Trinity

[Der Alte]

misleading HUH! here is what the website answer to that very question is!

When the Watchtower says, “the concept of trinity is not taught in the Old Testament". They are right, but many concepts that are taught in the New Testament like trinity and the Lord's Supper, were also lacking in the Old Testament.

And you deliberately left off the next sentence, “Doctrine in the Bible developed between the Old Testament and the New Testament.” For example where is baptism taught in the O.T.?

When the Watchtower says, " trinity is not EXPLICITY taught in the New Testament ", they are right and all Trinitarians would agree! The key word is "explicit", for it means: "trinity, as defined in the Nicene or Athanasian creeds is not taught in the Bible.".

And again by selective quoting, leaving out the next sentence, you try to make the article say exactly the opposite of what it does say. “Explicit implies "ontology". But the Biblical trinity (uncreated deity of Christ and personality of the Holy Spirit) are taught in the scripture.”

Sounds the same as calling me a liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I did not! If you do not deliberately misquote the Trinitarian sources I linked to, I would not have to say that your posts are false. I asked you before, if you are going to quote sources at least have the integrity to do it truthfully.

Jesus is coequal with the Father being the same class of uncreated being, but not equal (subordinate) with the Father in rank. JW's deliberately confuse these two important issues. A wife is coequal with her husband as a class of created being called "man", but no[t] equal (subordinate) with her husband in rank. Eph 5:23

A wife is coequal with her husband as a class of created being called "man", but no equal (subordinate) with her husband in rank. Eph 5:23

this is used in different forms by the owners of the website stateing that wives are not equal to husbands

That is completely irrelevant. So what? Here is what you posted before and I said, I thought it was a false statement, “They over and over again likened Jesus to women who although being equal to men are inferior.” And in this post you acknowledge that it does not refer to all women being inferior to all men, but wives being subordinate to their husbands. Neither of your two quotes, above, liken Jesus to women, as you claimed. So that is still a false statement.

I think you called me a liar again!!!!!!!!!!!!

So let's see thats once calling me misleading and twice calling me a liar in just this one post and they wonder why I ignore you !

Misleading and deceptive. Just like that piece of JW garbage, "Should You Believe The Trinity" (SYBTT), you posted. As I have shown above, just like your leaders, you deliberately leave out parts of statements trying to make them say the opposite of what they do say. In that entire website, I linked and quoted, it does not, “over and over likened Jesus to women.” So that is still a false statement.

The ellipses eliminate the conjecture or fill and just post the proof !
Example;
WT
And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."-New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Actual quote;
“On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God."

Do you like it better with the phrase in there?

Very good, showing your true colors, still being deceptive and misleading. You found one quote which used ellipses correctly, while you turned a blind eye to the several other citations which misuse them. Here are two examples, and the link, so anyone can verify what I posted.

SYBTT:
A PROTESTANT publication states: "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

Bible.ca:

The full quote says,

"It must be remembered that the OT was written before the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity was clearly given." . . . "The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century . . . Although Scripture does not give us a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements out of which theology has constructed the doctrine."​

​

​

​

SYBTT:
The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." However, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity

Bible.ca:

Satanic quote! Look what the Watchtower left out to deceive you! (notice the ellipse: ". . .") "

The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" ("Ad. Autol.", 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."​

What lies and deception! The part the Watchtower left out says that Theophilus (180 AD) not only taught the trinity BEFORE Tertullian (200 AD) but that the word Trinity itself was used before Theophilus. So the source is actually teaching that the use of the word trinity predated Tertullian by two generations!

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-frames-start-page-SYBTT.htm​

​

​

This is Tertullian, not, according to JWs, teaching the Trinity 200+ years before Nicaea.

Tertullian-Against Praxeas(1)
Chapter II.-The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead.

But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged;18 especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation (19) is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order (20) the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, (21) but in degree; (22) not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; (23) yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (24) How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

Chapter III.-Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (104) (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oi0konomi/a. The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-43.htm#P10395_2912630​

​

SYBTT:And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].

site Answer;

So what, neither is the doctrine of the Lord's supper or that Jesus was the agent of creation!

Very unreasonable with no facts to disprove the Catholic Encyclopedia!!!!!!

Because the Lord's Supper and Jesus as a person were unknown to the Hebrew writers but the Word was known and also the Holy Spirit and yet they never taught a Trinity!!

Irrelevant! The Bible.ca site did not even attempt to disprove the Cath. Ency. In fact they agreed with the article. Their response pointed out the hypocrisy and fallacy of the JW, “Its not in the O.T.," argument. Here is another of their replies to that fallacious argument, “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, but so what? Neither are the words, "theocracy" "Jehovah's Witnesses" "Circuit Assemblies" etc.”

So if the Trinity is unscriptural because it is not explicitly taught in the O.T., then the JW are wrong because of the unscriptural words and titles they use. And here are two more, there is no such office in the Bible, known as “Superintendent..” And there is no such thing as a “Kingdom Hall.”

 

[Der Alte]

You left out a 3rd posiblilty. you are misinterpreting scriptures.[/font]

The bible says God is love, so do you think god is the emotion love.? the bible says love is kind. so do you think love is literally kind. doesnt rather love qualify god, and kind qualify love? is it so unreasonable that God qualifys word also? I mean god empowers his word and makes it happen. can';t you consider this as a possiblility? if you adamantly insist that God has to be the word , then shouldn't you like wise adamantly insist that god is the emotion love?
shouldn't you likewise adamantly insist that God is kind and the word is kind and kind became flesh?
if you adamantly insist that god is the word because the bible says, and the word was god, then you should like wise insist that god is love and love is kind and since the word became flesh then kind which is love which is god which is word also became flesh. if you follow your reasoning all the way through this is what you end up with , KInd became flesh.

Just as soon as you show us scripture which states that "Love became flesh" Or a scripture that says "God is kind," and then another scripture which says that "kind became flesh"

And lets just ignore the fact that from 700+ years before John, the Aramaic scriptures, written during the Babylonian exile, had replaced “יהוה/YHWH" with "memra," Aramaic for "word." So, when Aramaic speaking Jews read their scriptures, the Word was literally, actually YHWH and YHWH was literally, actually the Word. And I know I have said this before, in John 1:14 the word translated "became," is in the deponent mood, which means the Word acting upon Himself became flesh. This means that somehow prior to His incarnation the Word was a sentient being. The KJV, "was made," is not a good translation here.

But it seems to me whenever anyone mentions the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, around here there is a loud cacaphony of howling, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. And the only reason I can think of is because their pet heretical doctrines are totally refuted.

OH, and while you are at it, maybe you can show us where "love" and "kind" are shown to be sentient beings, acting upon themselves becoming different forms, and, like Jesus, being aware of their pre-creation glory with the father.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree with you but the tinitarians won't. Thgey believe it always existed even though no OT writers spoke of it and they can only come up with it by linking different scriptures to come up with a man made doctrine. There is not one single scripture that supports the tinity in it's entirety!

You are partly right there is not a single scripture, there are several.

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.​

And in Revelation. In heaven there is one throne. The one throne is the throne of God. There is one sitting on the throne. Jesus is set down with the father on His throne. But there is only one on the throne. The throne is the throne of God and the lamb.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Rev 4:2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

Rev 4:9 And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, (Rev. 5:1, 7, 13, 16; 7:15, 20:11, 21:5)

Rev 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.​

​

 

[jessedance]

true believer;

No we believe in only Jehovah as God.

What about john 1:1 in the nwt. 'and the word was a god'. Don't JWs interpret this to mean Jesus was a demigod or little god? that's what i've heard.

 

[Ben johnson]

Der Alter, I am always impressed by your vast documentations.

I'm not so well "equipped"; but with Scripture, it is easy to prove (many times) that Jesus is God, Jesus had no beginning, Jesus and Jehovah are identical.

Jehovah's Witnesses confuse Col1:15 confuses "firstborn" with "born first" (Esau was born first, Jacob became the firstborn --- see Ephraim and Manessah); both verse 15 and verse 18 convey AUTHORITY ("pre-eminence"), first over all creation, second over death itself.

And Rev3:14, it is not the "beginning of creation" (meaning FIRST-CREATED), but rather the SOURCE of ALL CREATION...

In the spirit of being neutral, either my beliefs are muddy, or your eyes (and heart) have not yet been open to see what is crystal clear. I take no offfense to your mud comment, and I hope you take none to my vision imparement comment. I only wish the best for all of us.

"Confuse-ed say, 'MAN who STAND ON HEAD, world is UPSIDE DOWN'." Or, "man who see mud in other's eye, should first check own eye for that mud...."

It is crystal clear that God is SPIRIT and not flesh; that Jesus had no beginning, that Jesus has always been divine and part OF that divinity (one person of three that comprise the ONE GOD), that there is only one God in all existence. Besides all that, what is crystal clear about Mormonism?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Der Alter, I am always impressed by your vast documentations.

No kidding Ben, me too. Praise God for giving DA such a wonderful gift that helps us so much.

God Bless,
Grace

 

[jessedance]

a JW told me that they teach that Jesus is the arch angel michael.

 

[Ben johnson]

a JW told me that they teach that Jesus is the arch angel michael.

Yup --- Michael (who had a beginning, there was a time when Michael did not exist) --- supposedly "annihilated and his life-force placed into the infant Jesus". And Jesus "not really resurrected but simply MICHAEL RECREATED". Though Michael did not have authority over the devil (Jude1:9), and Jesus DID.

The idea that "Jesus had a beginning" ignores Heb7:3 and misunderstands Col1:15 (vs 15 says "authority over creation", verse 18 says "authority over death") and Rev3:14 ("He is the ORIGIN/SOURCE of all creation").

 

[Swart]

a JW told me that they teach that Jesus is the arch angel michael.

I understand the SDA's believe this too.

 

[trinity2359]

The idea that "Jesus had a beginning" ignores Heb7:3 and misunderstands Col1:15 (vs 15 says "authority over creation", verse 18 says "authority over death") and Rev3:14 ("He is the ORIGIN/SOURCE of all creation").

Hi Ben ,

Just wanted to copy a post I made under the 'Arianism' thread:

--------
Hi - Arian here

Everlasting Father:

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
Then I guess everyone who believes in Jesus is everlasting as well. I was born, had a beginning, but can have everlasting life.

Jesus is the FirstBorn of Creation:
References from blueletterbible.com

Col 1:15 Who 3739 is 2076 the image 1504 of the invisible 517 God 2316, the firstborn 4416 of every 3956 creature 2937
4416 Firstborn means:
1) the firstborn

a) of man or beast

b) of Christ, the first born of all creation


Jesus is Jehovah's (the Father's) first creation, just as my son is my Firstborn.

(BTW - my stance on the trinity is NOT LDS theology)
------

There are all of the occurances of this word 'firstborn' 4416:

KJV English Concordance for "prototokos (Strong's 4416) "
Learn More About Our Word Search Tools
Strong's Number 4416 matches the Greek prototokos

For the unrelated Hebrew word for 04416 (m@lach)

click here. (To get a Hebrew Strong's number, please enter a 0 before the number, ie 1234 for Greek, 01234 for Hebrew.)


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

prototokos (Strong's 4416) occurs 9 times in 9 verses:

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

Mat 1:25 And 2532 knew 1097 her 846 not 3756 till 2193 3757 she had brought forth 5088 her 846 firstborn 4416 son 5207: and 2532 he called 2564 his 846 name 3686 JESUS 2424.

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

Luk 2:7 And 2532 she brought forth 5088 her 846 firstborn 4416 son 5207, and 2532 wrapped 4683 0 him 846 in swaddling clothes 4683 , and 2532 laid 347 him 846 in 1722 a manger 5336; because 1360 there was 2258 no 3756 room 5117 for them 846 in 1722 the inn 2646.

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

Rom 8:29 For 3754 whom 3739 he did foreknow 4267 , he 4309 0 also 2532 did predestinate 4309 [to be] conformed 4832 to the image 1504 of his 846 Son 5207, that 1519 he 846 might be 1511 the firstborn 4416 among 1722 many 4183 brethren 80.

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

Col 1:15 Who 3739 is 2076 the image 1504 of the invisible 517 God 2316, the firstborn 4416 of every 3956 creature 2937:

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

Col 1:18 And 2532 he 846 is 2076 the head 2776 of the body 4983, the church 1577: who 3739 is 2076 the beginning 746, the firstborn 4416 from 1537 the dead 3498; that 2443 in 1722 all 3956 [things] he 846 might have 1096 the preeminence 4409 .

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

Hbr 1:6 And 1161 again 3825, when 3752 he bringeth in 1521 the firstbegotten 4416 into 1519 the world 3625, he saith 3004 , And 2532 let 4352 0 all 3956 the angels 32 of God 2316 worship 4352 him 846.

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

Hbr 11:28 Through faith 4102 he kept 4160 the passover 3957, and 2532 the sprinkling 4378 of blood 129, lest 3363 he that destroyed 3645 the firstborn 4416 should touch 2345 them 846.

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

Hbr 12:23 To the general assembly 3831 and 2532 church 1577 of the firstborn 4416, which are written 583 in 1722 heaven 3772, and 2532 to God 2316 the Judge 2923 of all 3956, and 2532 to the spirits 4151 of just men 1342 made perfect 5048 ,

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

Rev 1:5 And 2532 from 575 Jesus 2424 Christ 5547, [who is] the faithful 4103 witness 3144, [and] the first begotten 4416 of 1537 the dead 3498, and 2532 the prince 758 of the kings 935 of the earth 1093. Unto him that loved 25 us 2248, and 2532 washed 3068 us 2248 from 575 our 2257 sins 266 in 1722 his own 846 blood 129,

How many of these use the definition of 'Origin/Source'? Why is that defnition different than that used of Mary - was not Jesus her 'firstborn'?


Now onto
Hebrews 7
3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

OK... What about:

Matthew 1


The Genealogy of Jesus

1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,
7Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[1] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,
Abiud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Eliud,
15Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.[2]

And Luke 3:
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
26the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
28the son of Neri, the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
30the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
32the son of David, the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[13] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[14]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
34the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
36the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
38the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Sure looks like a geneology to me

Anyway, the references in Hebrews that relate to Melchizedek:

Easton's Bible Dictionary Melchizedek king of righteousness, the king of Salem ( q.v.). All we know of him is recorded in Gen 14:18-20. He is subsequently mentioned only once in the Old Testament, in Psa 110:4. The typical significance of his history is set forth in detail in the Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. 7. The apostle there points out the superiority of his priesthood to that of Aaron in these several respects, ( 1) Even Abraham paid him tithes; ( 2) he blessed Abraham; ( 3) he is the type of a Priest who lives for ever; ( 4) Levi, yet unborn, paid him tithes in the person of Abraham; ( 5) the permanence of his priesthood in Christ implied the abrogation of the Levitical system; ( 6) he was made priest not without an oath; and ( 7) his priesthood can neither be transmitted nor interrupted by death: "this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood."

The question as to who this mysterious personage was has given rise to a great deal of modern speculation. It is an old tradition among the Jews that he was Shem, the son of Noah, who may have survived to this time. Melchizedek was a Canaanitish prince, a worshipper of the true God, and in his peculiar history and character an instructive type of our Lord, the great High Priest ( Hbr 5:6,7; 6:20). One of the Amarna tablets is from Ebed-Tob, king of Jerusalem, the successor of Melchizedek, in which he claims the very attributes and dignity given to Melchizedek in the Epistle to the Hebrews.

It is the Priesthood of Melchizedek that has not beginning or end or genealogy. Not the man so to compare Jesus the person is incorrect, but rather Jesus' Ministry and Priesthood endures forever.

Therefore, we Arians do not dismiss Hebrews 7:3 as you suggest.

(AGAIN - my views are not that of LDS!)

Enjoy!

 

[jessedance]

ben;

It is crystal clear that God is SPIRIT and not flesh; that Jesus had no beginning

FYI the greek word in Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ ' is genesis which means beginning.
and nativity, what your saying is reincarnation, not birth.

 

[Swart]

I know your going to hate me asking this, LOL... but what's the evidence? I'm not trying to be pest, I just find this idea particularly interesting.

Chaindog

Sorry. I just noticed I hadn't replied to this. Another one lost in the threads!

Some are critical of my insistence that you can learn much from what isn't mentioned in the scriptures. There is scant record of manifestations of the HG whilst Jesus was on the Earth. After he departed, however, there were many great manifestations from the HG. He also states in John 15:26 "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father...", possibly indicating that the comforter (HG) would be sent at some later date.

 

[Ben johnson]

Jesus is the FirstBorn of Creation:
References from blueletterbible.com

Hmmmm. Remember Jacob and Esau? Who was born first (hint: "Esau"), and who became the Firstborn? (Hint: "Jacob")

Remember Manasseh (born first) and Ephraim (became the Firstborn when Israel crossed his hands and blessed them)?

So the term, "FIRSTBORN", in Col1:15, does NOT mean "born FIRST" --- it means "has AUTHORITY over all creation. Now look at Col1:18 --- was Jesus the first one EVER RESURRECTED? No. Yet He is "firstborn of the dead" --- meaning that He has AUTHORITY over even DEATH.

Look at Rev3:14: "He is the beginning of the creation of God" --- the Greek word means "origin, SOURCE". If Jesus is a CREATED BEING, then that violates John1:3, "And APART from Him came nothing into being that has come into being."

So, "firstborn", does NOT mean "first-created". Jesus pre-existed His flesh; the Jews clearly understood His words, and wanted to kill Him for saying: "You are not even 50 years old and You say You've seen ABRAHAM?!" Jesus said, "Truly --- before Abraham was born, I AM" ("I am God!").
[quot]Sure looks like a geneology to me
[/quote]If you'll NOTICE, the genealogies are DIFFERENT. One recounts his LEGAL lineage, through Joseph, who was SUPPOSEDLY (as it was being thought) his father (Lk3:23). Lineage was never listed through the MOTHER --- but because Jesus was NOT part of Joseph, Matthew lists Jesus' LEGAL lineage through Joseph (thought to be his father; Luke lists his REAL lineage to David through Mary.

And yet, Jesus PRE-EXISTED his birth; He walked on the Earth, met Abraham, Jesus is actually THE CREATOR.

Jesus is called "Immanuel, which is GOD WITH US". Jesus "Altough existed in the FORM of God, did not regard equality with God to be ROBBERY; but laied aside His privileges, taking the form of a bond-servant; and being found in the APPEARANCE of a man, He humbled Himself even to death on a Cross." Philip2:6-8

It is the Priesthood of Melchizedek that has not beginning or end or genealogy. Not the man so to compare Jesus the person is incorrect, but rather Jesus' Ministry and Priesthood endures forever.

Nonsense. "Without father/mother/genealogy/beginning/end, but made LIKE the Son of God, HE abides A priest forever. The entire priesthood "WAS MADE LIKE A SON OF GOD"? That's silly; one man was, HE who abides forever.

FYI the greek word in Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ ' is genesis which means beginning.
and nativity, what you're saying is reincarnation, not birth.

"Reincarnation" is when one is "incarnated AGAIN". Jesus was NOT flesh UNTIL He was born to Mary. Thus, He was not "reincarnated", He was "incarnated".

 

[jessedance]

"Reincarnation" is when one is "incarnated AGAIN". Jesus was NOT flesh UNTIL He was born to Mary. Thus, He was not "reincarnated", He was "incarnated".[/QUOTE]

Reincarn[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]ation states that the spirit comes to the Earth plane many [/font][font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]times, in order to experience physical life, under a variety of circumstances and conditions. To some, this represents a grotesque cycle in which the spirit becomes trapped; others look at it as a wonderful, divine plan which offers an opportunity to expand in our awareness and to correct that which needs to be corrected.

www.fst.org/reinc 1.htm[/font]
sure sounds like reincarnation to me. Jesus existed before he was born as a spirit and he comes to earth in a human body. sure qualifys as what reincarnationists believe.
Anyway incarnation isnt a biblical word. so who cares what it means as far as the bible is concerned anyway. lets stick to bible topics.