Jesus - First Born?

[Soapy]

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

Yet, in the same trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was never born because he is God, who is not a creation!

Are these two contradictory claims from one belief system?

 

[Muffled]

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

Yet, in the same trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was never born because he is God, who is not a creation!

Are these two contradictory claims from one belief system?

I believe you are in error. there is no contradiction because the second statement is not true. One can 't say that Jesus was never born.

 

[Soapy]

I believe you are in error. there is no contradiction because the second statement is not true. One can 't say that Jesus was never born.

Can I ask:
Are you a trinitarian who believes that:

1. Jesus ‘created all things’?
2. Jesus was with God in the beginning
3. That Jesus was the FIRST BORN OF ALL CREATION?

 

[Oeste]

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

There are thousands upon thousands of books on the Trinity, many of them written by Trinitarian authors well versed in the subject.

Rest assured that NONE of them claim "Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation."

Can I ask?:

1. Is this something you came up with on your own? Or...
2. Can you quote a legitimate or respected source that espouses this as a "trinitarian belief"?

Absent reliable sources, I see no need to credit this thread's premise this is or ever was a "trinitarian belief".

Perhaps you meant to ask: "Do Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation?"

If so, the answer is "No". Trinitarians believe it it the testimony of scripture that Jesus was born to Mary ( Son of Man). So it is "Mary" and not "creation" that birthed Jesus.

Trinitarians also believe Jesus is rightfully "first born" (prototokos, pre-eminent) over all creation, as the "only begotten" Son of God. It you are aware of Trinitarian authors who believe otherwise, please cite them.

As such, the statement:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation."

is simply incorrect and can be dismissed due to a lack of credible basis.

 

[Oeste]

You haven’t been reading what I told you:

Everybody is reading what you've told me Soapy.

When a trinitarian realises his false ideology has been exposed they immediately deny that they ever said it…

And I gave you opportunity after opportunity to produce this trinitarian and tell us when and where they've said it.

This is my 4th request for you to cite a source that you can't cite, because the source never existed.

Where is this trinitarian that we need to deny? Show him to us.

Don't get me wrong Soapy. If you want us to entertain or comment on fabricated theory, that is all well and good. My objection is that you've posted this as "trinitarian belief" when we all know it was simply your own.

Trinitarians have never promoted your claim that "Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation". I told you why in post 8.

Can you explain why you expect trinitarians to deny doctrines never espoused as if they had espoused it? Or should we add this to the "Expecting way too much from Soapy" list as well?

sake as when a trinitarian fallacy is presented to them and they realise that it is wrong they immediately deny ever hearing of it or deny that it is a trinitarian belief.

I'm afraid the only person claiming "In trinitarian belief Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation" is YOU.

As such, it appears you not only confuse YOUR thoughts with trinitarians, but experience great difficulty when later asked to separate the two. In short, the goal of your OP was to bear false witness against trinitarians.

It might explain a lot about your post, and it would also explain why you cannot cite a trinitarian source for what you and anyone reading this knows was a completely fabricated "trinitarian belief".

 

[Soapy]

There are thousands upon thousands of books on the Trinity, many of them written by Trinitarian authors well versed in the subject.

Rest assured that NONE of them claim "Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation."

Can I ask?:

1. Is this something you came up with on your own? Or...
2. Can you quote a legitimate or respected source that espouses this as a "trinitarian belief"?

Absent reliable sources, I see no need to credit this thread's premise this is or ever was a "trinitarian belief".

Perhaps you meant to ask: "Do Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation?"

If so, the answer is "No". Trinitarians believe it it the testimony of scripture that Jesus was born to Mary ( Son of Man). So it is "Mary" and not "creation" that birthed Jesus.

Trinitarians also believe Jesus is rightfully "first born" (prototokos, pre-eminent) over all creation, as the "only begotten" Son of God. It you are aware of Trinitarian authors who believe otherwise, please cite them.

As such, the statement:


is simply incorrect and can be dismissed due to a lack of credible basis.

Have you not heard that ‘Jesus is ETERNALLY BORN from God’?

If no, then there is another of the thousands of trinity claims I fully believe you will claim you also never heard of.

As I pointed out: when a trinitarian realised that his fallacious claim has been uncovered he runs for cover by claiming he has never heard of it and demands proof. Of course, any ‘proof’ presented to him will be dismissed as ‘not trinitarian belief’.. just as you are doing here.

This tactic is the reason that trinity has existed for two thousand and more years… it morphs itself taking into account what has failed and been exposed… why not… Trinity has always been an evolving, moulting, artificially developed belief.

There are thousands upon thousands of books on the Trinity, many of them written by Trinitarian authors well versed in the subject.

Well versed in spreading fallacy - yes!

I urge you to check out (e.g.): Eternally Begotten (born from God)

I do not like delving into the trinitarian creeds as doing so opens up a whole many more ridiculous ideological nonsense - but it was necessary for this occasion.

The trinity claim that Jesus is the pre-human ‘Wisdom’ of God who was ‘Created at the beginning of the creation of God’:

• “The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.”

which makes a farce of the claim that it was Jesus who created all things AND that Jesus was BORN from God.

It is, of course, obvious that some faction of Trinitarians would deny correctly that Wisdom is not Jesus and therefore was not born from God. So, what we have is two sets of fallacies within the same trinitarian belief - aka: Satan fighting Satan!!

 

[Oeste]

Have you not heard that ‘Jesus is ETERNALLY BORN from God’?

Soapy, I really need you to stay focused on your original claim and the item we have been specifically discussing.

If you recall, it's the one you led with. It was the first sentence of the opening post on this very thread...a thread you authored!

Here it is again:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

That is what I have "not heard". It's the statement you lead with when you created this thread.

This is my fifth request for you to post a source. If your source is simply "thin air", that's fine. For some, "thin air" can become authoritative, especially if they hear it repeated over and over again.

Look, if you find you cannot defend your initial statement, or if you want to abandon it for whatever reason, that's fine too. In that case, just let your readers know. I am sure you can find plenty of Christians willing to move on and discuss whether or not they've heard that "Jesus is ETERNALLY BORN from God".

As for me, I was simply interested in your theme's thread and opening lead. Can you cite a source for this alleged "trinitarian belief" or not?

 

[Soapy]

Soapy, I really need you to stay focused on your original claim and the item we have been specifically discussing.

If you recall, it's the one you led with. It was the first sentence of the opening post on this very thread...a thread you authored!

Here it is again:


That is what I have "not heard". It's the statement you lead with when you created this thread.

This is my fifth request for you to post a source. If your source is simply "thin air", that's fine. For some, "thin air" can become authoritative, especially if they hear it repeated over and over again.

Look, if you find you cannot defend your initial statement, or if you want to abandon it for whatever reason, that's fine too. In that case, just let your readers know. I am sure you can find plenty of Christians willing to move on and discuss whether or not they've heard that "Jesus is ETERNALLY BORN from God".

As for me, I was simply interested in your theme's thread and opening lead. Can you cite a source for this alleged "trinitarian belief" or not?

Why are you stressing… straining at a gnat?

Trinitarians claim that Jesus was ‘Wisdom’, the first of the creations of God: the first of his act long ago…

I pointed you to a link that states this as a belief but, just as I stated, you deny it by your absence of reference to it.

Where did this idea come from? ‘Begotten of God’ as the first of his creation. Is this not written and believed in from the Athanasian Creed?

Or are you starting to deny the very creed that is the backbone of trinitarianism…. I think you are - which links back to what I said in earlier posts that when Trinitarians see the fallacy of their own claim in belief they distance themselves from it and claim they never heard it before!!

 

[Oeste]

Why are you stressing… straining at a gnat?

Why? Because you expected forum readers to swallow this camel whole:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

When I say "whole" I mean without citation, without basis, and without supportive arguments of any kind. Compared to some of the more natty comments on this forum, this one stuck out as hugely untidy.

If you intend to present a claim as something trinitarians believe, I think it would help immensely if trinitarians actually believed it.

Trinitarians claim that Jesus was ‘Wisdom’, the first of the creations of God: the first of his act long ago…

Remember what I said about "focus".

I am focusing on the OP, the argument initially presented, the introduction to thread theme...

There are plenty of folk here willing to discuss who "Wisdom" is with you. I am sure you'll get a lot of interesting comments on who or what Wisdom is or is not. You may even get both.

But to me, that's like focusing on the gnat in the corner when a camel suddenly "poofed" in the room.

Where did this idea come from? ‘Begotten of God’ as the first of his creation. Is this not written and believed in from the Athanasian Creed?

Uhmmm.... I would really, really like to focus specifically on thread theme...the one you led in with, to wit:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

I fear that if you abandon thread theme this quickly, then you are even more than likely to abandon any discussion about Wisdom. That would make any discussion pointless, and would not bode well for future topics.

Look, if what you initially claim was simply something you thought trinitarians believed, that's all well and good. I just want to get some clarification though.

Perhaps you posted this:

1. In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.​

But realized later it would have been better to post something like this:

2. In trinitarian belief, was Jesus Christ born as the first of all creation?​

Do you see the difference?

#1 is a statement and requires a factual basis. #2 is a question that simply requires an opinion. ​

Do you have a credible basis that you can cite which supports the OP or not? As a Trinitarian, I'd hate to think that I have the trinitarian position all wrong but...Hey! Wait a moment....I think I've got it!

Perhaps you meant to lead in with this:

3. In trinitarian belief, was WISDOM born as the first of all creation?​

Is this what you really meant to post?

Look, I can't read your mind Soapy, especially if you jump around from one point or theme to another, but mistakes happen.

Door #3 ties in all those later points you initially forgot to get in. As a bonus, the question can be easily construed to mean you were simply asking for readers' "opinions", and not making a "factual statement" about Trinitarian beliefs.

If you meant # 2 or 3 just say so. I'll bow out immediately, without further adieu, and let others handle the discussion.

 

[Soapy]

Why? Because you expected forum readers to swallow this camel whole:



When I say "whole" I mean without citation, without basis, and without supportive arguments of any kind. Compared to some of the more natty comments on this forum, this one stuck out as hugely untidy.

If you intend to present a claim as something trinitarians believe, I think it would help immensely if trinitarians actually believed it.




Remember what I said about "focus".

I am focusing on the OP, the argument initially presented, the introduction to thread theme...

There are plenty of folk here willing to discuss who "Wisdom" is with you. I am sure you'll get a lot of interesting comments on who or what Wisdom is or is not. You may even get both.

But to me, that's like focusing on the gnat in the corner when a camel suddenly "poofed" in the room.




Uhmmm.... I would really, really like to focus specifically on thread theme...the one you led in with, to wit:



I fear that if you abandon thread theme this quickly, then you are even more than likely to abandon any discussion about Wisdom. That would make any discussion pointless, and would not bode well for future topics.

Look, if what you initially claim was simply something you thought trinitarians believed, that's all well and good. I just want to get some clarification though.

Perhaps you posted this:

1. In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.​

But realized later it would have been better to post something like this:

2. In trinitarian belief, was Jesus Christ born as the first of all creation?​

Do you see the difference?

#1 is a statement and requires a factual basis. #2 is a question that simply requires an opinion. ​

Do you have a credible basis that you can cite which supports the OP or not? As a Trinitarian, I'd hate to think that I have the trinitarian position all wrong but...Hey! Wait a moment....I think I've got it!

Perhaps you meant to lead in with this:

3. In trinitarian belief, was WISDOM born as the first of all creation?​

Is this what you really meant to post?

Look, I can't read your mind Soapy, especially if you jump around from one point or theme to another, but mistakes happen.

Door #3 ties in all those later points you initially forgot to get in. As a bonus, the question can be easily construed to mean you were simply asking for readers' "opinions", and not making a "factual statement" about Trinitarian beliefs.

If you meant # 2 or 3 just say so. I'll bow out immediately, without further ado, and let others handle the discussion.

It’s no use you trying to squirm away from the very evidence you requested from me. I see you!

It’s exactly what I said would happen - When the truth is told the fallacy believers run away claiming they never heard such absurdities…

You won’t admit that you see it - which is why you continue to ignore the evidence I presented to you.

If you are trinitarian then the claim that Jesus was the FIRST BORN OF EVERY CREATURE is part of your belief - by way of the aspect of creed that you must also believe - the creed that denies its own claims: “Born but not created”.

Not only that but how many times is it claimed by Trinitarians that Jesus, himself, said: ‘I existed before Abraham’?

What does that mean? A God judged in existence of time to a human being? ‘I am greater than Abraham because I, as God, was born before Abraham was born’?

What about Abraham’s parents - was Jesus born before them? Or Adam?

Thank you for leading me to expose even more fallacies in the same thread… Yes, the more you squirm in the mire of one fallacy the more you dig up even more!

I was prepared to limit the thread to the question I asked but you’ve just thrown it open by your oersusyence in ignoring the evidence.

But in any case - What do you say to ‘Eternally Born of God’?

Here is a ridiculous citation from Jesus - first-born of all creation:

• “The description “first-born of all creation” speaks of Christ's preexistence. He is not a creature but the eternal Creator. God created the world through Christ and redeemed the world through Christ”

The claim says that Jesus is the first of all creation BUT HE IS NOT A CREATURE??!!!

In fact, he is THE CREATOR?

Hold on, Jesus is the CREATOR? The very next statement says:

• ‘GOD created the world through [Jesus]’

Well, if GOD CREATED, through a medium of Jesus… how is Jesus ‘God’. And if Jesus is not GOD (GOD, who used Jesus to create) the Jesus MUST BE A CREATED BEING (Born) - hence the term “BEGOTTEN OF GOD”.

Moreover, does the title, ‘FATHER‘, not mean:

• ‘HE THAT CREATES’
• ‘HE THAT BRINGS INTO BEING’
• ‘HE THAT GIVES LIFE’
• ‘HE THAT IS THE HEAD’

But Jesus is never called ‘FATHER’.

Only GOD is called ‘FATHER’.

So, if only God is called Father, and Father means, ‘He that gives life’ and ‘He that brings into being’, then Jesus must have been BROUGHT INTO BEING and GIVEN LIFE … BY GOD!

Which means: Jesus was BEGOTTEN OF GOD!

And all the Jewish/Christian world believe that Jesus is begotten of God… BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS.

The issue is that TRINITARIAN […Christians] believe that;

• Jesus was BEGOTTEN OF GOD BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

And after that, claims the Trinitarians, God created the world THROUGH Jesus.

But that creates a dilemma - a contradiction!! Trinitarians ALSO CLAIM that Jesus is ETERNAL ….

But if Jesus is BEGOTTEN OF GOD then how could Jesus be ETERNAL?

Trinitarians thought long and hard about this problem and eventually came up with a ludicrous compromise:

• Jesus is ETERNALLY BEGOTTEN of God

And they wrote that into a Creed that all Trinitarian Christians must believe. Indeed I have had many debates with Trinitarians about his this belief could be true…. They have all tried to justify the claim… but failed miserably!

The truth is that ‘BEGOTTEN OF GOD’ (or ‘Begotten of the Father’) pertains to the ADOPTION OF JESUS as in the verse:

• “You are my Son; This day I have become your Father” (An adoption declaration)

If Jesus is eternal then how could he be adopted BY GOD?

So trinity is caught out - but, as I said, Trinitarians will try every way to deny the realisation.

 

[syo]

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

Yet, in the same trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was never born because he is God, who is not a creation!

Are these two contradictory claims from one belief system?

Yes. It's called modern abrahamic christianity. AKA Orthodox and catholics.

 

[Brian2]

@Soapy I have noticed a couple of posts I did to you are missing and at least one post you did to me in response is missing from this thread. I don't know what has been happening.
@Oeste says he has been having a similar problem.
Just letting you know.
Anyway, my last response was to a comment by you that Jesus was in charge of this physical creation and God was in charge of the uncreated spirit realm. I asked whether you really thought there was an uncreated spirit realm.

 

[Oeste]

It’s no use you trying to squirm away from the very evidence you requested from me. I see you!

Oh my goodness! I offered several doors. #3 was a real good door Soapy,

It’s exactly what I said would happen - When the truth is told the fallacy believers run away claiming they never heard such absurdities…

Can you post your evidence for your initial comment please? I've asked for it several times.

If you are trinitarian then the claim that Jesus was the FIRST BORN OF EVERY CREATURE is part of your belief

Yes, that is part of my belief. However, as I've stated, time and time again, your initial post was not:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

Claiming Trinitarians believe "Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation" is VASTLY different then saying Trinitarian believe Jesus is the First-Born of all creation. As stated previously:

Trinitarians believe it it the testimony of scripture that Jesus was born to Mary ( Son of Man). So it is "Mary" and not "creation" that birthed Jesus.

Trinitarians also believe Jesus is rightfully "first born" (prototokos, pre-eminent) over all creation, as the "only begotten" Son of God. It you are aware of Trinitarian authors who believe otherwise, please cite them.

So your initial statement is incorrect. Trinitarians DO NOT believe Christ was born or birthed (tokos) as the first of all creation. Christ is pre-eminent over creation, and not a creature of creation.

There is no need to obfuscate your doctrine or misunderstanding as a "Trinitarian belief".

 

[Oeste]

@Soapy I have noticed a couple of posts I did to you are missing and at least one post you did to me in response is missing from this thread. I don't know what has been happening.
@Oeste says he has been having a similar problem.
Just letting you know.
Anyway, my last response was to a comment by you that Jesus was in charge of this physical creation and God was in charge of the uncreated spirit realm. I asked whether you really thought there was an uncreated spirit realm.

I am definitely seeing some dropped posts. It seems to be across the board.

 

[Oeste]

By the way, Happy Father's Day to everyone! I am on my way to the movies with my daughter.

Enjoy your day!!!

 

[Soapy]

@Soapy I have noticed a couple of posts I did to you are missing and at least one post you did to me in response is missing from this thread. I don't know what has been happening.
@Oeste says he has been having a similar problem.
Just letting you know.
Anyway, my last response was to a comment by you that Jesus was in charge of this physical creation and God was in charge of the uncreated spirit realm. I asked whether you really thought there was an uncreated spirit realm.

Yes, thanks. I realised a while back.

 

[Soapy]

I am definitely seeing some dropped posts. It seems to be across the board.

Yes, RF site appeared to have been down for a few days. The posts were going in but maybe not updated.

 

[Soapy]

Oh my goodness! I offered several doors. #3 was a real good door Soapy,



Can you post your evidence for your initial comment please? I've asked for it several times.




Yes, that is part of my belief. However, as I've stated, time and time again, your initial post was not:



Claiming Trinitarians believe "Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation" is VASTLY different then saying Trinitarian believe Jesus is the First-Born of all creation. As stated previously:



So your initial statement is incorrect. Trinitarians DO NOT believe Christ was born or birthed (tokos) as the first of all creation. Christ is pre-eminent over creation, and not a creature of creation.

There is no need to obfuscate your doctrine or misunderstanding as a "Trinitarian belief".

I see that you are still ignoring the link I sent you regarding ‘Eternally Born of God’.

It is this very neglect that drives me to harden the facts I’ve laid out to you.

If Trinitarians believe that Jesus is eternally born of God but can’t explain it at all his this could be, that would explain why the belief is also that, though he is born of God before God created anything [else] he is still not a creation because he is God!!??!

• ‘Eternally Born from God but not created’?

But there’s the problem again: If Jesus was born (begotten) of God and then God used Jesus to create all things.. why isn’t Jesus called ‘Father’?

Why is only God called ‘Father’?
Jesus’ Father is God: ‘I only said that God is my Father’

And God’s Son is Jesus. ‘You are my Son; This day I have begotten you’.

Was Adam begotten of God?

Was Cain begotten of Adam?

What does ‘Begotten’ mean?

 

[Oeste]

I see that you are still ignoring the link I sent you regarding ‘Eternally Born of God’.

No Soapy....I just think you posted your link on the wrong thread.

Your thread is titled "Jesus - First Born?" and your OP led with the following statement:

In trinitarian belief, Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation.

Since I, as a trinitarian, do not believe this, nor have I known or read of any trinitarian who did, it got me interested. I figured this was a typo of some sort... a statement that you meant as a question. I didn't expect you to double down on it.

This is why I asked you to cite a source or explain what you meant. I also made it clear that, as written, no church or trinitarian doctrine I am aware of claims Jesus was born as the first of all creation. The terms "born" and "first-born" will have different meanings, both in Hebrew and Greek, depending on how they are used contextually.

But there’s the problem again: If Jesus was born (begotten) of God and then God used Jesus to create all things.. why isn’t Jesus called ‘Father’?

I'm still looking for the promised discussion on prototokos ( first-born) that you started. I believe the discussion on monogenes (begotten) is somewhere down the hall.

If Trinitarians believe that Jesus is eternally born of God but can’t explain it at all...."

Now, now Soapy!

A failure on your part to read does not mean there was a failure on our part to explain.

As I stated previously, there have been thousands upon thousands of publications published on this very subject. There is no reason for you NOT to understand.

But I've made this REAL easy for you.

You had questions about "begotten" after reading an article from a Catholic site. I am Protestant, not Catholic, so I am going to send you to a Catholic site to get answers.

This is such an easy read that I am SURE you will have no problem understanding it:

If the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father, then how can he also be born of Mary?

If you have any follow up question, you can simply query them to get additional answers. There is a SEARCH BAR right on top! What could be simpler?

Now that I've explained and cited a reputable source where YOU can get answers, can you return the favor and do the same for the rest of US?

For example, where do we find your source that Trinitarians believe Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation? It's certainly not at Catholic Answers.

But there’s the problem again: If Jesus was born (begotten) of God and then God used Jesus to create all things.. why isn’t Jesus called ‘Father’?

Why is only God called ‘Father’?

Well, now, remember....you did ask!...

“For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6​

The question is not why we believe our creator should be called Father, it's more why you believe he shouldn't. This doesn't have anything to do with your stated belief that Satan had a hand in man's creation, does it?

Okay Soapy. I've answered your questions even though it appears you won't undertake even the most modest attempt to answer mine. I've even gone so far as to show you where you can get answers to Catholic nomenclature on the Trinity. I believe the site targets an eighth grade reading level, but that should be of no concern to you.

Now please, be nice and do the same for us. Show us where we can find this "Trinitarian belief" that Jesus Christ was born as the first of all creation".

 

[Brian2]

Yes, thanks. I realised a while back.

OK good.
Do you think there is an uncreated spiritual realm? and what is supposed to be in this realm?