Jesus - First Born?

[amazing grace]

5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

You see Jesus as having been a glorified idea before this world was. I see Jesus existing with the Father from the eternal past. We aren’t going to agree.

Correct, we are not going to agree.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

 

[amazing grace]

I see no "from me" there.
However I should know by now that you would have an interpretation of the verse that has nothing to do with what it says and denies what it says.

Sorry, I did misread - it is "you shall come forth for me" - doesn't change the fact that God did not come from Bethlehem, God was not among the clans of Judah, and God did not come forth for Himself.

Where is that?

Did God not make this promise to Abraham: "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you."? And this same promise was passed on to his offspring, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed. . . . Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring (seed). It does not say, "And to offsprings (seeds)," referring to many but referring to one. "And to your offspring" (seed), who is Christ. (Gal. 3:8,16)
In Jesus's genealogy, the progression to Christ begins with Abraham.
Did Abraham believe that the promise made was God becoming one of his future offspring?

It sort of makes sense but when I slap myself a couple of times I realise that if came from God or sent from God meant came from heaven then others would be said to have come from heaven,,,,,,,,,, but nobody is said to have come from heaven except Jesus, and he tells us that He is the one who descended from heaven (John 3:13) and that he is the only one who has ever ascended to heaven. (John 3:13) (and we know He did not ascend to heaven in His earthly life so that must have happened before becoming a man.
When Jesus said He came from heaven, that is what it simply means, not something that denies that He came from heaven.

It's really simple and does make sense - God is in heaven, therefore if something comes from heaven - it proceeds from God, i.e. God is the source. Jesus came from heaven - he came from God - God was the source.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

 

[Soapy]

Neither you nor @amazing grace have shown me that the correct translation is not what the Bible says.

Those words of yours are deceptive… It is not about ‘what the Bible says’. It is about ‘What the TRUTH in the verse MEANS’.

There is no claim by Jesus Christ that is valid which indicates a Heavenly dwelling in a pre-existence. The verse in Micah 5 is mistranslated to try to deceive readers and hearers into thinking it say that ‘Jesus has been coming forth, or whose origins are from eternal past’. In fact, the truth is that it says that the saviour TO COME will emerge from the line of Judah and HAS BEEN FORETOLD FROM ETERNITY, which confirms with God, in the beginning, saying that Salvation will come from the Seed of a Woman!! This is the prophesy that was being waited upon - which is to say, ‘Of old’, ‘Forthcoming from of old’ … from ancient times, from eternal past…

It is NOT that the Saviour has been ALIVE (in Heaven) from ancient times.

It is NOT that the Saviour has been ‘Going forth’ from time immemorial.

It IS that the Prophesy concerning the Saviouf has been FORETOLD from time immemorial, from Eternity Past.

All you have done is show that you refuse to accept what Jesus said, that He came from heaven.

No, Brian2! The denial is that Jesus ever says such words in such a way as to be meaning by interpretation that he ‘CAME [Down] from Heaven’. Jesus only ever says that he ‘Came from God…. Came from the Father…’ who ‘SENT him’:

• ‘I am going TO HIM who sent me’…

Jesus did not say he was going ‘BACK’ to HEAVEN.

Nobody else is said to have come from heaven even when sent by God. In fact Jesus denied that anyone else has come from heaven.

No one HAS EVER been said to come from Heaven excluding Angels who are not included in this ‘no one’. There are, however, many who were says to have been sent by God… which is perfectly true.

And anyway, if Jesus was sent only after His baptism, we know that He did not come from heaven when he was baptised.

Jesus being ‘sent from heaven’ is not only a false claim but also has no relevance in truth to Jesus being baptised.

Jesus spent 30 years being taught by God before he was found to be fully dutiful to God and led to God anointing him WITH HOLY SPIRIT AND WITH POWER to equip Jesus to fulfil the task God set for him. THEN God sent him!!!:

• ‘Behold my Servant, my chosen one in whom I am well pleased…
• ‘I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations’

 

[Eli G]

Heb. 2:14 Therefore, since the “young children” are sharers of blood and flesh, he also similarly shared in the same things, so that through his death he might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, 15 and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death. 16 For it is not really angels he is assisting, but he is assisting Abraham’s offspring. 17 Consequently, he had to become like his “brothers” in all respects, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to offer a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the people. 18 Since he himself has suffered when being put to the test, he is able to come to the aid of those who are being put to the test.

Jesus compared his own situation with the following illustration:

Luke 20:9 Then he began to tell the people this illustration: “A man planted a vineyard and leased it to cultivators, and he traveled abroad for a considerable time. 10 In due season he sent a slave to the cultivators so that they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. The cultivators, however, sent him away empty-handed, after beating him. 11 But again he sent another slave. That one also they beat and humiliated and sent away empty-handed. 12 Yet again he sent a third; this one also they wounded and threw out. 13 At this the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What should I do? I will send my son, the beloved. They will likely respect this one.’ 14 When the cultivators caught sight of him, they reasoned with one another, saying, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him so that the inheritance may become ours.’ 15 So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What, then, will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and kill these cultivators and will give the vineyard to others.”

So, we know the Father SENT His own Son down.

John 3:16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world for him to judge the world, but for the world to be saved through him. 18 Whoever exercises faith in him is not to be judged. Whoever does not exercise faith has been judged already, because he has not exercised faith in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. 20 For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.”

 

[Brian2]

Sorry, I did misread - it is "you shall come forth for me" - doesn't change the fact that God did not come from Bethlehem, God was not among the clans of Judah, and God did not come forth for Himself.

Did God not make this promise to Abraham: "I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you."? And this same promise was passed on to his offspring, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
"And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed. . . . Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring (seed). It does not say, "And to offsprings (seeds)," referring to many but referring to one. "And to your offspring" (seed), who is Christ. (Gal. 3:8,16)
In Jesus's genealogy, the progression to Christ begins with Abraham.
Did Abraham believe that the promise made was God becoming one of his future offspring?

It's really simple and does make sense - God is in heaven, therefore if something comes from heaven - it proceeds from God, i.e. God is the source. Jesus came from heaven - he came from God - God was the source.

Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

Have a happy Christmas.

 

[blü 2]

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?

The Jesuses of the bible were born in three ways,

The Jesus of Paul was born of unnamed Jewish parents and his father was descended from David. However, Paul's Jesus is a gnostic model, so Jesus not only pre-existed with God in heaven, but (wearing his demiurge hat) created the material universe, something the exquisitely pure and remote spirit the gnostic god would NEVER do. Thus Jesus was a being created by God in heaven. We're not told how he came to earth, so I assume his spirit entered into the zygote at the instant of conception by a perfectly normal Jewish couple.

The Jesus of John is very much the same, pre-existing in heaven and creating the material universe.

The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish male who isn't particularly special until John the Baptist baptizes him ie ritually washes away his sins, at which moment the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as [his] son, exactly on the model by which God adopts David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7. This, though it's the closest to a credible account we ever get, is generally overlooked.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, of course, are the result of God inseminating a virgin,and since Jesus is male, he has God's Y-chromosome. The notion that he was born of a virgin has a credible footnote pointing out that in the original of Isaiah 7:14, a young woman conceives and bears a child who does good things (though Christians tend to forget that the child was born shortly after and did his good things before the end of Isaiah 8). When the Tanakh was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for 'young woman' in 7:14 was rendered as 'parthenos', specifically a virgin. That would account for why the author of Matthew, having decided that 7:14 was a prophecy of Jesus. declared that his mother must have been. hence was, a virgin at the time.

So yes, the claims you mention are contradictory, but no more so than the gospels are.

 

[Soapy]

The Jesuses of the bible were born in three ways,

The Jesus of Paul was born of unnamed Jewish parents and his father was descended from David. However, Paul's Jesus is a gnostic model, so Jesus not only pre-existed with God in heaven, but (wearing his demiurge hat) created the material universe, something the exquisitely pure and remote spirit the gnostic god would NEVER do. Thus Jesus was a being created by God in heaven. We're not told how he came to earth, so I assume his spirit entered into the zygote at the instant of conception by a perfectly normal Jewish couple.

The Jesus of John is very much the same, pre-existing in heaven and creating the material universe.

The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish male who isn't particularly special until John the Baptist baptizes him ie ritually washes away his sins, at which moment the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as [his] son, exactly on the model by which God adopts David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7. This, though it's the closest to a credible account we ever get, is generally overlooked.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, of course, are the result of God inseminating a virgin,and since Jesus is male, he has God's Y-chromosome. The notion that he was born of a virgin has a credible footnote pointing out that in the original of Isaiah 7:14, a young woman conceives and bears a child who does good things (though Christians tend to forget that the child was born shortly after and did his good things before the end of Isaiah 8). When the Tanakh was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for 'young woman' in 7:14 was rendered as 'parthenos', specifically a virgin. That would account for why the author of Matthew, having decided that 7:14 was a prophecy of Jesus. declared that his mother must have been. hence was, a virgin at the time.

So yes, the claims you mention are contradictory, but no more so than the gospels are.

I think you have fallen to making excuses for what has happened to the scriptures taught by Paul. In fact, I do not look at those things because if is clearly me that they don’t find from Paul. Paul did not follow Jesus ‘from the beginning’ and knew nothing about Jesus’ history before the time Paul encountered him on the road to Damascus. Sure, there might be enlightenment from the Spirit of God but by the time the scriptures were WRITTEN DOWN Hellenistic (read: Pagan!!) beliefs of Christianity had started to creep in. Those who WROTE the New Testament were free from wholesome scrutiny and ADDED (or REMOVED) certain aspects in order to more easily claim a conversion to Christianity: Different ‘Christian’ groups competed to claim greater number of conversions than other groups… you can see this already wherein it is said that Paul baptised more than any others (but notice that Jesus CHRIST himself did not baptise ANYONE at all??!!):

• “Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” (Acts 19:13)

You see from the verse that many groups were trying to claim healings and thereby convert pagans… think about it…! How else might they try to convert pagans who believed in many Gods … Why not try COMPROMISE… a little of what they believed and a little of what the new Christian belief taught!! - “oh, we’ll accept that if if means my daughter is healed…”!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

op: who is the second born?

 

[Soapy]

op: who is the second born?

You are misunderstanding what is meant by ‘First born’ and, more importantly, ‘Firstborn’…

Though they look like the same word it is very important to notice their DIFFERENCE rather than their SIMILARITY.

“Second[ ]Born” is non sequitur, there is no mention of anyone in such order. Abel is mentioned as ‘Holy’, not because he was second born of Adam and Eve, but because there were only two sons of them. Notice that SETH is not called ‘Holy’ because of any placement by chronological birth… David… Solomon, Joseph…. Each had many brothers before being called by God and no great deeds were explicitly attributed to the ‘Second born’ of each family in reference to being ‘Second Born’.

Now, ‘FIRSTBORN’ and ‘FIRST[ ]BORN’ …
Firstborn is a mistranslated word for ‘MOST BELOVED BY the FATHER’… ‘First in favour and glory in the eyes of the Father’… If has NOTHING to do with the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF BIRTH.

 

[Eli G]

... Firstborn is a mistranslated word for ‘MOST BELOVED BY the FATHER’… ‘First in favour and glory in the eyes of the Father’… If has NOTHING to do with the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF BIRTH.

That is not true.

Firstborn: primarily, the oldest son of a father (rather than the firstborn of the mother).

Since in Bible times, the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was given the headship of the household after his father, the title describes a family right and not just priority as a descendant.

Although there are some exceptions in which the word is used in reference to a "favored" child of the Father in the Scriptures, its primary meaning remains that of first-born.

πρωτότοκος ==> πρῶτος + τίκτω

πρῶτος __ first (in order)
τίκτω __ to bring into the world, generate, give birth to.

 

[Soapy]

That is not true.

Firstborn: primarily, the oldest son of a father (rather than the firstborn of the mother).

Since in Bible times, the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was given the headship of the household after his father, the title describes a family right and not just priority as a descendant.

Although there are some exceptions in which the word is used in reference to a "favored" child of the Father in the Scriptures, its primary meaning remains that of first-born.

πρωτότοκος ==> πρῶτος + τίκτω

πρῶτος __ first (in order)
τίκτω __ to bring into the world, generate, give birth to.

So you are saying that there is no such thing as the favourite Son who’s chronological position of birth is relevant?:

• Seth was the favoured Son of Adam
• Joseph was the favoured Son of Jacob
• David was the favoured Son of Jesse
• Solomon was the favoured Son of David
• Jesus is the favoured ‘Son of God’

Were any of the bolded named persons ‘FIRST BORN’?

Would you say that each one was set to acquire the greater portion from their respective Father… the ‘Firstborn’ of their respective Father?

Firstborn / first born / first-born … had nothing to do with the mother!!!

 

[blü 2]

I think you have fallen to making excuses for what has happened to the scriptures taught by Paul. In fact, I do not look at those things because if is clearly me that they don’t find from Paul.

I'm not making excuses for anything. In fact I'm not aware of anything here that needs excusing. I'm simply reporting what the NT says on the subject of Jesus' relationship to God,

Paul did not follow Jesus ‘from the beginning’ and knew nothing about Jesus’ history before the time Paul encountered him on the road to Damascus. Sure, there might be enlightenment from the Spirit of God but by the time the scriptures were WRITTEN DOWN Hellenistic (read: Pagan!!) beliefs of Christianity had started to creep in.

They were there from the start. All known earliest copies of the NT are written in Greek, the language of government, commerce and education in Roman provinces. And no need to be aggro towards the pagans ─ they had social systems that worked quite well for their day and age, and the pagan Greeks have left us a legacy in maths, philosophy, politics, natural science, art, architecture, medicine and more, which, rediscovered around the 11th century, has been foundational to Western civilization. Christianity borrowed the eucharist, and its ideas of the soul, from the Greeks, along with much more.

Those who WROTE the New Testament were free from wholesome scrutiny and ADDED (or REMOVED) certain aspects in order to more easily claim a conversion to Christianity: Different ‘Christian’ groups competed to claim greater number of conversions than other groups… you can see this already wherein it is said that Paul baptised more than any others (but notice that Jesus CHRIST himself did not baptise ANYONE at all??!!):

The NT is silent on whether Jesus baptized anyone, rather than denying that he did, but it's possible he didn't, as you say.

Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of the Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.” (Acts 19:13)

Jesus was a Jew, and Paul started out as one, don't forget. It was of course Paul who renounced the Jewish covenant when he found the circumcision clause was bad for sales.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

op: who is the second born?

Could it have possibly been pre-human heavenly Jesus' brother we know as the one who became Satan the Devil ? - James 1:13-15

 

[Aupmanyav]

James 1:13-15

the verse does not mention devil and indicates no secondborn.

 

[Soapy]

I'm not making excuses for anything. In fact I'm not aware of anything here that needs excusing. I'm simply reporting what the NT says on the subject of Jesus' relationship to God,

So what are you aiming to achieve by presenting verbatim text with no context nor elaboration?

Jesus told us that there would be wolves in sheep’s clothing coming to present a ‘different Jesus’. Jesus told us that there would be disastrous consequences for those who ‘added or removed’ from the word of God.

You are saying that Jesus lied about these things: that there are no wolves in Sheridan clothing nor alteration to the word of God… Perhaps YOU are one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing or one who wishes to claim that no one has ever altered the scriptures to deny the truth of the testimony that Jesus Christ brought to man: the word of God!

They were there from the start. All known earliest copies of the NT are written in Greek, the language of government, commerce and education in Roman provinces.

I said it but it seems you didn’t notice. HELLENISTIC JEWS pervaded the regions since every group tried to ‘baptize’ more than another group. Easiest way was to amalgamate the pagan belief with the new trinitarian belief that though there were THREE [GODS] these were ONE GOD!!!

The reality is that it had little to do with the JEWISH BELIEF that the MESSIAH was of the lineage of a MAN: Abraham / Jacob / David. The Hellenistic view was that if was a GOD- MAN like the Greeks believed - that a great God cane dune and impregnated a female and the offspring was a UNION of both human and God, like Heracles and Perseus.

And no need to be aggro towards the pagans ─ they had social systems that worked quite well for their day and age, and the pagan Greeks have left us a legacy in maths, philosophy, politics, natural science, art, architecture, medicine and more, which, rediscovered around the 11th century, has been foundational to Western civilization. Christianity borrowed the eucharist, and its ideas of the soul, from the Greeks, along with much more.

These aspects have nothing to do with religious debate.

The NT is silent on whether Jesus baptized anyone, rather than denying that he did, but it's possible he didn't, as you say.

No, the New Testament is clear that Jesus did not baptize ANYONE.

Jesus was a Jew, and Paul started out as one, don't forget. It was of course Paul who renounced the Jewish covenant when he found the circumcision clause was bad for sales.

Paul brought the testament of God brought by Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles. Paul argued with Peter that the testimony was not for Jews alone… and he was right. The result was that Peter continued to only preach to Jews and was roundly told off by God in a dream where Peter was told to eat ‘unholy food’. God told him he must eat whatever food God gave him to eat… the ‘food’ was, of course, GENTILES… he must preach to ANY and EVERY nation God sent him to - not only the Jews.

 

[Soapy]

Could it have possibly been pre-human heavenly Jesus' brother we know as the one who became Satan the Devil ? - James 1:13-15

No. Jesus is a man, holy and sinless but a man no more, no less, until he was anointed by God with power of God.

The one who is called [The] Satan (it’s a TITLE, not a NAME!!) is an ANGEL who was the MOST GLORIOUS, the MOST INTELLIGENT, the MOST POWERFUL, of all Angels that God created. This angel became puffed up with pride for his part in the [untold part of the ] creation story. This is why ‘Satan’ was demanding to be WORSHIPPED by mankind in the same way that God was. But God told him that what he was doing was wrong but wickedness and deceit grew in him until he caused mankind to sin - He taught man to rebel against God’s laws.

Brothers? No! I’ve heard this idea many tines and it’s just a disrespectful and dishonest nonsense.

 

[amazing grace]

And while they (Mary and Joseph) were there (in Bethlehem for the census) the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger because there was no place for them in the inn . . . . For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior who is Christ the Lord (the Messiah). [Luke 2:6,7,11)
Simeon - "And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ. (God's Messiah) . . . . Lord (God), now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word, for my eyes have seen your salvation, that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel." (Luke 2:26,29-32)

God's word given to the prophets concerning the coming Messiah became flesh! God's plan for redemption, salvation. A child was born, a human child was born - "And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him". (Luke 2:40)

Happy Birthday Jesus and Merry Christmas to all!

 

[Colt]

The Jesuses of the bible were born in three ways,

The Jesus of Paul was born of unnamed Jewish parents and his father was descended from David. However, Paul's Jesus is a gnostic model, so Jesus not only pre-existed with God in heaven, but (wearing his demiurge hat) created the material universe, something the exquisitely pure and remote spirit the gnostic god would NEVER do. Thus Jesus was a being created by God in heaven. We're not told how he came to earth, so I assume his spirit entered into the zygote at the instant of conception by a perfectly normal Jewish couple.

The Jesus of John is very much the same, pre-existing in heaven and creating the material universe.

The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jewish male who isn't particularly special until John the Baptist baptizes him ie ritually washes away his sins, at which moment the heavens open and God adopts Jesus as [his] son, exactly on the model by which God adopts David as [his] son in Psalm 2:7. This, though it's the closest to a credible account we ever get, is generally overlooked.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke, of course, are the result of God inseminating a virgin,and since Jesus is male, he has God's Y-chromosome. The notion that he was born of a virgin has a credible footnote pointing out that in the original of Isaiah 7:14, a young woman conceives and bears a child who does good things (though Christians tend to forget that the child was born shortly after and did his good things before the end of Isaiah 8). When the Tanakh was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, the Hebrew word for 'young woman' in 7:14 was rendered as 'parthenos', specifically a virgin. That would account for why the author of Matthew, having decided that 7:14 was a prophecy of Jesus. declared that his mother must have been. hence was, a virgin at the time.

So yes, the claims you mention are contradictory, but no more so than the gospels are.

The highlighted portion is consistent with the Urantia revelation. Jesus was conceived the “natural way”. The miracle of miracles was the creator son becoming the person of Mary’s baby at conception.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

the verse does not mention devil and indicates no secondborn.

Glad you picked up on James 1:13-15 not mentioning the devil.
I forgot the KJV mentions men, but in the Greek interlinear it does Not say men but says, " no one ".
To me "no one " includes intelligent persons whether they are angelic or human. Satan being an intelligent spirit creation.
Satan was drawn out by his own desire.......

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No. Jesus is a man, holy and sinless but a man no more, no less, until he was anointed by God with power of God.
The one who is called [The] Satan (it’s a TITLE, not a NAME!!) is an ANGEL who was the MOST GLORIOUS, the MOST INTELLIGENT, the MOST POWERFUL, of all Angels that God created. This angel became puffed up with pride for his part in the [untold part of the ] creation story. This is why ‘Satan’ was demanding to be WORSHIPPED by mankind in the same way that God was. But God told him that what he was doing was wrong but wickedness and deceit grew in him until he caused mankind to sin - He taught man to rebel against God’s laws.
Brothers? No! I’ve heard this idea many tines and it’s just a disrespectful and dishonest nonsense.

I can agree that at Jesus' baptism that Jesus was anointed by God with the Power of God. At that point becoming Messiah for us.
Yes, Satan and Devil are just titles. We will never know Satan's name.
Satan was Not the MOST....... powerful, but Michael the Archangel is - 1st Thess. 4:16; Daniel 12:1; Revelation 12:7-9