• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Christ's Deity

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by fieldsofwind, Dec 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>


    More eisegesis. Nowhere in the OT is the Holy Spirit equated with the person of God Himself. You are trying to ascribe literal personality to a mere attribute.

    No, He did not. He tells us specifically that He sent His angel.

    ...because he acted upon God's behalf.

    And what is their conclusion?

    • Judges 13:21.
      But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.
    Their conclusion is that the visitor was an angel of God. Manoah's irrational fears (in the verse that follows) are immediately dismissed by his sensible wife. She does not believe that they have literally seen God, and takes care to explain why this cannot possibly be the case.

    Yes, since it uses the Hebrew word for the numeral "one", we are probably on safe ground when we conclude that it means... "one." :p

    Irrelevant. The word yachid appears only twelve times in the entire Bible.

    No, it is simply the Hebrew word for "one." While it is true that echad is sometimes found modifying a collective noun (one family, one herd, one bunch, etc.) the sense of plurality actually resides in the compound noun with which it is associated, and not in the word echad itself! Echad appears in standard translations of the Bible as the numeral "one", and also as "only", "alone", "undivided", and "single." It usually means "one and not two", as we find in Ecclesiastes 4:8. Abraham was "only one man" (echad) in the New International Version's rendition of Ezekiel 33:24, and he was "alone" (echad) in the King James translation of Isaiah 51:2.

    Koehler and Baumgartner's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1967) clearly states that the fundamental definition of echad is "one single." Any plurality, therefore, is not found within the word itself, but in the subject to which it is applied. Likewise, the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines echad in the following way:

    • 1) One (number.)
      1a) One (number.)
      1b) Each, every.
      1c) A certain.
      1d) An (indefinite article.)
      1e)[/b] Only, once, once for all.
      1f) One...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one.
      1g) First.
      1h) Eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal.)
    The consistent theme running through all of these examples is... singularity, not "compound unity."

    Writing in his Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, Gesenius defines echad in the followin way:


      1. The same, Genesis 40:5, Job 31:15.

      2. First, but only so used in counting the days of the months, Ezra 10:16, 17; in counting years, Daniel 9:1,2, Ezra 1:1. In other places as Genesis 1:5, one does not lose the common idea of a cardinal, and the numbers follow one another as in Latin unus, alter, tertius.

      3. Some one, "some one of the people;" "no one."

      4. It acts the part of an indefinite article, especially in the later Hebrew, 1 Kings 20:13, "a certain prophet;" Daniel 8:3, "a ram," 1 Kings 19:4. So also when one precedes, e.g. "a certain holy one," i.e. angel Daniel 8:13. Sometimes also by a genitive "one of the cisterns," i.e. some cistern, Genesis 37:20; Job 2:10.

      5. One only of its kind, Job 23:13; Ezekiel 7:5, Canticles 6:9. 6. When repeated it is one...another, Exodus 17:12; 18:3. It even occurs three times repeated, 1 Samuel 10:3; 13:17, 18. Also distributively of individuals, Number. 13:2, "ye shall send one man to a tribe;" Numbers 34:18.

      7. As one man, i.e. together. Ezra 2:64, "the whole congregation together;" Ezra 3:9; 6:20; Ecclesiastes 11:6, "both alike." Also i.q. "together, unitedly," Isaiah 65:25; in the same sense is said Judges 20:8; 1 Samuel 11:7.

      8. For one time, once, 2 Kings 6:10; Psalms 62:12.

      9. (a) i.q. No. 8, Num. 10:4. (b) Suddenly, Pro. 28:18. (c) i.q. altogether, Jer. 10:8. 10.[/b] One after another, one by one, Isa 27:12, and Ecc. 7:27, one after another...[/i]
    The simple truth of the matter is that the word echad could be replaced with the Hebrew words for "two", "three", "four", or any other number - and in every case, the "complex unity" would not be found in the number itself, but in the subject to which it is applied!

    Let's take a few examples, using English:
    • One pair. (The "compound unity" here, is "pair" - not "one.")
    • One triplet. (The "compound unity" here, is "triplet" - not "one.")
    • One bunch. (The "compound unity" here, is "bunch" - not "one.")
    • One herd. (The "compound unity" here, is "herd" - not "one.")
    This is no different to the use of echad (or any other number) in Hebrew. As always, it is the subject which denotes the "compound unity", not the number itself.

    For this reason, Gregory Boyd (the Trinitarian apologist) has conceded that the echad argument is totally useless for Trinitarian purposes:

    • Even weaker is the argument that the Hebrew word for "one" (echad) used in the Shema ("Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord") refers to a united one, not an absolute one. Hence, some Trinitarians have argued, the Old Testament has a view of a united Godhead. It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (e.g. Gen. 2:24, "they shall become one flesh"). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the Old Testament usage reveals that the word echad is as capable of various meanings as is our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended.

      Boyd, Gregory (1995), Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity.
  2. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>


    There is nothing here which points to a plurality in the word echad.


    No, the connotation of yachid is far more significant than that. I suggest that you read Genesis 22:2, 12 & 16; Judges 11:4; Psalm 22:20; Psalm 25:6; Psalm 35:17; Psalm 68:6; Proverbs 4:3; Jeremiah 6:26; Amos 8:10, & Zechariah 12:10. These verses contain the only 12 uses of yachid in the entire Bible.

    There is no need for the Shema to use yachid, when echad (which is used 969 times in the OT!) is quite sufficient to indicate that the Deity consists of One Divine Person. Yachid is, after all, rarely used in Biblical Hebrew. (A mere 12 times, compared with the 969 occurrences of echad!) It has been translated in several places as "darling" (!!!); it carries the meaning "only begotten son", or "solitary", and would therefore be inappropriate as reference to the God of Israel, Who is (a) not an only-begotten son, and (b) constantly surrounded by His angelic host (and therefore never solitary.) Trinitarians are fond of saying that yachid is never used in reference to God (which is true) - but with only 12 occurrences of this word in Scripture, you could say that about 99% of the people in the OT!

    There is, however, another Hebrew word - bad which the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines in the following way:

    • 1) Alone, by itself, besides, a part, separation, being alone.
      1a) Separation, alone, by itself.
      1a1) Only (adverb.)
      1a2) Part from, besides (preposition.)
      1b) Part.
      1c) Parts (eg limbs, shoots), bars.
    This word is used to describe the One God of Judaism, and it first occurs in Genesis 2:18, describing Adam's state before the creation of Eve:

    • And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; (bad) I will make him a help meet for him.
    So the absolute singularity of the One God is consistently emphasised when He is addressed, as we find in this tiny sample of the 202 places where bad is used:
    • Nehemiah 9:6.
      Thou art Yahweh alone (bad)
    • II Kings 19:5.
      Thou art God alone (bad), the God of all the kingdoms of the earth
    • Psalm 83:18.
      That men may know that thou, whose name alone (bad) is Yahweh
    • Psalm 86:10.
      Thou alone (bad) art God
    This leaves absolutely no room here for a "plurality of persons." :cool:
  3. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    And just how is this relevant to me?

    No, it's not.


    What, so they could see what I was already inviting them to discover by clicking on the hotlink in my sig. line? :rolleyes:
  4. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    Hebrew is not like English. All application in in context. That is how you define the word.Wisdom of men. Isn't it grand. God laughs at it.
  5. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -

    That is precisely what I have just demonstrated. Thankyou for conceding the point.


    As I have just done.

    And just what are you referring to here? My many quotes from Trinitarian scholars, perhaps...? :cool:
  6. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    I did not post the writing on the Tri-une nature for your benefit. It was for the other members. Sorry if it hit a sore spot. Just ignore me from now on. Btw....Nice Sword [of Truth] Jedi [hard to believe that the the lad is only 19]
  7. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    HT -


    Such as...?

    Don't worry, it didn't.

    I've seen it all before. :cool:
  8. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    No more 'fruitless' discussion. The point has been made. The majority has received it. This was not for your benefit, as it is clear that you have already made your choice.

    Cheers mate
  9. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    I was presented with a tidal wave of Trinitarian proof texts - not only from you, but from others. I was challenged to address them.

    I did so.

    You have chosen not to take it any further.

    Well, fair enough. :cool:
  10. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Evangelion, you can definitely look up information, yes. However, one thing you fail to realize... I don't believe in your concordances, but I do believe in the word of God. You seem to think that the particular authors that agree with parts of your opinions have much more knowledge pertaining to the greek and hebrew than did the many scholars that God used to carry His word into new languages. If you don't believe they did a good job... then you need to begin believing. If they fail... then what was keeping the originals from failing? God has opened His word to us as He desires it... I believe it.

    One thing that every reader here should notice... and that is the observation that you do not use scripture, but instead you backtrack and claim that it really shouldn't say what it does say (wasn't interpreted correctly). You know why???-----> Because Scripture is very clear as to whom Christ is... and that is God who became flesh.

    Number one fault: You do not believe the word of God as it is... you look back to others opinions on what they think it should say... and go by them... completely doubting the ability of God to continue (as said above) His word on in our languages as He saw fit.

    Number two fault: Instead of listening to the Spirit of God, you have listened to the wisdom of men.

    This thread was begun with intent of showing all readers that through scripture... just believing it... Christ is revealed as the Living God who humbled Himself for us. He has now been glorified again, and in the end... God will again be all in all. He was not created by God... no scripture supports this... in fact... He is the creator... He is God.

    The first post on this thread has many points to it that can not be refuted with the word of God... believe it or don't. Nonetheless, you have yet to argue against it using the Bible.

    Take care... and I'll give you another chance below

  11. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Christ is God who became flesh. When He became flesh... He had to make Himself like a man... (Phil 2 clearly explains that Christ made HIMSELF nothing... no one else did this for Him). This is why you see Christ as being subservient to the Father. It is also why you see Christ as being addressed as God throughout the word of God. God was always Christ in that Christ is God in His love. God is always love. (Hebrews Ch 9 talks all about how the sacrifice was necessary, and had to be made by the one who made the covenant in the first place--God.) Christ represents love in every way that is described throughout the Bible. All of love's characteristics are fulfilled in Christ. However, God can not be subservient to death... He cannot become sin. This is why God in His love became flesh, which enabled Him to become our sin. This is where Christ and the Father, although they are one, separate (Remember, Christ says that He comes from the Father.) God in His love, (Christ), did not consider it necessary to remain God in His glory. Therefore God in His love separated Himself from God in His glory... because love had to make a sacrifice. (Notice the direct similarity with Phil 2:5-11) These things fit in perfectly with Hebrews chapeter one where God is speaking of Christ and calling Him God... saying that "today I have become your Father." Christ is the Word of John 1:1. He is not an "idea/logos" of God's put into a man... He is exactly as the Bible says... the Word was God... the Word became flesh. One of Christ's titles in Revelation is the "Word of God". Notice once again ed.. that nothing in these words isn't already in the Bible... everything here is taken from Love as mentioned by Christ and in 1 Cor 13... from Phil 2... and from Hebrews 1 and 9. ---------->God becoming like man... amazing! And doing this to enable Him to become our sacrifice. The very punishment that was given, He Himself underwent. However, God in His majesty cannot become sin. Sin cannot enter His Domain. God in His glroy had to turn His back on Himself in the flesh, as a man... as sin... out of love. Phil describes Christ... His form after becoming flesh. He was God... (Remember, God Almighty in His majesty is always Christ in that Christ is God in His love... however, God through His love [Christ] had to give up being Himself in all of His glory to be able to become our sacrifice) But as described in the parenthesis, He had to give up being Himself in all of His power/glory/majesty/words cannot describe/etc. However, He was still in very nature God (or in the "form" of) when He became flesh. It is just the best way that the words we have can describe what happened. God out of His love for us did not consider staying in a state equal with Himself in His own majesty/glory/etc something that He needed to hold on to... ("to be grasped")...(He didn't need to, it was His already)... and He in turn made Himself nothing, through Love, to become our sacrifice... (I know this has been said again and again... but it is so important.) This is who Christ is... and it is completely supported by every scripture that anyone here can bring to the table.

    Yes... God is one... who became flesh... He is also Spirit... not three different individuals... and yes He did have to take on the nature of man. He did indeed become the Son of God... (read Hebrews chapter one... "today I have become your Father")... and furthermore... Hebrews is very clear that the one who made the covenant in the first place is the one who had to die to put it into effect.

    So... here are some points for those claiming that Christ is not God who became subservient, and is now glorified again after defeating death. (He is God, just to make sure folks know what I'm saying here)

    First of all... you have verses where Christ possesses the title KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS. Yet... God will not give His glory to another... so how is it that Christ would have this title if He was not God? Also... the verse referring to Christ as the Lord of Glory... how do you explain that one?

    Secondly... you have the debate over John 1. Some here assume that the Word came into a man... yet that is not what it says. The Bible says that the Word was God. It does not say it was an idea or some metaphysical entity. The Bible clearly, clearly says that the Word was God, period. Then... it says the Word became flesh... not came into someone's flesh. here is a refresher reading for you: (John 1:1-5, 14) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ------> (Revelation 19:13) He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

    Thirdly... we have the following verses: (Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living.--------> These verses clearly explain who had to die: The One who made the will (covenant). It is obvious... yet some do not believe... they say... what? What do you say?

    Next we have these verses: (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son: today I have become your Father.” Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.” Hebrews 1:10 He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Notice at the beginning of this God says “TODAY… I have become your Father… indicating that He wasn’t always… while Christ says many times that He is the Beginning and the End… indicating the claim I AM)-------> Now... what do you guys have to say about this one? Is it a "bad" translation? Nope... God's word is truth... I believe it. If you believe that the new translations can be erroneous, then what is to keep the old ones from being skewed as well? (I'll give you a hint... God!!!) These verses, once again, portray Christ as was explained at the beginning of the post. He is God who became flesh... "today I have become your Father." The Father says of the Son: "Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever".

    Here's another one: (Colossians 2:9)—For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form-----------> Pretty self-explanitory isn't it?

    How about this: (Acts 3:15)--You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. (Who is the author of life?) Once again... we have a verse indicating that Christ is the author of life... the creator... etc... like John 1... like Hebrews chapter 1.

    Here you go: (Jude 1:4)-- "They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Pretty explicit about that "only Sovereign and Lord huh.)-------> What do you guys have to say about this one... isn't God our only Sovereign? Our ONLY Lord it claims... hmmm.... pretty powerful isn't it!

    And finally... (at least for this post)... (Titus 2:13)--while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. (notice that it says Christ was purifying a people for his very own... "purify for himself"... sounds like this is what God was doing doesn't it... indicates, once again, that they are one in the same)

    Need I say more about this last one? (Purify for HIMSELF... not someone else)


  12. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    I’m looking at the NASB, NIV, and the original Greek, and nowhere is the title “Alpha and Omega” in Revelation 1:11, and so I’m very curious on where the KJV got that part. I’m more concerned with the title “First and the Last” being attributed to Christ in Revelation 1:17. Nowhere in scripture is this title applied to anyone except for God himself.

    I have no idea where the KJV sees it fit to put that title in there, since there’s nothing I can see in the original Greek, NIV, or NASB that someone could even mistakenly translate as “Alpha and Omega.” Not even a little footnote saying that some manuscripts read that way.

    So? It’s possible for a human to even be the brother and father of the same person (however gross that may be). Since God came in human form, he’s like us (our “brother”), but since he is also our creator, he is our God (our “Father”).

    Wonderful. I’ve never even heard of the TEV.

    Show me where anyone else is called “the first and the last” except for God alone. I’m very anxious to know.

    Yep. The Jews got his meaning rather clearly if you’ll look at the text.

    Um, no. The same title that God attributed to himself in Exodus 3:14, Jesus used to attribute to himself here. Same exact two words: I am.

    I’m so glad I have my Greek text right here in front of me. It specifically says, “I am” (eyw eiui) in verse 58. Any other translation that doesn’t translate it as such is just being fallacious.

    Hardly. If Jesus were really claiming pre-existence before Abraham, and nothing more, he probably would have made this much easier by saying “I existed before Abraham,” but no, he seemed to go out of his way to attribute the title “I am” to himself, which is a clear claim to deity, as the Jews around him clearly understood.

    How about you stick to the more accurate and honest translations, hmm? Or maybe even the Greek words for crying out loud.

    I’m sorry to bust your bubble, but while that may be the case concerning most of these, in Matthew 28:17, it specifically says “worshiped him” in the NASB, and NIV. It’s also there in the original Greek as “they worshiped” (npooekuvnoav – that’s as close as I can come to the symbols with an English keyboard). The same word is used in Matthew 2:11, and Matthew 28:9.

    Both agree. Suppose I worked for my father in the job market. Merely because I say, “Happy birthday to my dad and my boss” doesn’t mean I’m talking to two different people – the same person goes by two different titles. What’s the matter? Don’t trust scripture? Your argument is now not with me, but with the Bible. The fact that you have to try to put words into places where they don’t belong further indicates that your presupposition is not what scripture teaches.

    Where are you getting these weird translations? That is not what the Greek says. It’s articular vocative just like verse 10.

    Why can’t you just trust the Bible instead of trying to take away or add things to it to suit your fancy?

    Again, not trusting scripture, even in the Greek manuscripts. Your entire premise is this: “The Bible is wrong, and it should have been written this way to suit our purposes.” The sentence structure of Hebrews 1:8 is identical to Hebrews 1:10, and should be recognized as such. Only someone who wants to twist and contort scripture to say something other than what it’s saying would think otherwise.

    Oh, and you still left objections unanswered. Scripture clearly teaches that Christ is God in the flesh (Colossians 2:9), Jude 1:4 reads, "They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord." (Pretty explicit about that "only Sovereign and Lord,” huh?). And what about the time when you shot yourself in the foot? In John 2:19, Jesus says that he will raise himself from the dead (Notice how in verse 21, it bluntly says he was talking about his body). But you gave a verse that said God raised Him from the dead (Acts 2:24). Gee, gosh-golly, sounds like Jesus is God to me. :)
  13. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Well said jedi... I, unfortunately, have not a greek anything... but I remain faithful to the word nonetheless.

    The word... if simply believed... is correct as God intended it to be.

    Also... check out Jude 1:4

    take care

  14. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    nevermind... I see that you did at the end of your post
  15. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    Jehovahs Witness

    1 Timothy 6:13-16 In the sight of God, who preserves all things alive, and of Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate, I give you orders that you observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way until the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.&nbsp; This [manifestation] the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, [he] the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and might everlasting. Amen.

    Here Jesus Christ is the first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” Compare this with Re 1:17, 18 where it says of the resurrected Jesus. “And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet.&nbsp; And he laid his right hand upon me and said: “Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Ha'des”. For this reason, when describing him as “the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all such other kings and lords in that he is “the one alone having immortality.” The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die.

    Post #25

    When did he become the Son of God?

    You are very quick to pre-judge me.&nbsp; I didn't realise&nbsp;you can read peoples hearts and minds.&nbsp; I do not doubt the word of God, I just don’t&nbsp;accept added text such as that&nbsp;of Revalation which I drew attention to.&nbsp; Another classic example of Trinitarians taking liberties with the text of God’s word is at 1 John 5:7 where it should read “For there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.

    Whereas the KJ reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

    The added text ( “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth) does not appear in any manuscripts prior to the 12th century, and are&nbsp;therefore well recognized as spurious.

    Only&nbsp;text that has been&nbsp;proven to be&nbsp;added and spurious.

    That simply is not in harmony with what the bible teaches. At Col. 1:15, 16 where Jesus is described as the Firstborn “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians like you say that “first-born” here among other things means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes you to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which you already hold and for which you seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan'ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, we must assign the same meaning to pan'ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.

    Rev 3:14 confirms that “Firstborn of all creation” means firstborn Son of God. The first of God’s creation “And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe'] of God’s creation.”’” (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.) Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe'. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning. Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
  16. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    Posted by lightbearer: "Here Jesus Christ is the first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.”

    Yes... as a man. Yet this has nothing to do with the fact that He also claimed Diety. You must not be grasping the concept presented in the first post. Yes... Christ did this as a man... meaning that he became flesh... had to endure the punishment of flesh for us all... but, because He was perfect and defeated flesh... we now can have that forgiveness (immortality) through Him. This also pertains to your referrence to Col. (the first-born thing)

    If Christ was given greater glory after His resurrection than He had at the Beginning, (which He claimed He was, The Beginning), Then you would not see the numerous verses describing Christ as having no beginning... and indeed being that beginning. Christ claims that He is the "I AM" in John 8.

    Posted by lightbearer: "When did he become the Son of God?"

    When He became flesh... God separated Himself... described in detail in the first post of this thread.

    Posted by lightbearer: " Only text that has been proven to be added and spurious"

    Proven by whom? You... other "egg-spurts"??? I believe the word. I can just as easily find... in fact I'm looking at some now... numerous web-pages that enlighten the reader about the many greek/hebrew scholars that have seen that the word of God explicitly portrays Christ as God. I don't need them though, nor any other "scholars"... I listen to the Spirit.

    Posted by lightbearer: "That simply is not in harmony with what the bible teaches. At Col. 1:15, 16"

    All of your points pertainin to this can be answered: "Col. 1:15 reports that Jesus is "the firstborn of every creature." Please notice that it does NOT say "first-created"! This word, "firstborn," has more than one possible meaning. If one would read Gen. 41:51,52; 48:17-19 and Jer. 31:9 he would see that it can mean PREEMINENT. That is how it is used in Col. 1:15 as the context reveals from verses 15 through 18. Jesus is PREEMINENT over creation because: (1) He created everything that was created, (2) ALL created things were created for Him, (3) He existed before ALL created things and (4) ALL created things are held together because of Him."

    from http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/deity.htm

    Of course... the rest of what you say has to do with... "it really doesn't mean what it says... in that Christ created everything"... But, it does indeed say what it says... Christ is the creator.

    Posted by lightbearer: "Rev 3:14"

    Your opinions on this verse can be answered with the following: "Rev. 3:14 states that Jesus is "the beginning of the creation of God." The word translated "beginning" is ARCHE in the Greek. It also means ORIGIN besides BEGINNING. Since ORIGIN and SOURCE are synonymous, we can now understand why this verse reads in the N. A. B. "the SOURCE of God's creation." This verse doesn't show Jesus is created, but that He is the Creator!"

    From the same source as above.

    Posted by lightbearer: "But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar·khe'. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning."

    Oh, so now only the first thing mentioned in the "Greek dictionary" counts now... so the other useages of the word can not apply? Don't think so... know why?-----> Christ is described as the Beginning and the End. He claims Diety in John 8... in Hebrews He is addressed as God by God. Of course... you can claim that they are "incorrect translations". I don't think so, however, because I trust that God has kept His word as He sees fit through the people (that knew greek/hebrew/latin/etc. very well) that have translated it. So... study the old greek if you like... and it will reveal the exact same thing... Christ is God.

    take care

  17. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    "The Septuagint -- a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that predates Christ -- provides additional insights on Christ's identity as Yahweh. It renders the Hebrew phrase for "I AM" (God's name) in Exodus 3:14 as EGO EIMI.[24] On a number of occasions in the Greek New Testament, Jesus used this same term as a way of identifying Himself as God.[25] For example, in John 8:24 Jesus declared: "If you do not believe that I AM [EGO EIMI] He, you shall die in your sins." The original Greek for this verse does not have the word he. The verse is literally: "If you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins."

    From http://homepage.ntlworld.com/truthsearcher/ron.htm

    Or the fact that Christ is refered to as "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6.

    How about Zechariah 12:10, where God says that He will be pierced?

    There is plenty more...
  18. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    Oh, yes, I completely forgot about that passage concerning the Messiah. That's a good one. Way to go, fieldsofwind. :)

    Now to Evangelion...

    We’re all waiting. :)

    Maybe if you listened to them, they wouldn’t have to be repeated. Just a thought. ;)

    I could say the same, but instead, I take time out of my day to help others understand.

    Oh, I very much look forward to it. :)

    He points out scripture, and non-Trinitarians evade. I’d hardly brush it all off as opinion.

    If you haven’t responded to a single thing so far, I can’t see what could ever prompt you to do so.
  19. drmmjr

    drmmjr Regular Member

    Does the Centurion in Matthew 8, claim to be God?
    Does Gabriel claim to be God in Luke 1?

    Is Zacharias saying that God is an old man with a wife in Luke 1?

    There are many other places where "ego eimi" is used in the New Testament. Do each of these places mean the name of God?

    As for 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.

    Jesus was telling the Jews that he is the one sent by the Father to take away their sins.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.