first-born of all creation

[Tumah]

I have no issue with that - as long as it is everything ever created and not the one being who was never created - the Almighty God himself.

Well, personally I think this would call into question the true state of Jesus' purity.

 

[Tumah]

So He graduated from impure animal to part archangel. We're making progress Angels were created before anything else. So He is the firstborn of all, anything, everything that was ever created. Just like the verse indicates. Unless you have an alternate exegete of the New Testament verse. Well, do you?

What does the order of creation have to do with anything? Is he only the firstborn of the first thing that was created??

 

[james2ko]

What does the order of creation have to do with anything?

Everything when it comes to being the firstborn of all that was ever created. Let's say today I build or create a warehouse. Tomorrow I create several paintings.. Even though the warehouse and paintings are different types of created things, the warehouse is the first thing or firstborn of all that I have created.

Is he only the firstborn of the first thing that was created?

No. He is also the firstborn of the first thing/being that was created.

 

[Tumah]

Everything when it comes to being the firstborn of all that was ever created. Let's say today I build or create a warehouse. Tomorrow I create several paintings.. Even though the warehouse and paintings are different types of created things, the warehouse is the first thing or firstborn of all that I have created.

It would be the first thing you had created, but not the firstborn of the things you created. That would only apply if you had made a number of warehouses. Then the first one would be metaphorically the first-born.

No. He is also the firstborn of the first thing/being that was created.

So when you say he "graduated" from impure animals to archangels, you don't really mean that he is no longer part impure animal.

 

[james2ko]

It would be the first thing you had created, but not the firstborn of the things you created. That would only apply if you had made a number of warehouses. Then the first one would be metaphorically the first-born.

No. It would also be literal. The firstborn in the context of all things that were literally created, which includes the painting in my metaphor.

So when you say he "graduated" from impure animals to archangels, you don't really mean that he is no longer part impure animal.

Let's not twist the story. You are the one who graduated him from an inference to an impure animal to arcangel, remember?

That's right. He seems to consist of part archangel part swarming-thing. Obviously not 50:50. WE would first have to determine the ratio of angelic beings to members of the animal kingdom past and present to determine the exact ratio.

 

[Tumah]

No. It would also be literal. The firstborn in the context of all things that were literally created, which includes the painting in my metaphor.

I don't think we can use the word "firstborn" literally, to something that is not born...

Let's not twist the story. You are the one who graduated him from an inference to an impure animal to arcangel, remember?

I didn't. I've been saying the whole time, he is part swarming thing. What other parts are, is not my concern here. The point is that there is a part that is swarming thing.

 

[james2ko]

I don't think we can use the word "firstborn" literally, to something that is not born...

It was only used metaphorically in an unsuccessful attempt to help you understand the relationship.

I didn't. I've been saying the whole time, he is part swarming thing. What other parts are, is not my concern here. The point is that there is a part that is swarming thing.

The point is you also said he is an arcangel and oddly added how he cannot be both. Your trolling intentions are obvious. Unfortunately, my play time is up. ..Cheers my friend and happy Pesach!

 

[Tumah]

It was only used metaphorically in an unsuccessful attempt to help you understand the relationship.

I understand the relationship. You just seem to be in denial of the repercussions of such a statement.

The point is you also said he is an arcangel and oddly added how he cannot be both. Your trolling intentions are obvious. Unfortunately, my play time is up. ..Cheers my friend and happy Pesach!

Well, I hope you use your down time to get help with your reading comprehension issues! You even quoted me saying that Jesus is part one and part the other. Been saying it since the beginning. Here you are

So since all of creation includes impure animals, Jesus, a like-kind also contains impure elements. Interesting.

Not "only" but "also".

That's right. He seems to consist of part archangel part swarming-thing. Obviously not 50:50. WE would first have to determine the ratio of angelic beings to members of the animal kingdom past and present to determine the exact ratio.

So really not sure where you are getting he idea that I said he can't be both...

 

[james2ko]

I understand the relationship. You just seem to be in denial of the repercussions of such a statement.
Well, I hope you use your down time to get help with your reading comprehension issues! You even quoted me saying that Jesus is part one and part the other. Been saying it since the beginning. Here you are So really not sure where you are getting he idea that I said he can't be both...

Don't fret my "trolling" friend. Pesach is near

 

[Muffled]

Col 1:15-18 He is the image of the invisible God (The Father), the firstborn over all creation.16 For by Him (Christ The Son) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the​

When read in context, these NT passages indicate Christ (EL) was the very first creative act by the Father, at some point in the distant past. Some time later, Christ was the "agent" used to create all things (heaven and earth).

I believe there is no way to show that context is saying that. If you just say the context says that then it is only your opinion which isn't worth much but if you can show how the context says that it will be evidence but I don't see how you can wrench the context around to your liking.

I believe there is no text that support that view.

 

[Muffled]

If the reference "type" is inclusive of every living thing in creation, then it would make sense for "someone" to be the firstborn of the reference type. This is what the NT verses are saying.

I believe he was saying that the type was creation not all of creation.

 

[Muffled]

That's right. He seems to consist of part archangel part swarming-thing. Obviously not 50:50. WE would first have to determine the ratio of angelic beings to members of the animal kingdom past and present to determine the exact ratio.

I believe "of creation" does not mean "part of creation." The word "part" is an unjustifiable addition.

 

[james2ko]

I believe there is no way to show that context is saying that. If you just say the context says that then it is only your opinion which isn't worth much but if you can show how the context says that it will be evidence but I don't see how you can wrench the context around to your liking.

The context of this topic goes far beyond this verse. Take a look at my conversation with Call of the Wild earlier in the thread. You have just as much a right to your opinion as I do to mine, right?

I believe there is no text that support that view.

You may need to gain some knowledge of the original languages. That is where you will find the answer.

 

[james2ko]

I believe he was saying that the type was creation not all of creation.

The Greek term used is πασης (every). It is also defined as "all". There is no definite article "the" preceding the term firstborn. See what I mean? A little knowledge of the original languages goes a long way.

 

[Tumah]

I believe "of creation" does not mean "part of creation." The word "part" is an unjustifiable addition.

That's my point. If you are going to say that Jesus is the firstborn of creation you need to include all of creation including the impure things.

 

[Muffled]

The Greek term used is πασης (every). It is also defined as "all". There is no definite article "the" preceding the term firstborn. See what I mean? A little knowledge of the original languages goes a long way.

I believe it matters not. When you investigate all of creation one will find that none of it was born. If a being is born it is not a creation. In the case of Jesus, He is the only one who is created and born as well.

 

[cataway]

using figurative language many things that have a start/beginning ,are born

 

[james2ko]

I believe it matters not. When you investigate all of creation one will find that none of it was born. If a being is born it is not a creation. In the case of Jesus, He is the only one who is created and born as well.

I can agree with that..He was a "created" [κτίσις-ktisis-Rev 3:14] spirit being and "born" [γεννάω-gennao-Mat 2:1] a human.

 

[Muffled]

I can agree with that..He was a "created" [κτίσις-ktisis-Rev 3:14] spirit being and "born" [γεννάω-gennao-Mat 2:1] a human.

The text never says that He is a created spirit and I know of no text that does. In fact there is a passasge that says He has always existed.

I beleive He was born because He was conceived but there was no male portion to make a conception so logic dictates that the male portion had to be created.

I believe there can be no doubt that Mary provides the human form as her part of the conception but what God created to be the male portion could be anything.

 

[Muffled]

using figurative language many things that have a start/beginning ,are born

I believe one must be able to make a case for using figurative language. A conception is a beginning but it is not a birth. So one must show how a conception could be considered a birth.