Is Jesus God?

[Yoshua]

Jesus is not Almighty God according to scripture. Scripture makes it extremely clear that Jesus was a creation of God, his first creation to be exact. If Jesus was created then he cannot be God. Three scriptures easily show this, Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22. I offer to anyone who claims otherwise to prove me wrong and show me what these scriptures do express if not Jesus creation.

(Revelation 3:14) “..These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God…”

(Colossians 1:15) “…[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation…”

(Proverbs 8:22) “…Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago…”

Hi NWL,

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-first-born.html

Thanks

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Yeah. Some of them interpreted falsely about Jesus; inconsistent and not aligned to who really Jesus was.

Thanks

To me it sounds like their is really no true story about him at all.

 

[Oeste]

13. You don't have to wait at all. You've already read the answer. In the points above. Make sure you cross your t's and dot your i's on your logic. I've already exposed your fallacious reasoning and as many before you have found out the hard way, the longer we go, the more I will expose. Oh, and please make sure you add plenty of butter to mine. .

In other words, you have no answer, except to say it’s been mysteriously embedded in some past post that I can’t seem to find and you’re too busy to make a link to, and that your posts are replete with logic that you never care to explain.

There are others who believe Jesus rose as a “spirit creature”. Perhaps they can help you out. I’ve noticed a few have been quick to cheer from the sidelines but have been notably silent in our discussion.

And don’t worry, I’ll be sure to add some extra butter, but so far this “spirit creature” show has been sadly disappointing.

14 Another long winded, and this time, seemingly deceitful response. The context to my question to Yoshua had to do with truth in terms of having “full” knowledge of it—everything there is to know about Christ, which you replied to me and admitted no one has. Now you knowingly and deceitfully twist the context of “full truth” in terms of deceit by calling it "half truth". You baaaad boy

I explained previously words like “truth” have different meanings to different people, that’s all. If “full truth” is knowledge rather than Christ (John 14:6) then we only have half-truths because we see through a glass darkly. But "full truth" is not knowledge developed from books or doctrine. It is Christ, and if we are to come to truth we should develop a personal relationship with him.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.​

This is not Oeste being “deceitful” James; it’s simply scripture telling us what truth actually is. When we receive our glorified bodies we’re not going to come face to face with a book or doctrine, but with Christ. We will know, not be taught. (Isaiah 59:21, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:16, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

15. He personally believes the denominational branch labeled Evangelicals has full knowledge of everything there is to know about Christ and no one else does, that was the context of Yoshua’s answer. And you knew it. So What part of the context did you not understand?

I guess I didn't understand the part where you took what he actually said and attempted to change it to something you wish he said. As to what he actually stated, I responded to on post 2041.

My reply to him, before you unwisely decided to put your two cents worth without getting all the facts, this was not true:

Two cents??? Oh, I think you overvalue my opinions way too much James, but thank you.

16 You’re right. My apologies.

No need to apologize. It’s not the pennies, but the thought that counts.

Opinions full of poor logic and deceit have no value.

Absolutely! Once again we find something we can both agree on.

17. I was speaking to Yoshua before you began littering our conversation with fallacious rhetoric.

Thanks James, but that answers none of the questions I posed to you. If you want to ask questions to members exclusively, I'm sure this forum provides a method to inbox them. I really don’t think the debate section is the proper venue for that. When you post statements or questions, you just don’t know who will respond.

18. I don’t think so Oeste. Christ admitted the Sadducees and Pharisees were part of the OT church when He told the people they sit in Moses seat, even though they had different beliefs and other issues. Christ implicated them both as being part of the OT church, while each thought they were the “true” church..Not much has changed.

Shouldn't this be something you relay to our Witness friends? They're the ones who claim all the Christian seats are reserved for them.

There are plenty of Christians who follow another gospel, but I don’t think Evangelical Christianity is one of them. The last I checked we were still treating our bibles as direct revelation from God.

20. Interestingly, that same sentiment is echoed by Mormons, JW’s, etc about your faith. Each of you thinking you are right and the other wrong. Eerily similar to the sentiments shared by the different religious sects of Jesus’ day. And what was Jesus' thought?..see point 18. I'd be very careful about condemning and judging others who claim to follow Christ.

When have I condemned others? I condemn certain practices and religious doctrines James, but I’ve never condemned the people themselves.

My church has never prayed for that “glorious day” God will destroy all other religions so we can drag dead bodies out of their homes, bury them, and occupy the homes ourselves. Neither does it leaflet neighborhoods with illustrations showing how God will burn down their temples, mosques or churches. Nor do we publish magazines suggesting other churches condone pedophilia. Nor have I ever told my child not to play with a member of another church because God considers them unclean, or because God will be killing them and their families “soon” at Armageddon simply for making a “conscious decision” not to attend my church and worship like I do.

I’d be very careful about who or what you think I am condemning or judging. I have no list of “who” to condemn, but I have a long list of “what” to condemn.

21. Simple. See point 18. You would be correct.

Your point 18 was refuted. You'll need a new point.

22. Yeah you did refute him. In a reply to me, Yoshua admitted to something I’ve been trying to tell him, only after reading your reply to me..

I agreed with Yoshua. I did not "refute" him.

I'm not here to teach, but to learn

23. You could have fooled me. Learners don’t write sermons as replies to simple points.

Aaaah, so you were never a student in class? I could help with that, but then I’m here to learn, not to teach.

 

[NWL]

Hi NWL,

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-first-born.html

Thanks

Hi Yoshua.

You obviously don't know a much about scripture, if you did then you'd know that the article you linked is inaccurate regarding the meaning of the Greek word "prōtotokos", which in english means "firstborn".

The artilce says "Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership."

Let me firstly put things straight, the word prototokos -in english "firstborn"- CAN mean firstborn in a temporal sense, as in, the first thing made. "Prototokos" can also mean firstborn in the sense of rank/priority, which the article makes the readers aware of.

Notice, the writer says the word "firstborn" in Col 1:15 "signifies priority", he then goes onto explain that "the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child". The writer fully understands that the word prototokos can mean firstborn in the sense of time, being the oldest thing, but states its not "necessarily" the case, and yet he gives absolutely no reason as to why prototokos in Col 1:15 should mean firstborn in the sense of priority/rank over the meaning of firstborn in a temporal sense, namely, the first thing made.

What lots of people don’t realize is that Jesus being the “Firstborn of all creation” REGARDLESS of the sense, whether temporal or in prority/rank, he is still “of” creation and thus a created being. By definition to be firstborn of a group/person you by default have to be in/from that group/person. Take Col 1:18 as an example of this, it reads “[Jesus is] the firstborn from among the dead”.

A question I typically pose is “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?” , the typical answer is of course “No” , since for Jesus to be labelled in the group of the dead he, of course, had to be dead or at some point been dead. Likewise for Jesus to be of creation he by default has to be in the group of creation he’s firstborn of, regardless if the word firstborn is regarding him in a temporal or authoritative sense. Thus if Jesus is part of creation he was created, there is no way around this.

Could you show me a single example in the bible where someone is the firstborn of a group and they’re not part of the group they’re firstborn in/of? Your example can be in reference to either meaning of firstborn, be it temporal or authoritative it has no effect on my question.

I'm guessing you won't be able to as no one ever has. Next time use your own words in defense instead of linking articles which you don't even understand.

 

[Yoshua]

Hi Yoshua.

You obviously don't know a much about scripture, if you did then you'd know that the article you linked is inaccurate regarding the meaning of the Greek word "prōtotokos", which in english means "firstborn".

The artilce says "Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership."

Let me firstly put things straight, the word prototokos -in english "firstborn"- CAN mean firstborn in a temporal sense, as in, the first thing made. "Prototokos" can also mean firstborn in the sense of rank/priority, which the article makes the readers aware of.

Notice, the writer says the word "firstborn" in Col 1:15 "signifies priority", he then goes onto explain that "the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child". The writer fully understands that the word prototokos can mean firstborn in the sense of time, being the oldest thing, but states its not "necessarily" the case, and yet he gives absolutely no reason as to why prototokos in Col 1:15 should mean firstborn in the sense of priority/rank over the meaning of firstborn in a temporal sense, namely, the first thing made.

What lots of people don’t realize is that Jesus being the “Firstborn of all creation” REGARDLESS of the sense, whether temporal or in prority/rank, he is still “of” creation and thus a created being. By definition to be firstborn of a group/person you by default have to be in/from that group/person. Take Col 1:18 as an example of this, it reads “[Jesus is] the firstborn from among the dead”.

A question I typically pose is “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?” , the typical answer is of course “No” , since for Jesus to be labelled in the group of the dead he, of course, had to be dead or at some point been dead. Likewise for Jesus to be of creation he by default has to be in the group of creation he’s firstborn of, regardless if the word firstborn is regarding him in a temporal or authoritative sense. Thus if Jesus is part of creation he was created, there is no way around this.

Could you show me a single example in the bible where someone is the firstborn of a group and they’re not part of the group they’re firstborn in/of? Your example can be in reference to either meaning of firstborn, be it temporal or authoritative it has no effect on my question.

I'm guessing you won't be able to as no one ever has. Next time use your own words in defense instead of linking articles which you don't even understand.

Hi NWL,

May I ask you if where in the bible teaches that Jesus was created, that God created Jesus first, and then created all things through him?

Secondly, you said “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?”
Do people born from the grave?

Thanks

 

[NWL]

Hi NWL,

May I ask you if where in the bible teaches that Jesus was created, that God created Jesus first, and then created all things through him?

We know in scripture that Jesus is created by Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 as they all state the same thing, that Jesus was the first thing created. We know God was obviously the one who created him as Jesus refers to God as his Father, and himself as a Son, just like a human father created his Son and calls him a Son. Jesus states regarding the Father "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), therefore it becomes clear where Jesus gets his life from. Hebrews 1:1,2 then states:

"[God] Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.." (Hebrews 1:1,2)

Thus is becomes clear that God created his son and then created the rest of the universe through him, 1 Cor 8:6 parallels Hebrews 1:1,2, and further states Jesus is from the Father with all things being created through Jesus:

"..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. ." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Secondly, you said “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?”
Do people born from the grave?

Of course not, but how could anyone understand Jesus was born from the grave or think that somehow me stating that he's the firstborn of it is me implying he is?

Again the term firstborn carries the meaning that you are part of the group you are firsborn over, i've already stated that it doesn't have to refer to somthing being born of that group but only that you are PART of that group. For example I'm can't be the firstborn of your family Yoshua because i'm not a part of your family. If someone was to say "NWL is the firstborn of Yoshua family" people would assume that i'm related to you, since being firstborn of something implies you are part of the group your firstborn in. Another example is me saying asking you to fill in the blank, "the _____ is the firstborn of a litter of kittens"? You no doubt can instantly understand the blank word is kitten/cat, as it obvious that to be the firstborn of a litter of kittens you must be a kitten. Jesus is called "the firstborn of the dead", anyone could deduce that Jesus was either dead or is dead by that statement, since again, to be firstborn of a group you must be part of it, or in Jesus case "been part of it". Likewise, Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation", thus Jesus must be part of creation to be labelled firstborn of it, my reasoning is undeniable.

 

[james2ko]

We know in scripture that Jesus is created by Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 as they all state the same thing, that Jesus was the first thing created. We know God was obviously the one who created him as Jesus refers to God as his Father, and himself as a Son, just like a human father created his Son and calls him a Son. Jesus states regarding the Father "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), therefore it becomes clear where Jesus gets his life from. Hebrews 1:1,2 then states:

"[God] Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.." (Hebrews 1:1,2)

Thus is becomes clear that God created his son and then created the rest of the universe through him, 1 Cor 8:6 parallels Hebrews 1:1,2, and further states Jesus is from the Father with all things being created through Jesus:

"..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. ." (1 Corinthians 8:6)



Of course not, but how could anyone understand Jesus was born from the grave or think that somehow me stating that he's the firstborn of it is me implying he is?

Again the term firstborn carries the meaning that you are part of the group you are firsborn over, i've already stated that it doesn't have to refer to somthing being born of that group but only that you are PART of that group. For example I'm can't be the firstborn of your family Yoshua because i'm not a part of your family. If someone was to say "NWL is the firstborn of Yoshua family" people would assume that i'm related to you, since being firstborn of something implies you are part of the group your firstborn in. Another example is me saying asking you to fill in the blank, "the _____ is the firstborn of a litter of kittens"? You no doubt can instantly understand the blank word is kitten/cat, as it obvious that to be the firstborn of a litter of kittens you must be a kitten. Jesus is called "the firstborn of the dead", anyone could deduce that Jesus was either dead or is dead by that statement, since again, to be firstborn of a group you must be part of it, or in Jesus case her "been part of it". Likewise, Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation", thus Jesus must be part of creation to be labelled firstborn of it, my reasoning is undeniable.

Makes perfect sense to me. When it comes to Christ's deity, it's unfortunate that tradition trumps scripture and good logic.

 

[jeager106]

Anyone who can read a bit of the N.T. in the Christian Bible should clearly
see that Jesus isn't God.
However members of one of the largest Christian religions don't seem to read
the Bible. They let Clergy to that for them
Kind of like letting someone else eat your food for you.

 

[Oeste]

You obviously don't know a much about scripture, if you did then you'd know that the article you linked is inaccurate regarding the meaning of the Greek word "prōtotokos", which in english means "firstborn".

The artilce says "Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority. In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child. First-born referred not to birth order but to rank. The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership."

Let me firstly put things straight, the word prototokos -in english "firstborn"- CAN mean firstborn in a temporal sense, as in, the first thing made. "Prototokos" can also mean firstborn in the sense of rank/priority, which the article makes the readers aware of.

If you and the article both state prototokos can mean firstborn in a temporal as well as leadership sense, what exactly are you putting straight, and what was “inaccurate” in the article regarding the meaning of prototokos?

Notice, the writer says the word "firstborn" in Col 1:15 "signifies priority", he then goes onto explain that "the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child". The writer fully understands that the word prototokos can mean firstborn in the sense of time, being the oldest thing, but states its not "necessarily" the case, and yet he gives absolutely no reason as to why prototokos in Col 1:15 should mean firstborn in the sense of priority/rank over the meaning of firstborn in a temporal sense, namely, the first thing made.

First, the article gives plenty of reasons why priority/rank is preferred over first-created. Secondly, you stated the article was inaccurate but have not explained the manner of the inaccuracy.

What lots of people don’t realize is that Jesus being the “Firstborn of all creation” REGARDLESS of the sense, whether temporal or in prority/rank, he is still “of” creation and thus a created being. By definition to be firstborn of a group/person you by default have to be in/from that group/person.

If you are considered the firstborn (preeminent) doctor of your town's medical community, you must be part of that medical community. However It doesn’t mean you are the offspring of doctors.

Take Col 1:18 as an example of this, it reads “[Jesus is] the firstborn from among the dead”.

A question I typically pose is “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?” , the typical answer is of course “No” , since for Jesus to be labelled in the group of the dead he, of course, had to be dead or at some point been dead.

Correct! If Jesus (as man) is preeminent among all who died, he of course would have had to die. As God He is preeminent (supreme; first in priority/order) over all things.

Likewise for Jesus to be of creation he by default has to be in the group of creation he’s firstborn of, regardless if the word firstborn is regarding him in a temporal or authoritative sense. Thus if Jesus is part of creation he was created, there is no way around this.

Applying your logic and context consistently, we now have creation creating Jesus. If I am the firstborn “of Mary”, then I am the offspring of Mary, and if I am the firstborn “of creation” I am the offspring of creation. The context here doesn’t support your understanding of the verse.

Could you show me a single example in the bible where someone is the firstborn of a group and they’re not part of the group they’re firstborn in/of? Your example can be in reference to either meaning of firstborn, be it temporal or authoritative it has no effect on my question.

I don’t see how this question helps anyone determine whether firstborn means offspring or priority.

I'm guessing you won't be able to as no one ever has.

They may have been wondering why the question was asked. Albert Einstein might be considered the firstborn (preeminent) of scientists, but he would still be part of the group of scientists. No one here is claiming otherwise. Likewise since Christ is the preeminent of all those who have died, he is the firstborn of the dead, not the first offspring of the dead, because the dead don’t produce offspring any more than a created universe produced Jesus.

Next time use your own words in defense instead of linking articles which you don't even understand.

First you tell us a very knowledgeable poster doesn’t know much about scripture, and then you tell us the poster didn’t understand an article he read. If I were to make such a statement it would tell you a lot more about me than it would the poster.

HockyCowboy gave some good counsel a few posts back (1924). I don’t agree much with him on the issues, but that was one thing I could agree with him on. And no…I am not excluding myself as above his counsel.

I expect all of us are going to disagree with someone, somewhere, on something at some time. As such, we’ll have generous opportunities to gleefully trash each other’s arguments in the polite, civilized, and respectful manner to which we have all become accustomed.

 

[Oeste]

We know in scripture that Jesus is created by Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 as they all state the same thing, that Jesus was the first thing created.

They all state the same thing…that Jesus is preeminent over creation. In fact, we can ask Paul what he meant by "firstborn" at Col 1:15.

Paul, what did you mean created or preeminence when you said Jesus is the firstborn of the dead?

"He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent." Col 1:18​

It couldn't be clearer.

We know God was obviously the one who created him as Jesus refers to God as his Father, and himself as a Son, just like a human father created his Son and calls him a Son. Jesus states regarding the Father "I live because of the Father" (John 6:57), therefore it becomes clear where Jesus gets his life from.

John 6:56-57:

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.​

Context, NWT! Somehow I get the impression that Jesus wasn’t talking about how he was created at verse 57

Hebrews 1:1,2 then states:

"[God] Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.." (Hebrews 1:1,2)

Thus is becomes clear that God created his son and then created the rest of the universe through him, 1 Cor 8:6 parallels Hebrews 1:1,2, and further states Jesus is from the Father with all things being created through Jesus:

"..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

At 1 Corinthians 8, Paul had just finished making the concessive argument ("Even if there are many who are called gods...") there is still only one God for Christians. So Paul is making a statement about Christian monotheism and then drives home the point by drawing parallels between Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Hear Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one”). He defines the God of the Shema as one God, the Father, and the Lord of the Shema as One Lord, Jesus Christ.

,May I ask you if where in the bible teaches that Jesus was created, that God created Jesus first, and then created all things through him?

Secondly, you said “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?”
Do people born from the grave?

Thanks

Of course not, but how could anyone understand Jesus was born from the grave or think that somehow me stating that he's the firstborn of it is me implying he is?

By consistently applying the logic and understanding you gave of "firstborn" to Col 1:18. Is it your recommendation that we inconsistently apply it now?

Yoshua made a very good point with his question.

Again the term firstborn carries the meaning that you are part of the group you are firsborn over, i've already stated that it doesn't have to refer to somthing being born of that group but only that you are PART of that group. For example I'm can't be the firstborn of your family Yoshua because i'm not a part of your family. If someone was to say "NWL is the firstborn of Yoshua family" people would assume that i'm related to you, since being firstborn of something implies you are part of the group your firstborn in.

Let's say I accept your assertion. How does that help determine whether preeminence or birth order is meant?

Another example is me saying asking you to fill in the blank, "the _____ is the firstborn of a litter of kittens"? You no doubt can instantly understand the blank word is kitten/cat, as it obvious that to be the firstborn of a litter of kittens you must be a kitten.

Exactly! If you are firstborn of a litter of kittens, and firstborn means “first created”, then it’s pretty obvious you have been begat by a cat.

Jesus is called "the firstborn of the dead", anyone could deduce that Jesus was either dead or is dead by that statement, since again, to be firstborn of a group you must be part of it, or in Jesus case "been part of it".

Here’s the problem…carrying your analogy about the cat a little further, if Jesus is the “firstborn of the dead” then he must have been begat by the dead, as surely as the kitten was begat by the cat. Remember, we’re applying your interpretation of “firstborn” consistently to both examples.

Likewise, Jesus is called

"the firstborn of all creation", thus Jesus must be part of creation to be labelled firstborn of it, my reasoning is undeniable.

You can see the problem… if the firstborn “of cat” means the kitten is the begot of cat, then “the firstborn of all creation” means Jesus is begot of all creation and your reasoning, when consistently applied, becomes not only deniable but unreasonable.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Anyone who can read a bit of the N.T. in the Christian Bible should clearly
see that Jesus isn't God.
However members of one of the largest Christian religions don't seem to read
the Bible. They let Clergy to that for them
Kind of like letting someone else eat your food for you.

Yeah, it's almost like they just swallow. They don't chew it, to get the flavor out of it. Meditating on what we're taught, and our own study, are so important.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Jn.1:1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was(the) God.


What was the Word before the Beginning?


Peace.

No, Notaclue, this is wrong. There is no (the) there. Sorry. Why did you put that there? It is not in the text.

It really makes all the difference.

Philip B. Harner, in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.” Why not at John 1:1? Do these translators have an a-priori commitment to some teaching? By not being consistent, it seems so.

Roman Catholic priest and much-acclaimed scholar John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold print and italics are mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.
He was a Trinitarian, but was honest enough to see how this passage should be rendered. His "Dictionary of the Bible" is fascinating!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In other words, you have no answer, except to say it’s been mysteriously embedded in some past post that I can’t seem to find and you’re too busy to make a link to, and that your posts are replete with logic that you never care to explain.

There are others who believe Jesus rose as a “spirit creature”. Perhaps they can help you out. I’ve noticed a few have been quick to cheer from the sidelines but have been notably silent in our discussion.

And don’t worry, I’ll be sure to add some extra butter, but so far this “spirit creature” show has been sadly disappointing.



I explained previously words like “truth” have different meanings to different people, that’s all. If “full truth” is knowledge rather than Christ (John 14:6) then we only have half-truths because we see through a glass darkly. But "full truth" is not knowledge developed from books or doctrine. It is Christ, and if we are to come to truth we should develop a personal relationship with him.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.​

This is not Oeste being “deceitful” James; it’s simply scripture telling us what truth actually is. When we receive our glorified bodies we’re not going to come face to face with a book or doctrine, but with Christ. We will know, not be taught. (Isaiah 59:21, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:16, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18)



I guess I didn't understand the part where you took what he actually said and attempted to change it to something you wish he said. As to what he actually stated, I responded to on post 2041.







No need to apologize. It’s not the pennies, but the thought that counts.



Absolutely! Once again we find something we can both agree on.



Thanks James, but that answers none of the questions I posed to you. If you want to ask questions to members exclusively, I'm sure this forum provides a method to inbox them. I really don’t think the debate section is the proper venue for that. When you post statements or questions, you just don’t know who will respond.



Shouldn't this be something you relay to our Witness friends? They're the ones who claim all the Christian seats are reserved for them.





When have I condemned others? I condemn certain practices and religious doctrines James, but I’ve never condemned the people themselves.

My church has never prayed for that “glorious day” God will destroy all other religions so we can drag dead bodies out of their homes, bury them, and occupy the homes ourselves. Neither does it leaflet neighborhoods with illustrations showing how God will burn down their temples, mosques or churches. Nor do we publish magazines suggesting other churches condone pedophilia. Nor have I ever told my child not to play with a member of another church because God considers them unclean, or because God will be killing them and their families “soon” at Armageddon simply for making a “conscious decision” not to attend my church and worship like I do.

I’d be very careful about who or what you think I am condemning or judging. I have no list of “who” to condemn, but I have a long list of “what” to condemn.



Your point 18 was refuted. You'll need a new point.


I agreed with Yoshua. I did not "refute" him.





Aaaah, so you were never a student in class? I could help with that, but then I’m here to learn, not to teach.

Oeste, you certainly are mild-tempered in your responses! That's very good....you are imitating Christ well that way!

Take care.

 

[jeager106]

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1

in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God”

I understand the confusion. People tend to take the word of a religious leader
who has been schooled in Christian dogma by the Church.
Jesus is not "God" but a visible representative of Him.
But as I always say do the research for your self.
I have been doing my own research for decades to shake off the sometimes
silly "church" traditions we are often accepting as ..............well as gospel. :>)
Traditions are hard to break.
Church goers accept what is being preached by the Church. I doubt many
take dogma as something that needs be checked out by investigation.
The J.W.'s seem to have Scripture nailed down pretty good.
They are held in contempt because they preach things established religion
got all wrong.
They reject Trinitarianism, inherent immortality of the soul, and hellfire, which they consider to be unscriptural doctrines. They do not observe Christmas, Easter, birthdays, or other holidays and customs they consider to have pagan origins incompatible with Christianity.
http://www.answers.com/Q/Who_started_the_Jehovah's_Witness_religion

All those "holidays" are rooted in paganism.
As always do some research for yourself.

 

[NWL]

If you and the article both state prototokos can mean firstborn in a temporal as well as leadership sense, what exactly are you putting straight, and what was “inaccurate” in the article regarding the meaning of prototokos?

If you actually knew what the article was saying you wouldn't be asking, the fact you have to ask shows you too are like Yoshua.

The articles states "the word "first-born" (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority", this is false and is the point I referred to as inaccurate. The word "prototokos" CAN mean firstborn in the sense of priority and authority but it typically refers to something that is the first in a group. The Writer of the article made no mention that the word "prototokos" can refer to both things. The writer states "In the culture of the Ancient Near East, the first-born was not necessarily the oldest child" but makes no mention that this refers to the Greek word "prototokos".

HELPS Word-studies
4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly,first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).
4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).
[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).]

As you can see prōtótokos can mean firstborn in the sense of time and also preeminence.

If you are considered the firstborn (preeminent) doctor of your town's medical community, you must be part of that medical community. However It doesn’t mean you are the offspring of doctors.

Applying your logic and context consistently, we now have creation creating Jesus. If I am the firstborn “of Mary”, then I am the offspring of Mary, and if I am the firstborn “of creation” I am the offspring of creation. The context here doesn’t support your understanding of the verse.

Your reasoning shows your lack of thinking ability my friend. The problem you've created is assuming that when the word "firstborn" is used of something/body that it implies the person/thing needs to be begotten by the group it's firstborn of, this is not the case and not how the word is used in scripture as I will demonstrate. You cannot take an expression that can be applied to a person to another person and then apply it to person in relation to a group. Once again the error you made was comparing a person (singular) to a group (plural). A person is not a group, nor a group a person. Thus to compare the two on the merits of similarity of position is absurd. Look at the following verses:

(Psalm 89:27) "..And I will place him as firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.." Is King David here the offspring of Kings since he's the firstborn King? No.

(Exodus 11:5) "..and every firstborn in the land of Egypt will die.." Are all the firstborns in scripture here the offspring of Egpyt? No.

(Colossians 1:18) "..He [Jesus] is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.." Since Jesus is firstborn of the dead does that make him the offspring of the dead? No.

As you can see above, just because someone is called firstborn doesn't mean that the group that ther're firstborn of, namely Kings, Egypt and the Dead begat any of them. I understand where you're coming from with the whole "If I am the firstborn “of Mary”, then I am the offspring of Mary, and if I am the firstborn “of creation” I am the offspring of creation", but you can't parallel a statement taken from a person, applied to a person, to statement regarding a group to a person.

If however we were to take the example found in Exodus 11:5 where it states “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die” and compare it to what is said of Jesus in Col 1:15, it makes perfect sense and destroys your argument that Jesus being the firstborn of creation in a temporal sense would mean that Jesus was an offspring of creation. This is because we’re comparing the same principles applied to a group, namely Egypt, to another group, namely creation. The statement “Every firstborn son in Egypt will die” doesn’t imply in any way, shape or form that every firstborn son in Egypt was the offspring of Egypt but rather that the firstborn sons were Egyptians. Likewise, Jesus being the firstborn of all creation doesn’t imply he was parented or the offspring of creation but rather was simply part of it.

A question I typically pose is “if Jesus didn’t die could he be called firstborn from/of the dead as Col 1:18 states?” , the typical answer is of course “No” , since for Jesus to be labelled in the group of the dead he, of course, had to be dead or at some point been dead.

Correct! If Jesus (as man) is preeminent among all who died, he of course would have had to die. As God He is preeminent (supreme; first in priority/order) over all things.

Simply no, God is not prototokos over all things, this statement is ridiculous. God cannot die, not even the least studied trinitarian would be foolish enough to make such a statement as they claim that Jesus divinity was not the thing that died, but rather, that it was his humanity that died. God CANNOT die, you just implied that he did so that he could be first in all things.

Could you show me a single example in the bible where someone is the firstborn of a group and they’re not part of the group they’re firstborn in/of? Your example can be in reference to either meaning of firstborn, be it temporal or authoritative it has no effect on my question.

I don’t see how this question helps anyone determine whether firstborn means offspring or priority.

Of course you don't, you don't even fully grasp my argument. As I've already stated, to be firstborn of a group, regardless of what sense, be it temporal or in rank, you are always part of the group that your firstborn of. In Psalm 89:27 the firstborn sons of Egypt are Egyptians, the firstborn King was a King, Jesus the firstborn of the dead was dead, to be a firstborn kitten you need to be a kitten, to be the firstborn in your family I need to be a part of your family. I could you example after example and the result will always be the same, if you are firstborn of something, you are ALWAYS part of the group that you're firstborn of/in.

This is a universal rule and can be used in any example. There isn't a single example in history where someone/thing is firstborn of a group and they themselves are not part of the group. Thus, Jesus being the "firstborn of creation" would mean that he is part of creation.

Therefore I asked Yoshua to show me a single example of this taking place in the bible, if he could then his argument might hold some weight when applied to Col 1:15, he can't/hasn't so his point is void.

They may have been wondering why the question was asked. Albert Einstein might be considered the firstborn (preeminent) of scientists, but he would still be part of the group of scientists. No one here is claiming otherwise. Likewise since Christ is the preeminent of all those who have died, he is the firstborn of the dead, not the first offspring of the dead, because the dead don’t produce offspring any more than a created universe produced Jesus.

Again, the error you have here is thinking that my argument lies upon the word "firstborn" to mean that the person/group that the firstborn is of,is its parent and the firstborn its offspring. I've clearly demonstrated that this isn't the case and is your illogical error to assume such a thing.

First you tell us a very knowledgeable poster doesn’t know much about scripture, and then you tell us the poster didn’t understand an article he read. If I were to make such a statement it would tell you a lot more about me than it would the poster.

Do you think it rude of me to point out that someone doesn't know scripture and that they don't understand an article, which is clearly wrong? I'm sure what it would communicate to people is that I either know more than the one who I claim "doesn't know scripture" or that I'm arrogant. As I've shown how the article WAS wrong I'm safe to say that I'm not the latter.

I expect all of us are going to disagree with someone, somewhere, on something at some time. As such, we’ll have generous opportunities to gleefully trash each other’s arguments in the polite, civilized, and respectful manner to which we have all become accustomed.

What's more civilized, telling someone they don't know scripture, or to say they dumb, stupid or any other label some people apply to ignorance?

 

[NWL]

They all state the same thing…that Jesus is preeminent over creation.

How is does the statement of "These are the things that [Jesus] the Amen says, [who is] the faithful and true witness, [who is] the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:14) somehow show that Jesus is preeminent over creation?? How does the statement found in the OT, prior to the events of Col 1:18, of "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago" (Prov 8:22) show that Jesus is preeminent over all creation? It's easy to make claims but another thing backing them up.

John 6:56-57. Context, NWT! Somehow I get the impression that Jesus wasn’t talking about how he was created at verse 57

I never said John 6:57 was in regards to Jesus creation, I stated it was in regards to where he got his life. Jesus stated he "lives because of the Father", he said this whilst on earth. God doesn't live because of anyone, Jesus does, as he rightly said so.

At 1 Corinthians 8, Paul had just finished making the concessive argument ("Even if there are many who are called gods...") there is still only one God for Christians. So Paul is making a statement about Christian monotheism and then drives home the point by drawing parallels between Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Hear Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is one”). He defines the God of the Shema as one God, the Father, and the Lord of the Shema as One Lord, Jesus Christ.

Maybe you're not reading eveything I write, I don't know, but you really aren't getting mypoints. I never showed 1 Cor 8:6 because of what it says regarding the Father and him being the "One God", I used it because it clearly shows that "all things" are 'from the Father' and 'through Jesus', just as Hebrews 1:1,2 states.

By consistently applying the logic and understanding you gave of "firstborn" to Col 1:18. Is it your recommendation that we inconsistently apply it now?

Yes we must still be consistent. Again, your argument regarding the word "firstborn" and assuming that the person must be "born" in relation to my argument is false, as you applied it using and example of a person in relation to a person, instead of a group to a person, which Col 1:15 is. You cannot apply the same principle of a person(Mary) to a person(Jesus), to person(Jesus) in regard to a group(creation), you must use a like for like example, that Exodus 11:5 is.

Do people born from the grave?

Yoshua made a very good point with his question.

No he didn't, he made the same mistake as you.

Let's say I accept your assertion. How does that help determine whether preeminence or birth order is meant?

Trinitarians refuse to accept that prototokos means firstborn in the sense of time as it denies the trinity, instead they assume the other sense of prototokos, the sense of being preeminent. My argument looks beyond the differences of the two usages of the word and focuses on the principle of the word. Thus my reasoning helps show that Jesus MUST be part of the creation he's firstborn of (regardless of the sense of prototokos). Once one see's that Jesus must be part of creation, then it becomes clearer to see that the word prototokos actually means that Jesus is the firstborn in both the sense. The same way a firstborn son to his father is the first in position and age(creation) in regards to his household, is Jesus the firstborn in age(creation) and position in regards to creation.

Here’s the problem…carrying your analogy about the cat a little further, if Jesus is the “firstborn of the dead” then he must have been begat by the dead, as surely as the kitten was begat by the cat. Remember, we’re applying your interpretation of “firstborn” consistently to both examples. You can see the problem… if the firstborn “of cat” means the kitten is the begot of cat, then “the firstborn of all creation” means Jesus is begot of all creation and your reasoning, when consistently applied, becomes not only deniable but unreasonable.

Yes constantly as far as the context of language permits. Remember we compare like for like, person to group = person to group, you can't mix and match.

Could you show me an example that I asked from Yoshua? Show me an example where something is the firstborn of something and yet not part of the group, you can use any biblical or non biblical example.

 

[james2ko]

Oeste and I had the "prototokos" conversation earlier in the thread or perhaps it was another similar thread. Instead of studying the topic for himself, as the scriptures encourage us to do, he simply takes the word of those who share his belief. (Yes, I studied the topic for myself for several years without doctrinal bias).

The Greek word "firstborn" (prototokos) is used 130 times in the Bible and LXX. Its meaning is clearly stated in its literal translation. It always indicates a beginning or generation of something or someone that was not in existence before. Preeminence is a secondary definition that can be added to its primary meaning, but the term never implies preeminence exclusively.

Additionally, the phrase"the firstborn of" occurs over 30 times in the Bible and in every instance the acceptation is the same-- the firstborn is the very first allotment of the group. The "firstborn of the sheep" is a sheep who was born or existed before the others from one sheep (Gen 4:4), the "firstborn of the animals" is an animal born or in essence first created before all the others, etc. (Neh.10:36). The firstborn of every creature means the first being created before any creatures.

 

[james2ko]

I see. So if I have two hats, one red and the other blue and I say “Either hat is good for a rainy day but I prefer the red hat”, it means the blue hat is not preferred. A synonym for “not preferred” is unacceptable, which means incorrect, which means the blue hat is incorrect to wear on rainy days. If I insist either hat is fine then I am talking from both sides of my mouth and I am simply being “politically correct” about hats. Got it James!

1. This is yet another (how many is that four?) false analogy. First off, unacceptable and incorrect are synonymous. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/incorrect

Second, syntax would determine the use of the appropriate synonym. Mr. Ellicott's response is conceptual, warranting the conceptual synonym for "unacceptable" as incorrect. Which colored hat to wear is an object of preference, thus warranting preferential synonyms, like unsuitable, undesirable. Your false analogy mixes incontextual synonyms of preference with those associated with abstracts. Got it Oeste?

No, you asked me a specific question which was rhetorical, which is quite different from asking no specific question at all. Honestly James, if you didn’t interject assertions like these into your answers, my responses would be less “wordy” and we could move on quicker, as I think you've made it very clear you would like my responses to be shorter.

2. A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. The question might be one that does not have an answer. It might also be one that has an obvious answer but you have asked the question to make a point, to persuade or for literary effect. In other words, I asked a question for which no response was warranted. So my statement stands-- I did not ask you a particular question for you to answer.

You can’t be serious James. You want me to explain why my analogies are not false? Wouldn’t that be your job, not mine, since you disagree with my analogy?

3. Which I've done so. Did so again in point 1. And will continue to do so.

Aren’t you the person complaining about my “wordiness”? If I include documentation why a clear analogy is “not false”, you would go ballistic!!!

4. You mean like your "clearly" false analogy of point 1?

Okay….so Jesus was a “spirit creature” with flesh and bones, assuring his disciples spirits creatures don’t have flesh and bones. That had to be quite a feat, but if such is the case, it not only makes Jesus deceptive but a liar as well. How can the Word of God say spirit creatures don’t have flesh and bones if he’s standing right smack in the middle of them as a spirit creature with flesh and bones? And what do you mean by "He is not exclusively made of solid flesh and bones"? What other kind of flesh and bones do you think "spirit creatures" have?

5. You're not reading my statements carefully causing you to misunderstand. Much like you do to statements of scripture. I said, "assuring them He, at the time, is not a ghost (spirit)". At that particular point in time, Christ statement was one of assurance. Similar to a father calming the fears of a child whom the child thought was a ghost entering their dark room by saying, "Look, feel my body, I'm no ghost, I'm daddy".

But that still doesn’t answer the question. First, it doesn’t answer the question as to why the stone was removed if Jesus rose as a spirit creature.

6. How else would anyone know if His three days and three nights prophecy would come to pass, if the stone had not been rolled away to disclose His missing body? The rolling away had nothing to do with His body composition as you erroneously conclude because He appeared to the disciples in a room from thin air. The rolling away had everything to do with evidence of His resurrection.

Secondly, at the point of flesh materialization, the spirit creature is now a spirit creature of flesh and bones which Jesus specifically stated spirit creatures do not have.

7. It’s not a matter of having flesh and bone or spirit exclusively. It’s a matter of transformation between the two states at will. Here’s a question for you. If spirit creatures cannot transform themselves to flesh and bone, what do you call the angels, whom the bible calls spirits (Heb 1:14), who grabbed the hands of Lot and his family?

Let’s look at the verses in question again:

1Cor 15:45 is never meant to be treatise or "proof text" on the manner of Jesus's resurrection, but simply what that resurrection means for the rest of us.

To find out the manner of Jesus's resurrection we simply go to John 2:21:

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.


If everyone believed what Jesus specifically said about raising his body, we wouldn’t be having this discussion now.

8. Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. The Father very clearly raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24,30; 2Cor. 4;14; Eph. 1:20; Heb 11:19 and many more). John's use of the passive verb "raised or risen" in Joh 2:22 supports these passages. Is this a contradiction? No. Thus verse Joh 2:19 can be understood as The Father speaking prophetic words through His prophet--Christ. Thus my interpretation of 1 Co 15:45 stands. If you would just learn how to rightly divide the scriptures, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

You found yourself between a rock and a hard place after charging in on this spirit creature business, and now you’re blowing off a little steam. Got it.

9. No I don’t get it because my interpretation stands firm in scripture. Yours does not. I think you are transposing your own feelings of biblical illiteracy upon me. Projection is actually a very common defense mechanism. Got it?

Huh? Now you’re not being clear. Can you just answer the question? You stated a sinless Jesus could not be deceptive. I’m simply asking if you think Adam and Eve existing in a sinless state made them incapable of being deceptive. I’m not asking whether one or the other ever sinned, I’m asking about their sinless state. I want to know what it is about Jesus’ sinless state that made him incapable of being deceptive when it so obviously didn’t work for Adam and Eve.

10. Any human, if they really make an effort, can exist in a sinless state for a short period of time, thus making them incapable of being deceptive for that specific period of time. But no human can exist in a sinless state for their whole life as Jesus did. . Neither your analogy or your question has any basis in the truth of scripture because it specifically states Christ lived and died sinless, thus He could not be deceptive, Adam lived but did not die sinless. Hence exposing your false analogy.

See my response immediately above, and my response to point 2 above. I don’t see any point to your “point 2” at all.

11. You don’t want to see it because denial is not just a river in Egypt. It is also a defense mechanism used by those who are refuted.

Terse yes, but correct, no. How can you say I “failed to address” a point when I addressed it in post 1845? First you tell us Jesus is a spirit creature with flesh and blood even though Jesus has just told his disciples spirit creature don’t have flesh and blood, and now you’re telling us I failed to address points when in actuality they were addressed. I’m sensing a pattern here.

12. Yes. I noticed a pattern myself-- one of calling out your consistent fallacious reasoning.

 

[james2ko]

Nah. It only presupposes your assertion as illogical.

You stated a sinless Jesus could not be deceptive. I simply asked about Adam and Eve, who were also born sinless. My question immediately exposed the problem with your assertion, that’s all. There was nothing “deceptive” about the question itself.

13. Nope. Your question only exposes your poor logic. Your leading question contradicts what scripture states about Christ--that He was sinless thus He could not be deceptive. My statement in red, which you quoted, is consistent with scripture.

Why are you tallying your fallacies? I'd much rather get questions answered then keep a scorecard.

13a. I’m tallying your fallacies to show just how bad your logic really is.

C’mon James, you can do better than this! I specifically asked you questions about this spirit creature stuff because I was confident I would receive answers. Now you’re not only going to evade answering the question, you’re going to substitute a new question for mine. In other words, since you can’t answer the question I actuallyasked, you simply substitute it with the question you wished I asked.

Pleeeeeeaaaaase James2ko, can you just answer the question? If I wanted someone to ask questions for me, I would pull out a certain periodical someone left on my door one Saturday and turn my attention to the bottom of the page.

14. Your questions were addressed. You just don't like the answers because it exposes your stinking thinking (bad logic) and low biblical IQ. With your back against the wall, you resort to accusing me of dodging them. I guess desperate times call for desperate measure.

This is not making any more sense to me than your other points.

15. Of course my points don’t make sense because your logic is flawed and you don’t know scripture as well as you think you do.

1. Previously you stated Jesus was raised as a spirit creature. Now you state it is a supernatural one composed of flesh bone and spirit, which is the position of the traditional church. You keep going back and forth as if you're not sure one way or the other. 2. If Jesus is composed of flesh, bone and spirit, why would it need to transition between flesh, bone, and spirit? Isn't he already there???

16. I never said He was raised as a spirit creature. I actually said He was raised with a supernatural body with the ability to transition between flesh/bone and spirit. Irrefutable proof how you twist my words in a dismal attempt to give the impression I am being illogical. You are being a very baaaad and deceitful boy.

I believe the original question was whether Jesus was raised as a spirit creature. If you believe he was raised with flesh, bone and spirit then the question is settled between us. If not, please let us know why the stone would be moved, and what happened to Jesus’s body…the one he said he would raise in 3 days. That's the part "...so difficult to understand".

17. Already did. See point 6 and 7

Boy, how quickly we forget! It was you who elected yourself arbiter for all things “wordy”, remember? I simply borrowed your ruler.

In other words, you have no answer, except to say it’s been mysteriously embedded in some past post that I can’t seem to find and you’re too busy to make a link to, and that your posts are replete with logic that you never care to explain.

There are others who believe Jesus rose as a “spirit creature”. Perhaps they can help you out. I’ve noticed a few have been quick to cheer from the sidelines but have been notably silent in our discussion.

And don’t worry, I’ll be sure to add some extra butter, but so far this “spirit creature” show has been sadly disappointing.

16. I’ve been answering your questions with explanations of sound logic and scripture. You have yet to point out one legitimate fallacy in my argument. You are simply engaging in more projection "yawn." BTW…I’m getting hungry. Where’s the popcorn?

I explained previously words like “truth” have different meanings to different people, that’s all. If “full truth” is knowledge rather than Christ (John 14:6) then we only have half-truths because we see through a glass darkly. But "full truth" is not knowledge developed from books or doctrine. It is Christ, and if we are to come to truth we should develop a personal relationship with him.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

This is not Oeste being “deceitful” James; it’s simply scripture telling us what truth actually is. When we receive our glorified bodies we’re not going to come face to face with a book or doctrine, but with Christ. We will know, not be taught. (Isaiah 59:21, Hebrews 8:10, Hebrews 10:16, 2 Corinthians 3:17-18)

17. I never proposed full truth is knowledge rather than Christ. Once again, you’re twisting my words. My proposal involves full truth in terms of having “all” the true doctrines and teachings of Christ. Which none of us have. This was the context of my point to Yoshua.

I guess I didn't understand the part where you took what he actually said and attempted to change it to something you wish he said. As to what he actually stated, I responded to on post 2041.

18. A false accusation with no basis in fact in order to undermine my credibility. Boy you are really getting desperate.

Thanks James, but that answers none of the questions I posed to you. If you want to ask questions to members exclusively, I'm sure this forum provides a method to inbox them. I really don’t think the debate section is the proper venue for that. When you post statements or questions, you just don’t know who will respond.

19. I encourage answers to any of my posts. But at least get the full context before you make yourself look foolish.

Shouldn't this be something you relay to our Witness friends? They're the ones who claim all the Christian seats are reserved for them.

20. So you deflect my refutation of your reply by utilizing a red herring? Your logic is worse than I thought.

Your point 18 was refuted. You'll need a new point.

21. My point was refuted? With what? A fallacious red herring response? Lol. Why am I not surprised?

I agreed with Yoshua. I did not "refute" him.

22. If you really think his pride would allow him to admit a fellow evangelical trying to defend him, mistakenly refuted him, I would have to question your knowledge, or lack thereof, of human nature.

Aaaah, so you were never a student in class? I could help with that, but then I’m here to learn, not to teach.

23. Yes, please stick to learning. Bible teaching is definitely not your gift.

Whoa! Now that’s really interesting. You stated “our context”. Since you seem to disagree with just about everyone when it comes to context, who is “our”?

24.. Do I really have to take you back to second grade English to cover pronouns? Yeah...definitely stick to learning......

 

[james2ko]

If you are considered the firstborn (preeminent) doctor of your town's medical community, you must be part of that medical community. However It doesn’t mean you are the offspring of doctors.

The fundamental breakdown in your analogy comes from a misunderstanding of the term's [prototokos] definition. Your analogy separates the primary definition (beginning of something or someone that did not exist before) and secondary definition (preeminence), when the two definitions may co-exist. Only the primary definition is constant in every instance of the term.

For example, if you are the firstborn [prototokos] doctor of your medical community, you cannot exclusively be preeminent--head over all the other doctors in the community, as your analogy proposes. According to the term's (prototokos) definition and biblical usage, you have to be the first doctor who ever existed in that community. That's not to say because of your experience, knowledge, and or election, you cannot also be the doctor who also has preeminence over other doctors in the community.

This is how Paul depicts Christ. In His preincarnate state, He is the first creature produced (Col 1:15). In existence before all things (Col 1:17). While in His incarnate state, He became the first human to be resurrected to immortality (firstborn [prototokos] from the dead), hence also becoming preeminent (proteuon) over all creation (Col 1:18).