Origin of Christ

[Gettingtalents]

This is a continuation of a discussion redirected from the "Apologetics" section in accordance with what I was told by a moderator.

Well, the human Jesus Christ was created, as in He was born of Mary to start His physical life on earth. Perhaps that is the application for Revelation 3:14.

Hello. I believe that he is the first creation of God. This seems to fit the context as well. Please consider the following.

Jesus' statement reads as follows:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14)
​

He is the "Amen," which itself a means of vouching that a thing is true; He is the "faithful and true witness," which is a declaration of his own reliabilty as a witness to the truth; He is "the beginning of the creation of God," which shows his ability to bear witness of all things from the very beginning. .... The point that Christ is making in the context is that he is a reliable witness.

A common principle that runs through the Bible is that every matter should be established on the testimony of two to three witnesses:

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Corithians 13:1)
​

Jesus spoke of this principle as well, saying:

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:17-18)
​

Just as the Father bears witness concerning the Son, so also the Son bears witness concerning the Father. God shows that he has given Christ as a witness to us, saying:

"Behold, I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
​

Witnesses are chosen on the basis of the longevity of interaction they have experienced with the one concerning whom they are to bear witness. The longer that a witness has been with someone, the greater their ability to witness on tht one's behalf. In fact, this is the sole reason that Christ gives to substantiate his disciples' ability to witness on his behalf, saying:

"And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." (John 15:27)
​

The disciples maintained ths rule as well whenever they chose witnesses, saying:

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22) (c.f., Luke 1:2)
​

In light of this principle, it makes perfect sense that Christ's ability to testify on God's behalf goes hand in hand with the fact that he is God's very first creation, and thus he says:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14)
​

In Proverbs 8 (LXX), Christ shows that he is a witness to us of the daily things and the former things while also declaring that he was the beginning of God's creation, saying:

"If I declare to you the things that daily happen, I will remember also to recount the things of old. The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." (Proverbs 8:21-22 LXX)
​

I know Proverbs 8 is a matter yet to be discussed, but I do believe it speaks of Christ, and this was accepted as the case by both the "Arian" side and the "Athanasian" side.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[Gettingtalents]

Regarding the use of "firstborn" though, doesn't God call David his "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27? David is neither the first child of Jesse nor is he the first thing God created... this seems to be a sense where "firstborn" is a title of priority/honor and not an indication of order of creation, as is indicated by the latter part of Colossians 1:18 which you quoted...

Actually, this is an example of Christ being referred to by the name "David." We see another example of this in Ezekiel 34:23, which reads:

"And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, [even] my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd."(Ezekiel 34:23)
​

John Wesley comments on this passage in Ezekiel, saying:

Ezekiel 34:23 One shepherd - Christ, the great, good, chief, only shepherd, that laid down his life for the sheep. My servant David - The seed of David, the beloved one, who was typified by David, and is in other places called by his name, as in Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 37:24
​

God calls Christ by the name "David" in other passages, and this is the case in Psalm 89 as well.

Matthew Henry agrees with this conclusion, saying:

Psalm 89:19-37 - The covenant God made with David and his seed was mentioned before (v.3,4); but in these verse it is enarged upon, and pleaded with God for favour to the royal family, now almost sunk and ruined; yet certainly it looks at Christ, and has its accomplishment in him much more that in David; nay; some passages here are scarcely applicable to David, but must be understood of Christ only (who is therefore called David our king, Hosea 3:5) ... I will make him my firstborn. I see not how this can be applied to David.
​

God speaks of Christ as "David" several times in the Old Testament prophecies, so it should not seem strange that God would do the same in Psalm 89:27 as well. Sometimes people in the Bible are called by the name of the one from whom they have descended (hence the descendents of Israel are called Israel, etc.), and sometimes the promises made to the forefather are passed on the the descendent(s) as well.

In what respect God speaks of Christ in the future tense and says "I will make him my firstborn," I believe this as applicable to Christ's resurrection. This is akin to "This day have I begotten thee" being appllied to Christ's resurrection in Acts 13:33.

Now, my brother, I do believe that Christ was begotten of God already prior to the resurrection, but was begotten in a different manner when God raised him from the dead. Similarly, we are now the sons of God (1 John 3:2), but we are still "waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our bodies (i.e., the resurrection)" (Roman 8:23). We are sons now, but will be adopted at the resurrection. Christ was begotten already, but was begotten in a different manner at his resurrection. This is why Paul says Christ is "the firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18).

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[Gettingtalents]

this seems to be a sense where "firstborn" is a title of priority/honor and not an indication of order of creation, as is indicated by the latter part of Colossians 1:18 which you quoted...

I missed this last part in my previous post. In the KJV, Colossians 1:18 reads:

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18 KJV)
​

The Greek word translated here as "preeminence" is proteuo, which would most literally be translated as "be the first." The word proteuo simply adds the meaning to be to the Greek root word protos. The Greek root word protos can refer to being first in various ways. The word can refer to Christ as first in rank, but it can instead be referring to him as first in order without stretching the word's meaning at all. Many English versions have translated proteuo as "the first" (NLT, NASB, YLT, etc.). The context determines the way in which Christ was first. First in order seems to be the intended meaning, because Paul says Christ is "the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, that he might have the first place in all things" (Colossians 1:18 Darby).

Why is Christ called "the beginning" here? I believe it is because Christ was the first creation. Since God always has been, he is without a beginning. When his first creation came to be, the beginning came to be as well. If this first creation is Christ, then Christ would be the beginning.

Order is what is in view when Paul says our Lord is the firstborn from the dead too. Christ is the first to be raised from the dead (Acts 26:23). This is in reference to the permanent resurrection, that is, those who will remain alive forever. Christ is the "firstfruits" of them that sleep.

"But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (1 Corinthians 15:23)
​

If rank is in view, we would understand it as "first in rank out of those who have been raised from the dead." This is highly improbable since Christ was the only one to have been raised.

However, if we understand that he is the beginning of God's creation, and the first to be raised from the dead, the use of proteuo as "be the first" in all things makes sense.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[2ducklow]

This is a continuation of a discussion redirected from the "Apologetics" section in accordance with what I was told by a moderator.



Hello. I believe that he is the first creation of God. This seems to fit the context as well. Please consider the following.

Jesus' statement reads as follows:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14)
​

He is the "Amen," which itself a means of vouching that a thing is true; He is the "faithful and true witness," which is a declaration of his own reliabilty as a witness to the truth; He is "the beginning of the creation of God," which shows his ability to bear witness of all things from the very beginning. .... The point that Christ is making in the context is that he is a reliable witness.

A common principle that runs through the Bible is that every matter should be established on the testimony of two to three witnesses:

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Corithians 13:1)
​

Jesus spoke of this principle as well, saying:

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:17-18)
​

Just as the Father bears witness concerning the Son, so also the Son bears witness concerning the Father. God shows that he has given Christ as a witness to us, saying:

"Behold, I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
​

Witnesses are chosen on the basis of the longevity of interaction they have experienced with the one concerning whom they are to bear witness. The longer that a witness has been with someone, the greater their ability to witness on tht one's behalf. In fact, this is the sole reason that Christ gives to substantiate his disciples' ability to witness on his behalf, saying:

"And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." (John 15:27)
​

The disciples maintained ths rule as well whenever they chose witnesses, saying:

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22) (c.f., Luke 1:2)
​

In light of this principle, it makes perfect sense that Christ's ability to testify on God's behalf goes hand in hand with the fact that he is God's very first creation, and thus he says:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14)
​

In Proverbs 8 (LXX), Christ shows that he is a witness to us of the daily things and the former things while also declaring that he was the beginning of God's creation, saying:

"If I declare to you the things that daily happen, I will remember also to recount the things of old. The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." (Proverbs 8:21-22 LXX)
​

I know Proverbs 8 is a matter yet to be discussed, but I do believe it speaks of Christ, and this was accepted as the case by both the "Arian" side and the "Athanasian" side.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

Jeremiah 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

God created new human male seed (the new thing) tht enabled a woman (Mary) to compass or go around a man (to conceive_). The way humans come into existance is by a womans egg being fertilized by male seed. Thus Mary is literally the mother of Jesus and god is literally the Father of Jesus.

This verse, Jer 31/22 has long been considered to be refering to the virgin birth.

 

[Noxot]

My Lord hath no origin. he hath no foundation which supports him. he is and I am not. he is the very foundation that we his creations are on, he became a creature so that we too may become what he wants. we can not be created into something without God first having already done that, for he is the first. we can be part of the Rock but we are small parts of him. he contains all and fashions us all. what kind of Love does this one have for us? why do we even matter to him? why does he call us "His Wife"? he can not be comprehended, but he clings to us always, if he hated someone then they would have never been in the first place. because he first loved me, now i can love him. he is male and I am female, why does God love me so much? He will explain it to me forever. i will always be with him, in his love. the lord loves me and all i want is to be with Him as much as I can. he breaths and I am alive, if he does not breath me then i do not want to be anyways. love is as cruel as death, what does anything matter if I can not be with the one who loves me? but he is a consuming fire, his love for all of us is great and past knowing. I am dead, but my Lord makes me alive.
no words can describe him. he makes us and so we are. there is no origin to him, he is our origin. he loves us, he became us so that we can be like him. his ways are past knowing. only YAH matters in this world, seek only YAH. please come Lord, please come.

 

[dollarsbill]

Hello. I believe that he is the first creation of God. This seems to fit the context as well. Please consider the following.

God couldn't have created Himself.

Colossians 1:16 (NASB)
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

 

[2ducklow]

My Lord hath no origin.

In this light the meaning of the gospel's opening Words: "Book of the origin of Jesus Christ" can more adequately be understood. It is not immediately apparent whether they are intended as a superscription of the whole composition or only the introduction to the genealogical table, which follows. The latter seems more logical since the genealogy presents the origin of Jesus as the culmination of the historical process of Israel's begetting. Although such a continuity is implied, verse 18, which clarifies the ambiguity of verse 16, discloses that there is no immediate link between Joseph and Jesus. The progression of father begetting son moves forward uninterrupted for forty generations. At the forty-first the continuity is broken. Jesus who was generated by the holy Spirit introduces a disjunction. In this respect he is like Abraham who stands at the beginning of the genealogy as the grand patriarch of Israel, the originator of a new people and their unique history. As a result, the superscription: "Book of the origin of Jesus Christ" cannot apply only to the genealogical table. It reaches beyond it to 1:18-25 which explains the origin of Jesus and his relationship to the preceding generations. Yet as soon as these closing verses of the prologue are connected to the opening words of the evangelist, the body of the gospel that follows must necessarily be included because the subsequent content of Jesus' life elucidates the disclosure of 1:18b as well as the discrepant eschatologies that are conveyed by the two numerical schemes of verse 17.

The Origin of Jesus Christ: Matthew 1:1-25

Even trinitairans admit that the man Christ Jesus had an origin. and the man Christ Jesus is Lord.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

the man Christ Jesus is not was. according to 1 tim 2.5

(Darby) Matthew 1:1 Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham

The greek word means generation or origin. To genrerate is to originate. also math 1.18 explicitly states that God begat (generated) Jesus. Most bibles change it and try and mess it up to say genealogy. cause they can't handle that Jesus has an origin , so solution is change the word of God.


Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

this verse says God made Jesus Lord. So there goes your theory that Jesus was always Lord. blown to smitherenes by these 3 verses alone. doesn't matter that these verses aren't popular on the hit parade of scriptures, they are still the word of God.

 

[2ducklow]

This is a continuation of a discussion redirected from the "Apologetics" section in accordance with what I was told by a moderator.



Hello. I believe that he is the first creation of God. This seems to fit the context as well. Please consider the following.

Jesus' statement reads as follows:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14)
​

He is the "Amen," which itself a means of vouching that a thing is true; He is the "faithful and true witness," which is a declaration of his own reliabilty as a witness to the truth; He is "the beginning of the creation of God," which shows his ability to bear witness of all things from the very beginning. .... The point that Christ is making in the context is that he is a reliable witness.

A common principle that runs through the Bible is that every matter should be established on the testimony of two to three witnesses:

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Corithians 13:1)
​

Jesus spoke of this principle as well, saying:

"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." (John 8:17-18)
​

Just as the Father bears witness concerning the Son, so also the Son bears witness concerning the Father. God shows that he has given Christ as a witness to us, saying:

"Behold, I have given him as a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
​

Witnesses are chosen on the basis of the longevity of interaction they have experienced with the one concerning whom they are to bear witness. The longer that a witness has been with someone, the greater their ability to witness on tht one's behalf. In fact, this is the sole reason that Christ gives to substantiate his disciples' ability to witness on his behalf, saying:

"And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning." (John 15:27)
​

The disciples maintained ths rule as well whenever they chose witnesses, saying:

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1:21-22) (c.f., Luke 1:2)
​

In light of this principle, it makes perfect sense that Christ's ability to testify on God's behalf goes hand in hand with the fact that he is God's very first creation, and thus he says:

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God." (Revelation 3:14)
​

In Proverbs 8 (LXX), Christ shows that he is a witness to us of the daily things and the former things while also declaring that he was the beginning of God's creation, saying:

"If I declare to you the things that daily happen, I will remember also to recount the things of old. The Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works." (Proverbs 8:21-22 LXX)
​

I know Proverbs 8 is a matter yet to be discussed, but I do believe it speaks of Christ, and this was accepted as the case by both the "Arian" side and the "Athanasian" side.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

I see 2 ways of looking at that scripture.
1. Since Jesus is the reason that all of creation was created, he is the beginning of all creation in that sense. God had the idea of a Jesus which was the beginning thought that led to all creation.

2. Jesus is the beginning of all new creation. Jesus is also called the first born amongst many brethern. all brethern are new creations. and Jesus is the first new creation of God, we are only new creations if we are in Christ Jesus.

your way, the way I understand what you're saying, Jesus was created in some way before his birth. which to me is just nonsense.

 

[dollarsbill]

Jesus in the OT:

Jeremiah 17:10 (NASB)
10 "I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.

 

[Noxot]

Jesus Christ is the image of God and he is the invisible image of the invisible God. words are just words, the WORD is past words because he is not contained. he has always been in the Father and the Father has always been in him. the word "origin" can be truth or it can be a lie, it just depends on what it is saying. one would be foolish to think the word origin always means the same thing. just because he was created does not mean a thing, he is also uncreated. just because he is breathed out does not mean that he was not always inside Father as well.

it is true, the human flesh body of Jesus had an origin, and so did his other bodies that he made. but he himself is eternal and without start or end. just because he is also with end and start, does not lessen the fact that he is all things and fills all things. to say "origin" or "no origin" is a blasphemy because there are no words that can describe God, because God made words, and words did not make God.

but if you think that Jesus Christ is not the Father, then you make yourself equal to God and so then you dishonor God by believing a lie.

but I don't play the game of "literal" or "time" anymore, because that was a very small game to be playing. it put far to many limitations on a God who can not be contained or comprehended. but we are contained and comprehended by God. and Jesus is "contained" for our sake, not because he was like we are, but so that we can be like he is. seriously, the Son was always with the Father, just because he appeared to us does not mean he was made.

He is just like us, except he is God. "only begotten Son of God" is a good word, so is "unbegotten Son of God" so is "Jesus is Chaos".

 

[2ducklow]

Jesus Christ is the image of God and he is the invisible image of the invisible God. words are just words, the WORD is past words because he is not contained. he has always been in the Father and the Father has always been in him. the word "origin" can be truth or it can be a lie, it just depends on what it is saying. one would be foolish to think the word origin always means the same thing. just because he was created does not mean a thing, he is also uncreated. just because he is breathed out does not mean that he was not always inside Father as well.

you have 2 Jesuses. one to fit either side of your contradictions. One Jesus is a man of flesh and bones, the other Jesus is YHWH the omnipresent spirit. And the omnipotent spirit YHWH is the Jesus who is flesh and bones cause 2 Jesuses are one JEsus. God and man. makes perfect nonsense.

it is true, the human flesh body of Jesus had an origin, and so did his other bodies that he made. but he himself is eternal and without start or end. just because he is also with end and start, does not lessen the fact that he is all things and fills all things. to say "origin" or "no origin" is a blasphemy because there are no words that can describe God, because God made words, and words did not make God.

Jesus is a man not just his flesh.

but if you think that Jesus Christ is not the Father, then you make yourself equal to God and so then you dishonor God by believing a lie.

t hat argument makes zero sense.

but I don't play the game of "literal" anymore, because that was a very small game to be playing. it put far to many limitations on a God who can not be contained. but we are contained. and Jesus is contained for our sake, not because he was like we are, but so that we can be like he is.

you're confusing a literal interpreation with the meaning of words. Words mean what they mean. THe meaningo f words doesn't change, of course people change the meaning of words all the time to fit their doctrine, as you have demonstrated here that you do as well. Lets see I don't like the meaning of origin I'll change it to eternity. that's what you've done.

He is just like us, except he is God.

that's like saying Jesus is like us except he is King. God isn't made of some God substance as most people believe, God is a spirit, and Jesus is a man. so Jesus is not a spirit and a man, he even said so after his resurrection.
you would have done better to just ignore what I said instead of saying this stuff you said here.

 

[dollarsbill]

John 20:28-29 (NASB)
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

 

[Gettingtalents]

John 20:28-29 (NASB)
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Hello.

Hope all is well with you today.

Do you think that there could be a similar principle between the verse you cited and the following passage?

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. (Matthew 16:22-23)
​

Peter was not Satan himself, but Jesus calls him Satan. I would argue that Christ, being the image of God, is called God because of God being manifested in him. When we see him, we see the living God, the Father, being revealed through him. Jesus always pointed to the fact that the Father was the origin of his doctrine and miracles, etc. Hence, Thomas was ackowledging that fact by saying "My God" in a similar fashion that Jesus exposes Satan working through Peter when he says "Get thee behind me, Satan." Similarly, demons are called Satan as well:

"And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?" (Matthew 12:26)
​

Why are the demons called Satan? Why is Peter called Satan? Why is John the baptist called Elias? Why are angels sometimes called God in the Old Testament?

Respectfully, I believe there is a principle in the Bible that is often overlooked these days, namely that the representative or agent of an archetype may be, and is, called by the name of the archetype. This is not done to confound the identities of the agent and archetype, but only to acknowledge the source, the active spirit if you will, who is being revealed through the representative.

Your brother in Christ,
Jason

 

[Noxot]

you have 2 Jesuses. one to fit either side of your contradictions. One Jesus is a man of flesh and bones, the other Jesus is YHWH the omnipresent spirit. And the omnipotent spirit YHWH is the Jesus who is flesh and bones cause 2 Jesuses are one JEsus. God and man. makes perfect nonsense.
Jesus is a man not just his flesh. t hat argument makes zero sense.
you're confusing a literal interpreation with the meaning of words. Words mean what they mean. THe meaningo f words doesn't change, of course people change the meaning of words all the time to fit their doctrine, as you have demonstrated here that you do as well. Lets see I don't like the meaning of origin I'll change it to eternity. that's what you've done.

that's like saying Jesus is like us except he is King. God isn't made of some God substance as most people believe, God is a spirit, and Jesus is a man. so Jesus is not a spirit and a man, he even said so after his resurrection.
you would have done better to just ignore what I said instead of saying this stuff you said here.

i'm spirit too, and i'm a king. and i'm a man. and i'm a woman and i'm a sheep and i'm a deer. am I not allowed to be more than one thing? well that is weird because you are more than one thing.

the best words i saw you speak here, and I mean, it really showed me up, were "Jesus is a man not just his flesh." that is so true. He had a flesh soul and spirit just like we did. another things you said that really made me happy was "makes perfect nonsense." now that is just cute. when you grow up you will say "that makes perfect sense" because when babies get older, they start to understand harder conceptions. but you and I will always be babies compared to God, no matter how much we grow in knowledge and wisdom.

words are not ruler of man, but man rules over words. but flesh man is always trying to rule over spirit man. flesh man clings to the law of sin and death but spirit man clings to the real law that is from the mouth of God. flesh man thinks God says things like "kill people for doing this or that" but spirit man knows that God was using words in ways that flesh man does not know.

but flesh man swears up and down that God is something that flesh mans heart believes. spirit man is very offended by flesh man, spirit man came from God, spirit man knows that God is not the way flesh man says God is, spirit man noticed that flesh man only described himself.

yeah what is a sheep? is it a person or is it an animal? which was God talking about? so then words can mean different things, even if it sounds stupid that God called men and angels sheep. God is foolish so that flesh man looks really bad when they understand that his folly is greater than mans wisdom.

 

[2ducklow]

i'm spirit too, and i'm a king. and i'm a man. and i'm a woman and i'm a sheep and i'm a deer. am I not allowed to be more than one thing? well that is weird because you are more than one thing.

You are a man and a woman, you're a sheep and a deer? Sorry but from my perspective, that's outer space talk.

 

[Albion]

God couldn't have created Himself.

Colossians 1:16 (NASB)
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I didn't think there'd be a ready rebuttal of that.

 

[2ducklow]

I didn't think there'd be a ready rebuttal of that.

(Rotherham) Colossians 1:16 Because, in him, were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the things seen and the things unseen, whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities,--they all, through him and for him, have been created,


people usually don't like Rotherham cause he is so literal and accurate so here's another one most christians hold in high regard, it says the same thing.

(Young) Colossians 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created,

the greek word is en which means in, it doesn't mean by. They translate falsely as by in most bibles because of their theology. they conclude that the reason things were created in Jesus is because they were created in his power, so they change it to what their inteprretation of that verse is, instead of translating it correctly and leaving it to the reader to interpret it.

all things were created in, through and for Jesus. He is the beginning of all creation, in other words he is the reason (the beginning) all things were created in the first place. There is the rebutal you thought didn't exist. which conforms to the rest of the bible, whereas yours contradicts beaucoup scripture.

 

[2ducklow]

John 20:28-29 (NASB)
28 Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus *said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

all translations of john 20.28 are inaccurate because they all fail to translate the def. article. the. In the Greek it actually says "the Lord of me and the God of me". Also, it is in the nominative case, and thus has to be what is called a nominative of exclamation and should be translated as "O my Lord and O my God". when someone is addressed in GReek they are addressed in the vocative case not the nominative case. the vocative is kurie and thee, whereas john 20.28 has the nominative kurios and theos. they all fail to translate it correctly because it is used as the proof text for the false doctrines that Jesus is God.
I mean think about it , do you address someone as "the president" or "the king" or "the John"? or do you address those people as President, king and John? people don't address others using the def. article not in English and not in Greek. How this has been kept a secret for centuries is really amazing. It's like no one wants to know these facts, no one ( hyperbole).
in this verse Thomas addresses Jesus as Lord (kurie) .

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 14:5 legei <3004> (5719) {SAYS} autw <846> {TO HIM} qwmaV <2381> {THOMAS,} kurie <2962> ouk <3756> {LORD,} oidamen <1492> (5758) {WE KNOW NOT} pou <4226> {WHERE} upageiV <5217> (5719) {THOU GOEST,} kai <2532> {AND} pwV <4459> {HOW} dunameqa <1410> (5736) {CAN WE} thn <3588> {THE} odon <3598> {WAY} eidenai <1492> (5760) {KNOW?}

do you see a def. article (o) before kurie? No, cause people aren't addressed using the def. article (the).

IN john 20..28 Thomas uses the nominative kurios.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 20:28 kai <2532> {AND} apekriqh <611> (5662) o <3588> {ANSWERED} qwmaV <2381> {THOMAS} kai <2532> {AND} eipen <2036> (5627) {SAID} autw <846> o <3588> (this means the and it goes with Lord not to him what a rip off.){TO HIM,} kurioV <2962> mou <3450> {MY LORD} kai <2532> o <3588> {AND} qeoV <2316> mou <3450> {MY GOD.}


These facts are kept hidden from you cause they devestate john 20.28 as a proof text for the Jesus is God doctrine. It's rather easy to do for it is rather technical and thus more easily hidden.

here is a source that will confirm what I have said here, although I disagree with that source on a few things.

My lord and my God

 

[dollarsbill]

all translations of john 20.28 are inaccurate because they all fail to translate the def. article. the.

You're right and our English Bibles are wrong? Do you realize how many folk here use the same reasoning? Many! However God calls His Son "God" also.

Hebrews 1:8-12 (NASB)
8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." 10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

 

[2ducklow]

You're right and our English Bibles are wrong?

On this verse and some others , yea. I go by the facts not who says the facts. Even if everyone says it.

Do you realize how many folk here use the same reasoning? Many! However God calls His Son "God" also.

This is your only rebual? It's a variation of the ole standard rebutal used in CF unorthodox which is "you're wrong cause of who you are." And too perhaps what I said blind sided you and you didn't know how to respond. It's not a reasoning it's a fact. the verse you listed below helps illustrate part of what I was saying, It translates 'the God' which is 'o theos' as a nominative of exclamation. That translation below makes nonsense out of heb. 1.8 because it has God exclaming "O God". That is ridiculous.

Hebrews 1:8-12 (NASB)
8 But of the Son He says, "YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9 "YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." 10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11 THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN; AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12 AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

the literal reading is "thy throne the God" and the ending on the oldest manuscripts is his kingdom not your kingdom. NASB is totally off the wall with 'your companions." Thy throne the God sounds like "your throne is God" to me and others. to get around this translators translate 'the God" which in Greeek is "o theos" as a nominative of exclamation which is "O God". Nobody calls um on it cause this too is used as proof text for Jesus is God. Im assuming you have no idea what I'm talking about baseed on your lack of response to my previous post. oh well. guess you'll just have to say I/m wrong again cause of who I am or some variation thereof.

And this is another verse most evryone gets wrong except the JW bible I believe which translates it as "
thy throne is god". I'm not a JW. but I imagine you will say it's wrong cause JW"s said it. Sorry for cuttin you off at the pass. well maybe I'm not sorry.