ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 3244
Mon, 14-Jan-08 03:45:33
Posts: 361
Mon, 14-Jan-08 11:43:39
Quote:The Greek word translated "firstborn" is not a noun, but an adjective. If it really refers to being born, the verse is theologically incorrect. Adam was the firstborn man of creation (although he wasn't really born). Cain was actually the first to be actually born into the creation. Jesus was not born until thousands of year later. The word "firstborn" in this verse does not refer to a physical birth, but refers to Jesus' position to inherit the creation.
Quote:Jesus is to inherit the creation. It has nothing to do with being created. Verse 18 from this chapter of Colossians goes on to directly contradict Jesus being created describing Him as "the beginning."2 This same verse describes Jesus as being the "firstborn from the dead" and defines Jesus as having "first place in everything," demonstrating that "firstborn" refers to position and not creation.
Posts: 0
Mon, 14-Jan-08 15:47:15
Quote:Malachi I would say it is confusing! Because it is the doctrine of man not of G-d. Now, let's go back to what you wrote. Colossians 1:15-16 is talking about is in the begining not when Jesus was born, otherwise how could he be the firstborn of creation? he would not be the First one born. No Aad, this is talking about the preexistence of Jesus, as the Son.
Quote:Aad I read the rest of what you had to say and you could not overturn anything I wrote without you adding "from my pont of view"
Quote:MalachiAnd the "hoti" clause that follows naturally provides the reason why he was the FIRSTBORN creation, because all other creation came AFTER him by means of the fact that they came THROUGH him. Fits like a glove!!Therefore to believe that Col. 1:15,16 shows the Son to the first creation of G-d is entirely contextual and grammatically and denotionally precedented with a huge number of database examples to support it, in fact, none to the contrary found within the Hebrew Bible nor your GT.That coupled with the same scenario in regard to "arche" in Revelation and "qanah" in Proverbs, I personally feel that a Trinitarian should feel extreme guilt in trying to overturn such outstanding evidence.That threefold witness to the creation of the Son should stand as the ABSOLUTE to clean up any ambiguity presented in the scriptures as to the relationship between the Father and the Son because they stand natural and precented statements fully consistent and comliant with what is revealed in the scriptural record.
Quote:MalachiIt is interesting that only the Unitarian understaning of G-d finds this natural and precedented harmony within the Bible, without the need to pull in extra-Biblical philosophy and terminilogy found in Greek and pagan systems of belief.I have often wondered and have presented the challenge for a Triniarian to attempt to defend their doctrine without the usage of their Biblically unprecedented definitions and philosophical ideas. Unitarians can defend their position and explantions every step of the way with the Bible, using its natural languiage and precedented meanings, Trinitarians simply can't, even to the extent of denying that the Son is an actual, literal son of G-d. In a very certain sense, they deny the Son, and if you deny the Son, you don't have the Father, at least according to John.
Posts: 2290
Tue, 15-Jan-08 13:39:20
Moderator
Posts: 507
Thu, 17-Jan-08 21:36:12
Thu, 17-Jan-08 22:50:09
Fri, 18-Jan-08 08:46:30
Fri, 18-Jan-08 09:44:55
Fri, 18-Jan-08 17:49:59
Fri, 18-Jan-08 19:56:14
Sat, 19-Jan-08 21:01:10
Posts: 356
Tue, 22-Jan-08 12:12:28
Posts: 2024
Tue, 22-Jan-08 12:41:11
Quote:An unbeliever could say that the giving of the Ten Commandments is a copy of Hammurabi engraving commandments on stone. He could also claim that the blood sacrifices were take-offs of pagan practices and that the Torah, written by Moses, invented the story of Noah offering on an altar.
Tue, 22-Jan-08 15:11:38
Tue, 7-Jan-14 17:56:40
Share This