It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question for Trinitarians.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I want you to know,
I am 100% daughter
I am 100% mother
I am 100% woman
I am 100% human
I am 100% me, or am I 500% me??




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zachi
 


excellent point!
way to go!




posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



What I am saying, is that the son of God i.e. the first born of all creation (Jesus who was created by God) has his own spirit, which occupied the body of the man named Jesus.



Lets take a closer look at what you are asserting. Jesus, you say was the first born of all creation Who was created by God,And has his own spirit,which occupied the body of the man named Jesus.
First born of all creation. The truth is that you are quoting colossians 1:15 which says : 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Here you are asserting that Jesus was the first created being of God.Therefore concluding that Jesus cannot be God since he was created.
However, you are wrong.You are interpreting this verse incorrectly.Since this verse was written in Greek it would be to your benifit if you actually considered this.
The Greek word for "first created"is the word Protoktioti. If paul (the author of this verse)( Who wrote it in Greek) wanted us to believe that Jesus was first created he would have used this word Protoktioto which means first created.However he does not!!!! He uses the term Prototokos which is in referance to the Jewish word FIRST- BORN which not only means first one born, but also is used as a title of sovereignty and pre-eminence.Its to your advantage to learn these terms.

Take a look at psalm 89:27
27"I also shall make him My firstborn,The highest of the kings of the earth. how is fist born used here? Is David the first -born of Jesse? NO.The use of this word is that he is first born in that he is pre-eminent or sovereign of all kings of the earth.
Now lets skip ahead/ back to Colossians1:18 Colossians 1:18 (King James Version)
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.
There you go definition defined.


And when Jesus was baptized, God, who is spirit, entered Jesus and became one with Jesus spirit. So what I am really saying, is that, God/Father and the son of God, were both walking around (as one) in the body of Jesus.


A closer look as to what you are saying is that Jesus up until Matthew 3:16 had no substance of God upon him whatsoever?Jesus' spirit was that of a man up untill then?What you are saying is that God entered Jesus at that moment described in Matthew 3:16?Then they became one? As in One spirit?As in one being?Please elaborate and show me scriptual proof that God was absent from Jesus before Matthew 3:16.Also please validate and or verifiy your theory of baptism as it pertains to scripture.


Where does the bible define the spirit, in the way you are describing it above?


First off the Bible describes the spirit being that of which is God
John 4:24
"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
secondly this spirit must be invisible
# Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Romans 1:19-21 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)
# Colossians 1:15
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:14-16 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter)
# Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
Colossians 1:15-17 (in Context) Colossians 1 (Whole Chapter)
# 1 Timothy 1:17
Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
1 Timothy 1:16-18 (in Context) 1 Timothy 1 (Whole

The only attributes that Man can say he has that resemble God besides his image are his thoughts...his mind...his knowledge..love...
These are not material in nature but spiritual which god is which we are.


IMO you are limiting what Gods spirit is cable of doing, based on some rigid ideas, that cannot be verified and that don’t appear to be scriptural.


Come down off your high horse and open your mind (that which is spirit) There are material things in this universe A mans body, a rock. carpet,My cat (which has a soul) then there are spiritual. The mind,thoughts, love, knowledge ect. The difference between spirit and God is that God is infinite spirit. (love,knowledge,ect)
Back to your statement.I am not limiting what gods spirit can do, only verifying what spirit is.This is a fact,Spirit exists just as matter exists.


Wrong, because if they both share the same knowledge, then how do you explain the following verse…Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.


(this requires a volume at which I am not prepared.However I will sumerize. Jesus is not stating that he does not know the answer.All he is saying is that the father is the only one with this knowledge. The last thing that Jesus wanted people to know is that He was He(GOD) He wanted people to come to this realization. (and it worked).If jesus had come right out with it from the beginning men would have feared him.Jesus' goal was to bond with men as one of there own and show that God resides in man, and that men can find salvation though God, which he was.(is)


making the statement that “God who is spirit has no spirit!”, this doesn’t make any sense.

This makes perfect factual sense. How can something being the whole of itself have parts.
Heres a visual: If you were to lose say an leg, you would still be you. Say that you lost our arm in a accident.that wouldnt change the fact that you are still you. God (spirit) Has no parts.no parts to lose.God (spirit) is the whole of its self. How can the whole of its self have a contingent part?How can a spirit have a spirit?It cant.God (spirit) cant devise himself up.He is either whole or nothing.


to make it easier to understand, God who is spirit, entered Jesus and became one with Jesus (the son of God) spirit.

This statement does not make sense. God is WHOLE. how can the whole of anything enter partially. Your theory makes no sense.Jesus is ether Jesus with a human spirit. or Jesus with a divine (GOD) spirit.yes ether way he was truly human.


y be the wrong time to bring this up, but there is no “third person” of the blessed trinity. No unique third person that is, because I believe that the Holy Spirit aka the Spirit of God, is a person but that the person is God and not a third new entity/person.


AGAIN.. GOD DOES NOT HAVE A SPIRIT PERIOD....this also requires volumes if not libraries.
Lets stick with the second person first. Then you can see without a doubt the third. K



base my whole theory on that one statement…there’s more than just that…anyway I was merely pointing out that, at the moment Jesus was baptized, he became one with the Father/God.


Thats not a bad analogy yes you are correct.. in a sense, however there are three side to every story...lol...get it?


go again with that statement, “God has no spirit”
Once again I think you are limiting just what God/Father can and cant do concerning spirit. I don’t believe what you have said above, has been clearly pointed out in the bible (all things regarding spirit) and therefore I don’t think it can be used to dismiss what I have been saying.
Instead of attacking and trying to find contradictions in what I have written in my last few posts, perhaps you should try defending the contradictions in the trinity, that clearly already exist.
Even if you don’t except what I am saying here, there are many other non-Trinitarian doctrines out there, which are IMO a lot closer to the biblical truth in understanding the biblical truth in understanding the relationship between, Farther, son and Holy Spirit. Two I would recommend looking into, are the Jehovah witnesses, the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists.



Its quite obvious that you have no clear understanding as to which doctrines are truth and which are not.You cant even distinguish between matter and spirit.How can anyone expect to learn of who God is if they cant understand what God is, and what we are.These two fundamental concepts were paramount to the people who wrote the bible.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by zachi
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I want you to know,
I am 100% daughter
I am 100% mother
I am 100% woman
I am 100% human
I am 100% me, or am I 500% me??


A daughter would be a human no?
A mother would be human no?
A woman would be human no?
All these would be attributes of a human no?
Your nature says you are human.
However you are your own person no?

bumbaclot-



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
The Greek word for "first created"is the word Protoktioti. If paul (the author of this verse)( Who wrote it in Greek) wanted us to believe that Jesus was first created he would have used this word Protoktioto which means first created.However he does not!!!! He uses the term Prototokos which is in referance to the Jewish word FIRST- BORN which not only means first one born, but also is used as a title of sovereignty and pre-eminence.Its to your advantage to learn these terms.


or at least know how to look things up.



Take a look at psalm 89:27
27"I also shall make him My firstborn,The highest of the kings of the earth. how is fist born used here? Is David the first -born of Jesse? NO.The use of this word is that he is first born in that he is pre-eminent or sovereign of all kings of the earth.


that's in Hebrew, the OT. but Strong's says the word means:


H1060
בּכור
bekôr
bek-ore'
From H1069; firstborn; hence chief: - eldest (son), first-born (-ling).


first born son.


Now lets skip ahead/ back to Colossians1:18 Colossians 1:18 (King James Version)
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.
There you go definition defined.


that word, per Strong's is:


G4416
πρωτοτόκος
prōtotokos
pro-tot-ok'-os
From G4413 and the alternate of G5088; first born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (-born).


the alternate of G5088, which is:


G5088
τίκτω
tiktō
tik'-to
A strengthened from of a primary word τέκω tekō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.


your explanation of the Greek meaning of the word is incorrect.
they mean the same thing.
there are no definitely established references in the Greek, back to the ancient Hebrew.
and even if there were, the words STILL mean the same thing

first born
born before all the rest.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 



they mean the same thing.

Okay fare enough. However, you are not taken Colossians 1:18 into consideration, which leads me to believe that the author is clearly speaking of pre-eminence.
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.
Please elaborate ms Annie, If you will.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil

Okay fare enough. However, you are not taken Colossians 1:18 into consideration, which leads me to believe that the author is clearly speaking of pre-eminence.
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.
Please elaborate ms Annie, If you will.


absolutely!


i don't disagree with your interpretation of Colossians 1:18 at all - but the idea of pre-eminence is an idea on its own, unrelated to the idea of firstborn, outside of this particular verse.

the idea of pre-eminence does not define firstborn, although both words in Greek derive from the same word, which is:


G4413
πρῶτος
prōtos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.


his pre-eminence is given to him by being the first-born from the dead which is admittedly an altogether different idea than being the very first created being.

Joe said that Jesus was GOD's first born - the very first created being - but you disagreed, and then went on to the verse in Colossians as support of your statement.

but it is Colossians 1:15 that says:


Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:


Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of every creature.

creatures are created beings...

creature:


G2937
κτίσις
ktisis
ktis'-is
From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.


the word G2936 means "to fabricate or create"

...therefore Jesus is a created being, too.

Hebrews 1:6 seems to back that up, as well:


And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.




[edit on 7/21/2010 by queenannie38]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 





Originally posted by oliveoil
However, you are wrong.You are interpreting this verse incorrectly. Since this verse was written in Greek it would be to your benifit if you actually considered this.
The Greek word for "first created"is the word Protoktioti. If paul (the author of this verse)( Who wrote it in Greek) wanted us to believe that Jesus was first created he would have used this word Protoktioto which means first created.However he does not!!!! He uses the term Prototokos which is in referance to the Jewish word FIRST- BORN which not only means first one born, but also is used as a title of sovereignty and pre-eminence. Its to your advantage to learn these terms.

Take a look at psalm 89:27
27"I also shall make him My firstborn,The highest of the kings of the earth. how is fist born used here? Is David the first -born of Jesse? NO.The use of this word is that he is first born in that he is pre-eminent or sovereign of all kings of the earth.
Now lets skip ahead/ back to Colossians1:18 Colossians 1:18 (King James Version)


But God wasn’t born and the phrase, pre-eminence, can still refer to and be applied to, the son of God, because he was here before any one else, other than God/Father of course.



Originally posted by oliveoil
If paul (the author of this verse)( Who wrote it in Greek) wanted us to believe that Jesus was first created he would have used this word Protoktioto which means first created.However he does not!!!! He uses the term Prototokos which is in referance to the Jewish word FIRST- BORN which not only means first one born, but also is used as a title of sovereignty and pre-eminence.


Yes I understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that Paul believed that Jesus simply was God/Father.

Even if the word “Prototokos” refers to the Father/God, Paul may have honestly been using that term, to refer to Father/God, that he recognized in Jesus. So whether Paul was using the word “Prototokos” (assuming this word is being used to describe God and not the firstborn son) to describe the God aspect of Jesus or to describe Jesus, who he thought was God, still doesn’t necessarily refute what I am saying.

Of course I’m just offering another possible explanation here but I still believe that Jesus is the son of God and has his own spirit which was created in the beginning.

I think queenannie has made an excellent point about the verse Colossians 1:15, where it states, “…the first born of every creature”. Creatures are created beings… so I’m inclined to agree.



Originally posted by oliveoil
A closer look as to what you are saying is that Jesus up until Matthew 3:16 had no substance of God upon him whatsoever?Jesus' spirit was that of a man up untill then?


I think you misunderstand…Not the spirit of a normal man but the spirit, of the son of God.



Originally posted by oliveoil
What you are saying is that God entered Jesus at that moment described in Matthew 3:16?Then they became one? As in One spirit?As in one being?


No, Two beings, becoming one spirit…



Originally posted by oliveoil
Please elaborate and show me scriptual proof that God was absent from Jesus before Matthew 3:16. Also please validate and or verifiy your theory of baptism as it pertains to scripture.


Here’s the verse…
Matthew 3:16

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."


Jesus is in the water being baptized and the voice of God is coming from above, so Jesus and God are clearly separate at this point, meaning, Jesus cannot be God. Also God actually states "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."



Originally posted by oliveoil
(this requires a volume at which I am not prepared.However I will sumerize. Jesus is not stating that he does not know the answer.All he is saying is that the father is the only one with this knowledge. The last thing that Jesus wanted people to know is that He was He(GOD) He wanted people to come to this realization. (and it worked).If jesus had come right out with it from the beginning men would have feared him.Jesus' goal was to bond with men as one of there own and show that God resides in man, and that men can find salvation though God, which he was.(is)


So what you are really saying, is that every time Jesus refers to himself as the son, and when he refers to his Father, and when he tells us we must believe in him (Jesus) and the one who sent i.e. the Father/God, that he is only saying those things because He is to proud lol to admit that he is God.

I just don’t buy it…

Jesus actually states in many verses that “the words you hear are not my own but the Fathers who sent me”. For someone who is trying to hide the fact that he is God, he is certainly going about it, in a very strange way.



Originally posted by oliveoil
This makes perfect factual sense. How can something being the whole of itself have parts.
Heres a visual: If you were to lose say an leg, you would still be you. Say that you lost our arm in a accident.that wouldnt change the fact that you are still you. God (spirit) Has no parts.no parts to lose.God (spirit) is the whole of its self. How can the whole of its self have a contingent part?How can a spirit have a spirit?It cant.God (spirit) cant devise himself up.He is either whole or nothing.


This is what I mean by limiting what Gods spirit is capable of, its just not known. All this talk about what Gods spirit is and what it can and can’t do, doesn’t appear to come from the bible, unless you can show me a verse, which backs up what your saying.



Originally posted by oliveoil
This statement does not make sense. God is WHOLE. how can the whole of anything enter partially. Your theory makes no sense.Jesus is ether Jesus with a human spirit. or Jesus with a divine (GOD) spirit.yes ether way he was truly human.


Who said anything about entering partially?



Originally posted by oliveoil
AGAIN.. GOD DOES NOT HAVE A SPIRIT PERIOD....this also requires volumes if not libraries.


GOD IS SPIRIT AND THEREFORE HAS A SPIRIT, WHICH IS HIMSELF…



Originally posted by oliveoil
Thats not a bad analogy yes you are correct.. in a sense, however there are three side to every story...lol...get it?


There are three sides to every story…
One persons account; the other persons account and the actual truth.




Originally posted by oliveoil
Its quite obvious that you have no clear understanding as to which doctrines are truth and which are not. You cant even distinguish between matter and spirit. How can anyone expect to learn of who God is if they cant understand what God is, and what we are. These two fundamental concepts were paramount to the people who wrote the bible.



I think this is a bit harsh and I think anyone following this conversation can see that you are lashing out here.

All I did was suggest a few non-Trinitarian doctrines for you to consider looking into, I never once mentioned which one of them I believed to be the truth or what my real understanding of them is. I also never mentioned matter and spirit in what I have written so far, so I have no idea how you can suggest that I don’t know the difference between the two.


- JC


[edit on 21-7-2010 by Joecroft]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
This makes perfect factual sense. How can something being the whole of itself have parts.
Heres a visual: If you were to lose say an leg, you would still be you. Say that you lost our arm in a accident.that wouldnt change the fact that you are still you. God (spirit) Has no parts.no parts to lose.God (spirit) is the whole of its self. How can the whole of its self have a contingent part?How can a spirit have a spirit?It cant.God (spirit) cant devise himself up.He is either whole or nothing.


what about the "body of Christ?"
that is one whole comprised of many members.
and each part is a whole unto itself.


God is WHOLE. how can the whole of anything enter partially. Your theory makes no sense.Jesus is ether Jesus with a human spirit. or Jesus with a divine (GOD) spirit.yes ether way he was truly human.


GOD is indeed, ALL.
and that ALL is the whole ALL.
but if everything that exists was made by GOD, through Jesus Christ, then everything is a part of GOD.

and then there is this verse:


(Ecclesiastes 12:7)
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.


this is in relation to all men who live - everyone included.
me, you, Joe, and the Queen of England.

here are some more verses about the Spirit of GOD and what it does and where it goes:


Genesis 41:38
And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?

(speaking of Joseph)


Exodus 31:1-3
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah:
And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,



Numbers 27:18
And the LORD said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;

(speaking of Joshua)

these say "in" - there are countless mentions of the Spirit of GOD coming, or being sent, "upon" someone, for a particular purpose or event.

in the OT, "rûach" is the word translated as Spirit when it is the Spirit of GOD, every single time.
in the NT, the same word is "pneuma" and is the word used when the english text says either "the spirit of GOD" or "the holy ghost."



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I've read through this whole post and though I don't agree with every little detail of Joecroft or queenannie, they are both on the right track. OliveOil, you change like the wind. Last time I talked to you, you were a sabbath-keeper. Can I still say you are? I'm under the impression that you are catholic and if that's the case, I can mark that out for ya.

It's funny how trinitarians try to explain the trinity in such a way that every contradiction is another reason for them to lash out a unitarians.

One think I can agree on with OliveOil is that of the preeminence of Jesus. My take on this..... Jesus was the "Jehovah, YHWH" of the OT. He came in the flesh to reveal the "Father" in the NT. The Father was unknown to Jews as they worshipped Jehovah of the OT. I come to this conclusion because Jesus claims to be the "I AM" of the OT which is Jehovah. Also there are references in the NT stating that Jesus came to reveal the Father. Either way, Jesus and the Father are two separate entities working together for a common purpose... Jesus of course is the lesser of the two dieties.

What about monotheism you ask? Well, I feel that people have been confused from the getgo. In Genesis chapter one, we are automatically introduced to both the Word and the Father in the word "Elohim".

"In the beginning, God (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth."

"Then God (Elohim) said, "Let US make man in OUR image."

These two verses taken out of the first chapter of Genesis shows more than one God in context. Now the hebrew word "Elohim" is a plural form of the word "God" but it's plural in a singular form. How can that be you ask?

First let's look at an analogy of a plural word or phrase with a singular context.
"The United States of America" is obviously one nation/country. This will be "Elohim" in our analogy. Now the United States of America is a plural statement speaking of many states but singular speaking of these many states being united into one country. This is similar to Elohim.

Elohim is the "Family of God." It consisted of God the Father and God the Word/Son in the OT. When someone is blessed with the Holy Spirit/God's Spirit, they are soon to be married members of the family of God. As Jesus, the first resurrected Son of the family returns to earth, those dwelling in the Holy Spirit at the time of their deaths will resurrect to be included in the family. (The marriage supper of the lamb). Likewise, anyone alive at the resurrection who is dwelling in the Spirit will quickly change to spirit and be included into the Family of God. These "Firstfruits" of Christ will be kings and priests who rule on Earth with Christ as the King of Kings. This 1000 years of peace on earth will be followed by the general resurrection... a Fleshly resurrection for those who ever lived. This is the "White Throne Judgement" spoken of in the book of Revelation. These people are not sentenced to hell unless they refuse to repent and accept God's rule. This is their genuine opportunity to repent and be saved.... in the presence of God. Those who accept salvation at judgement will be adopted into the family of God.

This is my take on it and using Elohim to represent the family of God vs. a false trinitarian god makes more sense. Jehovah is simply the God known by the Jews. There is only one God (Elohim). And it's a family and we are going to be the children of God.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Jesus is no a "lesser deity", Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. Read the first verse of John and replace "Word" with "Jesus".



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Jesus prayed to the Father.
Jesus worshipped the Father.
Jesus as the Word followed the directions of the Father.
Jesus is the Son. The Father is always over the Son.
The Father gives Kingship to Jesus.
Jesus is at the right hand of the Father.... i.e. servant of or beneath the Father.
The only way Jesus is not a lesser diety is if you buy into the Trinity doctrine and believe Jesus and the Father are the same person/diety.
I don't buy into that. If you do, that's your perogative and I will say nothing negative of your choice. Only that I don't believe in it. Good day to you.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Jesus prayed to the Father.
Jesus worshipped the Father.
Jesus as the Word followed the directions of the Father.
Jesus is the Son. The Father is always over the Son.
The Father gives Kingship to Jesus.
Jesus is at the right hand of the Father.... i.e. servant of or beneath the Father.
The only way Jesus is not a lesser diety is if you buy into the Trinity doctrine and believe Jesus and the Father are the same person/diety.
I don't buy into that. If you do, that's your perogative and I will say nothing negative of your choice. Only that I don't believe in it. Good day to you.
Trinitarians do not believe Jesus is a lesser deity, nor do we believe Jesus and the Father are the same 'person' as you state.

God has 3 distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And all are equal, all are one God. God consists of 3 persons. That's His nature as God.

"I and the Father are One.."

"If you have seen me you have seen the Father.."

"I AM Alpha and Omega.."

All spoken by Jesus Christ. What do you get when you substitute "Jesus" for "Word" in John 1?



[edit on 22-7-2010 by NOTurTypical]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of every creature.
creatures are created beings...


Have you not read this letter?Paul clearly declares Jesus to be God by saying He "created all things"(1:16) and has the fullness of the Godhead(2:9). The reference to "firstborn" does not mean He is the firstborn in creation,but the firstborn over creation.(15),since "He is before all things" (17). "Firstborn" in this context does not mean the first one to be born, but the heir of all,the creator and owner of all things.As creator of "all things" He could not have been a created thing.


[edit on 22-7-2010 by oliveoil]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



Yes I understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that Paul believed that Jesus simply was God/Father.
So what your are saying here is that You have come to the conclusion that Paul an apostle of Christ believed that he was God?However you do not believe?



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And all are equal, all are one God. God consists of 3 persons. That's His nature as God.

But all are NOT equal. Jesus says so himself.

And again, it is getting polytheistic as it was in the beginning


Are you saying that the Christian concept of God is made up of 3 "entities", who together, form "God"?

[edit on 22-7-2010 by babloyi]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 




Originally posted by oliveoil
So what your are saying here is that You have come to the conclusion that Paul an apostle of Christ believed that he was God?However you do not believe?


What I meant was, that when Paul, used the word “Prototokos” to describe Jesus, it’s possible he was using it to describe God/Father that he recognized was speaking through Jesus. Whether Paul was aware that Jesus was also a separate person in his own right and with his own spirit, I don’t know for sure.

If Paul simply believed that Jesus was God, without recognizing that Jesus was also there, speaking on his own behalf as Gods son and being one with Father/God, then I would say his belief was slightly inaccurate.



- JC



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


oliveoil, you can't just change the meanings of established words to suit your present point of view in a debate.

firstborn is born.

you are not even making sense and i'm not going to argue with you because there's no profit in it for you or me or the reader. if it is so important for you to be right, or correct, then so be it.

you are right.
GOD bless your pea-pickin' heart!
i



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by queenannie38
 


Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of every creature.
creatures are created beings...


Have you not read this letter?Paul clearly declares Jesus to be God by saying He "created all things"(1:16) and has the fullness of the Godhead(2:9). The reference to "firstborn" does not mean He is the firstborn in creation,but the firstborn over creation.(15),since "He is before all things" (17). "Firstborn" in this context does not mean the first one to be born, but the heir of all,the creator and owner of all things.As creator of "all things" He could not have been a created thing.
Why not?
In the same book, Colossians, the writer says that Paul did himself what the work of the man Jesus lacked, in order to make a creation, the church, where we will be mature in that we retain, or exhibit, the hope of the ages, what was not understood until, he, Paul, revealed it, Christ in us.

So, here is the same concept repeated, of course the world and everything in it exists for the work of Jesus and we exist in order for the work to be completed. We, as the human race, were here first, then one of us, Jesus, came into this world, as a human. Then we, seeing the godliness of this person, take in his spirit to be filled with it, just as Jesus was filled with that god essence that we, to be saved, must recognize, with the expectation, according to the Colossians theory, to become in compliance with, what existence was intended to climax as.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by jmdewey60]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


excellent point!

if Jesus were NOT a created being, the whole idea is out the window.

there is no bridge if Jesus is not created - no reconciliation on our behalf.
and without that, we're all dead, anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join