Jesus - First Born?

[Betho_br]

John 6:56 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your fathers, who ate the manna and died, the one who eats this bread will live forever.”…

Yes they are words with meaning. Jesus source of life is His Father, His life comes from His Father, just as the eternal life of a Christian comes from Jesus.

When analyzing devoid of religious bias and passion, I observe that no Christian theology should overshadow the words of Jesus. To me, this implies that the Book of Acts, the letters of the New Testament, and the Revelation occupy a secondary position in relation to the words of Jesus. This raises the question about the Gospel of John, which stands out for its explicit treatment of the doctrine of unity and the Filioque controversy, presenting notable divergences from the other three Gospels.

 

[Brian2]

When analyzing devoid of religious bias and passion, I observe that no Christian theology should overshadow the words of Jesus. To me, this implies that the Book of Acts, the letters of the New Testament, and the Revelation occupy a secondary position in relation to the words of Jesus. This raises the question about the Gospel of John, which stands out for its explicit treatment of the doctrine of unity and the Filioque controversy, presenting notable divergences from the other three Gospels.

Certaiinly the words of Jesus are central but need to be understood properly. Certainly some things could not be fully covered by Jesus. He had enough trouble getting them to accept that He was going to die and rise again,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if they even did accept that before He died and rose. Jesus did say that the Spirit of Truth would lead them into all truth (John 16:13) and that has happened and I think is still happening to an extent with each generation.
I don't know that John diverges from the other 3 Gospels. If anything I would say that he gives a fills in things that the other gospels did not cover in depth.
The epistles also are there to fill in gaps and give us a better understanding of the words of Jesus and what He did and how it all fits with what is revealed in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[Eli G]

John 6:56 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your fathers, who ate the manna and died, the one who eats this bread will live forever.”…

Yes they are words with meaning. Jesus source of life is His Father, His life comes from His Father, just as the eternal life of a Christian comes from Jesus.

If "Jesus source of life is His Father" then Jesus' life started when the Father started giving him life, so Jesus has an origin.

They call it cognitive dissonance... that some people avoid logic in reasoning when it comes to contradict what they believe.

 

[freelight]

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?

A Unitarian concept is most logical and practical for most mortals accepting Jesus as the Son of God proper, the beginning of the creation of God, Firstborn from the dead, firstborn among many brethren and so on. Its simple familial lineage and relationship context in which to relate to 'God' and his SON, and all sons (all souls). You can lump this all together as one SON, one mystical body of Christ,.....the 'collective' includes all individuals in that community.....all multiples merge back into "1" - (metaphysics, numerology).

The generations-old debate between Unitarians and Trinitarians is mostly SEMANTICS.....we can spend years diving into the forensics and details of how 'God' is related to his 'Son' or any aspect of the 'Godhead' (Father-Son-Spirit) if we hold such a 'con-cept', then the whole 'Trinity' complex plus variety of 'Christologies' that spring within that template. 'God' is ONE no matter how you slice or dice 'God'.

Jesus is the Firstborn in many different ways, and if BORN, then Jesus in that phase of his being had a BEGINNING, obviously. The Son has a beginning although he may not have an ending, being eternal and ever-sustained by 'God' his Father....just like other 'sons' of a 'father'.....all sons are GENERATED or BEGOTTEN,.....that implies a time of generation. In this case a traditional Unit-Arian view suffices simply without further complication.

Back to semantics which are more wonderfully employed within a 'Trinitarian Formula'.....such metaphysical explanations are necessary to hold to a Trinity as depicted in the creeds, lest one lose his salvation! Arius had a simpler view perhaps, but the church-state chose complexity and socio-politcal power to hold the masses to a 'mystery-complex' adding an air of authority to their priesthood and to make Jesus into 'God' as they crafted their 'theology'.

'God' is One. All that is generated/begotten from that One (Universal Father-Mother)....are sons and daughters of that ONE. - its not complicated beyone what one makes it. All emenates from the Universal One as radiations of IT.





~*~*~

 

[Brian2]

If "Jesus source of life is His Father" then Jesus' life started when the Father started giving him life, so Jesus has an origin.

They call it cognitive dissonance... that some people avoid logic in reasoning when it comes to contradict what they believe.

All things that came into existence, came into existence through Him, the Word. (John 1:3) This means that Jesus, the Word, did not come into existence, but has always existed and His life has been coming from His Father from eternity.
JW need to ignore that and the Watchtower feels like it needs to even change some scriptures for us and lie about some scriptures so that we don't get confused by them into thinking that they mean what they say before the change.
I present the JW translation of Col 1:15-17 and point out the addition of the word other to the text. They used to put the word in brackets so that people would know it was an addition, but the brackets were removed.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

The justification is that they say the term "firstborn of creation" means that Jesus was the first one to be created and that firstborn is only used in scripture to mean the first one born.
Firstly what they say about the meaning of "firstborn" is a lie as it is used to mean the preeminent one or the heir. I will give the example of Psalm 89 below which is speaking about Jesus and shows God "appointing him" to be God's firstborn. If firstborn meant "first one born" then he would not be appointed, he would be firstborn already without any appointing.
Secondly the word that would be used in Col 1:15 would be the Greek word that means "first created" if first in time was what was meant. As it is, it is not first in time but first in rank. That is what "firstborn" means here, and that is why many translation have firstborn over creation instead of firstborn of creation.
Third, even if "of creation" means that Jesus is a part of creation, that is fine for trinitarians since we acknowledge that the Son of God did become a man and as such did step into creation even though He was never created, which John 1:3 etc tell us about Him.
Psalm 89:26He will call to Me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock of my salvation.’ 27I will indeed appoint him as My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28I will forever preserve My loving devotion for him, and My covenant with him will stand fast.…

So it is not a matter of cognitive dissonance, it is just believing the scriptures without altering them or lying about their meaning.

 

[Eli G]

... the word that would be used in Col 1:15 would be the Greek word that means "first created" if first in time was what was meant. As it is, it is not first in time but first in rank. That is what "firstborn" means here, and that is why many translation have firstborn over creation instead of firstborn of creation.
...
So it is not a matter of cognitive dissonance, it is just believing the scriptures without altering them or lying about their meaning.

Hehehe ... cognitive dissonance to the second power.

 

[Soapy]

All things that came into existence, came into existence through Him, the Word. (John 1:3) This means that Jesus, the Word, did not come into existence, but has always existed and His life has been coming from His Father from eternity.
JW need to ignore that and the Watchtower feels like it needs to even change some scriptures for us and lie about some scriptures so that we don't get confused by them into thinking that they mean what they say before the change.
I present the JW translation of Col 1:15-17 and point out the addition of the word other to the text. They used to put the word in brackets so that people would know it was an addition, but the brackets were removed.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,

The justification is that they say the term "firstborn of creation" means that Jesus was the first one to be created and that firstborn is only used in scripture to mean the first one born.
Firstly what they say about the meaning of "firstborn" is a lie as it is used to mean the preeminent one or the heir. I will give the example of Psalm 89 below which is speaking about Jesus and shows God "appointing him" to be God's firstborn. If firstborn meant "first one born" then he would not be appointed, he would be firstborn already without any appointing.
Secondly the word that would be used in Col 1:15 would be the Greek word that means "first created" if first in time was what was meant. As it is, it is not first in time but first in rank. That is what "firstborn" means here, and that is why many translation have firstborn over creation instead of firstborn of creation.
Third, even if "of creation" means that Jesus is a part of creation, that is fine for trinitarians since we acknowledge that the Son of God did become a man and as such did step into creation even though He was never created, which John 1:3 etc tell us about Him.
Psalm 89:26He will call to Me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock of my salvation.’ 27I will indeed appoint him as My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. 28I will forever preserve My loving devotion for him, and My covenant with him will stand fast.…

So it is not a matter of cognitive dissonance, it is just believing the scriptures without altering them or lying about their meaning.

“All things that came into existence, came into existence through [IT], the Word [of Almighty God: YHWH, the father].”

Yes, and THAT WORD was “Let there be light”…

 

[Soapy]

If "Jesus source of life is His Father" then Jesus' life started when the Father started giving him life, so Jesus has an origin.

They call it cognitive dissonance... that some people avoid logic in reasoning when it comes to contradict what they believe.

I very often wonder why we ever need to keep on showing, never mind proving, that Jesus Christ is a human Being who was born through a human who was later in life was blessed by God in being endowed with the Spirit of God, and it is this very blessing, Anointed as with power to do the work of God, which makes him ‘LIKE GOD’.

This ‘Like God’ is what Trinitarians indoctrinate they’d believers with by saying that ‘like God’ (with the power of God) IS GOD. Now, we know absolutely that this is not true. Jesus Christ STILL HAD TO GET PERMISSION FROM GOD to use the power of God. He prayed to thd father each time before doing a ‘Miracle’… he didn’t assume authority from himself. Is this EQUALITY?

The POWER is THE SAME but the deployment of it is from different users. The different users are not the same nor equal. If I own a powerful car I can use it as and when I please but if I empower my son to use it he STILL (properly) ASKS MY PERMISSION before he goes out in it… he doesn’t OWN MY CAR but ‘prays my authority’ to use it.

Also, it really helps if we write ‘Spirit of God’ instead of ‘Holy Spirit’. ‘Holy Spirit’ is used by Christendom to distance the relationship between GOD ad His power from Himself. It then makes the Spirit as an autonomous force, or an Entity AS GOD (crazy!!) DESPITE the title clearly stating ‘OF GOD’ - belonging to God, not AS GOD.

 

[Brian2]

“All things that came into existence, came into existence through [IT], the Word [of Almighty God: YHWH, the father].”

Yes, and THAT WORD was “Let there be light”…

Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

 

[Brian2]

I very often wonder why we ever need to keep on showing, never mind proving, that Jesus Christ is a human Being who was born through a human who was later in life was blessed by God in being endowed with the Spirit of God, and it is this very blessing, Anointed as with power to do the work of God, which makes him ‘LIKE GOD’.

This ‘Like God’ is what Trinitarians indoctrinate they’d believers with by saying that ‘like God’ (with the power of God) IS GOD. Now, we know absolutely that this is not true. Jesus Christ STILL HAD TO GET PERMISSION FROM GOD to use the power of God. He prayed to thd father each time before doing a ‘Miracle’… he didn’t assume authority from himself. Is this EQUALITY?

The POWER is THE SAME but the deployment of it is from different users. The different users are not the same nor equal. If I own a powerful car I can use it as and when I please but if I empower my son to use it he STILL (properly) ASKS MY PERMISSION before he goes out in it… he doesn’t OWN MY CAR but ‘prays my authority’ to use it.

Also, it really helps if we write ‘Spirit of God’ instead of ‘Holy Spirit’. ‘Holy Spirit’ is used by Christendom to distance the relationship between GOD ad His power from Himself. It then makes the Spirit as an autonomous force, or an Entity AS GOD (crazy!!) DESPITE the title clearly stating ‘OF GOD’ - belonging to God, not AS GOD.

But @Eli G believes Jesus existed alive with His Father before the universe was formed.

 

[Soapy]

Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

The scriptures have been altered here because it proved that Jesus is not God. The alteration is plainly seen but you choose to ignore what you plainly see.

How can Jesus have created all things if all thing were created THROUGH HIM??? Through him requires another superior entity to do the primary (God) act which propagated through a second (Jesus).

But that then destroys Jesus as the primary cause. In fact, if desirous all of the claim that Jesus was even instrumental in creation because the verse say if was ‘CREATED for HIM’…

A Father CREATED A WORLD FOR THE DON OF HIS LOVE. God made the human son to be the ruler over the physical kingdom that he, God, who is Spirit, created for the human Son whom He loved the most (The ‘Firstborn’……. not ‘First[ ]Born’, which is chronological, and different meaning!)

 

[Soapy]

But @Eli G believes Jesus existed alive with His Father before the universe was formed.

Then he too needs to learn the truth. My job is to show the truth, not to make me take sides as you are trying to do here.

 

[Brian2]

The scriptures have been altered here because it proved that Jesus is not God. The alteration is plainly seen but you choose to ignore what you plainly see.

I did say why "over" creation is used instead of "of creation" and I did say why "of creation" does not show that Jesus was created. I suppose you have ignored what I said. You probably saw it and forgot it straight away.

How can Jesus have created all things if all thing were created THROUGH HIM??? Through him requires another superior entity to do the primary (God) act which propagated through a second (Jesus).

If all things have been created through Him, that means that He is not one of the things that has been created.

But that then destroys Jesus as the primary cause. In fact, if desirous all of the claim that Jesus was even instrumental in creation because the verse say if was ‘CREATED for HIM’…

The New Testament also tells us that all things were created for God and through Him. Eg Romans 11:36.

A Father CREATED A WORLD FOR THE DON OF HIS LOVE. God made the human son to be the ruler over the physical kingdom that he, God, who is Spirit, created for the human Son whom He loved the most (The ‘Firstborn’……. not ‘First[ ]Born’, which is chronological, and different meaning!)

ALL THINGS were created for Jesus, not just the physical universe. (Col 1:16) I keep telling you this and other things and you keep forgetting.

 

[Soapy]

I did say why "over" creation is used instead of "of creation" and I did say why "of creation" does not show that Jesus was created. I suppose you have ignored what I said. You probably saw it and forgot it straight away.

‘FirstBorn’ over Creation…

‘FirstBorn’ is not ‘First Born’… the space separator makes the term DIFFERENT from the meaning of ‘FirstBorn’.

‘FirstBorn’ means, ‘The Most Beloved of the Father’. It has NOTHING to do with the CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH POSITION… except in the case of an only Son. And even then even a Son from another Father who does completely excellent work for the first Father can become His Most Beloved Son ABOVE His own Son… ‘FirstBorn’ is positional on the LOVE of the Father. Joseph, for instance, was the ‘FirstBorn’ of Jacob despite not even being close to being ‘First Born’ of Jacob’s sons.

Jesus was not the ‘First Born’ HUMAN SON OF GOD. The ‘First Born’ Human Son of God was Adam. Adam was, in the day of his ‘Birth’, also the glory of God, the ‘FirstBorn’ as well being the ‘First Born’.

But Adam sinned and lost his position as ‘FirstBorn’… God sought to find another Human who he could call his ‘FirstBorn’ (most beloved) and found David to be such a one, to which God elated, saying: “I have found my David”… God then went on to set David as his glorified one and award him the kingship over humanity, … but David sinned by killing an innocent man and had blood on his hands in any case from all his warring with the Philistines.

However, God promised that David, for his Sonship, his ethereal right to kingship, his ‘throne’ would be preserved to all eternity and there would always be a ‘Son’, an offspring of David in some kind, to occupy it. Note that this did not mean a PHYSICAL THRONE but a Spiritual, an Ethereal, Throne.

When in the course of time, no offspring of Adam was found, God created a SECOND ADAM…. This is a term in itself… the FIRST ADAM, the first, the Father of humanity… therefore the Second Adam was Jesus - the Second human born from the intervention of the Spirit of God:

• The First Adam (Holy, Sinless, Righteous Man): his lifeless body brought to life by means of the Spirit of God
• The Second Adam (Holy, Sinless, Righteous Man): his BODY (in the form of the egg in the Virgin Mary) was brought to life by means of the Spirit of God.
• No other ‘Adam’ would ever be created / Born in such a way … therefore Jesus was ALSO the LAST ADAM. Thus, since Jesus REMAINED sinless, righteous, and holy, he was the ‘FIRSTBORN’, the most beloved of all humanity - these titles apply:
  • ‘Firstborn over all humanity’
  • ‘Firstborn of all humanity’
  • ‘Firstborn over all created things’
  • ‘Firstborn over Creation’
  • ‘Firstborn of Creation’
• The preeminent word is ‘Firstborn’… which, again, means ‘MOST BELOVED [of the Father]’ - in that respect if is clear that all the above ‘titles’, have nothing to do with being ‘BORN FIRST’ nor even anything to do with ‘Being BORN’ nor even order of being born.

If all things have been created through Him, that means that He is not one of the things that has been created.

It is even a greater thing to say that it has nothing to do with ‘created THROUGH him’… It is a SPURIOUS ADDITION made Bible Hub trinitarian translators in order to claim an action by a person who had not yet existed …

The New Testament also tells us that all things were created for God and through Him. Eg Romans 11:36.

Trinitarians could not alter the verse enough to make their claim - adding too many words would be found out! Scriptures over and over claims that GOD, the Father, ‘made all things BY HIMSELF’. So any claims of another involvement would violate the claim and also that of ‘I will not give my glory to another!!’ What should we say then:

• ‘God …and Jesus… created all thing BY HIMSELF’?

Are we not educated people? What sense is that sentence? And recall that trinity claims ‘GOD’ as ‘Father, Son, AND HOLY SPIRIT’… yet ‘Holy Spirit’ is not glorified by them as ‘Creator’… Yes, they forgot what trinity means in their rush to alter the scriptures.

Of course, over 2000 years, every time such blatant discrepancies are pointed out to them, it simply gives them the opportunity to create an excuse and devise solutions that appear to patch over the glaring errors in their ideology.

ALL THINGS were created for Jesus, not just the physical universe. (Col 1:16) I keep telling you this and other things and you keep forgetting.

I know what you are doing and take it on board… you are testing my ability to justify the truth by you presenting false arguments!! Yes, that’s a thing called ‘Devils Adovocate’. I do get it - thank you!!

By the way, what God created was of PHYSICALNESS because all that was SPIRIT was already in existence. Spirit has no physical element to it but is nonetheless POWER and what a human would perceive in its fullness as ‘Energy’. This is easily seen by Einstein’s equation of E=‘Mc^2).

So all things that are of a physical nature were created BY GOD FOR THE SON OF MAN WHOM THE FATHER LOVED THE MOST, Hence:

• ‘It was created FOR HIM…’ (The Father created all things FOR THE SON.)
• ‘Father’ means ‘He that brings into being; He that Creates…’

In respect of possession, Son means:

• ‘He who honours and gives back to the Father after the Father has given to him. He who receives goodness from the Father for doing good works that the Father has given him’

 

[amazing grace]

Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Correct - The Son is the image of the invisible God - Adam was made in the image of God BUT no one says he is God.
Correct - the firstborn of all creation - the creation that now is (Genesis creation) or the NEW creation, i.e. the coming Kingdom?
I believe it is the coming Kingdom that Jesus is the co-creator of - the things being created through him and for him - thrones, powers, rulers and authorities.
He is before all things being preeminent, superior, the head of the church and as such holds all things of the church, the body, together.
Firstborn of all creation = the firstborn from the dead.

 

[Muffled]

Col 1:15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

I believe you should realize that the "for in Him" had God as the closest reference and is consistent with the rest of the Bible. The fact that God is in Jesus does not alter that fact but it does not make Jesus the creator since He wasn't even born yet.

 

[Soapy]

Correct - The Son is the image of the invisible God - Adam was made in the image of God BUT no one says he is God.
Correct - the firstborn of all creation - the creation that now is (Genesis creation) or the NEW creation, i.e. the coming Kingdom?
I believe it is the coming Kingdom that Jesus is the co-creator of - the things being created through him and for him - thrones, powers, rulers and authorities.
He is before all things being preeminent, superior, the head of the church and as such holds all things of the church, the body, together.
Firstborn of all creation = the firstborn from the dead.

No no no… God ‘Created all things new’…

• ‘He who was seated on the throne [Almighty God] said, “I am making everything new!”’ (Rev 21:5)
• ‘And [the angel] carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.’ (Rev 21:10)

And ‘Firstborn’ is not the same as ‘First Born’. The first is equivalent to ‘The greatest love of a Father’ - Father could say to the son who pleases him most, ‘You are my firstborn’. It’s an old saying which is why it’s so hard for people nowadays to appreciate its meaning. The father sure didn’t mean that he suddenly confused his N’th child into his first child!!

And the latter means ‘First to exit the womb’… a Chronological entity.

 

[amazing grace]

No no no… God ‘Created all things new’…

• ‘He who was seated on the throne [Almighty God] said, “I am making everything new!”’ (Rev 21:5)
• ‘And [the angel] carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God.’ (Rev 21:10)

Yes, God is creating all things new "through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus)". Didn't Jesus tell his disciples "I go to prepare a place for you"? Jesus is setting up thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities for "the kingdom of his beloved Son" (Col. 1:13).
And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of HIS Christ have come . . . Rev. 12:10

 

[Soapy]

Yes, God is creating all things new "through him (Jesus) and for him (Jesus)". Didn't Jesus tell his disciples "I go to prepare a place for you"?

Where does any scripture say that God is creating all things new THROUGH Jesus Christ? Verse says ‘FOR …’ Jesus Christ.

Jesus is setting up thrones, dominions, rulers and authorities for "the kingdom of his beloved Son" (Col. 1:13).

Are you saying that Jesus is setting up a kingdom for HIS SON?

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of HIS Christ have come . . . Rev. 12:10

I’m failing to see what you are showing by quoting this verse (Rev 12:10).

 

[Brian2]

‘FirstBorn’ over Creation…

‘FirstBorn’ is not ‘First Born’… the space separator makes the term DIFFERENT from the meaning of ‘FirstBorn’.

‘FirstBorn’ means, ‘The Most Beloved of the Father’. It has NOTHING to do with the CHRONOLOGICAL BIRTH POSITION… except in the case of an only Son. And even then even a Son from another Father who does completely excellent work for the first Father can become His Most Beloved Son ABOVE His own Son… ‘FirstBorn’ is positional on the LOVE of the Father. Joseph, for instance, was the ‘FirstBorn’ of Jacob despite not even being close to being ‘First Born’ of Jacob’s sons.

Jesus was not the ‘First Born’ HUMAN SON OF GOD. The ‘First Born’ Human Son of God was Adam. Adam was, in the day of his ‘Birth’, also the glory of God, the ‘FirstBorn’ as well being the ‘First Born’.

But Adam sinned and lost his position as ‘FirstBorn’… God sought to find another Human who he could call his ‘FirstBorn’ (most beloved) and found David to be such a one, to which God elated, saying: “I have found my David”… God then went on to set David as his glorified one and award him the kingship over humanity, … but David sinned by killing an innocent man and had blood on his hands in any case from all his warring with the Philistines.

However, God promised that David, for his Sonship, his ethereal right to kingship, his ‘throne’ would be preserved to all eternity and there would always be a ‘Son’, an offspring of David in some kind, to occupy it. Note that this did not mean a PHYSICAL THRONE but a Spiritual, an Ethereal, Throne.

When in the course of time, no offspring of Adam was found, God created a SECOND ADAM…. This is a term in itself… the FIRST ADAM, the first, the Father of humanity… therefore the Second Adam was Jesus - the Second human born from the intervention of the Spirit of God:

• The First Adam (Holy, Sinless, Righteous Man): his lifeless body brought to life by means of the Spirit of God
• The Second Adam (Holy, Sinless, Righteous Man): his BODY (in the form of the egg in the Virgin Mary) was brought to life by means of the Spirit of God.
• No other ‘Adam’ would ever be created / Born in such a way … therefore Jesus was ALSO the LAST ADAM. Thus, since Jesus REMAINED sinless, righteous, and holy, he was the ‘FIRSTBORN’, the most beloved of all humanity - these titles apply:
  • ‘Firstborn over all humanity’
  • ‘Firstborn of all humanity’
  • ‘Firstborn over all created things’
  • ‘Firstborn over Creation’
  • ‘Firstborn of Creation’
• The preeminent word is ‘Firstborn’… which, again, means ‘MOST BELOVED [of the Father]’ - in that respect if is clear that all the above ‘titles’, have nothing to do with being ‘BORN FIRST’ nor even anything to do with ‘Being BORN’ nor even order of being born.

It is even a greater thing to say that it has nothing to do with ‘created THROUGH him’… It is a SPURIOUS ADDITION made Bible Hub trinitarian translators in order to claim an action by a person who had not yet existed …

Trinitarians could not alter the verse enough to make their claim - adding too many words would be found out! Scriptures over and over claims that GOD, the Father, ‘made all things BY HIMSELF’. So any claims of another involvement would violate the claim and also that of ‘I will not give my glory to another!!’ What should we say then:

• ‘God …and Jesus… created all thing BY HIMSELF’?

Are we not educated people? What sense is that sentence? And recall that trinity claims ‘GOD’ as ‘Father, Son, AND HOLY SPIRIT’… yet ‘Holy Spirit’ is not glorified by them as ‘Creator’… Yes, they forgot what trinity means in their rush to alter the scriptures.

Of course, over 2000 years, every time such blatant discrepancies are pointed out to them, it simply gives them the opportunity to create an excuse and devise solutions that appear to patch over the glaring errors in their ideology.

I know what you are doing and take it on board… you are testing my ability to justify the truth by you presenting false arguments!! Yes, that’s a thing called ‘Devils Adovocate’. I do get it - thank you!!

By the way, what God created was of PHYSICALNESS because all that was SPIRIT was already in existence. Spirit has no physical element to it but is nonetheless POWER and what a human would perceive in its fullness as ‘Energy’. This is easily seen by Einstein’s equation of E=‘Mc^2).

So all things that are of a physical nature were created BY GOD FOR THE SON OF MAN WHOM THE FATHER LOVED THE MOST, Hence:

• ‘It was created FOR HIM…’ (The Father created all things FOR THE SON.)
• ‘Father’ means ‘He that brings into being; He that Creates…’

In respect of possession, Son means:

• ‘He who honours and gives back to the Father after the Father has given to him. He who receives goodness from the Father for doing good works that the Father has given him’

You just blatantly deny what the Bible tells us. You have no evidence for this but the fact that the Bible does not agree with your doctrines,,,,,,,,,,,, so instead of adjusting your doctrines to what the Bible says, you say the Bible is wrong and Trinitarians must have changed the Bible.
What sort of arrogant stupidity is that?