DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TESTAME

[Rotherham]

Soon, again sorry for the delay.

Can you show in scripture interpreting scripture any verse that allows you to insert both "things" and "other" (two words that do not exist in the Greek) both inserted at the same time? Is there any other place?

[Rotherham]

Hi TS,

Yes, right within the very same context. Verse 17 states of Jesus that he "is before all things". Since it is impossible for Jesus to be before himself, it would best be rendered "he is before all other things". There are many other examples where "all things" is used in a context yet there are obvious persons that are not included in the phrase "all things", usually God himself, or God and Christ.

Rom 8:32
1 Cor. 15:27,28
Eph. 1:22
Eph. 3:9
Phil 3:8

Can you show in scripture interpreting scripture any verse that allows you to insert both "things" and "other" (two words that do not exist in the Greek) both inserted at the same time? Is there any other place?

[truthseeker]

Isn’t it true that Watchtower sites James Moffat and his American Translation as their expert on when it's appropriate to insert the words “other” based on his translations of 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18?

The WT says:

“Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.”

So if Moffet is an authority on the Greek word "panta or pas" surely he knows when it's appropriate, accurate and honest to insert the word "other", would he not?

[Rotherham]

Hi TS,

The quoting of other translations that agree with our renderings are to merely show that there are other scholars who would agree with our rendering. It doesn't mean that the particular translator is an expert in all matters pertaining to a particular word and it's usage.

Rotherham

Isn’t it true that Watchtower sites James Moffat and his American Translation as their expert on when it's appropriate to insert the words “other” based on his translations of 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18?

The WT says:

“Similarly, though Jesus was not part of the “all things” that came into existence through him, he was, nevertheless, a created person, the very first creature of God. The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.) Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.”

So if Moffet is an authority on the Greek word "panta or pas" surely he knows when it's appropriate, accurate and honest to insert the word "other", would he not?

[truthseeker]

What is wrong with this logic?

"Atoms are invisible. Humans are made of Atoms. Hence human's are invisible."

The answer: It's a false correlation. Why? The answer is obvious. A bait a switch has occurred. I got you to focus on two true answers and then swapped them with a false one.

True
1. Atoms are invisible

then I loaded another true statement:

2. Humans are made of Atoms,

and then I tried to misdirected you with a false correlation by adding in , "hence humans are invisible."


Does WT use the same bait and switch?

Let's see.

1st True Statement::

The Greek word panta in certain contexts means “all other,”

2nd True Statement:

as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18 (See An American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible.)

3rd: Statement

...Hence, the New World Translation reads: “by means of him all other things were created . . . he is before all other things.”—Col. 1:16, 17.”

Is this last statement a bait and switch by the WT?


(If the Moffat bible is an expert on translating the word pas/panta, and these scholars in fact agree with WT and WT is quoting them to support their translation, all one has to do is look up Col 1:16:17 in the American Translation, Moffat, common bible to see if WT has told the truth or is WT pulling a deceptive bait and switch? After all how many JWS actually double check or test WT claims to see if they are true?)


How does the American Translation, Moffatt, Common Bible read Col. 1:16:17? Please copy and paste it for us...

http://studybible.info/Moffatt/Colossians <====Here is a link to Moffatt Bible

YOU SAID:

The quoting of other translations that agree with our renderings are to merely show that there are other scholars who would agree with our rendering

But is your statement actually verify-ably true?

Does this translation actually agree with WT renderings? Do these scholars (or any scholars) actually agree with WT renderings of Col:1;167-17? OR has a BAIT and SWITCH occurred?

[Rotherham]

Hello TS,

We are talking about linguistic possibilities. There has been no bait and switch.

Is it linguistically possible to render pantas as "all other"? Yes, as many translations demonstrate by choosing to do so in similar contexts.

Just because Moffatt's failed to do so at Col. 1:16,17 does not mean that it shouldn't be done. Think about it. Moffatt's did not render "he is before all things" with "other" either, but the fact is that is one of the best ways to render that phrase into English, because Jesus can not logically be before himself so he can't be a part of the all things in that statement. "Other" resolves the problem just like it does in "all other creation" because Jesus is already revealed to be part of creation by being the "firstborn" OF creation. You're focusing on the wrong thing once again.

Moffat, who is Trinitarian, would not want to make Jesus a creation so naturally he would avoid using "other" in the phrase, but he suffers from the same problem as every other Trinitarian does at this verse. They have no way to separate Christ from creation because he is the "firstborn" OF creation.

Regards

[truthseeker]

Is there one bible out there that does exactly that (in col 1:16-17) of what you mention or scholar that supports nwt insertion of not one, but two words into the text at the same time? Name him and the bible.

Or is this simply bait and switch as I have stated and there is no such support.
Notice moffats translation in the other two texts do not insert two words, just one.

As seen by all your examples earlier you could not find one biblical precident. All the verses you showed only had one insertion. The word things. None of them showed Other Things. There is not one scriptural support for such nonsense. Nor is there scholarly support and not a single other bible translation does this in the world. Why? Because it's dishonest.

It doesn't matter how you want to rationalize it. Can you name one scholar that supports inserting two fictional words at the same time?

PS. There's nothing wrong with just saying he is before all. Without inserting either word. That is the true translation. If he was eternal there is no problem with this. Matter of fact that is why Paul spoke it this way. Inserting THINGS or OTHER is someone's bias opinion and not part of the Greek Scripture.

Your arguement is that words that don't exist trump the actual text.

http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testame ... ans/1.html

See the greek. It's understandable exactly what is being said. The only reason the word things is inserted is just to make good sounding english. But that word itself is fiction.

The greek literal trumps all. Including all translations.

[Rotherham]

You're not thinking very well about this.

Words in Greek often have to have some English words included in order to complete the proper understanding in English. All scholars recognize this. That's where the word "things" comes from in those texts. So let me ask you this first: Are ALL translations (not sure of one that doesn't at least somewhere) that insert "things" into the text with PANTAS, wrong for doing so?

Is there one bible out there that does exactly that (in col 1:16-17) of what you mention or scholar that supports nwt insertion of not one, but two words into the text at the same time? Name him and the bible.

Or is this simply bait and switch as I have stated and there is no such support.
Notice moffats translation in the other two texts do not insert two words, just one.

It doesn't matter how you want to rationalize it. Can you name one scholar that supports inserting two fictional words at the same time?

PS. There's nothing wrong with just saying he is before all. Without inserting either word. That is the true translation. If he was eternal there is no problem with this. Matter of fact that is why Paul spoke it this way. Inserting THINGS or OTHER is someone's bias opinion and not part of the Greek Scripture.

Your arguement is that words that don't exist trump the actual text.

http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testame ... ans/1.html

See the greek. It's understandable exactly what is being said. The only reason the word things is inserted is just to make good sounding english. But that word itself is fiction.

The greek literal trumps all. Including all translations. You lose.

[truthseeker]

Yes if it is not disclosed to the reader in advance. They are wrong for doing that. Newer translations are now changing the color of the words to let the reader know it does not exist or has been inserted.

Your 1984 nwt translation was honest and put the word other in brackets letting reader know it was WTS opinion. Now they removed that to hide it from the reader that there are two insertions.

These older bibles that do insert the word "things" are acceptable if it doesn't change the true meaning.

All things
And
all other things

Are two different meanings entirely.

Your question is flawed because even these older translations are honest enough to just extend the word ALL by adding things.


WT literally lies to the reader inserting TWO words.


Because to use the Moffat bible as support you can only insert the word Other without the word Things.

So it would read he is before all other....
Which makes no sense.

Which is why no one else inserts other.

Because to be intellectually honest with the translation you have to pick one word only. Other or things.

Which is why you cannot find any scriptural support or scholarly support for the WT erroneous and irresponsible insertion of two words.

[Rotherham]

You're still not thinking clearly for a couple of reasons.

First:
Question: Is Jesus one of the things he is before?

Yes if it is not disclosed to the reader in advance. They are wrong. Newer translations are now changing the color of the words to let the reader know it does not exist or has been inserted.

Your 1984 nwt translation was honest and put the word other in brackets letting reader know it was WTS opinion. Now they removed that to hide it from the reader that there are two insertions.

These older bibles that do insert the word "things" are acceptable if it doesn't change the true meaning.

All things
And
all other things

Are two different meanings entirely.

Your question is flawed because even these older translations are honest enough to just extend the word ALL by adding things.


WT literally lies to the reader inserting TWO words.


Because to use the Moffat bible as support you can only insert the word Other without the word Things.

So it would read he is before all other....
Which makes no sense.

Which is why no one else inserts other.

Because to be intellectually honest with the translation you have to pick one word only. Other or things.

Which is why you cannot find any scriptural support or scholarly support for the WT erroneous and irresponsible insertion of two words.

[truthseeker]

He is before all...period.

John 1:3 tells us all was made by him and not one thing that exists would exist if it wasnt because of him.

It's air tight.

Since it is common sense and a logical absurdity that the maker of All doesn't include himself nothing else needs to be added.

I do like how you avoided the questions though...im still waiting for your support.

[Rotherham]

Surely you must see the logical error here.

How can he be before himself?

He is before all...period.

John 1:3 tells us all was made by him and not one thing that exists would exist without him.

It's air tight.

Since it is common sense and a logical absurdity that the maker of All doesn't include himself nothing else needs to be added.

[Rotherham]

So you admit that "all" in verse 17 doesn't really mean ALL!!

Surely you must see the logical error here.

How can he be before himself?

He is before all...period.

John 1:3 tells us all was made by him and not one thing that exists would exist without him.

It's air tight.

Since it is common sense and a logical absurdity that the maker of All doesn't include himself nothing else needs to be added.

[truthseeker]

No...pay attention.

All is obviously classified as anything created by him.

You are trying broaden the scope of all things to include God and Jesus.

You have bad logic.

If I'm the one who creates x. Then I can be before x. Because I'm not included in x because I'm the creator of x. X had a time when it didn't exist. So All in the context of creation is reserved to anything that was created by Jesus. This very greek wording is pro Jesus as the creator and uncreated himself.

This is why all OTHER things is not in John 1:3 either.

[Rotherham]

You're actually proving my point. I'll explain why in a moment

[truthseeker]

You are flip flopping.

Because that would mean there are ZERO raw materials.

You are and have been and still are in Checkmate

[Rotherham]

You admit that ALL in verse 17 does not mean ALL, claiming that the context makes it obvious.

Therefore, adding all other does not change the meaning at all of the sentence, it merely clarifies beyond any doubt.

The very same thing happens between verses 15 and 16 because Jesus is SOLIDLY established as PART of creation by being the FIRSTBORN. Therefore, it must be ALL OTHER CREATION, because Jesus did not create himself, just like he can't be before himself in verse 17. It's the very same scenario as verse 17.

All other is not needed in John 1:3 because that action is after the beginning when Jesus came to be. We've been through that.

You are flip flopping.

Because that would mean there are ZERO raw materials.

You are and have been and still are in Checkmate

[truthseeker]

Let's say you already exist. And X are things that have come into existence by you, if so then naturally "X" excludes anything that pre-existed to X coming into existence by you.

riddle solved...There are only TWO CATEGORIES. Things before X and things part of X.

Anything created is part of X, and anything NOT created is excluded from X.

John 1:3

X came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence

LOGIC

1. The father pre-existed before X came into existence
2. Jesus existed before X came into existence, because Jesus is the one who brought X (created things) into existence. He could not bring things that already existed into existence. That's a logical absurdity.

Colossians 1:17 New International Version (NIV) <====Is saying the same thing as John 1:3

17 He is before X, and in him X hold together.

This is consistent. There can only be TWO CATEGORIES.

You are creating THREE CATEGORIES and claiming that it's the same as TWO.

Category Three: "All Other things."

By inserting OTHER it automatically means All Things other than the things Jesus created. Or "OTHER than X"

This is a direct conflict with John 1:3 and math in word problem form because Jesus is part of the Category "Pre-existed prior X". Anything that is part of X defaults to automatically to being created and coming from Jesus. There is ZERO room for ALL OTHER THINGS as a category or Things other than X. The logic doesn't allow it.

This is why no scholar will back your nonsense, or why you cannot find a bible on the planet that translates Col 1:16-17 with all OTHER things. It's a logical absurdity. It can not exist without conflicting with John 1:3 or the content logic.


1. If all things that exist, exist only from Jesus, or they could not exist. Then there is no ALL OTHER THINGS. It's impossible! Laughably absurdly impossible! You have been duped into believing this nonsense. Which is why even Moffat doesn't mess with the text and leaves it consistent with every translation. Because it's the only way it can be translated without being intentionally dishonest about it.

2. Adding all other things creates a huge problem, a problem where there is another set of "THINGS" besides "ALL THINGS" that Jesus brought into existence. Which is impossible because there are no other things that could exist according to John 1:3. They are either part of the group that pre-existed before X was created or they are part of X...period.

You're clutching at straws. You have been in checkmate and still haven't gotten out.

There is no escaping it. Do it on paper. Draw boxes based on John 1:3.

Box one.
Jesus not part of all things automatically. He goes in box one.

ALL things are what Jesus created. So they come from Jesus. They are automatically in box 2.

If you want to be cute....and say what about God? Since God is not created by Jesus he goes into the same box as Jesus.

Jesus and God are in the box labeled "before all things". All things are box 2 which holds everything else besides them. Period. A 12 year old can do this. try it. SEE...for yourself.

Try drawing with yours. There is no room for ALL other things. Where are these "other" things in John 1:3? None the text does not allow it. Obviously were are speaking of Jesus himself, but he unfortunately is in Box A. There is no Box C by the context.

You lose.

This solves your true meaning of firstborn. It is the term for Jesus used by God when he begotten him after the Resurrection. it is the fulfillment of the prophecy of David "i will MAKE" him my first born, not he is my firstborn already.

Colossians 1:15-17 I'm going to paraphrase what the meaning here really is. There is no room for ALL other things.

15 The Son is right now (in present tense, which after his Resurrection) an exact replica of the original invisible God, This carbon copy of God is the first to be begotten by God of all creatures.

WHY is he the first to be begotten?

Because inside of Jesus all things were created (by God): <====Yes it literally means in or inside Jesus. Ha! This is talking about God creating. So did god create ALL OTHER things inside Jesus?

things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all these things have been created (inside Jesus) then through Jesus and for Jesus. 17 Jesus is before all of these things came into existence (john 1:3), and inside Jesus all of these things still hold together.

That's what it means. You cannot over turn this.

[Rotherham]

All you have done is clarify that "all things" do not mean "all things", there are exceptions as I have been stating from the beginning. "All things" MUST be qualified as you have above. You just demonstrated that. However, as we know, context rules and in the context of Col. 1:15 Jesus is categorically included in creation.

The reason translators wont back up our translation of Col. 1:15 is because they are all Trinitarians and that verse disables the Trinity.

Regards

Let's say you already exist. And X are things that have come into existence by you, if so then naturally "X" excludes anything that pre-existed to X coming into existence by you.

riddle solved...There are only TWO CATEGORIES. Things before X and things part of X.

Anything created is part of X, and anything NOT created is excluded from X.

John 1:3

X came into existence through him and apart from him not even one thing came into existence

LOGIC

1. The father pre-existed before X came into existence
2. Jesus existed before X came into existence, because Jesus is the one who brought X (created things) into existence. He could not bring things that already existed into existence. That's a logical absurdity.

Colossians 1:17 New International Version (NIV) <====Is saying the same thing as John 1:3

17 He is before X, and in him X hold together.

This is consistent. There can only be TWO CATEGORIES.

You are creating THREE CATEGORIES and claiming that it's the same as TWO.

Category Three: "All Other things."

By inserting OTHER it automatically means All Things other than the things Jesus created. Or "OTHER than X"

This is a direct conflict with John 1:3 and math in word problem form because Jesus is part of the Category "Pre-existed prior X". Anything that is part of X defaults to automatically to being created and coming from Jesus. There is ZERO room for ALL OTHER THINGS as a category or Things other than X. The logic doesn't allow it.

This is why no scholar will back your nonsense, or why you cannot find a bible on the planet that translates Col 1:16-17 with all OTHER things. It's a logical absurdity. It can not exist without conflicting with John 1:3 or the content logic.


1. If all things that exist, exist only from Jesus, or they could not exist. Then there is no ALL OTHER THINGS. It's impossible! Laughably absurdly impossible! You have been duped into believing this nonsense. Which is why even Moffat doesn't mess with the text and leaves it consistent with every translation. Because it's the only way it can be translated without being intentionally dishonest about it.

2. Adding all other things creates a huge problem, a problem where there is another set of "THINGS" besides "ALL THINGS" that Jesus brought into existence. Which is impossible because there are no other things that could exist according to John 1:3. They are either part of the group that pre-existed before X was created or they are part of X...period.

You're clutching at straws. You have been in checkmate and still haven't gotten out.

There is no escaping it. Do it on paper. Draw boxes based on John 1:3.

Box one.
Jesus not part of all things automatically. He goes in box one.

ALL things are what Jesus created. So they come from Jesus. They are automatically in box 2.

If you want to be cute....and say what about God? Since God is not created by Jesus he goes into the same box as Jesus.

Jesus and God are in the box labeled "before all things". All things are box 2 which holds everything else besides them. Period. A 12 year old can do this. try it. SEE...for yourself.

Try drawing with yours. There is no room for ALL other things. Where are these "other" things in John 1:3? None the text does not allow it. Obviously were are speaking of Jesus himself, but he unfortunately is in Box A. There is no Box C by the context.

You lose.

This solves your true meaning of firstborn. It is the term for Jesus used by God when he begotten him after the Resurrection. it is the fulfillment of the prophecy of David "i will MAKE" him my first born, not he is my firstborn already.

Colossians 1:15-17 I'm going to paraphrase what the meaning here really is. There is no room for ALL other things.

15 The Son is right now (in present tense, which after his Resurrection) an exact replica of the original invisible God, This carbon copy of God is the first to be begotten by God of all creatures.

WHY is he the first to be begotten?

Because inside of Jesus all things were created (by God): <====Yes it literally means in or inside Jesus. Ha! This is talking about God creating. So did god create ALL OTHER things inside Jesus?

things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all these things have been created (inside Jesus) then through Jesus and for Jesus. 17 Jesus is before all of these things came into existence (john 1:3), and inside Jesus all of these things still hold together.

That's what it means. You cannot over turn this.

[truthseeker]

The reason translators wont back up our translation of Col. 1:15 is because they are all Trinitarians and that verse disables the Trinity.

That is a complete false statement and deluded. Being a trinitarian doesn't mean a translator will dishonestly mislead people in his translations of text (like Fred Franz did when ordering the spanish translation department and new word translation committe to purposely mistranslate the word NAOS in the greek. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/2 ... anz?page=1) Since you throw stones at trinitarians, any of those reading should have right to see how WT purposely mistranslates based on executive order and not scripture.

I agree trinity is false doctrine but so is Jesus being created and that he is Michael an angel. Impossible. A direct contradiction.

This exposes WT version. Answer this plainly how is this possible?

Col 1:16
all things have been created through him and for him.

1 Cor: 15-27
For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

Hebrews 2:5
It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

How is this possible if Jesus is an Angel?

context rules and in the context of Col. 1:15 Jesus is categorically included in creation.

But this is where you are trapped. Because you claim Jesus is part of creation from the very beginning with no proof.

I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus became part of creation. He gave up everything to become part of creation so of course he is in the category for that very reason. That's using plain context as well as plain verses which can prove exactly when this happened. You have no such proof. Not a single supporting verse that cannot be overturned. Every single use of "firstborn" is a reference that occurs AFTER the Resurrection. The biblical precedent in the NT is AFTER the Resurrection.

Jesus and everything he was ceased to exist at death. The dead have no further reward. But those born again do. He is a new creation. A firstborn. "When he brings his FIRSTBORN into the world..."

The logic is simple, God did not have a firstborn at the time of the old testament which is why he made David his actual firstborn, and at death David was no longer firstborn. How absurd would it be to take it away from Michael to give it to David!!! Ridiculous!!!

After David's death it became Jesus, hence why he had to bring his firstborn into the world. Hence how Jesus got the blessings of David. Prophecy fulfilled!

Otherwise the firstborn would have already been in the world the whole time! The law forbids appointing another firstborn in-front of an actual firstborn!!!!! You are stuck. You are stalling. Your still in checkmate.

You are desperate to keep firstborn as the same as first created. Unfortunately, even Jesus as a first created would not make him a firstborn. He would not of had God's DNA and would not of been an actual offspring as firstborn denotes. he would of had to been promoted as a firstborn like David was. Adam was a son, but he was never a firstborn. He was made of dust. No DNA. However, after being born of Mary Jesus had God's DNA. He was biologically a firstborn son in the making. flesh is the start and death is just birth pangs until Resurrection where he becomes "born" into the world out from the dead, first out of all all creation. Which is also why he is firstborn of many breathern, because he will have many brothers who will also be born from the dead later at the coming of Christ.

Since Jesus creates "ALL things" as i have qualified as meaning everything that came into existence, that means Jesus was already in existence prior to his creation there fore part of the group pre-existing before all things.

This harmonizes smoothly that Jesus created all the things that came into existence in the beginning and God did not create anything physical. And that God did not physically create him or anything else in the beginning. Because, after the Resurrection Jesus is the first thing that God ever created . Rev 3:14 where Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God, the very first thing. Before everything originated from God and made INSIDE JESUS as Col 1:16 states. But Jesus was the physical creator of ALL THINGS that didn't pre-exist.

Your version has so many holes and unanswered questions and conflicts and contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. The real truth is complete every T crossed and I dotted with ZERO contradictions. Otherwise you would have stumped me already. But you can't.

At this point you don't even have to admit that I'm right. That is fine. But what is 100% clear is that Watchtower interpretation is wrong and that is undeniable. Way too many holes.

[Rotherham]

Well, you simply are not listening to the arguments presented and I am beginning to fear that you never will.

Once again, the proof is in the fact that EVERY TIME the phrase "firstborn of "something" occurs in the Bible, the "firstborn is part of the associated group. There are no exceptions. That's the very proof you keep saying I don't have. Once again, that means if Jesus is called the firstborn of SOMETHING, then in keeping with the Biblical pattern, repeated many times with no exceptions, he is PART of that GROUP. You have not and can not refute that fact.

And the HOTI clause of verse 16 is irrefutable. He is the firstborn of creation because all creation besides him came through him. Between Jesus being categorically identified as a creation and the HOTI clause, the argument for him being God's first creation is as solid as any argument within scripture.

You have fished for weeks for a way out of this to no avail. Your argument about firstborn does not address how he is the firstborn OF ALL CREATION. ALL creation includes ALL creation, not just the "new" creation, and the HOTI clause absolutely proves this.

You yourself have admitted that the Son was the "ANGEL of Jehovah" that appeared in the OT. Trinitarians claim the same thing.

The reason translators wont back up our translation of Col. 1:15 is because they are all Trinitarians and that verse disables the Trinity.

That is a complete false statement and deluded. Being a trinitarian doesn't mean a translator will dishonestly mislead people in his translations of text (like Fred Franz did when ordering the spanish translation department and new word translation committe to purposely mistranslate the word NAOS in the greek. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/2 ... anz?page=1)

I agree trinity is false doctrine but so is Jesus being created and that he is Michael an angel. Impossible.

This exposes WT translation. Answer this plainly how is this possible?

Col 1:16
all things have been created through him and for him.

1 Cor: 15-27
For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

Hebrews 2:5
It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come, about which we are speaking.

How is this possible if Jesus is an Angel?

context rules and in the context of Col. 1:15 Jesus is categorically included in creation.

But this is where you are trapped. Because you claim Jesus is part of creation from the very beginning with no proof.

I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus became part of creation. He gave up everything to become part of creation so of course he is in the category for that very reason. That's using plain context as well as plain verses which can prove exactly when this happened. You have no such proof. Not a single supporting verse that cannot be overturned. Every single use of "firstborn" is a reference that occurs AFTER the Resurrection. The biblical precedent in the NT is AFTER the Resurrection.

Jesus and everything he was ceased to exist at death. The dead have no further reward. But those born again do. He is a new creation. A firstborn. "When he brings his FIRSTBORN into the world..."

The logic is simple, God did not have a firstborn at the time of the old testament which is why he made David his firstborn, and at death David was no longer firstborn. Then it became Jesus, hence why he had to bring his firstborn into the world. Hence Jesus got the blessings of David. Otherwise the firstborn would have already been in the world the whole time. The law forbids appointing another firstborn infront of an actual firstborn. You are stuck. You are stalling. Your still in checkmate.

You are desperate to keep firstborn as the same as first created. Unfortunately, even Jesus as a first created would not make him a firstborn. He would not of had God's DNA and would not of been an actual offspring as firstborn denotes. However, after being born of Mary Jesus had God's DNA. He was biologically as son. And death is just birth pangs until Resurrection where he becomes firstborn, born from the dead out of all all creation. Which is also why he is firstborn of many breathern, because he will have many brothers who will also be born from the dead later at the coming of Christ.

Since Jesus creates "ALL things" as i have qualified as meaning everything that came into existence, that means Jesus was already in existence there fore part of the group pre-existing before all things.

This harmonizes smoothly that Jesus created all the things that came into existence in the beginning. And that God did not physically create him or anything in the beginning. Because, after the Resurrection Jesus is the first thing that God ever created and this occurs AFTER Jesus Resurrection. Rev 3:14 where Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God. Before everything was originated from God but Jesus was the physical creator of ALL that was brought into existence.

Your version has so many holes and unanswered questions and conflicts and contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. Mine is complete every T crossed and I dottted with ZERO contradictions. Otherwise you would have stumped me already. But you can't.

[Rotherham]

Question:

Since the firstborn son was the heir, if Jesus is not the firstborn son, why then is he the heir of all things? Also, who would be the real firstborn creation?

[Rotherham]

Since I don't think you're ever going to grasp what I am saying, why don't we set this one aside for awhile, as we have done other points, and move onto another one, such as, "Who is the God of the Son after he is back in heaven?"

[truthseeker]

Your not saying anything but avoiding the questions. Now you want to change the subject. (I will soon gather all the questions you ignored and put them on one page.)

Let me answer your question since I have no conflicts. (We are not moving on cause your in checkmate and here's where your reasoning starts to fall apart.)

Since the firstborn son was the heir, if Jesus is not the firstborn son, why then is he the heir of all things? Also, who would be the real firstborn creation?

Prior to His impalement on the tree, He was 'the only begotten' [Jn 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Heb 11:17; 1Jn4:9]...but not yet born (Jn 3:6-8), son of YAHWEH. However, at His resurrection, He now was officially "declared" The Firstborn Son... with POWER!

Show me anywhere in the bible that there is such a thing as a FIRSTBORN creation? It's another oxymoron. You can't be born in the sense of "birthed from another" and created from scratch at the same time. Firstborn is "of kind", comes from. You will never find such an absurd teaching as a first created out of nothing firstborn. Sorry, firstborn automatically carries the notion as coming from another not out of nothing or an appointment in rank.

God the father never had a firstborn, because he never created anything physically!!! Nor did he ever birth anything. Only after Jesus Resurrection was the very first time God began creating, and Jesus was his very firstborn...because this was a birthing process. It starts with being born of a human, dying and being resurrected and putting on immortality.

Jesus was David's God or Lord(YHWH). David was a part of Israel. Israel is a people of YHWH's inheritance. David only had one Lord.
"YHWH said to my Lord, sit at my right hand" David's YHWH had received an Inheritance. David was appointed as firstborn.The blessings were forever, but David died. So his rank died with him. So the blessings of David had to pass to a FIRSTBORN who is eternal and inline to receive the prophesied inheritance. As jesus did after his resurrection as the Firstborn brought into the world.

Take a look at Deuteronomy 32:8-9 ESV (Dead Sea Scrolls and matches the Greek Septuagint text)

This text is mistranslated to hide that El Elyon gives YHWH an the sons of gods (plural) an inheritance. Each nation received a god to worship.

"When El Elyon gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the sons of men,
he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of elohim.
For Yahweh's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted inheritance."

al·lot [uh-lot] verb (used with object), al·lot·ted, al·lot·ting.
1. to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers.
2. to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park.
3. to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate.

Notice the Most High GAVE...and allotted.

YHWH receives a portion? An allotted inheritance? You can't alott an inheritance to yourself. It's an oxymoron. However, we know that Jesus does whatever he sees the father do. So Jesus is always the doer. He is the God of the OT. So it would be Jesus who ruled Israel, he is the judge and executioner of the sons of Gods in psalm 82 in the council of EL.

How can YHWH the father have an inheritance if he is the owner of everything isn't it already his? Yet we are told, YHWH is david's lord and an Heir? And so is Jesus?

Everything was created by him and for him (Jesus).

So the father has a will...Jesus is the doer. Jesus does the physical creation of ALL Things, Jesus separates the Nations according to the Father's will, just like creation and he chooses Israel for himself as his allotted portion as the texts reveal Jesus is an heir and has an inheritance.

YHWH said to Satan, "YHWH rebuke you, Satan! YWHW, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?"

One YWHW spoke to Satan saying that the other YHWH should rebuke him, the YHWH who chose Jerusalem.

in·her·it·ance  [in-her-i-tuhns] noun
1. something that is or may be inherited; property passing at the owner's death to the heir or those entitled to succeed; legacy.
2. the genetic characters transmitted from parent to offspring, taken collectively.
3. something, as a quality, characteristic, or other immaterial possession, received from progenitors or predecessors as if by succession: an inheritance of family pride.
4. the act or fact of inheriting by succession, as if by succession, or genetically: to receive property by inheritance.
5. portion; birthright; heritage: Absolute rule was considered the inheritance of kings.

in·her·it [in-her-it] verb (used with object)
1. to take or receive (property, a right, a title, etc.) by succession or will, as an heir: to inherit the family business.
2. to receive as if by succession from predecessors: the problems the new government inherited from its predecessors.
3. to receive (a genetic character) by the transmission of hereditary factors.
4. to succeed (a person) as heir.
5. to receive as one's portion; come into possession of: to inherit his brother's old clothes.

Inherit: Comes from the word “heir”
Heir [air] noun
1. a person who inherits or has a right of inheritance in the property of another following the latter's death.
2. Law .
a) (in common law) a person who inherits all the property of a deceased person, as by descent, relationship, will, or legal process.
b) Civil Law . a person who legally succeeds to the place of a deceased person and assumes the rights and obligations of the deceased, as the liabilities for debts or the possessory rights to property.
3. a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit the rank, title, position, etc., of another.
4. a person or group considered as inheriting the tradition, talent, etc., of a predecessor.

Terminology
In law, an heir is a person who is entitled to receive a share of the decedent’s (the person who died) property, subject to the rules of inheritance.

There is not a single reference in the bible where a person inherits their own property, ever. But that is your theology. According to you Jehovah the Father inherits his own property. BIG CONFLICT YOU CAN'T RESOLVE.

Ex 34:9
He said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us; although this is a stiff-necked people; pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.”

Dt 4:20
But Yahweh has taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be to him a people of inheritance, as at this day.

Dt 9:26,29
26 I prayed to Yahweh, and said, Lord Yahweh, don’t destroy your people and your inheritance, that you have redeemed through your greatness, that you have brought forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand.
29 Yet they are your people and your inheritance, which you brought out by your great power and by your outstretched arm.

1Sm 10:1
Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it on his head, and kissed him, and said, Isn’t it that Yahweh has anointed you to be prince over his inheritance?

1Sm 26:19
Now therefore, please let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If it be Yahweh that has stirred you up against me, let him accept an offering: but if it be the children of men, cursed be they before Yahweh: for they have driven me out this day that I shouldn’t cling to Yahweh’s inheritance, saying, Go, serve other gods.

2Sm 14:16
For the king will hear, to deliver his servant out of the hand of the man who would destroy me and my son together out of the inheritance of God.

2Sm 20:19
I am of those who are peaceable and faithful in Israel: you seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel: why will you swallow up the inheritance of Yahweh?

2Sm 21:3
and David said to the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of Yahweh?

1Kg 8:51,53
51 (for they are your people, and your inheritance, which you brought forth out of Egypt, from the midst of the furnace of iron);
53 For you did separate them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be your inheritance, as you spoke by Moses your servant, when you brought our fathers out of Egypt, Lord Yahweh.

2Kg 21:14
I will cast off the remnant of my inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies;

Ps 28:9
Save your people,
and bless your inheritance.
Be their shepherd also,
and bear them up forever.

Ps 33:12
Blessed is the nation whose God is Yahweh,
the people whom he has chosen for his own inheritance.

Ps 68:9
You, God, sent a plentiful rain.
You confirmed your inheritance, when it was weary.

Ps 74:2
Remember your congregation, [u]which you purchased[/u] of old,
which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your inheritance;
Mount Zion, in which you have lived.

Ps 78:62,71
62 He also gave his people over to the sword,
and was angry with his inheritance.
71 from following the ewes that have their young,
he brought him to be the shepherd of Jacob, his people,
and Israel, his inheritance.

Ps 94:5,14
5 They break your people in pieces, Yahweh,
and afflict your heritage.
14 For Yahweh won’t reject his people,
neither will he forsake his inheritance.

Ps 106:5,40
5 that I may see the prosperity of your chosen,
that I may rejoice in the gladness of your nation,
that I may glory with your inheritance.

40Therefore Yahweh burned with anger against his people.
He abhorred his inheritance.

Is 47:6
I was angry with my people, I profaned my inheritance, and gave them into your hand: you did show them no mercy; on the aged have you very heavily laid your yoke.

Jr 2:7
I brought you into a plentiful land, to eat its fruit and its goodness; but when you entered, you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination.

Jr 10:16
The portion of Jacob is not like these; for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance: Yahweh of Armies is his name.

Jr 12:7,8,9
7 I have forsaken my house, I have cast off my heritage; I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her enemies.
8 My heritage is become to me as a lion in the forest: she has uttered her voice against me; therefore I have hated her.
9 Is my heritage to me as a speckled bird of prey? are the birds of prey against her all around? go you, assemble all the animals of the field, bring them to devour.

Jr 16:18
First I will recompense their iniquity and their sin double, because they have polluted my land with the carcasses of their detestable things, and have filled my inheritance with their abominations.

Jr 50:11
Because you are glad, because you rejoice, O you who plunder my heritage, because you are wanton as a heifer that treads out the grain, and neigh as strong horses;

Jr 51:19
The portion of Jacob is not like these; for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the tribe of his inheritance: Yahweh of Armies is his name.

Jl 2:17
Let the priests, the ministers of Yahweh, weep between the porch and the altar,
and let them say, “Spare your people, Yahweh,
and don’t give your heritage to reproach,
that the nations should rule over them.

Jl 3:2
I will gather all nations,
and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat;
and I will execute judgment on them there for my people,
and for my heritage, Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations.
They have divided my land,

Mc 7:14,18
14 Shepherd your people with your staff,
the flock of your heritage,
who dwell by themselves in a forest,
in the midst of fertile pasture land, let them feed;
in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.
18 Who is a God like you, who pardons iniquity,
and passes over the disobedience of the remnant of his heritage?

in your version....
HOW IS JEHOVAH ALMIGHTY SUPPOSED TO INHERIT HIS OWN PROPERTY AND WHEN?... AND YET IT WAS ALL MADE BY JESUS FOR JESUS TO INHERIT?

[Rotherham]

Well you've kind of exploded again and going off in a number of directions prematurely, as usual.

If you want to stay on this topic that is fine with me because you have not answered the tensions that have been created for you anyway. You think you have but you haven't.

Let me explain for you one more time why your explanation of Col. 1:15,16 does not work. And please, this time, without defaulting to a hundred different points, many of which are unrelated, please just directly answer the questions. All of these claims of victory and checkmate are just childish, immature antagonisms and you once apologized for that kind of behavior and now it seems to be your main mode of operation. So please, if we want anything worthwhile to come from this discussion let's step back, take a breath and take another run at it and just directly answer the questions asked. Okay?

You claim, if I understand you correctly, that Jesus was not the true firstborn of creation in the sense of being born, but rather he became the firstborn because he became a man and entered the realm of creation, and became the "preeminent" creation by that direction. That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.

Verse 16 GIVES US THE REASON that he is the firstborn. You can't replace that with another reason when it already supplies the reason, and that's what you keep doing. You are replacing the reason he is the firstborn and ignoring the actual stated reason in the Bible.

The actual reason he is the firstborn of creation is given as follows: Because all else was created by means of him. That's the reason. Notice there is no mention of him becoming a man and becoming the pre-eminent creation because he became a creation. That's simply not in there. But the real reason is.

The straight forward logic of the sentence is quite easily understood. Jesus, as a creation, was instrumental in creating all else, so by logical necessity, he is the first. There is nothing in the HOTI clause that supports or allows your explanation. So please explain the HOTI clause and how it supports your explanation.

We will get to the rest of your explosion later.

Rotherham

[truthseeker]

1. You asked a question.
2. I answered it.
3. I gave you overwhelming scriptural support, that contradicts your entire premise.

How is this exploding? Is it because I listed as many witnesses as I could find?

I find it frustrating how you say I have left questions unanswered. I have an answer and a witness (scripture for everything I say.) I have covered this point and you ignored it completely. There are ZERO tensions. You have not stumped me once. Let's strictly focus on any and ALL unanswered questions going forward.

You claim, if I understand you correctly, that Jesus was not the true firstborn of creation in the sense of being born, but rather he became the firstborn because he became a man and entered the realm of creation, and became the "preeminent" creation by that direction. That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.
.

Don't misrepresent my argument. He became a literal firstborn not just pre-eminant, making him first inline out of ALL creation and heir.

Look at Paul's context. Col 1:18 NWT
He is the beginning, <===He tells us it all starts with Jesus, he is the first, beginning or first of what?
the firstborn from the dead,+ <===firstborn from the dead, so after Resurrection is the actual beginning... why?
so that he might become the one who is first in all things; <===MIght? According to you he already was...but Paul says "might" meaning it's pending.

(Is Paul saying Jesus was first like you claim? Obviously not.)

Again why does Jesus get to be first? Verse 19 tells us.
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, <=== God fully lived in him.

This is the reason for the HOTI clause wild card. (Which actually supports my argument not yours.)

The correct translation of Col 1:16 and context is:
16 For in him <===Verse 19 shows God was inside dwelling in him and this shows God created everything inside Jesus.
all things were created [implying by God}:
all things have been created through him [implying by God] and for him. <===By God being inside, creating inside, Jesus sees what father does and creates on his own.

God did not create ALL OTHER Things by means of Jesus. This statement supports God working inside Jesus. Watchtower goofed.

The HOTI clause is simple! Yet, you ignored all of it's support. It is showing why Jesus gets to be the heir of all things. Because God lived in him, created in him, and Jesus brought it all into existence the way God wanted. (otherwise God would not be pleased.)

Now let me cut and paste how I answered you but you ignored it and you ignored my question.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854
Scroll down to March 25, 2016 7:50 PM

I'll paraphrase verses 15-16 and provide a brief explanation of the structure behind Paul's logic.

[15] Jesus is the (prototokos) of all creation, [16] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

Now, verse 15 is Paul's STATEMENT.

We'll call this [A]. Naturally, Paul backs up his statement in verse 16 through REASONING, which we'll call . The idea is that, given [B}, we can conclude [A].

[b]A brief example of how this works:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love pasta.
Given that the speaker loves pasta, it makes sense that he would enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we can conclude [A].

[b]A brief example of how this DOESN'T work:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love cats.
Given that the speaker loves cats, we cannot take that information and assume they enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we cannot conclude [A].

[b]To summarize: If the reasoning does not connect with and uphold the statement, the phrase becomes illogical.

Now I'll apply both interpretations of the same verse, and we'll analyze the logical consistency of both interpretations.

----------

The Watchtower doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (first created) of all creation, [b]because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

...Is this a logically consistent statement? No... given , one cannot outright conclude [A].

A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the first created of all creation.

Nothing about the first sentence connects to the second. To say one created all things is not an explicit reason to conclude one was created first. Equally, to say all things were created for him is not an explicit reason to conclude he was created first.

Therefore, the evidence is indisputable: according to the Watchtower, Paul's testament is illogical nonsense.

But what about the real truth? The plain and simple one, without altering the text.

----------

[b]The Jesus-is-eternal doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (heir) of all creation, [B] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

Is this a logically consistent statement? Yes, given [B], we can outright conclude [A]

A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the heir of all creation.

The first sentence has a clear connection to the second; the two thoughts are tied to one another. To say one created all things is a fair reason to assume they are entitled to them (like an heir). But even MORE explicit is the assertion that all things were created for him, which is literally what it means to be an heir. To have a bounty set aside specifically meant for you to receive it.

----------

So my question for RM is as follows:

How can you justify belief in this interpretation of scripture when it CLEARLY makes Paul's statement totally and indisputably illogical? Why is your dogma more important than the logical consistency of scripture? If Paul's REASONING cannot accommodate his STATEMENT, wouldn't that mean he's speaking nonsense?

I am NOT looking for other Bible verses you use to gloss over and justify this doctrine, I'm already familiar with them. I'm asking you to answer THESE questions about THIS verse ALONE...

Please show me why Paul is not speaking nonsense.

In Reasoning from the Scriptures (p408) WT argues that just as the “firstborn” of Pharaoh refers to the first one born to Pharaoh (born of a person), so Christ as the “firstborn” is the first one created by Jehovah.

Notice, though, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (not the first­born of Jehovah). If we draw a direct parallel between the firstborn of Pharaoh and the firstborn of all creation, then we must conclude that creation “parented” Jesus.

But the exact opposite is the case, for the very next verse says that Christ “parented” creation-that is, he created all things (Col1:16); he produced the creation, the creation didn’t produce him

By his own logic he is overturned.

So let's stick with Just this. The HOTI clause, the scriptures, the context, the present tense of Jesus being a carbon copy of God at the time he is called firstborn, and all the logic all support Jesus became the Firstborn after his Resurrection because he was God's very special dwelling place and his means of bring about his creation.

In Reasoning from the Scriptures (p408) WT argues that just as the “firstborn” of Pharaoh refers to the first one born to Pharaoh (born of a person), so Christ as the “firstborn” is the first one created by Jehovah.

Notice, though, Christ is “the firstborn of all creation” (not the first­born of Jehovah). If we draw a direct parallel between the firstborn of Pharaoh and the firstborn of all creation, then we must conclude that creation “parented” Jesus.

But the exact opposite is the case, for the very next verse says that Christ “parented” creation-that is, he created all things (Col1:16); he produced the creation, the creation didn’t produce him

By his own logic he is overturned.

[Rotherham]

Well, I don't often do this but I don't see much recourse at this point because I can not follow your logic. It is so scattershot and disjointed I just can't do it, so I think I am pulling the plug on our continued discussion.

I suggest you prepare a summary and then I will close the thread. Please note that summaries are not new arguments , merely your summary of arguments already presented. Let me know when you are ready to post yours and I will post one too, and this will be done.

Regards,
Rotherham

1. You asked a question.
2. I answered it.
3. I gave you overwhelming scriptural support, that contradicts your entire premise.

How is this exploding? Maybe because I listed as many witnesses as I could find?

I find it amusing how you say I have left questions unanswered. I have an answer and a witness (scripture for everything I say.) I have covered this point and you ignored it completely. There are ZERO tensions. You have not stumped me once. Let's strictly focus on any and ALL unanswered questions going forward.

You claim, if I understand you correctly, that Jesus was not the true firstborn of creation in the sense of being born, but rather he became the firstborn because he became a man and entered the realm of creation, and became the "preeminent" creation by that direction. That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.
.

Don't misrepresent my argument. He became a literal firstborn not just pre-eminant, making him first inline out of ALL creation and heir.

Look at Paul's context. Col 1:18 NWT
He is the beginning, <===He tells us it all starts with Jesus, he is the first, beginning or first of what?
the firstborn from the dead,+ <===firstborn from the dead, so after Resurrection is the actual beginning... why?
so that he might become the one who is first in all things; <===MIght? According to you he already was...but Paul says "might" meaning it's pending.

(Is Paul saying Jesus was first like you claim? Obviously not.)

Again why does Jesus get to be first? Verse 19 tells us.
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, <=== God fully lived in him.

This is the reason for the HOTI clause wild card. (Which actually supports my argument not yours.)

The correct translation of Col 1:16 and context is:
16 For in him <===Verse 19 shows God was inside dwelling in him and this shows God created everything inside Jesus.
all things were created [implying by God}:
all things have been created through him [implying by God] and for him. <===By God being inside, creating inside, Jesus sees what father does and creates on his own.

The HOTI clause is simple! Yet, you ignored all of it's support. It is showing why Jesus gets to be the heir of all things. Because God lived in him, created in him, and Jesus brought it all into existence the way God wanted. (otherwise God would not be pleased.)

Now let me cut and paste how I answered you but you ignored it and you ignored my question.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854
Scroll down to March 25, 2016 7:50 PM

I'll paraphrase verses 15-16 and provide a brief explanation of the structure behind Paul's logic.

[15] Jesus is the (prototokos) of all creation, [16] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

Now, verse 15 is Paul's STATEMENT.

We'll call this [A]. Naturally, Paul backs up his statement in verse 16 through REASONING, which we'll call . The idea is that, given [B}, we can conclude [A].

[b]A brief example of how this works:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love pasta.
Given that the speaker loves pasta, it makes sense that he would enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we can conclude [A].

[b]A brief example of how this DOESN'T work:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love cats.
Given that the speaker loves cats, we cannot take that information and assume they enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we cannot conclude [A].

[b]To summarize: If the reasoning does not connect with and uphold the statement, the phrase becomes illogical.

Now I'll apply both interpretations of the same verse, and we'll analyze the logical consistency of both interpretations.

----------

The Watchtower doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (first created) of all creation, [b]because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

...Is this a logically consistent statement? No... given , one cannot outright conclude [A].

A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the first created of all creation.

Nothing about the first sentence connects to the second. To say one created all things is not an explicit reason to conclude one was created first. Equally, to say all things were created for him is not an explicit reason to conclude he was created first.

Therefore, the evidence is indisputable: according to the Watchtower, Paul's testament is illogical nonsense.

But what about the real truth? The plain and simple one, without altering the text.

----------

[b]The Jesus-is-eternal doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (heir) of all creation, [B] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

Is this a logically consistent statement? Yes, given [B], we can outright conclude [A]

A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the heir of all creation.

The first sentence has a clear connection to the second; the two thoughts are tied to one another. To say one created all things is a fair reason to assume they are entitled to them (like an heir). But even MORE explicit is the assertion that all things were created for him, which is literally what it means to be an heir. To have a bounty set aside specifically meant for you to receive it.

----------

So my question for RM is as follows:

How can you justify belief in this interpretation of scripture when it CLEARLY makes Paul's statement totally and indisputably illogical? Why is your dogma more important than the logical consistency of scripture? If Paul's REASONING cannot accommodate his STATEMENT, wouldn't that mean he's speaking nonsense?

I am NOT looking for other Bible verses you use to gloss over and justify this doctrine, I'm already familiar with them. I'm asking you to answer THESE questions about THIS verse ALONE...

Please show me why Paul is not speaking nonsense.

[truthseeker]

In other words you are stuck and can't answer...because there's really no way out.

If you want I will just ask you yes or no questions so you can understand.

[truthseeker]

Let me know. Name one scattered thought or contradiction or something that is out of place im happy to isolate and clarify it.. I noticed you failed to do so. Instead of just making a sweeping statement that my arguement is disjointed. Point out one thing that doesn't make sense or is disjointed.

[Rotherham]

No, that's OK. I think I am done. I appreciate your time and efforts but your style is just a little too haphazard for me. I have asked numerous times for you to be succinct and take things a step at a time and you simply can't maintain that for very long and then its off to the races again with elongated posts that I find too hard to follow. I trust that the readers will be able to determine who has best presented their evidence and that's about the best we can hope for.

I am sure you will claim victory as you have often done from the start but I can only hope again, that the readers will see the truth of the matter. Please prepare your summary and I will do the same. Let me know when you are ready to post.

Regards,
Rotherham

In other words you are stuck and can't answer...because there's really no way out.

If you want I will just ask you yes or no questions so you can understand.

[truthseeker]

Go ahead. You quit. It's your idea. So you go first.

[Rotherham]

No, we post together as close as we can. Then the forum is closed for read only. So tell me when you're ready and we will synchronize our posts. They should be as simultaneous as possible.

Regards,
Rotherham

Go ahead. You quit. It's your idea. So you go first.

[truthseeker]

Why? What are you afraid of? I'm a guest. You are the one that quit without pointing out an example or showing a valid reason.

Courtesy is to let me get last post is it not?

(I've never heard of such a thing.)

[Rotherham]

I will let you post last but summaries are not supposed to be responses to summaries. They are summaries. To ensure that neither of us use the other's summary as a springboard for further argumentation, we post simultaneously.

Regards,

Why? What are you afraid of? I'm a guest. You are the one that quit without pointing out an example or showing a valid reason.

Courtesy is to let me get last post is it not?

(I've never heard of such a thing.)

[Rotherham]

Both summaries will then contain a link to other person's summary so one summary does not trump the other in position.

[truthseeker]

Okay....that's fine. I will come back to this later on I have to attend to something work related. I will let you know when I'm done with my summary. Then just let me know what to do from there.

[Rotherham]

When you're done, we will post simultaneously as possible. Thanks.

Okay....that's fine. I will come back to this later on I have to attend to something work related. I will let you know when I'm done with my summary. Then just let me know what to do from there.

[truthseeker]

My summary is next but let me first answer these questions so you don't think I avoided them.

You yourself have admitted that the Son was the "ANGEL of Jehovah" that appeared in the OT. Trinitarians claim the same thing.

Jesus is no angel. And i'm no trinitarian, but trinity is much more accurate than Jesus is Michael the angel.

Jesus is the God of Abraham and Israel. You avoided my question on how could the world be subjected to an angel.

The correct translation is "Word of YHWH" where ever you see "the word of the lord" such as in Jerimiah 1:1-4
4 The word of YHWH came to me, saying,

9 Then YHWH reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “I have put my words in your mouth.

Notice the "word of YHWH" is YHWH himself.

and the correct translation is "messenger YHWH" not "angel of the Lord". He is God of Abraham who is Seen. He takes on the form of a man called messenger because his true form is a twin to God the father so it's inapproachable light.

Notice this.
Genesis: 48:16-17
Then he blessed Joseph and said, "May

the God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked faithfully,
the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day,
the Angel (messenger) who has delivered me from all harm --

may he bless these boys. May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly on the earth."

Genesis 22
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But messenger YHWH called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”


15 The messenger YHWH called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares YHWH, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed,[c] because [b]you have obeyed me.”

This is no ANGEL he is the God, the God, the messenger from gen 48:17-17 above. Notice how how this messenger said you did not withhold your son from ME...and I swear by myself. Only God can do this. This is Jesus as God of OT. He manifests as a man.



"Now YHWH appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. When Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth" Genesis 18:1-2

They are called "three men" when meeting abraham. But angels are not men, neither is God a man nor is he an angel just the same.

"Then the [three] men rose up from there, and looked down toward Sodom; and Abraham was walking with them to send them off. Yahweh said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, " Genesis 18:16-17

Notice one man is YHWH. He is in a form of a man. He speaks to Abraham. He is about to do something to Sodom. He wants to hide it from Abraham.

Genesis 19:24
Then YHWH rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from YHWH out of the heavens.

Abraham saw Jesus day and was glad because Jesus was that man YHWH that spoke to him.

Jehovah Witnesses are silenced...in awe. Because WT hides all this.

Last you said

You have fished for weeks for a way out of this to no avail. Your argument about firstborn does not address how he is the firstborn OF ALL CREATION. ALL creation includes ALL creation, not just the "new" creation, and the HOTI clause absolutely proves this.

This is a joke. Literally.
Category: ALL Soup
New Soup and Old Soup are both sub categories of all soup.

Category: ALL Creation
New creation and old creation are both sub categories of ALL Creation. Anything created at any time is under ALL creation. Jesus is firstborn of ALL Creation which includes both old and new. And you ignore that this is a statement is said in the present tense as of Paul's writing at that very moment he is the firstborn of all creation after his Resurrection not prior. And the HOTI clause will be in the next post.

[truthseeker]

You said:

That would all be well and good if it weren't for the HOTI clause in verse 16, and this is what you keep sidestepping.

Verse 16 GIVES US THE REASON that he is the firstborn. You can't replace that with another reason when it already supplies the reason, and that's what you keep doing. You are replacing the reason he is the firstborn and ignoring the actual stated reason in the Bible.

The actual reason he is the firstborn of creation is given as follows: Because all else was created by means of him. That's the reason. Notice there is no mention of him becoming a man and becoming the pre-eminent creation because he became a creation. That's simply not in there. But the real reason is.

The straight forward logic of the sentence is quite easily understood. Jesus, as a creation, was instrumental in creating all else, so by logical necessity, he is the first. There is nothing in the HOTI clause that supports or allows your explanation. So please explain the HOTI clause and how it supports your explanation.

RM uses what he calls the HOTI clause saying that the reason Jesus is the firstborn is strictly because verse 16 says: “because by means of him all other things were created” but then fails to show the rest of the scriptures tied directly to the HOTI clause. Each one peels the layer of the onion. Plus he fails to grap that his version of HOTI supporting firstborn as first created is logical nonsense. i know this will make this post extremely long but it bears repeating how he ignores this crucial point.

I'll paraphrase verses 15-16 and provide a brief explanation of the structure behind Paul's logic.

[15] Jesus is the (prototokos) of all creation, [16] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

Now, verse 15 is Paul's STATEMENT.

We'll call this [A]. Naturally, Paul backs up his statement in verse 16 through REASONING, which we'll call . The idea is that, given [B}, we can conclude [A].

A brief example of how this works:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love pasta.
Given that the speaker loves pasta, it makes sense that he would enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we can conclude [A].

[b]A brief example of how this DOESN'T work:
[A] I enjoy spaghetti because I love cats.
Given that the speaker loves cats, we cannot take that information and assume they enjoy spaghetti. Given [B], we cannot conclude [A].

[b]To summarize: If the reasoning does not connect with and uphold the statement, the phrase becomes illogical.

Now I'll apply both interpretations of the same verse, and we'll analyze the logical consistency of both interpretations.

----------

The Watchtower doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (first created) of all creation, [b]because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

...Is this a logically consistent statement? No... given , one cannot outright conclude [A].

A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the first created of all creation.

Nothing about the first sentence connects to the second. To say one created all things is not an explicit reason to conclude one was created first. Equally, to say all things were created for him is not an explicit reason to conclude he was created first.

Therefore, the evidence is indisputable: according to the Watchtower, Paul's testament is illogical nonsense.

But what about the real truth? The plain and simple one, without altering the text.

----------

[b]The Jesus-is-eternal doctrine:
[A] Jesus is the (heir) of all creation, [B] because he created all things, and all things were created for him.

Is this a logically consistent statement? Yes, given [B], we can outright conclude [A]

A more direct application:
[B] Jesus created all things, and all things were created for him. [A] This is why Jesus is the heir of all creation.

The first sentence has a clear connection to the second; the two thoughts are tied to one another. To say one created all things is a fair reason to assume they are entitled to them (like an heir). But even MORE explicit is the assertion that all things were created for him, which is literally what it means to be an heir. To have a bounty set aside specifically meant for you to receive it.

----------

So my question for RM is as follows:

How can you justify belief in this interpretation of scripture when it CLEARLY makes Paul's statement totally and indisputably illogical?

Sorry for the length but I really want to squash his last defense completely. Not only is his version of HOTI completely illogical and makes paul speak nonsense but his version doesn't even tell the true meaning of verse 16.

He fails to see the faulty translation of Col 1:16 in the NWT(which I discuss later) but he can check the interlinear for himself.


Re-arranging Paul’s statements and removing the non-essentials, makes the context become even more clear in Colossians - which contradicts RM's hoti logic.

Here is all the scriptures tied to the HOTI clause. There is more to it than he states, because the HOTI clause deals directly with God himself involved in verse 16 its very subtle but huge in the implications for RM.

I have layed out Paul's statements in a different order to make it less confusing. The meaning doesn't change it is just put in a logical order hopefully to break RM's blinders.

Col 1:15-19 NIV properly translated (before WT mistranslated it)

18 he is (present tense) the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

17 He is before all things, and [b]in him all things hold together.
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him…
16 For in him all things were created: …all things have been created through him and for him.


therefore...

15 The Son is (right now) the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Short and simple. Jesus is to be supreme over all (after his Resurrection) because God was in him willing Jesus to create and Jesus pleased God with his awesome creation. Therefore, he was raised from the dead and made heir, he was turned into an exact copy of God and was declared firstborn or heir over all creation because he gave up everything to become part of his own creation when he became human and then died and had to be raised and born again.

It's so simple, it's inescapable. He claims he can't follow the logic. But this is simply because he keeps thinking the WT is somehow presenting the truth and he keeps trying to turn a lie into a truth.

Sorry, it's not possible. SEE GREEK for verse 16

"In" him http://biblehub.com/greek/1722.htm
1722 en (a preposition) – properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within)

The very statements "in him" is claiming God is the source inside Jesus, by WT mistranslation of verse 16 adding in the words ALL OTHER, they are unintentionally claiming GOD authored in Jesus ALL OTHER things and not ALL THINGS.

The true HOTI clause translation of verse 16 is about God being the source and authoring his will inside Jesus. It's because of what was going on IN HIM which had God pleased when Jesus created everything.

It is inescapable that the creation is being authored or creation is willed by God INSIDE JESUS which is why Paul had to clarify the latter half of the verse by saying "have been created through him" which would be redundant if the former part of the verse was speaking of Jesus as the source. This is then backed up by verse 19 and 17 as God’s fullness is in him, and it’s God in him that holds everything together.

This is confirmed by Rev 4:11
11"Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things,

HOW EXACTLY (DID God create)?

because of Your will they existed, and were created."


It was because of his will. Not because of his physical work. And that is exactly what we see when we see the beginning of verse Col 1:16 resulting in Jesus being the instrument. God is enforcing his will INSIDE Jesus, creating by willing Jesus to do.

Watchtower shot themselves in the foot trying to insert the word "other" and mistranslated the verses to cover up God as the source and Jesus as the means. This is because all bibles translate this verse as Jesus being the creator. But some correctly use “in him” implying God as the source of Jesus creation. God as the source is fine for WT in other scriptures but not here. It is a deadly blow because it shows how Jesus is being willed from inside and exalted as the physical creator of ALL THINGS (not all other things) directly from God inside him and therefore not part of creation himself. So WT changes it to look like the text is strictly speaking of Jesus without God in him.

Notice the cover-up. How did WT translate verse 16? They hide "in him" and put by "means of him" ...sorry no way.

That's already implied with the latter half of the verse says by stating "through him."

Why do this? Because this is a smoking gun that there are no raw materials as RM states, plus even more critical it shows Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, he is united equally with the father, Jesus is then eternal and not created, and he is pre-existing to ALL THINGS and a Creator almighty in his own right. This destroys their claim of Jesus being firstborn meaning first created.

It’s a moot point now, but I will bring it up. There are no scriptures, ZERO that ever insert “OTHER THINGS” two words at the same time into the text for pas/panta. The correct usage is to choose only one of these words or the other based on context. Which is why my opponent cannot find a single scholar or bible on the planet that uses such an irresponsible translation as the WT for Col 1:15-17.

The WT quotes the Moffat version of translation for inserting the word “other” because Moffat inserts it once in 1 Corinthians, but WT fails to mention this text only chooses one inserted word and not two. For the reader, anywhere creation is involved and you see ALL things. the word things is inserted into the text by the translator. This is very common rendering. there are other times where the word ALL is used and it is rendered as ALL other, and the word OTHER is inserted into the text. however, NEVER is there a time when both words are inserted into the text at the same time. Which is what WT has done. they insert both OTHER and THINGS when you are only supposed to have one based on the context. They did this four times into Col 1:16-17. And the very same bible they quote as their source (Moffatt) does not support their erroneous insertion of the words at all in Col 1:16-17. It’s a literal bait and switch.

Okay I'm done with answering your open question so you can't accuse me of not answering them. And you are still in checkmate.

I will write my final summary now and let you know when I'm ready to post and we can do it at the same time as you said.

[Rotherham]

I will respond to this in my summary.

[Rotherham]

I will insert my response here when you post yours. That way yours will be listed last as requested. Let me know when you are ready so we can synchronize our posts. A link to the other's summary will be included at the end of each summary. Once posted the forum will immediately close so be sure all editing and corrections are done when you post.

Regards,
Rotherham

[truthseeker]

I need until the weekend. I'm working double shifts all this week. I'm done with summary but I just want to relax a little. Then come back to it with fresh eyes and make final edits since it's my last post.

[Rotherham]

Please remember that your summary is to only deal with information related to the topic, which is basically our discussion of John 1:3 and Col. 1:15, not other unrelated issues that you may have with JWs. Issues deemed as unrelated will have to be edited or removed.

I need until the weekend. I'm working double shifts all this week. I'm done with summary but I just want to relax a little. Then come back to it with fresh eyes and make final edits since it's my last post.

[truthseeker]

I'm not going to be discussing mindcontrol tactics and deception in my summary only the contradictions in the theology you presented.

But since you are painting me as someone who has a problem with Jehovah Witnesses "the people" you are mistaken. They don't know what they are truly involved in. And I find they are very nice. As far as the corporation goes, using unethical tactics on their members is best left to the experts.

Steve Hassan is a good resource for manipulation tactics used by compliance groups including scientology, christadelphians, moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc... He doesn't really go into religious beliefs or doctrine. He specializes in exposing the deceptive tactics these groups use to covertly manipulate their members. His book is called "Combating Cult Mind Control".

If that last post stays then this post stays as you plant I have some kind of axe to grind, you are mistaken in my defense to your accusation I will let the experts give their opinion. I'm just sticking to the nonsense and contradictions in your arguements and the holes it leaves in regards to this topic headline.

PS. According to Steve Hassan his first book did not include Jehovah Witnesses. He thought they were a normal church until he was contacted by members who read his book about the moonies. After he studied the Watchtower group for years he was able to confirm that they are indeed using the 8 tactics plus information control used by compliance and deception experts so he included them in his latest book. Anyone wanting more info about these tactics should look him up. My posts and summary are sticking to the corruption of scripture and doctrine.

So if you want to leave your last post up then you need to leave this one up as my defense. Or take them both down. And let's just stick to the summaries.

My summary is almost done. Need a couple more days.

[Rotherham]

AS long as I can be guaranteed that you will just stick to the topics discussed, I will remove the needless posts. However, I think an assessment of each others debate style is appropriate in our summaries.

And please note that a mere reminder is not an assessment of your character.

Regards,

I'm not going to be discussing mindcontrol tactics and deception in my summary only the contradictions in the theology you presented.

But since you are painting me as someone who has a problem with Jehovah Witnesses "the people" you are mistaken. They don't know what they are truly involved in. And I find they are very nice. As far as the corporation goes, using unethical tactics on their members is best left to the experts.

Steve Hassan is a good resource for manipulation tactics used by compliance groups including scientology, christadelphians, moonies, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc... He doesn't really go into religious beliefs or doctrine. He specializes in exposing the deceptive tactics these groups use to covertly manipulate their members. His book is called "Combating Cult Mind Control".

If that last post stays then this post stays as you plant I have some kind of axe to grind, you are mistaken in my defense to your accusation I will let the experts give their opinion. I'm just sticking to the nonsense and contradictions in your arguements and the holes it leaves in regards to this topic headline.

PS. According to Steve Hassan his first book did not include Jehovah Witnesses. He thought they were a normal church until he was contacted by members who read his book about the moonies. After he studied the Watchtower group for years he was able to confirm that they are indeed using the 8 tactics plus information control used by compliance and deception experts so he included them in his latest book. Anyone wanting more info about these tactics should look him up. My posts and summary are sticking to the corruption of scripture and doctrine.

So if you want to leave your last post up then you need to leave this one up as my defense. Or take them both down. And let's just stick to the summaries.

My summary is almost done. Need a couple more days.

[Rotherham]

Everything OK?

[truthseeker]

Yeah I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way to post a link to an old post where it takes you directly to the post and not the whole page. I don't want to quote as it makes the post too long. That's pretty much only thing holding me up.

[Rotherham]

Yes, there is. Click on the title of the post you are referring to and once it presents itself, copy the address and post it in your document.

Regards

Yeah I'm just trying to figure out if there is a way to post a link to an old post where it takes you directly to the post and not the whole page. I don't want to quote as it makes the post too long. That's pretty much only thing holding me up.

[truthseeker]

I'll be ready to post my summary but i need time to transfer it from MS Word to this forum as none of my underlining or or color changing will cut and paste. So i need like 15 minutes. Let me know when to post.

[Rotherham]

My post is already in queue to post. Once you post yours I will unqueue mine and yours will appear last in succession. I will then place links to each other's summarys at the end of each post. The forum will immediately change to read only.

Just give me a heads up about when you are going to do it and I will be ready to unqueue my summary. Both posts should appear within a couple of minutes of each other at the very most.

Regards,
Rotherham

I'll be ready to post my summary but i need time to transfer it from MS Word to this forum as none of my underlining or or color changing will cut and paste. So i need like 15 minutes. Let me know when to post.

[Rotherham]

If by chance the order gets messed up, I will correct it quickly.

[Rotherham]

Problems?

[truthseeker]

Yeah had to take my computer apart. Couldn't post from my mobile phone. I'm good. Let's post now.

[Rotherham]

Go ahead and post. Mine will immediately queue.

Yeah had to take my computer apart. Couldn't post from my mobile phone. I'm good. Let's post now.

[Rotherham]

Rotherham's Summary

The discussion was far from over but there comes a time when the antagonism and grandstanding become so much, that there isn't much reason to continue. Because of that I decided to pull the plug.

I don't really see much to summarize other than to say that if any reader actually undertakes the task of trying to read through this mess, I congratulate them for their tenacity. It is quite a trip to say the least. I do not believe that my opponent successfully navigated the problems that were presented to him in regard to Col. 1:15-17, although I am certain he will claim victory in numerous ways, with a few declared "checkmates" along the way, in his summary. I also do not believe he made any point against our position of John 1:3.

So, in summary of this very elongated and difficult to follow conversation with truthseeker I will attempt to point out to him and of course, any interested readers, why I believe that truthseeker's take on Col. 1:15-18 is incorrect, and his take on John 1:3 is simply unnecessary. I will try to break it down in sections and explain it and weigh the arguments against established Biblical precedent.

As far as John 1:3 is concerned, my opponent did not seem to be able to grasp that the "all things" in the passage refer to "all things" AFTER the Son "came to be". With that possibility of interpretation, there is no point for him to have. As I mentioned in our discussion I will mention again:

Coming into John 1:1-3, we must realize that it is talking about a time period where the Son already exists. The passage even allows for that understanding if you take "WAS" as an ingressive aorist verb, which it very well could be because it is indeed in the aorist, which by the way, is NOT strictly PAST TENSE. In other words, John 1:1 could just as easily read "In the beginning the Word CAME TO BE (the ingressive form of WAS).

With that understood the rest is painless. Verse 3 simply points out that ALL THINGS, AFTER the Son CAME TO BE, came through HIM, everything.

However, this does not rule out that the Father during this same time period, supplied the Son with the raw materials to complete the finished products.

You must keep in mind that the word THINGS is not in the Greek, just the word ALL, which means we have to figure out what ALL is meant. I submit that it means ALL FINISHED PRODUCT and all the complaining in the world will not disprove that.

1. The Son was created DURING the BEGINNING.

2. The Father created all RAW MATERIALS for all things to be completed by the Son during this same time.

3. The Son made all things with the raw materials.

4. The all things refer to the finished products, not the raw materials. Nothing demands that it refers to the RAW MATERIALS. This harmonizes perfectly with 1 Cor. 8:6.

At this point, before proceeding to Col. 1:15, I would like to reiterate that established Biblical precedent should be the final say so in any theological discussion. If we follow that course, then we are allowing God himself to be the interpreter as far as it possible to do. Otherwise, if we allow human invention or reasoning to be the interpreter, we will forever be lost in a quagmire of different ideas.

So, let's begin.

Colossians 1:15 with the phrase "firstborn OF creation". How has God directed, from his words, for us to understand this phrase. What we have grammatically, is the word "firstborn" (Greek-prototokos) followed by a genitive noun. This kind of phrase with the word firstborn occurs about 30 times in the scriptures and therefore provides a sufficient database to be able to determine what it means.

In each and every case where the word "firstborn OF something" occurs, that firstborn is ALWAYS a PART of the following group. There are no exceptions. The divinely precedented meaning then is that Jesus Christ is part of creation. Any other explanation or meaning given to that phrase is nothing more than human invention and has no Biblical precedent to support it.

My opponent has taken the position that the verse should read "firstborn OVER creation". That is human invention when compared to how the phrase is used throughout the Bible and in the same context. First off, NOWHERE is this construction rendered as OVER with the following genitive noun in the Bible. And nowhere is the word OVER found in the original language in connection with this phrase. That is a prime example of human invention and flying in the face of Biblical precedent when it comes to rendition.
Clearly, in my opponents mind, Biblical precedent does not take first place, but rather any massaging of words necessary to maintain a pet idea is what rules.

By rendering it this way, my opponent hopes to stress the "preeminent" connotation that sometimes accompanies the word firstborn, because the firstborn male in the Israelite family had special privileges. He admits that Jesus is PART of creation by saying that he BECAME part of creation when he became a man, and became the firstborn of the NEW creation by being the first to be resurrected, and therefore the firstborn of creation in that sense. But this requires some special gymnastics to even wrap your head around it as I will explain.

The word firstborn in a genitive phrase, NEVER just highlights the preeminence of the subject, but ALWAYS highlights the ORDER of its birth. So even if truthseeker wants to focus on the pre-eminence, he can not discount the ORDER of the birth, and invariably, the ORDER of the birth is the FIRST ONE BORN of the following genitive. The entire context of Col. 1:15-18 highlights not only pre-eminence, but ORDER. Again, Biblical pattern proves this beyond doubt.

Now, my opponent admits the ORDER when it comes to him being the firstborn of the NEW creation, but completely discards it when it comes to the firstborn of ALL creation as mentioned in verse 15 and 16. The HOTI clause on verse 16 PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that what is referred to as "creation" is certainly NOT JUST the NEW creation, but ALL creation, clear back to the beginning of time. Notice how it describes ALL creation: "in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities." This undeniably includes more than just the NEW creation.

So verse 15 and 16 prove that Jesus is not just the pre-eminent creation clear back to the beginning of time, but is the FIRSTBORN when it comes to ORDER. Biblical precedent solidly establishes this as the case. My opponent thinks that by finding someway to make the Son PART of creation is all he needs to do, then he can just highlight the pre-eminent part, but he ignores Biblical precedent and immediate context to do so. He admits ORDER when it comes to the OTHER phrases that incorporate the word FIRST, or BEGINNING or FIRSTBORN in the same context but then DENIES order when it comes to the phrase "firstborn of all creation" in verse 15. Rather than relying on Biblical precedent and context, he is clearly guilty of human invention and making arbitrary and unwarranted divisions.

As the Bible clearly states, Jesus is the firstborn, BOTH IN ORDER OF TIME AND PRECEDENT, of ALL creation, not just the new. My opponent can only admit to half of that statement, the pre-eminent half, but it is the other half, the order of time half, that disproves him.

Notice the other phrases in the same context and what they mean, that incorporate the word FIRST or BEGINNING.

Verse 17 says "He is BEFORE all things". This is an undeniable reference to ORDER. Even my opponent will not deny this.

Verse 18 says: "he is the head of the body, the congregation". Now this clearly describes authority or preeminence but notice what word is used. NOT firstborn, NOT beginning, NOT first, but rather HEAD.

Verse 18 also says: "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead". Even if these words are hinting at pre-eminence, they can not be divorced from their primary meanings. They are not only pre-eminent, but are the BEGINNING, the FIRSTBORN in relation to ORDER. My opponent does not deny this because he says this is what makes him the FIRST one of he NEW CREATION, referring to both pre-eminence AND order. However, when it comes to verse 15, he completely divorces the primary meaning of ORDER from the word "firstborn" and tries to get us to believe it is JUST pre-eminence. Since when can one simply strip a word of its primary meaning when the entire context and every other Biblical instance is stressing that primary meaning? This is pure human invention and evasion. Biblical precedent and context destroy truthseeker's human invention for the sake of evasion of the truth. Someday I hope he actually lives up to his moniker that he has chosen to identify himself.

Verse 18 then says: "so that he might become the one who is first in all things;" The meaning is clearly in reference to pre-eminence AND order of time, not just one or the other but that is what my opponent would have us believe when it comes to verse 15 and the phrase "firstborn of ALL creation". In so doing, he denies Biblical precedent and context and that should be the determining factor in any interpretation.

My opponent goes on to criticize the use of the word other in the phrase "all things" making up some rule that you can't insert two English words to clarify the meaning of something, only one. I would hope the reader would see the immediate folly and "out-of-the-blue" nature of such a claim. Numerous translations admit of the insertion of "other" into the text where just PAS or PANTAS occurs, and of course the word THINGS is also often inserted to clarify. One perfect example of where "all other things" would explicitly clarify what is being said is Col. 1:17 in the very same context. Anyone should readily see that saying "He is before all other things" is nothing more than a clarification and in no way changes the meaning of the phrase.

He also criticizes the use of "by means of" claiming that it is an invalid rendition of the word "en" in Greek. His conclusion is "no way." All one has to do is to check a lexicon and they will see that such a conclusion is arbitrary and unwarranted, and frankly, incorrect. One of the acceptable renditions of EN is listed as "BY MEANS OF" referring to instrumentation. So "no way" becomes "yes way".

I hope that someday my opponent will become more interested in pursuing the actual truth of something than the desire to win an argument. Relying on human invention, antagonism, grandstanding tactics and denying Biblical precedent are all tell-tale signs of that malady.

Regards,
Rotherham

PROCEED TO TRUTHSEEKER'S SUMMARY viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&p=8197#p8197

[truthseeker]

My opponent has a very conflicting theology and confused God.

There are two summaries needed. The first is in regards to my debate with RM and the second to fulfill the TITLE of this DEBATE for the reader. A lot of time was wasted getting nowhere and I didn’t want the reader to feel mislead by the TITLE as the debate got hung up by RM refusing to accept the plain and simple logic of specific scriptures.

Part 1 is the summary to RM’s nonsensical argument about John 1:3, Col 1:15-19 etc…

Part 2 summarizes the TITLE as to not cheat the reader out of the argument that never got a chance to fully unfold.





SUMMARY (Part 1 - MY DEBATE WITH ROTHERHAM)

RM has a logically absurd theology. One that Jehovah Witnesses don’t even teach. He actually makes things up to cover up where the JW doctrines fall short but still a complete contradiction in it of itself. Anyone honest with themselves can benefit from looking at this debate unbiased against the simple logic and see that RMs defense falls apart. Just use logical deduction, just like a math problem. If you deduct one from two you are logically left with only one. The same can be done with scriptures leaving RM with no way out. But first consider the implications of his arguments thus far.

If RMs theology is true then there’s a big problem, because:

RM has a God who claims he created everything alone, all by himself, with no help, Isaiah 44:24
but then admits that it was actually Jesus who helped him out. Hebrews 1:2

RM has a God who claims he created everything with his own hands, (alone with no help), Isaiah 44:24, Job 9:8
but then he says it was Jesus hands that actually did creation. Hebrews 1:10

RM claims Jesus made everything it was finished product, but then again it really wasn’t finished because after Jesus created FINISHED PRODUCT, it really wasn't finished because God now had to take over and stretch out the earth and heavens with his own hands. RMs version is clearly a physical co-creation, meaning physically manipulating things into existence and form.

Which is Impossible! As you just saw in Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8. There was no physical help. Only one God physically did it alone.

RM has a God who said the world to come was not to be subjected to Angels (Hebrews 2:5)but then his God gives the world to his angel Michael to subject it to him. But there is a problem, no Angel has ever been called a son, ever! (Hebrews 1:4–5, 13) So how could Jesus have been an angel? (He has no answer for this.)

He has a God who claims never to be seen by any man, yet his God is seen all over the old testament. (They saw the God of Israel and his feet.) Exodus 24:11, Isaiah 6:5 Genesis 32:30, Numbers 12:8, etc.. Yet compare John 1:18 and John 6:46
RM’s theology makes Jesus a liar or Moses a liar. (He has to invent an answer.)

RM has a God who claims he created everything for himself, for his own inheritance but then contradicts himself and says it was created for Jesus so that Jesus could be an heir and have an inheritance.

He has no answer for how the Most High can inherit his own property? All throughout the OT there is a Jehovah who has an inheritance. See this post which scared the wits out of RM causing him to want to end the debate. viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&p=8166#p8048


RM has a God who brought raw materials into existence, but yet scripture says all things that came into existence, came into via Jesus alone, without him not one thing that existed, came into existence. John 1:3 (Even Jehovah Witnesses do not teach this.)
So he has things that came into existence before anything that came into existence existed. (a logical absurdity)

RM has a God that has created a firstborn son (angel) in the beginning, knows he’s a firstborn son but then proceeds to make David his firstborn over his real firstborn. Violating his own law that the order of a firstborn cannot be changed. Psalm 89:27

This would mean there are two firstborns at the time of David. This contradicts the LAW that says a firstborn cannot be rearranged or changed. The firstborn is the firstborn…period. Only by death can the inheritance rights change or be passed on. Deut 21:15-19 (He has no answer for this hypocrisy.)

RM claims Firstborn in Col 1:15 means first created, even though there is no such use of the word firstborn in the New or old Testament ever. EVER! He cannot find a single use of firstborn that that supports his view. All the uses of firstborn are after Jesus resurrection or being birthed as a child. He has no scriptural witnesses. It is always associated with birthing. And begotten is birthing. Today I have begotten you. Means Today I GIVE BIRTH TO YOU. When he brings his firstborn into the world. Hebrews 1:5-6 couldn’t be any clearer. You can’t have a firstborn in the world if you have to bring one into the world. Simple logic…again…RM just ignores this. Like it doesn’t exist.



RM does not acknowledge the present tense or timing of the word firstborn in Col 1:15. Colossians can be turned into a simple math or logic equation.

1. We see that Jesus is the Carbon Copy of God in the Greek text. This means he is not an original but a copy of the original. This implies Jesus is created at the time of Paul’s statement. This is critical.

2. Paul’s statement is taking place AFTER the resurrection and is in the present tense.

3. Meaning at the time of Pauls statement Jesus is two things….Right NOW as we speak 1.) He is a carbon copy of God and he is in the present also the Firstborn of all creation at that very moment.

4. Remember…it bears repeating…When is this moment taking place? After the resurrection.

5. Jesus gave up EVERYTHING in Philippians 2 to become human. He was nothing and had nothing. Not titles, no status, no rewards, he even had the possibility of failing at his mission. He could not be a firstborn. Just as Hebrews 1:5-6 says the firstborn had to begotten or born and brought into the world.

6. David died. In death you lose all property, all status, all titles, all rewards. The dead know nothing. David lost his firstborn status. Jesus also died. There is no way he could have any titles, rank, anything or be anything because he was dead. It would all have to be given to him. He couldn’t even be a son anymore. Notice in the present tense Jesus is begotten and made a son, TODAY…TODAY..TODAY…I have begotten you at that very moment at his resurrection. Why? Because in death he lost even his status as human son? That is what death is. Loss. Gone. Cease to exist. Unless stage 2 takes place. Which is resurrection. Which is being born again. No one can enter the kingdom unless he is born again…period. John 3:5


There are no scriptures supporting his firstborn view. Not one.

All relevant uses of firstborn and including the timeframe of Paul’s statement is in reference to the son after his resurrection. This includes his scripture where Jesus is the beginning of the creation of God in Rev 3:14. This statement is also after the resurrection. And is consistent and supports that it was in fact Jesus that physically created everything in john 1:3. So logically if that is true then Rev 3:14 is the very first time God the father actually physically creates something. Jesus is God’s very first creation starting at the resurrection and going forward.

RM’s philosophy leaves unfulfilled prophecies. According to his version Jesus did not receive ALL the blessings of David. One of the blessings was to become the firstborn. RM says Jesus was in fact already the firstborn. This is nonsense because PSALM 2:7 prophesied “you are my son, today I have birthed you.” And that only came true after resurrection.

Jesus is literally born after his resurrection. That is what begotten means.

When presented that both of these scripture is after the resurrection he is blank and reaches for what he calls the HOTI (Col 1:16) clause which if you strip away his bad logic it works totally against him. He only points out the first part of verse 16 but fails to see there is a second part which calls Jesus an heir.

The HOTI clause can be summed up to this. Why is Jesus the firstborn? Because all things have been created FOR HIM….period. Everything else is immaterial.

It’s the very last words of this verse that he ignores completely but yet they are the very REASON and the Support for the very meaning of FIRSTBORN in verse 15. Jesus is being made HEIR to fulfill prophecy from the very beginning of all things being created for him. Jesus is the Jehovah that I get’s the inheritance. Israel is a people of his inheritance. And only the firstborn has the right to this inheritance. And it is an eternal inheritance. So someone who is going to die cannot get an eternal inheritance. He had to become immortal and get the blessings of David, become the firstborn, to fulfill the prophecy. Fulfilling the prophecy of Psalms 2:7.

So this is why he could not answer my LOGIC question about “is PAUL speaking nonsense”. I posted it several times and he ignored it again like it didn’t exist. See it this post again. Scroll down to the spaghetti example.
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&start=100#p8055

It destroys RM’s argument and he just covers his eyes, ignores it completely. It just straight denial.

Even more:

The translators of the New World Translation corrupt Col 1:15-18 by inserting the word other into the text 4 times. No honest bible does this. Because the original Greek only uses the word ALL. And does not have the word THINGS as part of the text. So depending on the context, the translator has the choice between adding the word THINGS or the word OTHER as seen in other scriptures. However, there is no justification to insert both words at the same time. It is a complete fraud. And RM cannot find a single scripture or translator that endorses such a misleading irresponsible translation. It is a direct contradiction with the Jehovah of the OT so they had to alter the text to fit their theology, and since RM is not allowed to disagree with the WT he has to create fantasies to make their interpretation work:

Compare the true translation:

Col 1:16
… All [things] have been created by him (Jesus) and for him.

Isaiah 43:21 (NIV)
21 the people I formed for myself that they may proclaim my praise.

Notice Jehovah formed the people for who? For himself. Notice Jesus created all things, which includes the people for who? Oh how about that…for himself. RM has a contradiction. Because he claims this Jehovah is not Jesus.

According to RM’s theology the Father is a wishy washy God who competes with Jesus.

But as we can easily discern this is not true. There is only one author and one actual physical creator and the above are both about Jesus as creator and God of OT.

Indisputable evidence:

Malachi 2:10
Do we not all have one Father? Did not one (EL) God (singular) create us?.

There you have it. Smoking Gun evidence that Only one God fathered or authored us. And only one God physically created us. (There could not be raw materials shot into Jesus, then come out as finished product, that then again had to be finished by God. That’s two creators. So then he tries to spilt hairs to say Jesus is just the maker and God is the creator. But his also makes no sense.)

One could argue that Malachi was talking about the same person, but that is absurd because we are told there is a physical creator Jehovah who created everything alone:

Compare:

Isaiah 44:24
I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Job 9:8
He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.


So there is only ONE Actual Physical Creator…period.

It has to be the Father or Jesus. It cannot be both.

Because scripture isolates the actual creator and tells us who actually created everything, whoever this God is, this God did it physically, with his own hands by himself. [/color]

By process of elimination…

Hebrews 1:10
He also says (to the son), "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 19:1
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Isaiah 48:13
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Isaiah 40:12
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?


It was Jesus hands that did the creation as the father testifies this himself. So it could not be the father’s hands. This destroys his one is the creator and one is the maker and his raw materials shot into Jesus nonsense.

Compare:
Isaiah 66:2
Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into existance?" <==Parallel to John 1:3


John 1:3
All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

We know that there is not a single thing that got brought into existence, that wasn’t done so by Jesus. It was Jesus hands, and he did it alone. All by himself with no help as Isaiah and Job says.

Psalm 95:5
The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land. Again this Came into existence and it did so by hands. Therefore, it’s Jesus.
Anything that came into existence did so via Jesus. The father himself testifies the heavens are the work of Jesus hands.


Job 12:7-10
9“Who among all these does not know That the hand of YHWH has done this,
10 In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.



John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.



This clearly beyond a shadow of a doubt makes Jesus the sole physical creator Jehovah of the old testament. As Malachi said only One God authored us and only one God created us and as confirmed by Isaiah 44:25 and Job 9:8.

This means firstborn does not mean the same as first created. It means Jesus was uncreated in the beginning.

All the evidence is against RM’s philosophy and stitching of the scriptures. Worst is still the blatant fiction and fantasy that the father created raw materials to shoot into Jesus. This takes the cake.

This is eliminated easily as we see Col 1:16 and look at the true meaning in the Greek interlinear shows God created ALL Things INSIDE Jesus. (Not all other things). This verse is simply another way of saying God is working inside and Jesus is copying what he sees the father doing. This is consistence with Jesus saying he only does what he sees the father doing and why he is working because his father is always working. The father is in me and I in the father. Again RM doesn’t like this. He hates this. He needs Jesus to be an Angel, not united with God but a mere soldier taking orders.

RM needs to go back to square one and stop believing in nonsense published by men.

He had 3 scriptures that are taken out of context to back Jesus is created. All of which are easily overturned.
1. Proverbs…Wisdom is simply personified in proverbs.

2. Col 1:15 is destroyed by his own HOTI clause, the logic, the context of creation, death, the law, Greek interlinear, and prophecy fulfillment, etc… All expose his erroneous view.

3. And the context of the OT scriptures above as Jesus being the only physical creator and the God of Israel smashes his final straw that revelation 3:14 proves Jesus is created and Jesus is first created.

The context shows Jesus joined creation when he became human, he became part of his own creation to be resurrected, and after this was the very first time God ever created anything because as we see above we have logically deduced that only one God created all things by himself with no help. Like a simple math problem, it can only be Jesus.


In closing... RM claiming that the YHWH in all these OT text’s is not Jesus is the most ridiculous self-contradicting theology anyone has ever heard. He has to make excuses, literally invent things such as raw materials being shot into Jesus and then Jesus made the finished product…

…which by the way is not really the finished product because God the father then has to stretch everything out with his own hands but then tells us that it was Jesus hands…and even though not one thing that exists, is able to exist without Jesus, RM has things that came into existence that didn’t come from Jesus…yada yada it’s all a mess. And it's not biblical. It’s fiction. He has no scriptural backing. He just has to assume it’s true otherwise his whole identity is at stake. He would rather go on believing nonsense that accept that the scripture is plain and simple. And fine without his raw materials.

It's an example of how teachings found in corporate religions that are untrue thrive because the individual’s identity is tied to the group and not to the real truth (at all costs). Manipulative groups use unethical compliance techniques, deception, logical fallacies, fear, shunning, and totalitarian control over members while the leaders build a real estate empire and invest in the stock market behind the scenes.

Most important, these religions take away Christ as the mediator and true savior of all men and replace him with the human leader or leadership of the organization as their only hope of salvation. So leadership puts itself in the place of Jesus and reduce Jesus to mere angel or just a prophet or guru. It’s tragic. But that’s what happens when the number one doctrine is obedience at all costs for the sake of unity verses using your own gift for critical thinking. This is called “the ends justify the means.” Their motto is if we have to lie, cheat, hurt, shun, for the sake of unity…so be it. Unity over truth. The bible teaches truth over unity (and if there’s unity, then it’s because of truth which is Christ.)




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary (Part 2 - In regards to the title of this debate.)

I have maintained that Jesus is the Jehovah/YHWH of the Old Testament. He is the David’s Lord and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the God that brought Israel of Egypt. This can all be seen by connecting Jesus to Jehovah through creation and logically deducing that the God of Israel could not, and cannot possibly be the father. (Jesus is a separate Jehovah/YHWH and he is not the father.)

Jesus is not an Angel, nor is he part of a trinity. Both are absurd and conflict with the scriptures.

ANGEL SAFELY ELIMINATED: (RM has no answer for this.)
The world was not created for angels. Hebrews 2:5
And no angel has ever been called a son, ever. Hebrews 1:5

TRINITY SAFELY ELIMINATED:
(I will not show how, because I do not want to give cults that denounce Jesus a quick edge to confuse Christians who do not know their bible. Just know that it’s absurd and in your heart you know there is no such thing as 3 people in one person. Nor is God a committee. I don’t want to give the scriptures as JWs could use this to recruit unsuspecting Christians into the cult. But he trinity can be safely eliminated in 3 scriptures beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the trinity is much closer to the truth than Jesus being a subordinate angel is. In the Trinity Jesus still has his Godhood and is God just as God is God. The concept of equality is preserved. In cults they denigrate Jesus and take him away as the mediator so that the cult leadership steps in to take Jesus place as man's mediator and savior.)

Monotheism is a lie. There are many Gods. There was a time when the nations were divided by the Most HIGH and each was given their own God. However, these Gods all failed and were Judged in Psalm 82.

Every scripture that claims there is only one God is claiming there is only one ELOHIM. That is a plural word. Elohim is a God unity made up of two YHWHs whom later become the Father and the Son. The word ONE in the bible is elusive. We see two but the term is ONE. ONE flesh, Father and I are ONE. There is ONE YHWH. ONE can represent unity. In that unity, One is the Author of ALL things and the other is the Doer of ALL things making ONE creation.

The true relationship between Jesus and the Father is of this order.
1. Two separate YHWHs existed from eternity. (There are two YHWHs in the OT.)

2. This is hidden as the divine name is covered up by inserting the word “THE LORD” everywhere the word YHWH appears in the OT. But is easily seen in any Hebrew interlinear.

3. YHWH1 is the Author of ALL things (Father).

4. YHWH2 is the Creator of ALL things (Jesus).

5. Together they are a unity, with YHWH1 dwelling and working inside YHWH2.

6. YHWH2 is the seen. YHWH1 is the unseen. They are together Elohim. (A plural God unity)

7. These scriptures are all two or more but mean UNITY. The Lord (Yahweh) our God (Elohim) (plural) is One. The father and I are one. Yahweh is one. That you may be one. (Adam and Eve) are one flesh. There are Two but one. It means unity. This is a hard to grasp concept.

8. Here ONE means a single digit. But for us there is only one God the father.... and only one Lord (Master) Jesus Christ. (1 Corinth 8:6) See the difference... Whenever something is "ONE" it's a unity. Whenever there is "but one" or "only one" or the word "one" in front of the subject of the sentence it means a numerical singular.

8. Both are eternal and are uncreated. And love and respect each other from eternity.

9. Since YHWH2 is not created, nor was he born, he is not the firstborn of YHWH1.

10. The two YHWHs want to start a family and they themselves become a family.

11. A covenant is made between the two YHWHs and a plan to become family and start a family.

12. YHWH1 authors all creation. It’s his idea so therefore it’s all his property and part of his plan making him the father of creation.

13. The YHWH2 is to become the son and be the heir of YHWH1’s property. It’s is an inheritance.

14. Because YHWH1 is the author and owner of all creation, YHWH2 has no property rights even though he is the physical creator. Only the author owns all creation.

15. It is not that YHWH1 is the leader or the most powerful God. Both YHWH’s are equal. They are actually twins. (in our image) (whoever has seen me has seen the father)

16. It is property rights and the plan that makes YHWH1 in charge. YHWH2 has agreed to be the LORD or the MASTER AND CHIEF over the mission. It’s the role he gladly takes on.

17. One problem, Adam and Eve doomed the plan and all of mankind. The plan B of salvation and restoring mankind went into action.

18. The nations are divided, languages are confounded, and each nation received their own god to worship.

19. YHWH2 is given ALL AUTHORITY over his portion of the allotted property. He starts with Abraham and a promise then he becomes God of Israel.

20. This makes him the MASTER or Lord, with power of attorney over YHWH1’s property which makes him their ONLY GOD. He is their only God, they have no other besides this united Elohim.

21. Israel did not have access to YHWH1 only YHWH2. Which is why YHWH2 was David’s Lord.

22. This same relationship is played out when YHWH2 becomes the human Jesus.

23. Jesus is endowed with YHWH1 just like he was when he was YHWH2 the God of Israel.

24. Israel has never seen YHWH1. However they have seen YHWH2 many times in Old Testament.

25. Jesus is an heir. All creation is not his property. It is his inheritance. But he is given all authority over it. He has no real property rights. But he is still the exact same nature as YHWH1. Same power. Same wisdom. In the old testament they are equal in every physical way other than ownership of property and the roles they play in the divine plan. Everything was done voluntarily.

26. This is why Jesus calls the father the true God, as legally everything belongs to YHWH1 and Jesus is only the caretaker of the estate and was appointed MASTER or LORD over YHWH1’s property and not the true owner of creation just yet. He stands to legally inherit it.

27. However, Jesus was in the Old testament just as much an all-powerful God as YHWH1 is and was. He was not a soldier following orders or a slave or a created being. He was the united Elohim.

28. Jesus gave up his Godhood as the powerful YHWH the God of Israel to become part of creation and learn obedience as he was sovereign.

29. This is when he started the beginning part of the plan to fulfill the prophecy to become God’s firstborn, the blessing given to David. This is the first time he becomes the begotten son.

30. David was not eternal but the blessings were eternal. David died. There needed to be an eternal heir as well as restoring of mankind.

31. YHWH2 became part of David’s line to fulfill the prophecy, save Israel and inherit the kingdom and ALL of the blessings given to David.

32. All rights, are subject to property. No property no rights. Jesus becomes a piece of property himself as a human. His life is sustained by the father. This makes him just as much a slave as you and I, except he is now made up of YHWH1’s DNA. He is totally dependent on YHWH1.

33. Because of his new DNA make up, this makes him not an ordinary human, but a relative of the FATHER by actual genetics and now the father has a legal heir as David was a temporary heir and at death lost everything.

34. Jesus was the God of Israel, but the Pharisees could not see that. The God that was seen. (no man has ever seen the father.)

35. Jesus was crucified and dead. He had to brought back into the world. And he was BORN AGAIN by being resurrected. He was raised in the flesh full of blood.
36. He went into heaven into the holy of holy’s and emptied is blood onto the alter cleansing it.

37. He was cloaked in spirit and changed into a life giving spirit. He was restored as a SON a new creation. At his resurrection is the ONLY Time Jesus becomes the FIRSTBORN.

38. And he is given the name above ALL NAMES. That name is YHWH. He is given his old name back. (Watchtower erroneously inserts OTHER into the text, given the name above all other names. As if the commoner’s name Jesus is now the name above all other names. All I can say is wow!)

39. So the name you call on is YHWH, that is who Jesus is today. When Jesus prayed he didn’t have to call on himself. So he prayed “our Father.”

40. But you are told to no one gets to the father but through me (Jesus). You are told to call on the name OF Jesus, not the name Jesus. OF is implying a possession he had. What was the name Jesus came in? What was the name he was given? What name did he inherit? The name above all names…He was given back his old name YHWH…What’s the name above all names but technically not above the father’s? Naturally the same name. It’s above all cause it’s the same name. The both have the name above all names.

41. This is why all of the scripture quotes Joel, that there is only one name under the heavens that saves, calling on the name YHWH. Jesus was the God in Joel. Jesus was always and is YHWH the God who saves.

42. Lord means master. We have One God the Father, and one Master Yhwh Yahushua.

So what now? Put it to the test. You will see it’s the truth. The more you challenge it the more you will confirm and clarify it. Do your own research. God won’t strike you down for questioning the doctrines of men. Here is a good place to start. https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/home
I am not affiliated with this website. But it is an eye opener.

Also see Dr. Heiser The Jewish trinity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz8J4DTIkEg
(There is no such thing as a Jewish trinty, his video does open the eyes that there are two YHWHs. You have God as one entity. You have Jesus as a separate entity. Then you have the holy spirit, which is simply Jesus with God acting in a unity and the bible refers to them as a singular HE. Notice that the Lamb and God are both referred to as a HE in REVELATION

Revelation 22:3-5 King James Version (KJV)

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb (plural) shall be in it; and his (singular) servants shall serve him:

4 And they shall see his (singular)face; and his (singular) name shall be in their foreheads.

5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.


Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection! The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ (plural), and will reign with Him (singular)for a thousand years.

God and Christ united are considered singular...a HIM....that is the holy spirit. Once Jesus becomes an omnipresent spirit he can be everywhere and he has God dwelling in him. Together they are the Holy Spirit. (not to be confused with God's power. God used his power which is also called his holy spirit. I'm simply referring to the pronouns him or he that personifies the holy spirit. Any time you see the holy spirit personified it is the unity of God and Christ in Omnipresent form.


Lesson: Every Christian religion has a piece of the truth, and they are all also teaching lies as well and mostly traditional nonsense. Examine each component and you will see what stands up to scrutiny and what doesn’t. it is written "Let the prophets speak.." It's okay to hear what churches teach. But it's not okay to follow blindly.

It means you are now a spiritual adult and you can help and guide others. You don’t become self-righteous because you know this knowledge and others don’t. It makes you privileged. So what do you do? Hold on to what’s good and dump the bad and continue to grow in grace and knowledge and call on YHWH Yahushua the son to open the door, and pray "our Father". And your life will change.

PROCEED TO ROTHERHAM'S SUMMARY http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&start=100#p8196

[Rotherham]

LINKS TO BOTH SUMMARIES:

LINK TO ROTHERHAM'S SUMMARY:
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&p=8197#p8196

LINK TO TRUTHSEEKER'S SUMMARY:
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=854&p=8197#p8197