creation. Otherwise, it would seem rather redundant to use the terms 'through' AND 'for' in the same sentence of Colossians 1:16." I don't see how it would rather seem redundant to use the terms 'through' and 'for' in the same sentence since the whole verse is simply stating Jesus's supremacy over all creation. In other words, Paul makes it quite clear that ALL THINGS in heaven and on earth were created BY Jesus.

Now I don't understand how anyone can argue against ALL THINGS NOT BEING CREATED BY JESUS THERE. Then Paul clarifies all things by simply stating in the same verse whether they be visible or invisble, whether thrones or dominion, principalities or powers--ALL THINGS were created THROUGH him and For him. Paul again is letting the Colossians know no matter how you want to slice it, ALL CREATION CAME THROUGH JESUS, BY Jesus, and For Jesus. So Paul's redundancy is to illustrate why Jesus has Supremacy and Preeminence over all creation, and he even later sums up Jesus' Godship in Colossians 2:9 that for in him [Jesus] all the fullness of DEITY lives in bodily form.

Even the NWT has an asterisk next to divine quality, as translated in the NWT with a footnote that says Lit. "godship." I am not defending the Trinity, since the word Trinity is not in the bible. But, in my opinion only someone who is infinite God-the Son could bear the full penalty for all the sins of all those who would believe in him--any finite creature would have been incapable of bearing that penalty; salvation is from God, and the whole message of Scripture leans toward JESUS. No human being, no creature, could ever save man--only God Himself could; and only someone who is truly and fully God could be the one mediator between God and man-1Timothy2:5.

Last edited by antredd; 10-28-2008 at 12:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2008, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Cicero, NY
625 posts, read 1,605,615 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fundamentalist View Post
The method of execution was the cross, but Jesus was pretty much dead before the cross and the spiritual death He suffered was way worse.

This is what we believe. God put Jesus on that tree. Jesus stepped in and paid our fine, Jesus took upon Him God's wrath that was really meant for us. It pleased God to see Jesus on the cross because God hates sin, therefore He must punish sin and since Jesus took on our sins, Jesus became sin and God had to punish sin which was Jesus. God punished Jesus badly so that we wouldn't have to go to hell for breaking His Laws, if we put our trust in Christ and receive His blood.. again a wrath that was meant for us.
Which is why Satan would have been opposed to Jesus' crucifixtion
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2008, 01:01 AM
 
Location: Cicero, NY
625 posts, read 1,605,615 times
Reputation: 221
Quote:
Originally Posted by renriq02 View Post
The Jewish leaders would be a better term as all the Apostles, Disciples, and including the 144k were/are Jewish.

There's only one who comes to kill, steal, and destroy.
Do you know who that is?
You are right I should have used better terminology, actually I should have use Sanhedrin

As to the answer of your question, the answer is Satan, but not within the context of my answer to the question because A. Satan could not destroy the christ without human intervention, and B. The death of Jesus did not serve Satans will or plan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2008, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
5,137 posts, read 15,122,831 times
Reputation: 1008
1. You're giving too much credit to Satan
2. You're thinking that Satan knows the future
3. You're comparing Satan to God. God knows all...past, present, and future.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jrice View Post
You are right I should have used better terminology, actually I should have use Sanhedrin

As to the answer of your question, the answer is Satan, but not within the context of my answer to the question because A. Satan could not destroy the christ without human intervention, and B. The death of Jesus did not serve Satans will or plan
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top