Me:Colossians ch.1:15KJV"5Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: "
Whether literally or figuratively the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set. Thus this statement makes Christ a member of the creation.
Just as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected colossians ch. Revelation Ch.1:5KJV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," And it matters not that the scripture says that All were created "dia" the prototokos any more than it days that all are resurrected by the prototokos of the resurrected . To say that a servant of JEHOVAH is speaking with the voice of God is to say that he is not speaking in his own authority power or wisdom but with that which he has received from his lord. Therefore he is definitely a subordinate JEHOVAH is self- sufficient and always acts and speaks solely of his own authority. That is why would NEVER read any where in scripture of JEHOVAH Speaking with God's voice that would be ridiculously unworthy of mention. But the fact that the author felt the need to mention it proves that the Logos is subordinate to the one who gave him leave to speak with such authority
This my post to which nincsnevem is supposedly responding ,I will demonstrate from an unabridged copy of Mr.nincsnevems response that he is in fact just another strawman bully.
Nincs:"In the Bible, birth language ALWAYS implies creation"
No, the New Testament consistently distinguishes between the birth/begetting of the Son and the creation of creatures, and it also states that this occurred before all ages (aions). Therefore, the Nicene Creed includes the phrases, "Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons)" and "begotten, not made." The question remains, why do you insist on this CREATEDNESS when there is already a specific term for the Son's origin from the Father, which is precisely what is NOT stated.
Me: you will notice this pattern with Mr.nevem's responses he always asserts he NEVER Demonstrates and this claim(that birth language is never used to refer to JEHOVAH'S Creative activity should be easily demonstrable.
Let's go into the scripture and see what is actually the case.
Acts Ch.17:28NKJV"for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’"
Birth language clearly being used to refer to giving existence to another at a particular point in time.
Psalm ch.90:2NIV"Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the whole world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
This precedent is without exception and given the extremely patriarchal culture of the time and place how could it be otherwise
What about Jesus himself:
Acts ch.13:33NIV"he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
“ ‘You are my son;
tTODAY have become your fFATHER’
He is here shown as begotten at a particular point in time and that his being begotten means the same thing that it does for the rest of JEHOVAH'S Children a receiving of life and form that he did not have previously. There us no such thing as an eternal begetting.
Nincs:"Whenever JEHOVAH acts Dia another"
It is not "Jehovah" who acts 'dia' through the Son, because the New Testament never speaks of "Jehovah," only of the Father, and the Father indeed acts 'dia' through the Son. However, this does not exclude the Son from being an active participant in creation or from being truly God.
Me:I'm going to have to go with the scriptures over you on this one nincs:
John ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
Acts ch 3:13NIV"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. .."
JEHOVAH is the God Lord and Father of Jesus the empty protestations of your church councils notwithstanding.
"Dia" indicates subordination Moses had a very active role in revealing the law to Israel but he was not the source of the law.
John ch.1:17NIV"For the law was given through(Dia) Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "
The power and wisdom manfest in the creation has its source in JEHOVAH not the secondary instruments through which he acts even those consciously involved in the creation. Our parents conscious decision resulted in our being here yet they are not co-creators or to be regarded as of equal importance re: our creation
Nincs:"the other is never the source of the power or wisdom"
Let me teach you something new that might be surprising: according to Nicene Christology, the Son receives his existence and divinity from the Father. Moreover, the Council of Florence explicitly stated as dogma: "Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." Therefore, it is worth thoroughly researching what you are attempting to refute.
Me:All this means is that the God and Father of Jesus ALONE Meets the biblical standard of true Godhood being totally self-sufficient in all respects.
Roman's ch.11:35NIV"“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them?”
It's a rhetorical question the most high God is in no ones debt.
Nincs:"the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set"
No, "prototokos" belongs to the category or group from which it descend from. Robert Keay, Ph.D. writes:"...the Watchtower argues that 'the firstbornof' always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms involves basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase 'firstborn of Pharaoh' cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family, it is only because Pharaoh is the father of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is part of that animal group because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot separate being 'part of' from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering, or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is applied to Jesus as 'firstborn of creation', the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then Creation truly is 'Mother Earth.' Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously, the phrase 'firstborn of creation' is not being used in the way the Watchtower claims. The phrases 'the firstborn of' that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as the Watchtower does. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is that they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As shown above, the 'birth order' meaning of firstborn fades as the 'birthright' significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to 'birth order' cannot be justified."
Mr.nincsnevem is apparently incapable of thinking for himself if you read my original response above you will see that it is all but totally ignored by Mr. Nevem's excuse for a response. I mentioned for instance that prototokos is being used figuratively at colossians. So creation is not literally a parent. Anymore than the resurrection is literally a parent in Jesus illustration.
Luke ch.20:36NIV"and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."
Similarly the Logos is the firstborn of JEHOVAH by being firstborn of creation.
Also firstborn is used in the Bible with reference to relationship to kin .
Revelation ch.1:5NIV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, "
He is definitely the first to be resurrected to holiness and he is kin to the resurrected.
I am forced to repeat myself because Mr.nevem insists on ignoring my actual quote for one on colossians 1:18 which he imagines he can win with some kind of made up grammar rule
All who are begotten of God are so via creation but the majority of the creation is created indirectly through prior creations either as raw materials or secondary causes
Isaiah ch.54:16NIV"“See, it is I who created the blacksmith who fans the coals into flame and forges a weapon fit for its work. And it is I who have created the destroyer to wreak havoc;"
Well not directly the blacksmith and the destroyer undoubtedly had a Father and mother yet because the power wisdom manifest in their form came from JEHOVAH as the ultimate source he can take credit for their existence.
It would be different with the firstborn of creation his begetting would be unique.
Hence he could poetically be referred to as the only begotten.
No comments:
Post a Comment