The pre-creation existence of Jesus

reply to post by NOTurTypical

"Firstborn" in Hebrew is not the same thing as "Firstborn" in English. In Hebrew it basically means "greatest born". David was called the "firstborn", but he was the youngest of his siblings.

David was still born, or does your concept of it being an analogy go further?
Maybe instead of concentrating on the meaning of "first born", you could go back and study about what it means to be born.
Do you have another formula to explain that away? Or is that included in the first, that not only was Christ not the first, but he was not born, either?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Not sure what you're getting at, I know David was born. I also know David was called the "firstborn" in the Bible as well, but we all know he was the youngest of his brothers. So, when deciphering what this means in the Hebrew culture, "firstborn" can mean both "born first in order", or "greatest born".

You and I speak English, grew up in the English-speaking American culture. However, if we TRULY want to step into the mind of the Hebrews and their culture we need to understand the context of what they said/thought et cetra.

Jesus Christ was half man, half God while He walked the Earth. His mother was 100% human from the line of David, and His Father was Jehovah conceived by the Holy Spirit while Mary was a virgin.

That's why the Bible says there are MANY 'sons of God' (Adam, David), but there is only ONE "begotten Son of God" (Jesus Christ), in the Bible.

We cannot begin to understand what Hebrews said and what these words mean by making their words/thoughts fit into an English language/mindset only. We need to first educate ourselves to their way of speaking/thinking to grasp what they said.

It's called a "Hebraism".

"There exist in the Hebrew language numerous idiomatic terms that don't translate easily to more widely used languages. To the extent those broader cultures rely for cultural meaning on Hebrew-language-based scriptures, those idioms sometimes prove puzzling."

Hebraism - Wiki

Hebraisms of the Bible

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Not sure what you're getting at, I know David was born. I also know David was called the "firstborn" in the Bible as well, but we all know he was the youngest of his brothers. So, when deciphering what this means in the Hebrew culture, "firstborn" can mean both "born first in order", or "greatest born".

What is your working definition for being born?

You and I speak English, grew up in the English-speaking American culture. However, if we TRULY want to step into the mind of the Hebrews and their culture we need to understand the context of what they said/thought et cetra.

OK. And how do you propose we do that?

Jesus Christ was half man, half God while He walked the Earth. His mother was 100% human from the line of David, and His Father was Jehovah conceived by the Holy Spirit while Mary was a virgin.

I don't mean to sound trite, but do you have any Bible references supporting those ideas? ( I guess, specifically, the half and half thing)

That's why the Bible says there are MANY 'sons of God' (Adam, David), but there is only ONE "begotten Son of God" (Jesus Christ), in the Bible.

Keep in mind this phrase, Only Begotten. What does that mean?

We cannot begin to understand what Hebrews said and what these words mean by making their words/thoughts fit into an English language/mindset only. We need to first educate ourselves to their way of speaking/thinking to grasp what they said.

So your remedy is to use someone else' formula?


[edit on 22-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, to say otherwise is heresy and damnation.

1 John 4:2-3

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

This verse is not talking about how Christ walked the Earth (is come in the flesh), this is talking about his work after his resurrection, how he dwells in us, in our flesh. The word translated as "come" is a middle voice , present progressive word. It would be more accurate to say "is coming" or "continuing to come" in our flesh, and we confess this by how we live. That is why it says those who do not confess/profess this are anti-christ, they are resiting the spirit of God to dwell in them through Christ, they are against it. It is just like how most Christians believe we are saved by Christ's death, when that is simply the beggining, which reconciles us to God. It is his living in us, his life, that converts and saves us...

Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Even the demons will acknowledge that Christ came in the flesh, but they are still anti-christ because they resist Christ. 99.9% of Atheists are not antichrist, because to be against Christ, you have to know Christ, you have to have once had God's spirit, that is why I laugh when I hear all these theories about a single end-time antichrist, To be antichrist, John shows you have to have once been in the church of God, and learned the truth,

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time. And just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have risen up, from which we know that it is the last hour.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they were of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out so that it might be revealed that they were not all of us.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
That should be sufficient, or at least you would think so.
The person, Jesus did not exist before the Nativity.
Something did exist before that, that had the "form" of god.
Whatever that was, "became" a person, Jesus.
Jesus was "of" God, and a "fullness of god" was in him, but that is not the same as "being" God, in totality.

I think the main difference between our beliefs is that you are left with not much of an option, other than (whatever that thing was, that became Jesus) was created out of nothing. I happen to feel free enough to think that it could have been a part of God (though it is impossible to know how that works, us being mortal), thus a truly "begotten" thing.

what your saying flys in the face of logic.

"firstborn of all creation"

even jesus said that "before abraham, i have been"

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
"Firstborn" in Hebrew is not the same thing as "Firstborn" in English. In Hebrew it basically means "greatest born". David was called the "firstborn", but he was the youngest of his siblings.

""FIRSTBORN"

In biblical times the oldest son, or the "first-born," was a V.I.P. in that he was honoured and enjoyed special privileges that were not extended to any of his siblings (Deuteronomy 21:17). So it became customary to use the term "first-born" to denote pre-eminence in rank. For instance, in Exodus 4:22, God refers to the nation of Israel as His first-born, to make the point that they were honoured above all the other nations, as they were His chosen people. And in Psalm 89:27, He says of David, "I also shall make him My first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth." But David was not God's oldest child. Nor was he the first born child in his own family. He was the youngest. He wasn't even the first king of Israel, Saul was. God was merely using the term "first-born" to emphasize the point that He was going to make David the most honoured out of all the earthly kings.

lol, listen to what you are posting.

you claim jesus is God and God is jesus, yet you are presenting information that show jesus' honored position AMOUNG all creation?

you are quick to dismiss col 1:15, but how does your definition fit with rev 3:14 were jesus is called "the beginning of the creation of God"

there are 2 (not 1) scriptures that help us to see what is going on.

your definition doesnt fit rev 3:14. your reasoning forces the reader to choose with scripture they are to believe in.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

What is your working definition for being born?

My English only definition is the common knowledge one. How we came into this world, by birth of our mother. In Biblical terms is can mean the exact same, example: Jesus was born of Mary the virgin, and it also means as in "firstborn" with David. he was not the firstborn son of his father he was the youngest son, but he was the "chiefborn" or "preeminentborn" of his father at the same time, his "greatest" born son. Both definitions apply in Hebrew language, but not English, we don't speak that way today.

OK. And how do you propose we do that?

I already posted a few links, just simply read about different "Hebraisms" and note the different meanings they had for these words. Click the links and read wheat a "Hebraism" is and what these dual-terms mean.

I don't mean to sound trite, but do you have any Bible references supporting those ideas? ( I guess, specifically, the half and half thing)

Mary conceived a son while she was a virgin, she was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not a man. She was Jesus's mother, yet Joseph was Jesus's parent, not father. Jesus's father was Jehovah, God.

Keep in mind this phrase, Only Begotten. What does that mean?

I will 'keep in mind' if you keep in mind this: "only begotten" is ALSO a Hebraism. The Bible both says so and so begat so and so, however, just like "firstborn" the Hebraism "only begotten" signifies also "special and unique" or "most important, above all others" Example:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. Hebrews 11:17-19

Issac was not Abraham's only son, he also was not Abraham's first born son, Ishmael was Abraham's first born son. He was however Abraham's "firstborn" and "only begotten" son (chief, most important).

It's imperative we understand Hebraisms since our bible comes from the Hebrew language.

So your remedy is to use someone else' formula?

Sorta, to understand what these men wrote on paper, we need to understand what they thought, spoke. Their terms are different than what we as western English-speaking people think/speak sometimes, we have to educate ourselves to their culture and terms to accurately understand whet they were saying.

reply to post by miriam0566

what your saying flys in the face of logic.

"firstborn of all creation"

even jesus said that "before abraham, i have been"

Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’.(NIV)
It says here that Adam and Eve were the beginning of creation.
I think the time thing is irrelevant with God.
The import thing to look at, from my point of view, is the "begotten" thing.
What does that mean?
No one seems to want to deal with that, other than to explain it away as a "Hebraism", in a Greek New Testament.
To me, the only thing that would explain being begotten is that Something (not really a thing) that was part of God developed into a person. (understanding that God is not a physical person Himself)


[edit on 23-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

The only begotten son is God.
Just as the quran says.
The son of man will be glorified,
there he becomes the father as son as father.
There is only one son, it is god.
That son exsisted before times, as all times.
God has many faces, in one will they are all.

Part of the son of man was destined,
that part exsisted also before time as promise to be one.
Jesus was in destiny to grow into one,
and that one was before jesus, even when lives as jesus outside our time.

The stars were made for you.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by pasttheclouds]

reply to post by jmdewey60


Wow, you put "Hebraism" in parenthesis as if what i said is irrelevant, when it fact it is of extreme importance when we are trying to put ourselves into the mind of a Hebrew writing in Hebrew.

That's being willfully ignorant on the matter.

When scripture says Christ was the first born of all creation, let scripture interpret scripture....

Colossians 1:18 And 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.

God is creating a spiritual family, this is the main point of creation, this IS the creation, and Christ was the firstborn into that creation, being firstborn from the dead, into eternal life, into the family of God.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Wow, you put "Hebraism" in parenthesis as if what i said is irrelevant, when it fact it is of extreme importance when we are trying to put ourselves into the mind of a Hebrew writing in Hebrew.

That's being willfully ignorant on the matter.

The New Testament was written in Greek.
You were quoting the New Testament.
Or did you not notice.
Words mean things. (to quote Rush Limbaugh)
You are not the only person who does this and other people do it. You say, "this is an inseparable clause". Meaning, that "it can only be understood as a unit, including more than one word, which has an entirely different meaning than what the individual words imply."
So you decide what is or is not an "inseparable clause" and assign the meaning of your choice to it, and totally ignore the actual words in that make-believe clause.
The work of Satan, I say and run away from those people and stop posting links to their heresy.
Do you want to go to hell?

[edit on 23-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by jmdewey60


The Word of god calls David "firstborn" in the OT. The Word of God calls Issac Abraham's "only begotten" son in the OT.

yes, the New testament was in fact written in Greek, however every single author of those books other than Luke was a JEW. A Hebrew, a person familiar with their Hebraisms and cultures.

So you are throwing up a red herring to the truth I presented to you, we cannot fully understand their context unless we educate ourselves to the DUALITY of their words and phrases.

It's intellectual rape to do so, to conform them to our way of thinking when we are the AUDIENCE and they are the TEACHERS.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I totally agree with you on the "only begotten" and "firstborne" thing and your explanation of Abraham's "Only Begotten" son "Isaac" is a great example. Indeed, Abraham had a first son named Ishmael who started a branch in the Abrahamic religions that would become Islam. Isaac, the 2nd born son of Abraham was the son promised the inheritence that God promised to Abraham. I'd star your posts if I could.

reply to post by Locoman8


I appreciate your intellectual honesty. And I don't intent to claim others who disagree are somehow dumb, I'm merely trying to help folk understand that it's imperative to understand the Hebrews before we can understand their God and His Word.

The failure to understand their Hebraisms has been a great stumbling block over the centuries to a great number of people and I pray that we can move past this apparent contradiction.

Anyone who calls on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved is my brother.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The failure to understand their Hebraisms has been a great stumbling block over the centuries to a great number of people and I pray that we can move past this apparent contradiction.

rev 3:14 "the beginning of the creation of God"

is that a hebraism?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Here's a Hebraism for first born:

Ezekiel 20:26
פֶּ֣טֶר ....... pe•ter ........ openeth
רָ֑חַם ...... ra•cham; .... the womb

If Paul was using a Hebraism, he would say something like,". . . and Jesus was the opener of the womb".
There is no legitimate claim by recognised linguists that say that Paul, by saying First Born, was using a Hebraism. That is not one.
So my argument is not over whether Paul was using a certain Hebraism when he said, first born. My argument is that there is no such recognised Hebraism like that, or is it anywhere described as such. (except for whoever it is you are quoting, and I would like to know what his credentials are that qualify him to make that unique determination)


[edit on 24-10-2009 by jmdewey60]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What's up bro!
I have claimed Christ as my Savior. Just need a baptism and I'm set.

reply to post by Locoman8


You have in the past? Or you just did tonight????

And remember, a baptism is only an outward sign to other brothers and sisters in Christ that you have accepted the Lord and Savior. Any man who calls on the Lord for salvation is m,y brother! And any woman my Sister.

Jesus calls us friends of Him.

How exciting is that? The Lord calls us His friends!