Biblical Truth: Christ Jesus is not God.

[ToxicReboMan]

Philippians 2

10.That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Great Scripture! To the glory of God and Jesus Christ.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Jesus identified himself as God in that verse by calling himself "I Am". Had he done what you suggested, He would have said "I was". I posted 3 verses where Jesus identified himself as 'I Am', as the person in the burning bush with Moses, and there are others. Please address the others I posted.

Jesus never said that he was in the burning bush. You are taking leaps of logic here. If you say things like that then you may be deceiving people into thinking that Jesus actually said something like that.


Yes, I have addressed these verses below already. You stated that the pronoun "he" should not have been used because it is not in the Greek. Therefore, according to you, Christ is claiming to the God here. There are many examples in Scripture where someone says "I am" in the Greek and it is consistently and correctly translated as, "I am he" or something very similar.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he] , and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

Your translation is making Jesus out to be God when the Greek never intended this meaning. This website explains this fact very well. An author's name is not mentioned but I have provided a link. Much more at the link too. I don't expect anyone to take this website just at their word. Look it up and see if what is being said is true.


From BiblicalUnitarian.com

Excerpt

The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.
​

 

[gort]

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
Col 1:15 NASB​

Since Christ Jesus was the first to be born of all creation then there was a time when he was not yet born. Thus, he cannot be God. He is God's messenger, prophet, messiah, son.

Col 1:16 says ALL things were created by and for Him. Did Jesus create Himself? Gen 1.1 tells us that In the beginning it was God who created all things. Gods messengers, prophets, messiahs never created all things. God did. Is Gen 1.1 incorrect too?

This verse is used by Trinitarians as proof that Christ is God Almighty. If this is true then God was the first to be born in creation. In other words, before all creation God begotten an equal God. Thus, the 3ists (new abv i just invented) fully negate the words of Jesus when he said, "the Father is greater than I." (Jn 14:28)

Well, John does say the Logos was God. And we do agree that the Logos is Jesus, yes?

This verse is actually saying that Jesus Christ is the representative of the invisible God. That is the meaning of the word "image" used in this text. It is a figure of speech; a simile. Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus (being Lord and/or Savior does not make one God; plenty of Scriptural examples to back this up too) is the chief representative of humanity to God Almighty. He is our mediator (high priest) who makes intercession on our behalf to his God and our God (Jn 20:17, Heb 7:25). On the other hand, Jesus, the son of God, represents the authority and interests of God to mankind. Much like how Switzerland mediates for and represents the interests of the U.S. in North Korea. Switzerland is Jesus lol. USA would be God I guess and North Korea would be mankind. (Only an example, don't take the associations seriously )

The verse says He is the image of the invisible God. To further cement this, Col 1.17 points out that He is before ALL things. A "representative" would not not be before all things, would it? WOuld Switzerland be before the US using your example?

Now where in the world am I going with this? Glad you ask. Switzerland (Jesus) cannot also be USA (God) at the same time otherwise there is no real 3rd party mediation taking place. God would then be a mediator for Himself. That is nonsensical theology.

What is sensicle are some of the verses already pointed out to you. Jonh says the Logos was God, not A god. All things were created by and for Him. Gen 1.1 says God created all things.

----------------------------------------

Now about John 1:1..

Without a doubt this verse can always be expected to be brought to the forefront of any debate concerning the nature of God and Christ.

Some might find it hard to believe that our English Bibles may contain the following...Biased translations. That is exactly what it is. The Greek word word used for God in the phrase, "the Word was God" is 'theos'. This word can be translated many different ways depending on the context around it. It can be translated as God, god and gods and even divine. The Greek word 'theos' is also used to refer to the devil in the Greek NT.

The proper translation should be "a god". Again the Greek allows for this translation and it is better supported by the immediate context and the context as a whole. In light of these often misunderstood Scriptures that say that Jesus is a god and the devil is a god we can hopefully gain a better understanding of the shocking/strange (and never accepted at face value) teaching of Jesus when he repeated the words of God in Scripture, "I said, ye are gods." (Jn 10:34)

So technically and truthfully, the Bible teaches there are other gods besides God Almighty. But only God our Father is supreme over all.

Tell me, how many divine gods are there that created all things, have all authority to make judgement, etc.?

btw, Jesus said Ye are gods in a specific context and that context is is found in the Law. So I ask again, in the context of all the bible, how many divine gods are there?

By translating Jn 1:1 as they have 3ists have introduced an explicit text that says the Logos is God. The problem though is that this translation does not harmonize with the context and stated theme of John's gospel. You would think that such an important detail would have at least been clearly repeated again a second time or at the very least repeated in John's stated reason for writing his gospel. Instead there are numerous amounts of passages in the gospel of John that clearly indicate that Jesus and God are separate and distinct individuals each with their own mind.

Trinitarians would agree with the statement in bold above.



All in all, my question still remains unanswered. Who exactly is Jesus? Your main thrust seems to rotate around the idea the Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. However, the Creator could'nt have created Himself so being the firstborn of all creation must have another meaning that you've missed.

 

[cubinity]

I am a Trinitarian, but there are some real holes in your arguments regarding this notion we agree upon.

Col 1:16 says ALL things were created by and for Him. Did Jesus create Himself? Gen 1.1 tells us that In the beginning it was God who created all things. Gods messengers, prophets, messiahs never created all things. God did. Is Gen 1.1 incorrect too?

When you read more than just one verse of Colossians 1, it is evident that the author treats Jesus and God as two different people. Genesis describes God as speaking everything into existence, just as Paul tells Timothy that God spoke the Scriptures. However, we also know that the Scriptures are not the direct result of God's speaking them into existence, but are the hand-written accounts of the men who heard God's voice. It is entirely within reason to perceive that God spoke, and men wrote. Likewise, it is entirely reasonable to assume that God spoke, and Jesus created.

Well, John does say the Logos was God. And we do agree that the Logos is Jesus, yes?

No, we do not necessarily all agree that Logos is strictly Jesus. Logos is a popular philosophical notion predating John, referring to something at the core of all things. It is the intention of God evident in His creation. It is the will of God manifest in nature. John uses it as a description of Jesus in order to poetically say what the author of Colossians explicitly says, "He is the image of the invisible God..."

The verse says He is the image of the invisible God. To further cement this, Col 1.17 points out that He is before ALL things. A "representative" would not not be before all things, would it? WOuld Switzerland be before the US using your example?

It's not just his example that places Jesus before all things. So does Paul, and John, and certainly other NT authors. The representative would precede all things if that representative had a different function prior to the need for representation.

Tell me, how many divine gods are there that created all things, have all authority to make judgement, etc.?

There is one divine God who is accredited with creating all things, just as there is one divine God who is accredited with speaking the Scriptures into existence. However, there are about forty authors who wrote those Scriptures, just as there is a Lord who has been appointed by His Father to create all things and cast judgment in his Father's name as he lords over his Father's Kingdom.

All in all, my question still remains unanswered. Who exactly is Jesus? Your main thrust seems to rotate around the idea the Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. However, the Creator could'nt have created Himself so being the firstborn of all creation must have another meaning that you've missed.

I don't agree with most of Toxic's arguments that you're addressing. However, since his axiom is that only the Father can be God, and yours is that multiple people can be God at once, then no argument is going to bridge the gaps in the presented theologies.

Every philosophical argument presents and considers the axioms BEFORE any other argument is presented. If we do not agree on the axiom, then the rest falls on deaf ears.

As long as they recognize Jesus as the Lord of God's Kingdom, before whom we must all stand on judgment day, then it really isn't important how they understand WHAT EXACTLY Jesus is. God or not God, He's still the Lord. That's the part that's important from my perspective, and that's the part that keeps me a Trinitarian.

 

[gort]

I am a Trinitarian, but there are some real holes in your arguments regarding this notion we agree upon.



When you read more than just one verse of Colossians 1, it is evident that the author treats Jesus and God as two different people. Genesis describes God as speaking everything into existence, just as Paul tells Timothy that God spoke the Scriptures. However, we also know that the Scriptures are not the direct result of God's speaking them into existence, but are the hand-written accounts of the men who heard God's voice. It is entirely within reason to perceive that God spoke, and men wrote. Likewise, it is entirely reasonable to assume that God spoke, and Jesus created.

Jesus and the Father are two different persons yet both are in the makeup of God collectively. Whether it was God who spoke and created all things or it was God who inspired men to write or speak or do anything in the name of God, collectively, God is the Father, SOn and Holy SPirit.

No, we do not necessarily all agree that Logos is strictly Jesus. Logos is a popular philosophical notion predating John, referring to something at the core of all things. It is the intention of God evident in His creation. It is the will of God manifest in nature. John uses it as a description of Jesus in order to poetically say what the author of Colossians explicitly says, "He is the image of the invisible God..."

The popular philosophical notion of Logos is taken up a few notches by John, but yes, the Logos is known as Jesus and really can't be expressed as something else if one takes all the scriptures concerning Jesus into context. You simply can't define "something else" as God.

It's not just his example that places Jesus before all things. So does Paul, and John, and certainly other NT authors. The representative would precede all things if that representative had a different function prior to the need for representation.

My point was that in all of the biblical contexts, Jesus is far more than a representative of God in comparision to someone such as Moses. imo, "representative" is far lacking.

There is one divine God who is accredited with creating all things, just as there is one divine God who is accredited with speaking the Scriptures into existence. However, there are about forty authors who wrote those Scriptures, just as there is a Lord who has been appointed by His Father to create all things and cast judgment in his Father's name as he lords over his Father's Kingdom.

Asking my debate partner the question I did is something I always do in a debate such as this. It pushes the person into examining just exactly WHO is Jesus by taking all of the scriptures into account. In this case, one is somewhat forced into dividing "everything" into two categories, a creation or the Creator. A creation cannot do what Jesus did or does.

I don't agree with most of Toxic's arguments that you're addressing. However, since his axiom is that only the Father can be God, and yours is that multiple people can be God at once, then no argument is going to bridge the gaps in the presented theologies.

As Ed McMahon would say, You are correct, Sir.

Every philosophical argument presents and considers the axioms BEFORE any other argument is presented. If we do not agree on the axiom, then the rest falls on deaf ears.

As long as they recognize Jesus as the Lord of God's Kingdom, before whom we must all stand on judgment day, then it really isn't important how they understand WHAT EXACTLY Jesus is. God or not God, He's still the Lord. That's the part that's important from my perspective, and that's the part that keeps me a Trinitarian.

Not sure I can agree with that at all. There are enough biblical scriptures to show ( and only one is needed) that there are false Christs and false prophets. For instance, in mormonism, Jesus may well be represented as Judge and the sacrificial Lamb, but closer examination shows a watering down from the Jesus shown in the biblical scriptures, particularly in the arena of being propitiation of sins for those that trust in Christ Jesus. The mormon will certainly look to Jesus as the Judge but the context is far removed from what the bible has to say as this judgement is a judgement of works with which one might gain entrance into a caste level of heaven.

Or in the case of Jehovah Witness... an angel can create create all things and be the sacrificial lamb of God. But a closer examination shows a watered down effect of the work of Jesus on the cross; not all are heaven bound that trust in Jesus as propitiation of sins. Only a few will gain heaven and the rest will live on a paradisical earth.

Every unorthodox faith that portrays Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour but does not portray Him as God the Son as a principal rule will run into various problems.

1. The scriptures are not believed. Some are but others are discarded in favor of the faiths axioms.

2. There are various forms of a watering down effect. It may be in the form of what Jesus attained for humankind as propitiation for the sins of man, it may be in the form of Gods holy righteousness, the watering down effect may be in the form of the personage of who God really is as He has let it be known to man. In short, I'll sum it up by saying there is a watering down effect of Gods Glory.

Only God created and only GOd sits in the judgement seat in heaven and makes judgement over all creation. Only GOd has all authority over all things and only God is divine, uncreated and eternal in all its facets. God is the pinnacle of all things imagined, yes?

If Jesus is a creation of God, what does that say about Gods love for man?

 

[cubinity]

Jesus and the Father are two different persons yet both are in the makeup of God collectively. Whether it was God who spoke and created all things or it was God who inspired men to write or speak or do anything in the name of God, collectively, God is the Father, SOn and Holy SPirit.

Well said.

The popular philosophical notion of Logos is taken up a few notches by John, but yes, the Logos is known as Jesus and really can't be expressed as something else if one takes all the scriptures concerning Jesus into context. You simply can't define "something else" as God.

The Scriptures are true, but not exhaustive. When the popular notion of Logos at John's time was considered, then how I read the overall context of Scripture was affected.

My point was that in all of the biblical contexts, Jesus is far more than a representative of God in comparision to someone such as Moses. imo, "representative" is far lacking.

Well said. However, is Hebrews 1 a redundant argument if the author believes Jesus is God?

Asking my debate partner the question I did is something I always do in a debate such as this. It pushes the person into examining just exactly WHO is Jesus by taking all of the scriptures into account. In this case, one is somewhat forced into dividing "everything" into two categories, a creation or the Creator. A creation cannot do what Jesus did or does.

Forcing an action in your opponent. Interesting. It sound manipulative, but also compelling. I'm going to try it.

Not sure I can agree with that at all. There are enough biblical scriptures to show ( and only one is needed) that there are false Christs and false prophets. For instance, in mormonism, Jesus may well be represented as Judge and the sacrificial Lamb, but closer examination shows a watering down from the Jesus shown in the biblical scriptures, particularly in the arena of being propitiation of sins for those that trust in Christ Jesus. The mormon will certainly look to Jesus as the Judge but the context is far removed from what the bible has to say as this judgement is a judgement of works with which one might gain entrance into a caste level of heaven.

Or in the case of Jehovah Witness... an angel can create create all things and be the sacrificial lamb of God. But a closer examination shows a watered down effect of the work of Jesus on the cross; not all are heaven bound that trust in Jesus as propitiation of sins. Only a few will gain heaven and the rest will live on a paradisical earth.

See. The outside context changes how we read what is before us. I did not know you had particular issues with specific theologies in mind when you wrote what you did. Now that I know this about you, how I read your comments is affected. Thank you for this explanation.

Every unorthodox faith that portrays Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour but does not portray Him as God the Son as a principal rule will run into various problems.

Oh, see, again, I wasn't considering specific unorthodox traditions when I was posting. Interesting. I'll have to definitely keep this is mind as I read future posts in this forum. Again, thank you.

1. The scriptures are not believed. Some are but others are discarded in favor of the faiths axioms.

I am yet to find even an orthodox tradition that lives up to this standard.

2. There are various forms of a watering down effect. It may be in the form of what Jesus attained for humankind as propitiation for the sins of man, it may be in the form of Gods holy righteousness, the watering down effect may be in the form of the personage of who God really is as He has let it be known to man. In short, I'll sum it up by saying there is a watering down effect of Gods Glory.

Fair enough. That is why I often ask "why is this important to you" in conversations about the Trinity. I find that the answer to that question usually signals whether "watering down" is likely to ensue.

Only God created and only GOd sits in the judgement seat in heaven and makes judgement over all creation. Only GOd has all authority over all things and only God is divine, uncreated and eternal in all its facets. God is the pinnacle of all things imagined, yes?

Does Jesus sit on the throne? I don't remember that. Please show me, if you know where it is.

If Jesus is a creation of God, what does that say about Gods love for man?

Um... I don't really understand the axiom that inspires this question. Please explain if you are willing. Thanks!

 

[Jakihe]

I guess you missed my point...I'm wanting you to tell me who Jesus is because you say Jesus is not God and therefore must be a created being like the angels or whatever. Problem is, there are no scriptures that would allude to Jesus being a creation and if someone is not a creation, then would not such a one be God?

In light of John 1.1, how would you reconcile Jesus not being God when John says otherwise?

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Collossians 1:15 Says Jesus was the first of all creation.

 

[A New Dawn]

Collossians 1:15 Says Jesus was the first of all creation.

The NLT interprets that to say

Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation.

 

[2ducklow]

Collossians 1:15 Says Jesus was the first of all creation.

Jesus is the beginning of all the new creations of God, i.e. christians. Jesus is the firstborn of that new creation as well. Jesus is not the beginning of the old creation, as most all christians assume that verse means. Jesus was begotten by God, matthew 1.18 says that was his beginning by using the greek word genesis and not the greek word for birth, sadly most all bibles translate it wrong. but some do.


(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation (genesis not birth) of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

18 But the generation of Christ was thus. When Mary, the mother of Jesus, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found having of the Holy Ghost in the womb. [Forsooth the generation of Christ was this. When Mary, his mother, was spoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found having in the womb of the Holy Ghost.] Wycliff.

See what happened is that they changed it in the Greek manuscripts from generation to birth, thus most bibles go by the spurious version of matthew 1.18 because it supports their doctrine, but the man uscript evidence is abundantly clear that the correct reading of matthew 1.18 is generation, or beginning and not birth. It's the same word in mathew 1.1
that is translated generation in every bible just about.


[SIZE=+0](Darby) Matthew 1:1 Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. [/SIZE]

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

but doctrine trumps the truth every time.

 

[Jakihe]

Jesus is the beginning of all the new creations of God, i.e. christians. Jesus is the firstborn of that new creation as well. Jesus is not the beginning of the old creation, as most all christians assume that verse means. Jesus was begotten by God, matthew 1.18 says that was his beginning by using the greek word genesis and not the greek word for birth, sadly most all bibles translate it wrong. but some do.


(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation (genesis not birth) of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

18 But the generation of Christ was thus. When Mary, the mother of Jesus, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found having of the Holy Ghost in the womb. [Forsooth the generation of Christ was this. When Mary, his mother, was spoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found having in the womb of the Holy Ghost.] Wycliff.

See what happened is that they changed it in the Greek manuscripts from generation to birth, thus most bibles go by the spurious version of matthew 1.18 because it supports their doctrine, but the man uscript evidence is abundantly clear that the correct reading of matthew 1.18 is generation, or beginning and not birth. It's the same word in mathew 1.1
that is translated generation in every bible just about.


[SIZE=+0](Darby) Matthew 1:1 Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham. [/SIZE]

(Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

but doctrine trumps the truth every time.

All things were created through him and for him.
John says that Jesus was with God, in the beginning.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I don't think you got my drift. Of course we should rise above insults (although I think everyone has thier breaking point with regard to being insulted, returning insult for insult). the point I was making is that anytime a person resorts to insults as proof, that is his major proof. My point is that to ignore that major proof results in novices being persuaded by that insult proof. My point is that my ignoring thier insults you are playing into thier hands. My point was that you have to at least get them to play your game, respond to your scriptures to lessen the impact of their insult proofs. they want to ignore scriptures that strongly condemn trinity as false, like the ones you quoted, and go to ones that seem on the surface to imply that Jesus is god or trinity, and ridicule and insult you for not believeing as they do, that is persuasive to novices, and wouldn't be as persuasive if you got them to deal with those scriptures that clearly condemn trinity and jesus is god as a doctrine. See?

I see what you are saying. But I think it is fair to talk about difficult passages. After all they were on topic. Them failing to directly address the Scriptures I have presented will show that they do not care to interpret those verses within context. Because the context does not strengthen their interpretation of those verses. They are thus forced to reject those passages at face value and must resort to spinning an alternative meaning to the text.

I don't think you saw that in what I said.
I'm not saying how you have to deal with their insult proofs, I gave several ways one can do that, that part is up to you. But in all honesty, you are rarely going to find a trinitarian defending trinity without insults. Most trinitarians don't debate trinity cause it is indefensable from a purely scriptural ,and logical standpoint which necessitates an insult proof as their only option. I believe your opponent was in the beginning stages of full blown insult proof with what I considered ridicule. you didn't. but press on with him and you will see how quickly it turns to insults.

I see. Well let's hope it doesn't have to go there. So far so good.

I agree with that, muslims teach their followers very strongly that there is only one god and christianity cannot possibly be true because it is polythiesm. It makes them not even consider anything Christians say. Same with Jews. They can say all they want that 3 persons are one god is not polythiesm, but no jew and no muslim is going to believe them.

Yup it's a lot harder I would imagine to go from believing in a "1 person God" to a "3 person God" than 1 to 1.

I read what you said to someone else about 'firstborn of all creation' and our belief is different. we beleive that Jesus is the firstborn of all new creations of God, and everyone who is in Christ Jesus is a new creation. Jesus obviously was born after Abraham, and Jesus was the firstborn and only one born of god (begotten of God ), Just because the verse doesn't say new creation but only says creation doesn't mean it isn't refering to the new creation for in another place the new creation is refered to as simply creation.

Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God.

it is the earnest expection of the new creation, born again christians, that are waiting for the revealing of the sons of god, that is those who are expecting to be like Jesus one day. yet this verse only refers to the new creation as creation.

Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

It is the new creation of God that is hoping to be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God, not the old creation, yet the new creation is here only called creation.



Romans 8:22-24 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Rocks, and sheep, and goats, and pigs and air and non christians are not groaning within themselves waiting for the adoption and redemption of thier bodies, only born again christians are only the new creations of God are groaing for that hope. yet they are only called creation and not new creations here.

I'll consider these verses. It does seem that you are making a lot of inferences by your interpretation. Where you believe it is referring to a "new" creation it could just mean creation in general. I don't see it necessary to force a dilemma of either "old" or "new" creation. Remember, the Trinity is also a doctrine of inference (which is the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises). I made a thread a while back about if Jesus pre-existed his birth. I'll look for it and give it a bump.

But without a doubt your position that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, definitely would back up the scriptural truth that Jesus is not God Almighty, but he is the holy one of God, the anointed-one of God, the son of God etc. I'll give you that.


But I have to ask. Do you see the context within Colossians also supporting the view that the passage is referring strictly to a new creation?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Collossians 1:15 Says Jesus was the first of all creation.

Easy wasn't it?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

The NLT interprets that to say

"Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation."

The NLT is not a literal translation. It uses dynamic equivalence. In other words, don't rely on it for serious Bible study. It is more of an interpretation of the texts instead of a more literal translation (formal equivalence).

 

[A New Dawn]

The NLT is not a literal translation. It uses dynamic equivalence. In other words, don't rely on it for serious Bible study. It is more of an interpretation of the texts instead of a more literal translation (formal equivalence).

I realize it isn't a serious study Bible, but it does put into our English what it really means, since words that are traditionally used are misused by people who don't do serious Bible studying.

 

[2ducklow]

I see what you are saying. But I think it is fair to talk about difficult passages. After all they were on topic. Them failing to directly address the Scriptures I have presented will show that they do not care to interpret those verses within context. Because the context does not strengthen their interpretation of those verses. They are thus forced to reject those passages at face value and must resort to spinning an alternative meaning to the text.





I see. Well let's hope it doesn't have to go there. So far so good.





Yup it's a lot harder I would imagine to go from believing in a "1 person God" to a "3 person God" than 1 to 1.







I'll consider these verses. It does seem that you are making a lot of inferences by your interpretation. Where you believe it is referring to a "new" creation it could just mean creation in general. I don't see it necessary to force a dilemma of either "old" or "new" creation.

you have to choose one of the 3. old, new or both. the scripture I posted from romans with the word creation in it was posted by me only for the purpose of showing that in Romans the new creation is just called creation. so one cannot argue that col. 1.15 cannot refer to the new creation simply because the word new isn't in there.

Remember, the Trinity is also a doctrine of inference (which is the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises). I made a thread a while back about if Jesus pre-existed his birth. I'll look for it and give it a bump.

But without a doubt your position that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, definitely would back up the scriptural truth that Jesus is not God Almighty, but he is the holy one of God, the anointed-one of God, the son of God etc. I'll give you that.

not to mention the second or last adam. i.e. the new man.

But I have to ask. Do you see the context within Colossians also supporting the view that the passage is referring strictly to a new creation?

yea. one has to either take first born literally or figuratively, if you take firstborn literally, then Jesus has to be the firstborn of all new creation. the new creation being the new human male seed God created to begat Jesus with.



if you take firstborn in a figurative sense, as for example occupying the place of the firstborn, or the preemininent one, then you can interpret it to mean that Jesus is forstborn of the old creation. other verses , in my opinon, lean heavily to firstborn of the new creation, such as firstborn amongst many brethern, the beginning of all (new) creation. and some others I can't reacall off hand.

Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:

and those in Christ, the brethren, are new creations, not old creations.

(Rotherham) 2 Corinthians 5:17 On the contrary, now, no longer, are we gaining it. So that, if any one is in Christ, there is a new creation! the old things, have passed away,--Lo! they have become new!

So Jesus is, according to other scriptures than col. 1.15, the firstborn of all new creation. (rom. 8.29,2 cor 5.17)

Also, Jesus is a new generation of humans.

Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.

Just as adam was a generation of the old man.

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I realize it isn't a serious study Bible, but it does put into our English what it really means, since words that are traditionally used are misused by people who don't do serious Bible studying.

You use a "non-serious" study Bible to defend against "non-serious" Bible studiers.

For those who can't understand the literal translations such as KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV etc....let's give them the NLT.

The fact of the matter is that the NLT is more biased than other translations. It is a thought-for-thought translation. Naturally, it is going to contain more bias than a word-for-word translation. I'm surprised the NLT was even brought up.

Anyways, if you got nothing else but barbs then I think you should take a step back from this discussion.

 

[A New Dawn]

You use a "non-serious" study Bible to defend against "non-serious" Bible studiers.

For those who can't understand the literal translations such as KJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, RSV etc....let's give them the NLT.

The fact of the matter is that the NLT is more biased than other translations. It is a thought-for-thought translation. Naturally, it is going to contain more bias than a word-for-word translation. I'm surprised the NLT was even brought up.

Anyways, if you got nothing else but barbs then I think you should take a step back from this discussion.

It doesn't seem to be me who's giving the barbs. And I didn't realize that pointing out the correct interpretation of "firstborn" is throwing barbs. Sorry, I don't feel the need to step out.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

It doesn't seem to be me who's giving the barbs. And I didn't realize that pointing out the correct interpretation of "firstborn" is throwing barbs. Sorry, I don't feel the need to step out.

After thinking about it...

You know what I am wrong. I am out of line. I apologize. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I do think the NLT is great. It is the Gospel message. I have one and have read and gained a lot from it.

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]I agree with that, muslims teach their followers very strongly that there is only one god and christianity cannot possibly be true because it is polythiesm. It makes them not even consider anything Christians say. Same with Jews. They can say all they want that 3 persons are one god is not polythiesm, but no jew and no muslim is going to believe them.[ . . . ]

The truth is that missionaries in Islamic countries cannot keep enough Bibles on-hand. Those Muslims who supposedly are not going to believe the God of Christianity sneak up to the Christian hospitals and clinics, etc., usually by night, asking for "the Book" which is what the Bible is called in the Quran. The Christians build concealed baptismals or they go out into the wilderness for baptism because any Muslim who converts to Christianity will be killed for apostasy. The Christians have to smuggle Bibles into the countries in bags of rice, beans, etc. Yet they keep coming.

 

[Der Alte]

yea. one has to either take first born literally or figuratively, if you take firstborn literally, then Jesus has to be the firstborn of all new creation. the new creation being the new human male seed God created to begat Jesus with.

if you take firstborn in a figurative sense, as for example occupying the place of the firstborn, or the preemininent one, then you can interpret it to mean that Jesus is forstborn of the old creation. other verses , in my opinon, lean heavily to firstborn of the new creation, such as firstborn amongst many brethern, the beginning of all (new) creation. and some others I can't reacall off hand.

Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:

and those in Christ, the brethren, are new creations, not old creations.

(Rotherham) 2 Corinthians 5:17 On the contrary, now, no longer, are we gaining it. So that, if any one is in Christ, there is a new creation! the old things, have passed away,--Lo! they have become new!

So Jesus is, according to other scriptures than col. 1.15, the firstborn of all new creation. (rom. 8.29,2 cor 5.17)[ . . . ]

Firstborn does not necessarily mean the one born first.

Exodus 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:​

The nation Israel was not literally a son, was not born, and was not the first nation.

Deut 25:6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.​

In this verse the second son becomes the firstborn when the first son dies.

1 Chronicles 26:10 Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the chief​

Another son, is made firstborn.

Psalms 89:27 Also I will make him [David] my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth​

God makes David who was not born first, the firstborn.

Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.​

Ephraim was not the firstborn son.