DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TESTAME

DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TESTAME

Postby Rotherham » Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:44 pm

Hello truthseeker,

I am posting this first piece for us to have a starting place. Anyone reading should know that this is a conversation already in progress. However, I don't think it will take much to figure out what we are talking about.

Here is the relevant part of your latest email to me:

Can you logically deduce "raw material?"

I will logically deduce that there are no raw materials. Your Job is to fin the flaw or assumption in my deduction.

Like this.

1 Cor 8:6

there is actually to us one God,+ the Father,+ from whom all things are and we for him;+ and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are+ and we through him.

Does the text say anything about raw materials? NO

Can a laymen reading just this scripture see raw materials? NO

Does the text say that all things are from God? Yes

Does the text say all things are through Jesus? Yes

So if anything we have to separate the difference between the "all things" coming "FROM" God and "All Things" coming "Through" Jesus.

What are the possibilities being argued that "all things" can represent in 1 Corinithians 8:6 that cannot be eliminated in the text itself?

FROM ALL THINGS

In reference to God "all things" could be:

1. Raw materials and his plan of creation which is FROM God

2. Just raw materials which came FROM God (and no plan)

3. Just a plan came FROM God and no raw materials.
THROUGH ALL THINGS

In referance to Jesus "all things"

LOGIC:

If "all things" can come about FROM God, and these "all things" can also come about through Jesus as well, then we can safely conclude that these "all things" CANNOT be raw materials.

Because Raw materials cannot go THROUGH Jesus. They are a completed and finished item. They are finished raw materials. And the text is clear that what ever these "ALL things are", they are from GOD but only come about THROUGH Jesus.

To have raw materials implies that Jesus would have to use them and thus they are not going through or coming about through him because the work is done. It is OUTSIDE of HIM. Only something that is internal or carried about can go THROUGH someone. Just like when I said an idea of a gift, can be brought about through the works of another. The only option is a PLAN. A plan is inserted inside Jesus mind. With this plan all things come into existence through Jesus via the plan he is using. The ALL things can only mean a PLAN when pertaining to GOD. A plan of ALL things to come. That Plan Goes through Jesus. And actual "All things" come about as a result of Jesus works.

Can we confirm if this is correct. YES

John 1:3

All things came into existence through him,+ <===This confirms that ALL things must go through him only.

and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. <==This confirms that not even raw materials existed. (not even one electron or proton) Even the raw materials could only exist because Jesus would be the one who made them exist.

John 1:3 confirms the logic of 1 Corinth 8:6 and leaves no room for raw materials. Nothing existed apart from him. This means there is nothing external such as raw materials.

ZERO ASSUMPTIONS, ZERO CONTRADICTION, SIMPLE, NO SALESMASHIP

your assignment is to find the flaws in this LOGIC. And then deduce an even simpler logical deduction that leads to your raw materials conclusion. There should be ZERo assumptions. The second you add guesswork you lose because the above logic stands uncontested. And the only option is to provide an equally strong logical deduction. That cannot be eliminated. The next step then will be to see whose version is true by introducing other texts. But until then no other texts are allowed.

Warmest regards,

truthseeker
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Feb 23, 2016 8:23 am

Hi TS,

I'll call you TS, it's shorter than truthseeker and one less long word I have to type out. :-)
My comments are between the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$s.

You said:
Can you logically deduce "raw material?"

I will logically deduce that there are no raw materials. Your Job is to fin the flaw or assumption in my deduction.

Like this.

1 Cor 8:6

there is actually to us one God,+ the Father,+ from whom all things are and we for him;+ and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are+ and we through him.

Does the text say anything about raw materials? NO

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nor does the text rule it out.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Can a laymen reading just this scripture see raw materials? NO

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He might. Depending on his exposure to the topic. "All things" has to mean something. At this stage, it could just as easily mean raw materials and ideas as it could mean anything else.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Does the text say that all things are from God? Yes

Does the text say all things are through Jesus? Yes

So if anything we have to separate the difference between the "all things" coming "FROM" God and "All Things" coming "Through" Jesus.

What are the possibilities being argued that "all things" can represent in 1 Corinithians 8:6 that cannot be eliminated in the text itself?

FROM ALL THINGS

In reference to God "all things" could be:

1. Raw materials and his plan of creation which is FROM God

2. Just raw materials which came FROM God (and no plan)

3. Just a plan came FROM God and no raw materials.
THROUGH ALL THINGS

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I of course would pick No.1
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

In referance to Jesus "all things"

LOGIC:

If "all things" can come about FROM God, and these "all things" can also come about through Jesus as well, then we can safely conclude that these "all things" CANNOT be raw materials.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Here is where our point of departure takes place. Here is why I do not agree with this statement. SOMEWHERE in the process, RAW MATERIALS had to become part of the operation. As we know, "all things" came out of the Father and then went through the Son. If the "all things" stayed in the same form coming out of the Father and going through the Son, then nothing changed and those ideas never came to fruition.

Whatever it is that came out of the Father entered the Son, so to speak, in the same form. However, before they ever came out of the Son, they had to change form. You would say that they changed from ideas to raw materials and then the finished product. We would say they changed from ideas and raw materials to the finished product.

We would both have to agree that what came out of the Son was the finished product, so the "all things" that came out of the Son had to be different than the "all things that went in. The Son changed the "all things" from one form to another.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Because Raw materials cannot go THROUGH Jesus. They are a completed and finished item. They are finished raw materials. And the text is clear that what ever these "ALL things are", they are from GOD but only come about THROUGH Jesus.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
See right above as to why this doesn't sound like a good conclusion to me.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

To have raw materials implies that Jesus would have to use them and thus they are not going through or coming about through him because the work is done. It is OUTSIDE of HIM. Only something that is internal or carried about can go THROUGH someone. Just like when I said an idea of a gift, can be brought about through the works of another. The only option is a PLAN. A plan is inserted inside Jesus mind. With this plan all things come into existence through Jesus via the plan he is using. The ALL things can only mean a PLAN when pertaining to GOD. A plan of ALL things to come. That Plan Goes through Jesus. And actual "All things" come about as a result of Jesus works.

Can we confirm if this is correct. YES


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No. I think you are making restrictions where there are none. Since we know that whatever came into the Son from the Father HAD TO CHANGE FORM as it went THROUGH him, this could just as easily be RAW MATERIALS and IDEAS. As they went through the Son and came out the other side, so to speak, they were finished products. So the "all things" in connection with the Son was FINISHED PRODUCT, both places, John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

John 1:3

All things came into existence through him,+ <===This confirms that ALL things must go through him only.

and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. <==This confirms that not even raw materials existed. (not even one electron or proton) Even the raw materials could only exist because Jesus would be the one who made them exist.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Again, not necessary. We KNOW that Jesus CHANGED whatever it was that came to him from the Father. We KNOW that 1 Cor. 8:6, and therefore John 1:3 is talking about finished product, certainly not the very same form that came to him from the Father.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

John 1:3 confirms the logic of 1 Corinth 8:6 and leaves no room for raw materials. Nothing existed apart from him. This means there is nothing external such as raw materials.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nothing existed apart from him in the form of finished product, because that has to be the "all things" that came out of the Son.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

ZERO ASSUMPTIONS, ZERO CONTRADICTION, SIMPLE, NO SALESMASHIP


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You are evidently assuming that the Son did not alter anything that came through him. I will conclude that he absolutely HAD TO alter what came to him from the Father in order for any finished product to exist.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

your assignment is to find the flaws in this LOGIC. And then deduce an even simpler logical deduction that leads to your raw materials conclusion. There should be ZERo assumptions. The second you add guesswork you lose because the above logic stands uncontested. And the only option is to provide an equally strong logical deduction. That cannot be eliminated. The next step then will be to see whose version is true by introducing other texts. But until then no other texts are allowed.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I believe I have demonstrated that in the above.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:42 pm

My apologies in advance to formatting. I have never used a forum before and I will attempt to learn as I go. I will also resort to RM in place of the name of my opponent Rotherham. I will also use GTF for God the FATHER.

What RM had done is added his own "assumptions" into the text. Unnecessary assumptions might I add. While I argue to against his assumptions a pattern will emerge. The more specific I try to narrow the terms, actions, and roles of God the Father and of his son the Christ, RM will need to take the opposite approach and use logical fallacies and appeal to ambiguity in order to fit a the assumption that God the Father first created "raw materials" in order for the son to make ALL Things. My argument is that "ALL means ALL" and that there is not one thing that is in existence that was "created or made" that didn't come through Jesus. My opponent's logic is violating John 1:3 in claiming that Raw Materials must have existed prior to Jesus making ALL things. In other words he claims there is an exception to John 1:3 and ALL does not mean ALL.

John 1:3

All things came into existence through him,+ <===This confirms that ALL things must go through him only.

and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. <==This confirms that not even raw materials existed. (not even one electron or proton) Even the raw materials could only exist because Jesus would be the one who made them exist.

John 1:3 confirms the logic of 1 Corinth 8:6 and leaves no room for raw materials. Nothing existed apart from him. This means there is nothing external such as raw materials.

ZERO ASSUMPTIONS, ZERO CONTRADICTION, SIMPLE, NO SALESMASHIP



I will reserve not to reply at this time to each of my opponents comments, and will do so later. As I mentioned, ambiguity is essential for his interpretation to create plausibility. Although I think the verse above confirms there could not have been any raw materials because that would mean that something existed outside of him, which is impossible according to the later part of the verse.

So instead, I would like to attempt to clarify his argument and by doing so, his version of the creation will start to come unraveled.

1. RM, please provide myself and the reader an outline of events in the proper order. I will assist and list the order of your argument in the matter as I understand it. Please adjust this order of events if I'm mistaken.

Rotherham's version
1. GTF was alone at first.
2. GTF created a plan.
3. GTF next created Jesus
4. GTF next created raw materials for the son to use to make the universe
5. Jesus took the raw materials GTF created and proceeded to make the universe and ALL THINGS in it.
6. GTF is given credit as the conceptual creator as it was his will and idea, he is the Architect, Maker of the raw materials, and owner of creation.
7. JESUS is given credit as the physical maker/ the actual physical doer or worker creating all things using the raw materials provided to him.
8. Jesus is however, not the owner of creation. (However, he does receive all authority over it.)

TRUTHSEEKER's VERSION
1. GTF and Jesus were alone at first from infinity.
2. GTF had "a want." Something he wanted. His will.
3. GTF revealed his will/plan "in" Jesus
4. Jesus then contributed ideas to the plan and created ALL things out of nothing (using no raw materials)
5. Everything that exists, came from Jesus power alone, with no help from GTF.
6. GTF is given credit as the conceptual creator as it was his will and idea, he is the Architect and owner of creation.
7. JESUS is given credit as the physical maker/ the actual physical doer or worker creating all things from nothing.
8. Jesus is however, not the owner of creation. (However, he does receive all authority over it.)
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Feb 24, 2016 9:55 am

Hello TS,

What RM had done is added his own "assumptions" into the text. Unnecessary assumptions might I add. While I argue to against his assumptions a pattern will emerge. The more specific I try to narrow the terms, actions, and roles of God the Father and of his son the Christ, RM will need to take the opposite approach and use logical fallacies and appeal to ambiguity in order to fit a the assumption that God the Father first created "raw materials" in order for the son to make ALL Things. My argument is that "ALL means ALL" and that there is not one thing that is in existence that was "created or made" that didn't come through Jesus. My opponent's logic is violating John 1:3 in claiming that Raw Materials must have existed prior to Jesus making ALL things. In other words he claims there is an exception to John 1:3 and ALL does not mean ALL.

John 1:3

All things came into existence through him,+ <===This confirms that ALL things must go through him only.

and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. <==This confirms that not even raw materials existed. (not even one electron or proton) Even the raw materials could only exist because Jesus would be the one who made them exist.

John 1:3 confirms the logic of 1 Corinth 8:6 and leaves no room for raw materials. Nothing existed apart from him. This means there is nothing external such as raw materials.

ZERO ASSUMPTIONS, ZERO CONTRADICTION, SIMPLE, NO SALESMASHIP


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Once again it needs to be stated that John 1:3 must agree with 1 Cor. 8:6. I think it was unfortunate that my opponent did not address the point at 1 Cor. 8:6 as I think it is imperative to do so in order to understand properly what's happening with creation between Father and Son.

I believe that TS must agree that whatever issued TO the Son from the Father was different in FORM than what issued FROM the Son once he was done with it. Therefore, I believe everyone would have to agree that the "all things" that issued forth from the Son, after he was done with it, was a finished product. I don't see how that can be denied.

Therefore, when we come to John 1:3, we are likewise dealing with the same "all things", that being finished product. When John 1:3 says not "one thing", it is speaking of not ONE finished product, so there is no appeal to ambiguity or any use of logical fallacies because all must agree that what issued FROM the Son was finished product, and that is exactly what John 1:3 would be speaking about. Would any one imagine he was not thinking of finished products when he made this statement? I don't see how.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


I will reserve not to reply at this time to each of my opponents comments, and will do so later. As I mentioned, ambiguity is essential for his interpretation to create plausibility. Although I think the verse above confirms there could not have been any raw materials because that would mean that something existed outside of him, which is impossible according to the later part of the verse.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not impossible if one realizes that John 1:3 is simply speaking of finished product. Finished product is the only logical thing that came FROM the Son. Initially FROM the Father came something that was NOT finished product, then THROUGH the Son, and OUT from the Son. That which came out FROM the Son should be universally recognized as finished product.

That means that what came from the Father is not the very same thing that came FROM the Son. They differed in FORM. We would both have to agree to that. Just as my opponent would say that the "all things" that came from the Father is not really "all things", just ideas, and therefore limiting the scope of "all things" in this instance to a particular type of "all things", the same can be done on the other end of the equation with the "all things" that come from the Son.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


So instead, I would like to attempt to clarify his argument and by doing so, his version of the creation will start to come unraveled.

1. RM, please provide myself and the reader an outline of events in the proper order. I will assist and list the order of your argument in the matter as I understand it. Please adjust this order of events if I'm mistaken.

Rotherham's version
1. GTF was alone at first.
2. GTF created a plan.
3. GTF next created Jesus

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, as we will see this is solid Biblical precedent.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


4. GTF next created raw materials for the son to use to make the universe

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Exactly how far the Father took things before handing them to the Son is anyone's guess, but because John 1:3 speaks of finished product, it can not be ruled out that the Father handed raw materials (natural elements/quantum entanglements, etc) to the Son.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

5. Jesus took the raw materials GTF created and proceeded to make the universe and ALL THINGS in it.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, referring to FINISHED product, by necessity.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

6. GTF is given credit as the conceptual creator as it was his will and idea, he is the Architect, Maker of the raw materials, and owner of creation.
7. JESUS is given credit as the physical maker/ the actual physical doer or worker creating all things using the raw materials provided to him.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not creating. Making. Creation itself is never directly attributed to the Son. He always stands as the instrument, even at John 1:3.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

8. Jesus is however, not the owner of creation. (However, he does receive all authority over it.)

TRUTHSEEKER's VERSION
1. GTF and Jesus were alone at first from infinity.
2. GTF had "a want." Something he wanted. His will.
3. GTF revealed his will/plan "in" Jesus
4. Jesus then contributed ideas to the plan and created ALL things out of nothing (using no raw materials)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This is an assumption because all would have to agree that John 1:3, at the very least, is dealing with finished product. Nothing demands that this includes "raw materials".

Again, because of the fact that "all things" is always context and co-text dependent, and the fact that the Son is definitely shown to be the Father's first creation, this understanding is a necessity of logic.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

5. Everything that exists, came from Jesus power alone, with no help from GTF.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This too is an assumption. Nothing in the text demands such a conclusion.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

6. GTF is given credit as the conceptual creator as it was his will and idea, he is the Architect and owner of creation.
7. JESUS is given credit as the physical maker/ the actual physical doer or worker creating all things from nothing.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Again, creation is never directly attributed to the Son. He is consistently presented with the language of AGENCY, not causality.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


8. Jesus is however, not the owner of creation. (However, he does receive all authority over it.)[/quote]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"All" doesn't always mean "all" without qualification. This is what lies at the heart of this understanding.

How we know that is, when it comes to the "all things" that come OUT of the Father, my opponent would say this is just talking about ALL ideas. He will qualify the meaning of "all things".

Likewise, it is just as easy to qualify the "all things" that come OUT of the Son, once he is done with them, and claim this is just in reference to "finished product". I can qualify just the same as my opponent can.

In fact, I would think that nearly EVERYONE who comes to 1 Cor. 8:6 would qualify the FIRST "all things" DIFFERENTLY than the SECOND "all things" out of logical necessity. And if we can say that the "all things" at John 1:3 are the same ALL THINGS at 1 Cor. 8:6, which is an entirely valid and logical connection, then the "all things" at John 1:3 can be qualified as nothing more than finished product being spoken of.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Thu Feb 25, 2016 2:52 am

I can't believe this. I spent 3 hours typing a response to every major point RM made and then hit preview button. And this "arrrrgh" forum (trying keeping my cool)... I'm so angry right now. This forum timed out on me. It took me to the login screen. I logged in and sure enough all my work was gone. It's now 1:47 AM in the morning.

So I will not retype everything, I will just ask a few questions instead. You said:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No. I think you are making restrictions where there are none. Since we know that whatever came into the Son from the Father HAD TO CHANGE FORM as it went THROUGH him, this could just as easily be RAW MATERIALS and IDEAS. As they went through the Son and came out the other side, so to speak, they were finished products. So the "all things" in connection with the Son was FINISHED PRODUCT, both places, John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


1. Whose power is being used to make the raw materials into finished product?

2. So you said ALL things, only included finished product, so does that mean Jesus completed making ALL THINGS into a finished product?

3. Describe to the reader how far did JESUS continue make, what is finished product? Completely finished? Or does ALL not mean ALL again, and its only half finished?

4. Who then is responsible for people's existence? What about trees? Insects? Sharks or whales? Are part of these ALL THINGS Jesus did, or are they an exception to ALL things? Did they come unfinished, just blobs in need of more refinement later?

5. In the beginning, how do they have life, where does life come from? Was this out of Jesus or raw materials or God?

6. Can you spell out all the things GTF DID NOT DO in creation that only Jesus was responsible for? For example GTF did not 1. blank 2. blank 3. blank...
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:50 am

Hi TS,

truthseeker wrote:I can't believe this. I spent 3 hours typing a response to every major point RM made and then hit preview button. And this "arrrrgh" forum (trying keeping my cool)... I'm so angry right now. This forum timed out on me. It took me to the login screen. I logged in and sure enough all my work was gone. It's now 1:47 AM in the morning.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I know. I've had it happen too. If I know I'm going to be taking a while to do it, I save it every now and then to the Draft box. Saves a few headaches.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


So I will not retype everything, I will just ask a few questions instead. You said:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
No. I think you are making restrictions where there are none. Since we know that whatever came into the Son from the Father HAD TO CHANGE FORM as it went THROUGH him, this could just as easily be RAW MATERIALS and IDEAS. As they went through the Son and came out the other side, so to speak, they were finished products. So the "all things" in connection with the Son was FINISHED PRODUCT, both places, John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


1. Whose power is being used to make the raw materials into finished product?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I am not sure if we are told whether he did this with just his own power or whether it came from the Father. It would seem that everything the Son has, has come from the Father so that would have to figure in.

Hebrews 1:3 says the Son sustains all things by the word of his power, most likely referencing the Father's power. Plus, Jesus says that the Father has GIVEN him all things. Plus Jesus said he can not do anything that he has not seen the Father do.

Other than that, I do not think there would be a specific answer to that, unless you know of something yourself.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



2. So you said ALL things, only included finished product, so does that mean Jesus completed making ALL THINGS into a finished product?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I would think so, yes.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


3. Describe to the reader how far did JESUS continue make, what is finished product? Completely finished? Or does ALL not mean ALL again, and its only half finished?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I would say completely finished products. Not real sure what you are after here.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


4. Who then is responsible for people's existence? What about trees? Insects? Sharks or whales? Are part of these ALL THINGS Jesus did, or are they an exception to ALL things? Did they come unfinished, just blobs in need of more refinement later?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Again, not real sure what you are after but I would say he was responsible for EVERY finished product that has been made.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

5. In the beginning, how do they have life, where does life come from? Was this out of Jesus or raw materials or God?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I would say life initially came from the Father. The ability to give life to others was eventually GIVEN to the Son. I'm not sure we are told exactly when that would have happened.

John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself,*+ so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.+
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

6. Can you spell out all the things GTF DID NOT DO in creation that only Jesus was responsible for? For example GTF did not 1. blank 2. blank 3. blank...[/quote]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I am not sure we are told anything other than what I have answered above. Unfortunately the Bible is not a science book and doesn't give a breakdown of who did what in exact fashion.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Fri Feb 26, 2016 1:59 am

Whose power is being used to make the raw materials into finished product?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I am not sure if we are told whether he did this with just his own power or whether it came from the Father. It would seem that everything the Son has, has come from the Father so that would have to figure in.

Hebrews 1:3 says the Son sustains all things by the word of his power, most likely referencing the Father's power. Plus, Jesus says that the Father has GIVEN him all things. Plus Jesus said he can not do anything that he has not seen the Father do.

Other than that, I do not think there would be a specific answer to that, unless you know of something yourself.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




Isaiah 9:6 tells us Jesus is a “mighty God”

My opponent will not argue that making the universe requires great power. Since we know GTF has his own power, Jesus is not supplying power to GTF nor is he supplying wisdom to GTF, but Jesus has great power to represent the power that GTF has and he wisely has the smarts to do the finest works and details of the fathers will acting as his clone on earth, "he who has seen me has seen the father".

1 Corinth 1:24.
…Christ is the power and wisdom of God.

Hebrews 1:3 NWT
3 He [Jesus] is the reflection of God’s glory+ and the exact representation of his very being,+ and he [Jesus] sustains all things by the word of his [own] power. And after he [Jesus] had made a purification for our sins,+ he [Jesus] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.+

Notice Hebrew 1:3 is about the son. The son “sustains all things.” How does he sustain all things? By the word of his power. This is also supported in Colossians 1:17. If it was the word of GTF’s power, then it would make no sense to say Jesus is sustaining all things. It would then be GTF who is the one sustaining all things.

Colossians 1:17 NIV
He [Jesus] is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Also we see that Jesus is not a puppet. The father is always working, and so is the son working John 5:17,19). They are both doing works. However, the son is not originating his works. He is just copying what he sees in the visions that he receives, then he just “does likewise.” This is also confirmed in John 4:34 and John 5:30 as we see Jesus wants to finish what the works the father shows him and in John 6:38 Jesus admits he has a will but choses to do his Father’s will instead. So Jesus has a choice. He is not being manipulated and controlled like a puppet.

John 5:17-19 (ESV)
17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father[a] does, that the Son does likewise.

John 4:34
"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work.

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

John 5:30
… for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

So we can see Jesus is very powerful even in his human form. Whether he got his power from God is immaterial. He commanded the wind to stop, he defied nature and walked on water, he controlled fish into the nets of apostles until they burst, he restored the ear of the high priest’s servant, etc...
However, we see there is a special working relationship where Jesus will not act on his own accord or do his own will. He sees it from the father and then he acts. This working relationship now poses a problem for my opponent.


This special relationship confirms my argument of creation where Jesus sees the father creating the universe in a vision, but the father does not actually physically create or bring anything into existence. That is Jesus's role. Jesus sees the vision and then physically makes and brings the universe into existence based on what he sees. There are no raw materials.



There is no room for raw materials. Otherwise Jesus would see the father creating raw materials first and then Jesus would turn around and Jesus would be the one who would then make them.

This is consistent with John 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 where ALL THINGS is simply the created vision of ALL THINGS FROM the father and the actual ALL THINGS that are through the son and come into existence by the son. To further illustrate that there is no room for raw materials. My opponent’s own bible and theological viewpoint works against him.

For he claims Jesus was the first of GTF’s works Proverbs 8:22, Col 1:15,17. (I don’t believe this.)

Let’s assume this is true, then by the passage below from his own NWT Bible, we see Jesus did not create himself, but he instantly turned around and created ALL [other] things. This 100% rules out any chance of GTF creating raw materials. Because Jesus (according to my opponents own theological beliefs) came first and is before all [other] things, and then Jesus created ALL the visible and invisible things leaving zero room for the creation of raw materials before or after Jesus was created.


Colossians 1:15-17
.+ 15 He is the image of the invisible God,+ the firstborn of all creation;+ 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him+ and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things,+ and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

There is no such doctrine, as my opponent claims, found anywhere in the bible as GTF shooting raw materials into Jesus and then these materials come out the other side as Jesus converts them into the various objects of the universe.

My opponent now has to change the meaning of the text above to allow for his erroneous claims to work. Leaving us with scriptures that don’t really mean what they say or say what they mean. His argument is just because the bible doesn’t say so “it doesn’t rule it out.”

Then saying Paul once rode a unicorn is also a fair assumption. It doesn't say so in the text but according to my opponent it is okay because we can't rule it out.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:08 am

Sorry for the delay. I should respond sometime today.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Feb 29, 2016 2:10 pm

Hello TS,

You go to great lengths to demonstrate that Jesus has his own power and could have made all things without the Father helping. You should go back and read what I said and you would see that I did not categorically deny the possibility that he had his own power to MAKE everything, but this still does not make him the Creator, but rather, just the maker, the Master Worker.

Please remember that Jesus says he has been given all that he has by the Father. If you have to be given the power and authority that you have from someone else, then you are naturally not as great as that person, therefore, solidifying the idea that the Son is not Almighty God. Yes, he could certainly be referred to as a Mighty God, because he is the mightiest representative of God in existence, but that is not the same as being Almighty God. Once back in heaven, the Father is consistently referred to as the GOD of Jesus. How is that possible if they are both Almighty God?

The scriptures never speak of Jesus seeing the Father creating everything "in a vision". This is pure invention and conjecture. He naturally does the will of God and only does what he observes the Father doing. This certainly allows for Jesus putting together the elements provided by the Father because as we have seen from Gen. 1:27, the Father TOO is a Maker, not just the Son. But the Son is never directly called the Creator. More on that below.

You made the following claim:
This is consistent with John 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 where ALL THINGS is simply the created vision of ALL THINGS FROM the father and the actual ALL THINGS that are through the son and come into existence by the son. To further illustrate that there is no room for raw materials. My opponent’s own bible and theological viewpoint works against him.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What I continue to be baffled by is that you do the very same thing you are accusing me of. You claim I make a false division between the "all things" coming out of the Father and the "all things" that come THROUGH the Son, when you do the exact same thing yourself.

You claim the "all things" from the Father is just "visionary" or "ideas" when the text in no way makes that necessary. It could just as easily include the raw materials that I have been speaking of. Absolutely nothing in the text would rule against such an interpretation. Then when you come to the "all things" that come THROUGH the Son as God’s “helper”, you claim it is he who is putting out the raw materials. Can’t you see you are making stipulations and divisions in the text that are simply not there? That’s the exact same thing you are accusing me of.

The fact is, creation details are scanty, but the scriptures are quite clear that the Son has never been Almighty God, neither before his trip to the earth or after. As I have mentioned before, Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14, when we get to a full discussion of those verses, will solidify the Biblical teaching that the Son is the first creation of the Father, and then all other things were created BY MEANS OF, not directly BY, but BY MEANS OF the Son, which is once again instrumentality, not CAUSE.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

You said:
For he claims Jesus was the first of GTF’s works Proverbs 8:22, Col 1:15,17. (I don’t believe this.)

Let’s assume this is true, then by the passage below from his own NWT Bible, we see Jesus did not create himself, but he instantly turned around and created ALL [other] things. This 100% rules out any chance of GTF creating raw materials. Because Jesus (according to my opponents own theological beliefs) came first and is before all [other] things, and then Jesus created ALL the visible and invisible things leaving zero room for the creation of raw materials before or after Jesus was created.

Colossians 1:15-17
.+ 15 He is the image of the invisible God,+ the firstborn of all creation;+ 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him+ and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things,+ and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,

[color=#0000FF]There is no such doctrine, as my opponent claims, found anywhere in the bible as GTF shooting raw materials into Jesus and then these materials come out the other side as Jesus converts them into the various objects of the universe.

My opponent now has to change the meaning of the text above to allow for his erroneous claims to work. Leaving us with scriptures that don’t really mean what they say or say what they mean. His argument is just because the bible doesn’t say so “it doesn’t rule it out.”

Then saying Paul once rode a unicorn is also a fair assumption. It doesn't say so in the text but according to my opponent it is okay because we can't rule it out.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Once again, Col. 1 :15,16 does not state that the Son CREATED anything. What it says is that the all other things were created BY MEANS OF him, which identifies him as the INSTRUMENT used by the Father to CREATE. As mentioned, this verse undeniably and categorically identifies the Son as being among the created order because of the phrase “firstborn of all creation”.

Regards
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 01, 2016 1:45 am

Unfortunately, I am starting to see a pattern developing here. For example. I am a bad speller. However, that doesn't mean I'm dishonest. Nor does it mean there is something wrong with my character. Fortunately for me I have spell check to compensate for this lack of letter or syntax logic. I have spotted a similar problem with RMs syntax, not to be mistaken for his character.

I encourage anyone reading this to go and browse through the other topics on this forum. Notice how other opponents all seem to get frustrated with RM's replies. Why? What is the problem. Well, just like misspelling words can cause sentences to become hard to understand, he tends to use BAD LOGIC (other wise known as logical fallacies) to make his points making them very vague or contradictory, or too broad in scope. Unfortunately there is no tool yet available like LOGICAL FALLACY CHECK like we have spell check. So i mean no disrespect RM, but I hope to educate the reader and yourself as to see why there is so much unnecessary "back and forth" redundancy in the questions and explanations in the arguments about simple statements.

For example, you said:

You go to great lengths to demonstrate that Jesus has his own power and could have made all things without the Father helping. You should go back and read what I said and you would see that I did not categorically deny the possibility that he had his own power to MAKE everything, but this still does not make him the Creator, but rather, just the maker, the Master Worker.


I go to great lengths to create solid, immovable facts. I want there to be no mistake or ambiguity in what i'm presenting. I instead proved a solid and inarguable point. That Jesus has and uses his own power to bring glory to the father by being the physical DOER of the GTF's works and that Jesus is in fact, himself very powerful.

However, notice the weasel words in my opponents language. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word for definition

His logic leaves an out, or ambiguous language, or escape clause. When I try to pin his argument down to try and make it more specific, notice how he will then introduce his own theology as if the readers agree with him, or that his view is the standard viewpoint, and so he then broadens the conversation to confuse the reader rather than pinpointing a specific flaw in my presentation. Notice the newly introduced irrelevancy Jesus being allegedly lower than GTF:

Please remember that Jesus says he has been given all that he has by the Father. If you have to be given the power and authority that you have from someone else, then you are naturally not as great as that person, therefore, solidifying the idea that the Son is not Almighty God. Yes, he could certainly be referred to as a Mighty God, because he is the mightiest representative of God in existence, but that is not the same as being Almighty God. Once back in heaven, the Father is consistently referred to as the GOD of Jesus. How is that possible if they are both Almighty God?


Notice he throws in this deception. Again i do not think it is malicious. He believes what he has been taught is the absolute truth. But it is stated as if I agreed with him on this in the past. Or that the average reader will agree. I completely disagree, and it's irrelevant to the subject. I don't mean to accuse him as doing it consciously. Many people use fallacious reasoning unknowingly to protect their self interests, but it is a form of deception none the less. The fallacy he uses here is called "black and white reasoning" SEE https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white


DEFINITION: Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

If my bother gives me power and all authority over his car, something which is his property only, in no way does that make him greater than me. It makes me MASTER over his property. I'm only in subjection in regards to his property. To be a good brother I must respect his property and not violate his trust. Lord means MASTER. Jesus is LORD over all creation. It's that simple.

Logical Fallacies are deception and anyone reading this can learn from this should you ever get into a debate. Help your opponent see how he is violating logic. god himself cannot violate logic. He can violate physics, but he cannot create a rock so big that he himself cannot pick it up. It's deceptive reasoning that sounds plausible but is actually deception.

Now I want the reader to notice the double speak. Notice how RM says one thing in the first sentence than immediately contradicts himself in the next. Again instead of sharpening his words and intent he appeals to ambiguity.

The scriptures never speak of Jesus seeing the Father creating everything "in a vision". This is pure invention and conjecture. He naturally does the will of God and only does what he observes the Father doing.


What is observing? Isn't it the ambiguous word for "seeing"?

He used OBSERVE to broaden or create ambiguity. It's like taking the very specific statement, The child is "running" being changed to the child is "moving." Now we have no real clue as to exactly how the child is moving.

He took my description of what Jesus SEES meaning "a vision" which is a very specific description that the reader can grasp, seeing or a vision can only be done via visualization or in more SPECIFIC terms it has to be SEEN. But what he does then is broadens it to ambiguity by saying observing.

Now I can argue the same strawman fallacy. The scripture NEVER says Jesus was OBSERVING the father doing anything. But again this is now a strawman arguement another logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

My use of the word VISION is simply to inform the reader that Jesus just copies what he SEES. As I have shown in the scripture. However, he setup up a fake argument that I am claiming there is exact language in the text during the creation account. That is not my argument at all. He actually reaffirms my argument as he contradicts himself in the very next sentence as to JESUS's M.O or method of operation.




As he states it's something Jesus "naturally" does, as it is what Jesus defaults to. But yet, at the same time he now claims this accurate logical deduction is "pure invention and conjecture."



The other Logical Fallacy, or as I stated above deception in reasoning is contradictory premises. See http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/Contrad ... emises.htm for the definition and example.


Again we will see more ambiguity or weasel words: SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word for definition
This certainly allows for Jesus putting together the elements provided by the Father because as we have seen from Gen. 1:27, the Father TOO is a Maker, not just the Son. But the Son is never directly called the Creator. More on that below.


It's not an undisputed fact. It's not a biblical text backed up by other scriptures. Instead is an ambiguous loop hole that most "certainly allows." But then this cause bigger problems because "allows" implies their are other interpretations allowed. More accurate ones, because his only "allows" for it to be a possibility verse it being a stone cold fact. Not loop holes.

However, anyone without his bias will read John 1:3 allows for no such interpretation. But again this will just go in circles as my opponent thinks things that did not exist could have existed before anything existed. It's again BAD LOGIC. And deceptive reasoning. I challenge my opponent and any one to take John 1:3 NWT to any respectable grammar teacher or person on the street with no agenda and ask him or her this question. Read John 1:3, and answer "Could anything exist before Jesus actually brought it into existence?" You will get 100% "NOs" for an answer. I know because I have done this to make sure I wasn't crazy. the syntax and logic simply does not allow for such an interpretation.

Let's take a look at the logical deduction. He says,

The scriptures never speak of Jesus seeing the Father creating everything "in a vision". This is pure invention and conjecture.


See John 5:19 - Is the above statement in quotes true or false?

John 5:19
19 Therefore, in response Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.


John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.


Questions:
Can the son do a single thing on his own initiative? No
Is creation part of Jesus' own initiative? No

Jesus' initiative comes from the father? Yes
Does Jesus SEE what the father wants him to do? Yes
Jesus can only judge by what he hears? Yes

If creation is not Jesus's initiative, and the son cannot do a single thing on his own initiative, and he only does what he "SEES" the father doing....and only judges by what he "HEARS..."

Wouldn't it be the most true, and obvious that in order to SEE something it has to be a mental picture or mental movie?
Yes
Is creation a judgement of fairness or righteousness? No
Is creation the father's idea or initiative? YES

Since creation requires actual physical "doing" and not judging people, and the son can only only "DO" what he "SEES" the father "doing" doesn't that mean there is only one option, that Jesus is having a visual experience during creation? Something he SEES? YES

So in creation, as you stated "naturally" isn't Jesus simply doing as he observes? YES

So Jesus just copies the father in everything he does, in other words, regarding creation, isn't Jesus just doing like he said "SEEING",and then "the son does likewise?" YES

The scriptures never speak of Jesus seeing the Father creating everything "in a vision". This is pure invention and conjecture. He naturally does the will of God and only does what he observes the Father doing.


So where is the conjecture and pure invention? The scriptures clearly say Jesus DOES...DOES...DOES...ONLY...ONLY...ONLY...what he SEES...SEES...SEES and only judges on what he hears. Logical exclusion is just as much fact as a mathematical word problem. If I say three frogs on a log, one jumps off then we know there are only two left. Of course my opponent will complicate things by saying we don't know there could be nine more frogs in the back ground. But we are talking about the frogs specifically on the log.

He is doing the same with introducing raw materials and claiming things not found in the texts by saying "we can't rule them out."

HERE IS THE SMOKING GUN ON BAD LOGIC. GO BACK AND READ WHAT I SAID. NOTICE HOW HIS LOGIC IS WAY OFF OF WHAT I SAID. NOTICE HE IS BAFFLED.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
What I continue to be baffled by is that you do the very same thing you are accusing me of. You claim I make a false division between the "all things" coming out of the Father and the "all things" that come THROUGH the Son, when you do the exact same thing yourself.

You claim the "all things" from the Father is just "visionary" or "ideas" when the text in no way makes that necessary. (Notice strawman arguement)
It could just as easily include the raw materials that I have been speaking of. (impossible) Absolutely nothing in the text would rule against such an interpretation. (nothing except John 1:3) Then when you come to the "all things" that come THROUGH the Son as God’s “helper”, you claim it is he who is putting out the raw materials. (See john 1:3) Can’t you see you are making stipulations and divisions in the text that are simply not there? (John 1:3 makes the stipulations) That’s the exact same thing you are accusing me of. (you have no scriptures to backup your claim, just "it doesn't rule it out.)

The fact is, creation details are scanty (no they are not, they are very very specific), but the scriptures are quite clear that the Son has never been Almighty God, neither before his trip to the earth or after. (Changing the subject, and wrong again if you know who Jesus is really is) As I have mentioned before, Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14, when we get to a full discussion of those verses, will solidify the Biblical teaching that the Son is the first creation of the Father, and then all other things were created BY MEANS OF, not directly BY, but BY MEANS OF the Son, which is once again instrumentality, not CAUSE. (Changing the subject and more ambiguity, by means of, instrumentality, the most ambiguous language.)
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


To restate my logic, here it is again as simple as possible. I am in no way doing the same thing you are doing.

[color=#000000]1. We were both in agreement that the father had "plans". Now he is using another Logicall Fallacy called moving the goal post.

You answered:


https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

FROM ALL THINGS

In reference to God "all things" could be:

1. Raw materials and his plan of creation which is FROM God

2. Just raw materials which came FROM God (and no plan)

3. Just a plan came FROM God and no raw materials.
THROUGH ALL THINGS

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I of course would pick No.1
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


2. It is you who is dividing "all things" with bad logic. You are saying "ALL THINGS" from the father means raw materials. Then you say ALL things from the son is the finished product. So you have created 2 separate identities for the same "ALL THINGS".

3. I said "all things" does not exist by GTF So when 1 Corinth 8:6 is speaking of all things are from the father, it is in the simplest of terms. We don't have to guess. I even gave the example using the word gifts, like all gifts can come from one person. It doesn't mean that, that person actually had possession of the gifts, or that he created the gifts, or that he even shopped and bought the gifts. He just simply gets the credit that the gifts are "from" him. Is that so hard? The language is so simple, I'm not dividing anything. I'm just trying to get cut through the bad logic and get you to connect these dots. Hence the me using the gifts example in the first place. You are not thinking. It appears you are taking things you have been told and desperately trying to make them fit some how. Drop what you have been taught and just read the text. Read it from other bibles and see what it actually says. You will see i'm telling you the truth.

4. ALL things "from" the father and "through" the son are the same "all things." The all things don't change. Read slowly. We are simply talking about giving credit. The all things are the same but the credit given is different. That is the ONLY difference.

Just like the gifts from John who did no work in buying and picking out the gifts, they are still the same gifts. His wife did the work of acquiring the gifts. the gifts don't change. Just the credit changes. Your logic says removes credit and says John created the raw materials for the gifts. It's absurd logic and no where in the text or context.

If we change aLL things in 1 Corith 8:6 to the word gifts the mystery is solved. Who do the gifts come from? The answer is clear. From GTF. He gets the credit for whom they are FROM. How did we acquire those gifts? Simple, through the son. The son gets credit for making them.

5. I'm not creating fictional raw materials or tangibles or splitting anything. I'm simply talking about "who gave us the gifts (All Things)" they are FROM...FROM...FROM GTF. No more no less. No imaginary split. This is simply CREDIT being given to the father. That ALL Things technically originated from him, but not made by him. Because Jesus brought ALL things into existence. Again John 1:3

Finally my opponent goes on to change the subject and completely ignored a very damaging point. And appeals to ambiguity. First he says
:

2. So you said ALL things, only included finished product, so does that mean Jesus completed making ALL THINGS into a finished product?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I would think so, yes.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

3. Describe to the reader how far did JESUS continue make, what is finished product? Completely finished? Or does ALL not mean ALL again, and its only half finished?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I would say completely finished products. Not real sure what you are after here.



Once again, Col. 1 :15,16 does not state that the Son CREATED anything. What it says is that the all other things were created BY MEANS OF him, which identifies him as the INSTRUMENT used by the Father to CREATE.



So please clarify for us exactly how Jesus is the instrument and how he turns out completed products. Give us the exact sequence of events. And how is GTF directly involved or not involved...

He can't. He needs to pretend the scriptures doesn't say. He is right. No one can deduct his logic from the scriptures. It's simply not there. But here is what is there. Notice he dares not challenge anything I say. He cannot even point to any scriptures that violate the series of events below.

My version is this.
1. GTF shows Jesus what he wants.
2. Jesus sees it.
3. Then Jesus creates it from nothing. (Yet GTF is still the creator cause the blueprint was created by him. Because Jesus only copied what he saw the father doing.)
4. Done, simple no ambiguity, no moving the goal post, no loop holes.
5. God the father did not physically create anything. Period. Jesus did.
6. However, GTF did go through the motions of physical creation.
7. Jesus copied those motions, only Jesus actually brought it all into existence making it from nothing. Hence creating it from nothing.

My opponent uses another false cause to say creation and making are not the same. The reality is the context decides. The father does create from thin air what he shows Jesus. However Jesus then creates or makes from thin air what the father showed him. So the proper correlation is this. there are two distinct creations. Jesus did not create what the father was doing. The father did. The father created whatever Jesus need to see. That was 1st.

Next, Jesus now creates. So there are two creations. There is One master creation. The "how to" creation that is shown to Jesus. Which is the very top of the metaphorical pyramid. Then comes actual creation or the actual making. I agree making is more accurate because the father didn't actually make anything. He only created a fictional instructional visual creation which Jesus then MADE into REALITY.

Notice I can spell out exactly the whole process with very little ambiguity, without saying instrument, by means of, allowing, finished product, of some sort, so to speak...etc..

So using the word MAKER is a very powerful specific, because that excludes God the father from being the PHYSICAL MAKER. So then there cannot be any making of raw materials by GTF. If there were raw materials it would have just been shown to Jesus, and Jesus would have MADE them.


He completely ignored the fact that his own theology disproves his assertions. Jesus allegedly created first, he is before all things, then Jesus created ALL other things. This leaves no room for any raw materials. You can't squeeze them in. It's too tight.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 01, 2016 8:15 am

Hi TS,

Well, since logic seems to be the problem here, maybe we can break this down a step at a time to reveal the real point of departure from logic.

Let's start with 1 Cor. 8:6,7 and we will then move to John 1:3, since we know they must agree and 1 Cor. includes more elements to the equation than does John 1:3.

First question:

Are the "all things" that come from the Father in the very same form as those "all things" that the Son makes? Yes or no?

In reading what you have said, it seems to be yes and no, so I would like to focus on this in particular and then add more once we know exactly where we are with this one.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 01, 2016 9:56 pm

Hi RM,

This is very good idea. I think anyone interested in this topic would appreciate short and targeted responses.

First question:

Are the "all things" that come from the Father in the very same form as those "all things" that the Son makes? Yes or no?


I understand what your trying to ask, but the question is flawed. It has a faulty premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

The question is based on the assumption that there is a form or different forms to all things in this context.

This question is not in context with 1 Corinthian 8:6. There is not a single person who could answer this question honestly. It requires an assumption if all one had was 1 Corinthians 8:6 to look at.

1 Corinthians 8:5-7
5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”
6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him;+ and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are+ and we through him.
7 However, not all have this knowledge.



The question is assuming the context of 1 Corin 8:6 is making some kind of distinction about the "all things." It is not, in no way shape or form. The premise is wrong. The scripture is not quantifying or categorizing "ALL Things" at all. It is actually quantifying and categorizing GTF and Jesus. If we put it in context.

The context is about having the knowledge that there is "One God and there is One Lord for us with a description of who is credited for what. To make things simple. Let's change "all things" to "gifts."

the word FROM is a preposition.

—used as a function word to indicate the source, cause, agent, or basis <we conclude from this> <a call from my lawyer> <inherited a love of music from his father> <worked hard from necessity>



Now we can ask, who did these gifts/all things come FROM? They are from the ONE God. <===This simply tells us that the gifts a credited to GTF as the source, he is the gift or all things giver. They are "FROM" him. He takes the credit for FROM. ALL things in this scripture doesn't change or get split. It is a singular event that took two people each with a different role.


Now comparing 1 Corinthians with John 1:3 I can answer your question using no assumption. then we find out ALL things are two sides of the same coin. Since ALL things or Creation took TWO individuals we could not have all things without the other person. If one person didn't do his part then there would not be ALL Things. john 1:3 safely eliminates the father as the physical maker of anything, and that he did not lift a finger in any physical creation at all. He did not physically make one thing. Not a single speck.


ALL things came to existence by Jesus alone. However, that doesn't mean the father did not actually create "all things" first. He did. More pieces of the puzzle are revealed as you look add in the John 5:19,30

Now this is going beyond the scope of John 1:3 but this reveals exactly how things are actually FROM GTF. Again in all honesty we have no clue by 1 Corithians 8:6 and John 1:3 how exactly why the father gets the credit. All we are told is that Jesus physically made every possible thing that exists. And yet God gets the credit as being from him.

The answer is so simple. John 5:19,30 He had to create all the movements and techniques and everything required for Jesus to copy. GTF did the exact same work. It was his plan. The father is going through all the necessary motions creating the visual things for Jesus to copy, the mental movies and pictures in Jesus mind. Jesus simply copies what he sees the father creating. GTF is creating it visually. Jesus is copying and making it actually.



This 1 corinthians 8:6 is not an account of creation. Creation is already done at this point. "All things" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is just a description or reference for everything that exists already. So there is nothing actually physically coming or being created by the father in this scripture. There is nothing dividing all things into various layers. It is simply crediting GTF as the source from where "all things originated." That's all we know when isolated to this one single verse. To say anything else using this text alone would be a gross and negligent assumption and reading into the text something which is not there nor in the greek interlinear.

So the "ALL things" Jesus brought into existance are simply credited to the father as being FROM him the Father. GTF created first visually inside Jesus mind. GTF is the source where Jesus got the dimensions, weights, separations, form, etc..it all had to be created visually for him first. Then he turned around and actually made it.

Now I did add this narrative by using all 4 scriptures. However, there is no way the reader could know all of this from 1 Corinthians 8:6 without John 1:3, John 5:19,30.



This is all the information anyone on the planet can get from 1 Corinthians 8:6 period.

.. some sort of credit

There is 1 God==== and whatever these "all things" are, =====they came FROM him.
There is 1 Lord ====and whatever these "all things" are, =====they came Through Him

Whoever this one God is,=== he's the who and where all these things are from
Whoever, this one Lord is ===he is the who and how these things are through or by


That's it. You would have to derive a question based on this information alone. This is all the information we have in 1 Corinthians 8:6

I hope this makes sense.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Thu Mar 03, 2016 12:58 am

Just thought of another example that might be easier and more concise to the reader. I just want to focus on...
1 Corinthians 8:6 use of ALL THINGS

However, this phrase is just a label a mere category. Like the phrase outer space. There is no physical place you could point to and say that's outer space. It's a category in the mind. So is ALL THINGS. There is no item you can point to called ALL THINGS.

Outer space is a label given to all the endless emptiness outside the earth's atmosphere.

All things is just a label given to the endless items that were created.

So strictly looking at 1 Corinthians 8:6 without John 1:3 a fair way to rephrase your question would be:

In 1 Corinth 8:6 only is there any way to tell if there are "all things" that come from the Father that come in the very same form as those "all things" that the Son makes...Or if the all things in both cases are the same? Yes or no?

The answer would be no. There no way to tell by this scripture alone. It might as well be saying outer space comes from the father and is through the son. Outer space and all things are just a category or label.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:22 am

Oops I hit publish instead of preview. Sorry for the multiple posts.

Last I wanted to add.

If we went on Logic alone. We could guess and it would be a very good guess that ALL things is only one category. Because logically we can't have two categories called all things.

So if all we had was this one scripture, all things that come from God and through Jesus is one category of stuff credited to two parties one from and the other through. But again one glance at John 1:3 then seals the deal and confirms the logic above.

To have absolute certainty it's best to have contrast. Those two verses give us the comparison and contrast to confirm the logic that All things is simply a label and is the same in all things and helps us to apply the proper assignment credit from, whom, where and how these all things came about.

Again my apologies for the two posts. I'll try to keep it from happening again.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Mar 03, 2016 8:37 am

Hello TS,

Well, I don't think I ever seen so much space used to answer basically one question. But regardless, I am glad you restated the question and then finally answered it. Let's look at what we have.
You restated:
In 1 Corinth 8:6 only is there any way to tell if there are "all things" that come from the Father that come in the very same form as those "all things" that the Son makes...Or if the all things in both cases are the same? Yes or no?


You answered:

The answer would be no. There no way to tell by this scripture alone. It might as well be saying outer space comes from the father and is through the son. Outer space and all things are just a category or label.


So it is safe to say then, with just this scripture alone, that the first "all things' COULD BE and likely is somehow different then the last "all things", right? If not, then how did the Son actually accomplish anything that he received from the Father in your estimation? Would you not say that the "all things" that came from the Father are the ideas and authorship of creation, yet the "all things" that came from the Son are the actual finished products?
Please, be as succinct as possible in your answer.
Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:25 am

No. It is not safe to say:

that the first "all things' COULD BE and likely is somehow different then the last "all things", right?



You missed my point by cherry picking what I said. (That is why i had such along answer hoping this type of question wouldn't happen again.)

We have to use good logic to phrase our questions. That is why I rephrased your initial question. And here you are asking it again. Let me try to explain the LOGIC not the scripture so you understand.

Since the initial exercise you proposed required us to focus on 1 Corinthians 8:6 alone, that doesn't mean that the rest of the scriptures that contain the words "all things" don't exist. We know they exist. The only way it would be "safe to say" would be to introduce another scripture that gives more context. Right now it is not safe to say anything other than what is actually written in the text itself. If you recall the ONLY HONEST context that can be taken out of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is questions of fact, and not speculation.

Your question would be valid if no other scripture existed and all we were trying to do was speculate various possibilities.

If we opened a one page book that said "there are 3 frogs on a log".

Then saying "isn't it possible that one of the frogs is red" is okay because we are just speculating and there is no way to ever get a real answer. This is not logical deduction. Logic means we have to deduce information from the context. If our goal was to prove that there is a red frog, we could never do it without having another sentence giving us more information.

So in a speculation scenario asking a question "isn't it possible" is allowed. Again ONLY if there is no other information available. But if we flipped the page and there was another sentence that said "they all looked like the color of the grass."

Then we have more information to "logically" deduce that none of the frogs are red.

Let's pretend we were doing the same thing like we are doing with 1 Corinth, but with the frogs. We know for a fact there is another page that will give us this critical information. To say isn't it possible that one of the frogs is red? Well to you and me anything is possible. But according to the second page it is not possible because they look like the color of the grass. And we will find that out when we turn the page.

So the only correct answer, since there is only one correct answer is, we don't know yet until we turn the page. By you asking me personally if it is possible that there is a red frog, and me saying anything is possible doesn't change the facts in the book. My answer is simply based on me not having access to the other page. So the second I see the other page the answer changes. To NO it is not possible. Do you understand?

So you are asking a speculation question as if 1 Corinthians 8:6 is the only text related to ALL THINGS. However we know there are concrete facts in the book. So if i said sure it's possible, that is only an opinion based on ignorance. And irrelevant to what the book actually says.

And i know we are not doing this debate to get an opinion based on ignorance. We are here to deduce information based on comparing scripture to scripture.


So the answer to the question I proposed simply ends at NO.

The only way to ask your question would be to introduce a second scripture (just like the second page with the frog) that introduces new information allowing for a logical deduction, not more speculation. Only by comparing the two we can safely deduce a logical answer.

Since you have not done that, and there are other scriptures that exist... your question is just basically asking me my opinion, and if we were both ignorant of any other scriptures I could say yeah i guess its possible, but then upon discovering the Scriptures that give more information, correcting my ignorance I am forced to go back and change my answer to NO, now we know it's not possible. So your question is not deducing logic instead it's creating a faulty premise.

Nothing is safe to say, unless there is logic proving fact or highest probable or common sense possibility, not speculating there is a possibility based on ignorance or faulty logic.

As i stated before the only thing actually safe to say is to confirm the facts that are present in 1 Corinthians 8:6 alone.

This is all the information anyone on the planet can get from 1 Corinthians 8:6 period.

.. some sort of credit

There is 1 God==== and whatever these "all things" are, =====they came FROM him.
There is 1 Lord ====and whatever these "all things" are, =====they came Through Him

Whoever this one God is,=== he's the who and where all these things are from
Whoever, this one Lord is ===he is the who and how these things are through or by

That's it. You would have to derive a question based on this information alone. This is all the information we have in 1 Corinthians 8:6


This is not a speculation exercise. Bible debates are logical deductions to figure out the cold hard facts. Not to create possibilities or loop holes or gather opinions. Any time we have to speculate the answer is simply "we don't know" or "we don't have enough information to make solid factual conclusion."

If all we had was this single scripture all we can do is ask questions about the facts in this scripture. Or speculate. And then your question would be permissible because it's purely just guessing. And the correct answer then would be. "We just don't know, or we will never know."

The good news is we don't just have this scripture. We have all the creation scriptures. By isolating my responses and restating your question you are back to a faulty premise. After I said no. The question I rephrased is simply a confirmation question.

Here are some more.

Is it true there is only one God in 1st Corinth 8:6?
Is it true there is only one lord in 1st Corinth 8:6?
Is it safe to say whatever these "all things" are, =====they came Through Him?

etc..etc..

They just verify facts.

So far the only thing we can agree on in relation to "all things" is the above and that we need to introduce another scripture to deduce more information. I hope this helps.

None of your questions can be answered just by the limited information in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

So let me ask the questions. Then you can see my logic.

Is there anything in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that clearly shows that "all things' COULD BE and likely is somehow different then the last "all things?" The only honest answer is no.

So now I introduce:

John 1:3

All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.


Question:

According to this text we see that "ALL Things came to be via Jesus and that NOT EVEN a single thing came to be without him doing it, is there another scripture you can site that excludes specific things from being included as being part of all things? Yes

I can site two.
Deuteronomy 33:27
The eternal God is your refuge <===GTF is before all things
Colossians 1:17
He (Jesus) is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Whatever this ALL THINGS is, So so far we know for a fact that GTF and Jesus himself are not included as part of this "all things."

Can you honestly site any more? Yes or NO
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:11 am

Hello Ts,

Again, I don't think I have ever seen anyone go to such great lengths to NOT answer a question, but, regardless, we do have something here that we can work with.

I of course am fully aware that all the scriptures that bear on a topic must be considered in order to derive the proper understanding. You will probably recall that I am the one who initially said that when you insisted that we just deal with John 1:3 alone and not allow any other scriptures at first. I hope now you can see the folly of that kind of approach. But frankly, that was nothing more than what I was asking in regard to 1 Cor. 8:6. So I suppose what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Anyway:

Suffice to say that you have acknowledged that there is no way to tell the complete story of creation from one passage alone. Suffice it to say then that based upon just ONE passage a number of views might be possible.

I would say also that based upon 1 Cor. 8:6 ALONE, EITHER of our views could be possible, but then there is John 1:3 which you seem to think that seals the deal for you. So now that we know that 1Cor. 8:6 ALONE doesn't prove or disprove our separate positions, let's move to John 1:3.

I first have some questions about John 1:3. And please try to just answer them directly, succinctly and one at a time. It just helps with clarity, that's all.

1. In YOUR estimation is there any way to tell, based upon 1 Cor. 8:6 and John 1:3, if the "all things" at John 1:3 and the "all things" at 1 Cor. 8:6 are different "all things", or are they the same?

2. Do you see that there are IMMEDIATE exceptions to the statement "All things came into existence through him,"? Are there any exceptions to that?

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:59 am

Well there you have it folks. Another Logical Fallacy he uses whats called a Red Herring http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... rring.html

Hello Ts,

Again, I don't think I have ever seen anyone go to such great lengths to NOT answer a question, but, regardless, we do have something here that we can work with.


RM is running a debate forum and is thus far demonstrating lack of knowledge on the rules of logic and honorable debate or critical thinking. So please bear with him. As we all learn as we go in life. He again uses bad logic here to make it look like I'm avoiding his questions because my answers are lengthy. I don't think this false cause is intentional and I have been painstakingly doing my best to get him to see the light.

I assure you RM if I didn't have to teach and explain how logic works my answers would be short and concise. I have read posts from others on this forum that have debated with you and found that they go in circles and your opponents just get frustrated to no avail. I don't want that to happen here. I assure I can answer any question if it is an honest question and uses sound logic.

But when you ask questions that are deceptions or in other words fallacies, then I'm going to expose them.

Your question was a deception. You may not think it is. But i explained to you why it was. So here is what I suggest. if this forum is at all serious. And you want to have serious debates than google "critical thinking" and "Logical fallacies." And learn them. Then you won't make self embarrassing statements like:

Hello Ts,

Again, I don't think I have ever seen anyone go to such great lengths to NOT answer a question,


Because that again is bad logic. You connect the dots wrong. Exposing your questions as any skilled debater would is not avoiding your questions. It's statement like these why you are not learning. Because rather than investigate what I have presented to you, you just brush it off as if I'm avoiding the questions. Yet I asked you a simple yes or no question with a basic logical construct and one that actually ends all the nonsense and you did not answer it. I will ask it again. But I will answer your questions first.

I of course am fully aware that all the scriptures that bear on a topic must be considered in order to derive the proper understanding. You will probably recall that I am the one who initially said that when you insisted that we just deal with John 1:3 alone and not allow any other scriptures at first. I hope now you can see the folly of that kind of approach. But frankly, that was nothing more than what I was asking in regard to 1 Cor. 8:6. So I suppose what's good for the goose is good for the gander..


It's amazing how terrible the connecting of the dots really is. I just got done explaining to you that using one scripture alone is fine as long as you are not using it to speculate. That it is in fact fine to isolate a single scripture to just verify the facts that are obvious so both parties can agree to terms before going forward. Yet you did something completely different. You wanted to speculate using one scripture and that there are "possibilities". So what good for the goose and good for the gander is self deception. You are literally misleading yourself with this rationalization.

This is like playing chess with someone who doesn't know how to move the pieces and refuses to be in check or checkmate because they feel they can just move anywhere they want. It doesn't work that way.

So here is my suggestion. Watch these videos. Read these links. Do your viewers and future debaters a favor and lean the rules of reasoning and debating with good logic.

Why Critical Thinking (intro to)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OLPL5p0fMg

Logical fallacies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmRCpqO_1JA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z71w-rHkeSk

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

My next post will address your questions.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Sat Mar 05, 2016 2:22 am

Suffice to say that you have acknowledged that there is no way to tell the complete story of creation from one passage alone. Suffice it to say then that based upon just ONE passage a number of views might be possible.


Again bad logic. Misrepresenting my argument. We are not looking for a complete story, and there is a way to get complete information if a single scripture offers complete information. What I'm saying is that let scripture tell us what the facts are by deducing the logic. You have the argument that there are raw material somehow involved and you are trying to get the scriptures to accept a loop hole and reading into the text something that is not there or is not logically deduced.

Suffice it to say then that based upon just ONE passage a number of views might be possible.


No, it is not possible. If there are other scriptures that finish the story, but have not yet been presented, but we know they exist, then all we know is that more information is still needed. NOT that there are several possibilities. If were debating Jesus there are not several possibilities for his identity. there is only one possibility and if I said he was God and you said he was an angel, then we don't debate possibilities. We logically deduce and provide evidence to support our claims. You add one scripture one by one each introducing more information until a logical conclusion and exclusion has surfaced.


The only time "a number of views might be possible" is if you have exhausted all the scriptures and you cannot get conclusive evidence because none exists so then all you can do is speculate the possibilities. For example we talked about the nephilum surviving the flood. I know you disagree but hypothetically let's say they did for a fact survice. We are not told how nor do we have further information so after exhausting the scriptures we are left with speculation that there are several plausible possibilities on how they could have survived. But unfortunately we cannot confirm or deny them.

You have introduce raw materials. So they either are true or they are false. It's possible there are more than 66 books to the bible and they just haven't bee found yet. A lot of things are possible but they are improbable based on the evidence.

I would say also that based upon 1 Cor. 8:6 ALONE, EITHER of our views could be possible, but then there is John 1:3 which you seem to think that seals the deal for you. So now that we know that 1Cor. 8:6 ALONE doesn't prove or disprove our separate positions, let's move to John 1:3.


Again, we are going to go in circles. Your reasoning is deception. If smoke and mirrors. There is no possibility. It either confirms or denies a fact. Period. Using 1 Corinthians 8:6 only gives you 1 piece to the puzzle. And more information is needed. Period. There is no possibility. That's a false teaching. I have no view for 1st Corinthians 8:6. You have a view, I have confirmed the obvious facts. You seem desperate to have possibilities verses stacking the scriptures like legos and letting them tell you the facts. You are rationalizing. "so now that we know" really? Know what? That your logic is bad. All we know is that you keep clutching at possibilities where none exist.

You see this is why my answers are so long. I'm constantly having to explain the fallacies.

1. In YOUR estimation is there any way to tell, based upon 1 Cor. 8:6 and John 1:3, if the "all things" at John 1:3 and the "all things" at 1 Cor. 8:6 are different "all things", or are they the same?


Now I will congratulate you here. This is a logical question. And not fallacious reasoning. So great job! And Yes. There is a way to tell using solid logical deduction.

With just those two scriptures we can logically deduce that there is only one meaning for all things and no other possibility as you say. And it is the most obvious meaning. It is simply Everything that was brought into existence is considered ALL Things. Here is the logic. John 1:3

1. Because "all things" at one point did not exist.
2. All things had to come into existence.
3. Jesus is the one who actually brings ALL meaning ALL Things into existence.
4. In direct reference to ALL things in John 1:3 It is also stated that not a single thing that exists is able to exist unless it was Jesus who brought it into existence.
5. So we are left with that ALL THINGS is for a fact that is something that can only exist by Jesus alone.
6. This safely excludes God the father from bringing anything physical into existence.
7. So then simple logic tells us that "all things that come from" the father cannot be something that exists or existed. It's impossible and a direct contradiction with John 1:3.
8. So ALL things is something that ACTUALLY exists via the son, and the very same ALL Things that the son made, are being credited to the father as him being owner or no different than saying all gifts "come from" corporate headquarters. 10 different people may have purchased the gifts but they are credited as coming from corporate headquarters.
9. All means all unless there is specific context that exclude certain things from falling under "all." Other wise all is all.
10. ALL means ALL things then because via john 1:3 its absurd for Jesus to have created himself so that excludes him. The same for the father. So all does mean ALL things. And there is only one meaning for ALL things. All bases are covered by solid reasoning and solid logic.

VERY VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT so pay attention. No other possibility can exist that violates the logic here. Otherwise you have to first disprove a flaw in the logic. Because science and language in other words logic can have no assumptions. The answer with the most assumptions loses to the answer with zero assumptions. There are no assumptions above. John 1:3 is very tight.

2. Do you see that there are IMMEDIATE exceptions to the statement "All things came into existence through him,"? Are there any exceptions to that?


There are zero exceptions. It's air tight. ALL means ALL THINGS because the logic itself excludes Jesus as creating himself and the logic excludes God the father right within the very context of the two scriptures side by side. It is impossible for all things to mean something other than the obvious...everything but the two things that existed before ALL things. We are literally given the definition to ALL things in John 1:3 it is anything that had to be brought into existence. Period. If it had to be brought into existence then it is part of ALL THINGS. It's inescapable. Anything else is just deception because you are purposely leaving out a logical exclusion. Like DNA that excludes 99.9% of the population other than the person who the DNA belongs to. The exclusion is the fact that not a single thing that exists came into existence without Jesus. That statement alone is statement of logic put in the scriptures by God. It is purposely including and excluding all possibilities of anything existing. That it is ALL from Jesus is it exists. Otherwise it doesn't exist or never existed.

And here is the curious point. Why are you trying so hard to find a loop hole? Is it because it has unthinkable consequences if what the texts actually say is true? Will you go to any cost to make something you were told fit? Even if some technicality could be made, what sense does it make to find the least obvious and most obscure loophole that literally no one could find unless they tried desperately to force fit it in? Is that really the truth? Isn't that a sign that it is the least probable answer? Why not just let the text reveal what it is saying? Your doing it backwards. Let the text reveal the teaching.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Sat Mar 05, 2016 12:34 pm

PS. I hate to have to include this one last additional post, but since the rules of logic have been violated, I'm compelled to give you the rules in advance. It's appropriate to reply to side comments to clarify your position and reply to any of my side comments or commentary. But as far as continuing with the debate all you should be focusing on is finding obvious alternatives to the logic presented or a flaw in the logic i spelled out in 1,2,3,4 etc..fashion. That's it. Introducing an assertion or an assumption or distracting question or changing the subject is just a red herring or deliberate deception to trick the reader. It's deliberate because I have now explained to you what you have to do. And if you choose to do otherwise it's deliberate. If you need to introduce another scripture that is also acceptable but only if it is relevant to the logic.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:37 am

Hello TS,

So, from what I can see after the logic diatribe is that there is something I need clarified yet in regard to John 1:3. You claim that there are no exceptions to the all things. What about the Father and the Son? Did I miss that? Are they not a part of the "all things" that exist? Can the Father and the Son safely be excluded from the "all things" that came into existence THROUGH the Son?

I hope I asked that properly according to all the rules of logic.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:14 pm

Hi TS,

I see that you did actually acknowledge that there are two exceptions to the "all things". That is good, we are in agreement.

Now, In the very opening verse of this passage, verse 1, it says "IN THE BEGINNING" the Word WAS. What does in the beginning refer to? It likely refers back to the same beginning mentioned in Genesis 1:1, which was a time period in which God created the heavens and the earth, which would include all the spirit creatures of heaven. So it was within that time period that the Son existed WITH the Father because that is the time period that he was created within. After that "beginning", All things came into existence.

Plus everyone should keep in mind that the word "things" is not in the Greek, simply the word ALL. All what? Things? What things? We have no way of knowing specifically what things he is speaking of. If we are speaking of ALL THINGS as ALL finished products, and nothing demands otherwise, then this passage does not help you in any way to determine that the Son is the sole Creator rather than the instrument by which the Father created.

We already know that it is technically not ALL THINGS that EXIST because the Father and the Son are two immediate exceptions. Therefore, the ALL THINGS could be referring to finished product as easily as anything else.

I'll await my logic lesson.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:18 pm

I hope I asked that properly according to all the rules of logic.


Yes you did. And I hope to be constructive if I point out any logic issues. And I appreciate your understanding. Truth or "TRUETHEOLOGY" is the overriding principle/purpose and to do that we must be good stewards of sound research and logic. Not only for efficiency and effectiveness but to the reader who hopes to learn. So I appreciate all your efforts. Past is the past. My goal is to help each other. I expect you to point out any flaws in my logic as well.


They are not part of "all things" the logic excludes them as well as other verses not yet mentioned. Strictly using John 1:3 the logic eliminates both God the father and Jesus from "all things."

(This is not a quote I just did it to separate it visually.) :D
John 1:3

All things came into existence through him,
and
apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

1 Corinthians 8:6

there is.. one...from whom all things are
and
there is one... through whom all things are




1. All things did not exist at one point.

2. Yet, all things that came into actual existence via Jesus.

The text is speaking of all the things that came into existance, that excludes Jesus from all things because he could not bring himself into existance from himself. It also excludes the father because

1. We know GTF is eternal as a foundational principle or premise but we don't even need this, the logic is straight forward using John 1:3 and which spells out the implications especially when compare to 1 Corinthians 8:6.

2. So by knowing the definition of "all things" we know in John 1:3 they are all the things brought into existence by Jesus.

3. And we also know if at one point it didn't exist, then it was Jesus who made it exist. No exceptions.

4. Kowing this, GTF himself is excluded from bringing anything into existence. This includes himself.

5. If Jesus brought GTF into existence, then all that was brought into existance or "all things" could not be credited as coming FROM the father. Because he technically would not have existed until he was brought into existance. GTF would have to be part of all things.

6. So GTF is safely excluded from "all that came into existence" or all things because they are "from" or credited to him.

7. You can't credit something as being FROM someone, that would be part of the things that didn't exist. That implies pre-existance to any thing that came into existence.

8. The opposite is also true, which helps us exclude GTF because if Jesus was in fact bringing GTF into existence then Jesus would get the credit as GTF (who then is part of all things brought into existence) would be from Jesus. Jesus would be the source of the initial thinking behind bringing everything into existance and things would then not be through him. This excludes GTF because to be "From" the father logically deduces Jesus was doing this task of bringing things into existence for the father. So it could be FROM the father.

I hope this helps.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:31 pm

Hello TS,


I am going to lay out my understanding of both 1 Cor. 8:6 and John 1:3

1 Cor. 8:6;

All things came FROM the Father and the THROUGH the Son before they were complete. When the Son was done with them, they were complete. They were NOT complete when they came FROM the Father TO the Son. They were in need of completion. Therefore, in MY VIEW, the RAW MATERIALS were supplied by the Father for the Son to complete their existence.

John 1:1-3;
In the beginning is a time period where the Son existed with the Father because he was created first by God according to Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14. The Father during this time period known as the beginning created the RAW MATERIALS for the Son to complete. AFTER THIS BEGINNING TIME PERIOD, everything ELSE came into existence THROUGH the Son, NO EXCEPTIONS.

I submit that there is no way to disprove this understanding from the Bible. I also submit that there is no way to disprove that Jesus was created.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:50 pm

Hello Ts,

Here is your list with my notes, which will also explain my view.

1. All things did not exist at one point.

---Not so. There are at least two exceptions to the context of both John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6, that being the Father and the Son. You should have qualified number 1.

2. Yet, all things that came into actual existence via Jesus.

The text is speaking of all the things that came into existance, that excludes Jesus from all things because he could not bring himself into existance from himself. It also excludes the father because

--Not so. This is speaking from a TIME MARKER point known as "in the beginning". Only after this "beginning" did everything come into existence through Jesus. The statement is tied to a time period. Col. 115 and Rev 3:14 prove that Jesus was created according to Biblical precedent.

1. We know GTF is eternal as a foundational principle or premise but we don't even need this, the logic is straight forward using John 1:3 and which spells out the implications especially when compare to 1 Corinthians 8:6.

--Agreed the Father is eternal which is determined by overall Biblical context. The same is true of the Son's creation via the ramifications of Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14.

2. So by knowing the definition of "all things" we know in John 1:3 they are all the things brought into existence by Jesus.

----Yes, via overall Biblical context there would be two exceptions, Father and Son, but for different reasons. After the "beginning" time period, all things came into existence through the Son, no exceptions.

3. And we also know if at one point it didn't exist, then it was Jesus who made it exist. No exceptions.

-----Only after the period of time known as "in the beginning", the time period in which he would have been created along with the raw materials to make everything else.

4. Kowing this, GTF himself is excluded from bringing anything into existence. This includes himself.

----Yes, because of overall Biblical context, same as the Son being created.

5. If Jesus brought GTF into existence, then all that was brought into existance or "all things" could not be credited as coming FROM the father. Because he technically would not have existed until he was brought into existance. GTF would have to be part of all things.

----OK.

6. So GTF is safely excluded from "all that came into existence" or all things because they are "from" or credited to him.

---OK

7. You can't credit something as being FROM someone, that would be part of the things that didn't exist. That implies pre-existance to any thing that came into existence.

---Not if the all things are according to context. Naturally the "all things" is not everything because that would include Father and Son, rather it is ALL things from the point in time known as "the beginning".

8. The opposite is also true, which helps us exclude GTF because if Jesus was in fact bringing GTF into existence then Jesus would get the credit as GTF (who then is part of all things brought into existence) would be from Jesus. Jesus would be the source of the initial thinking behind bringing everything into existance and things would then not be through him. This excludes GTF because to be "From" the father logically deduces Jesus was doing this task of bringing things into existence for the father. So it could be FROM the father.

----Just as the raw materials could be from the Father, created during the "beginning" time period when Jesus himself was created. John 1:3 is speaking AFTER the "beginning" time period when it speaks of all things. All things AFTER the beginning time period. You must not forget the TIME MARKER.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:02 pm

Wow! I can see why others just got fed up and quit. Really????
1. All things did not exist at one point.

---Not so. There are at least two exceptions to the context of both John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6, that being the Father and the Son. You should have qualified number 1.


Why the strawman arguements? Did I not qualify number one at the end? Did you actually knock this point down or was it moot?


2. Yet, all things that came into actual existence via Jesus.

The text is speaking of all the things that came into existance, that excludes Jesus from all things because he could not bring himself into existance from himself. It also excludes the father because

--Not so. This is speaking from a TIME MARKER point known as "in the beginning". Only after this "beginning" did everything come into existence through Jesus. The statement is tied to a time period. Col. 115 and Rev 3:14 prove that Jesus was created according to Biblical precedent.


WOW! IS YOUR LOGIC TERRIBLE!!! ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE. No because we are told that IN (present tense, in it) THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD, PAST TENSE!!!! He was present in that beginning, Not AFTER that beginning CAME the word. WOW!!! WOW!! WOW!! WOW!! Show this to an 8th Grader. Your version causes them to flunk basic sentence construction.

If that is true what you say, you contradict yourself and the text. The actual text anticipates people with bad logic so it actually tells us again, Jesus WAS IN the beginning, not after. Show me where it says after the beginning? It's a lie. The text says no such thing, nor can such thing be assumed because the text is so clear.

1 In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+ 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

We have no clue what beginning this was, but what ever it was Jesus was there in it. We are told twice in verse 1 and 2 so there is no mistake. And let's pretend Jesus was created, John 1:3 still leaves ZERO room for raw materials. Double wammy!!


Let's dismantle this nonsense one by one. Yes, nonsense. It's desperate and terrible logic. Way too many assumptions. To prove it. Please try to put this nonsense in a logical form like I did. Without the desperate assertion that Jesus was created. Because Collossians says no such thing and even if it does it doesn't account for when, Jesus was created at the time of him becoming human. If Jesus was in fact the the physical means of all things, this would be the first time GTF created on his own without the help of Jesus. Besides it says firstborn not first created. there is no smoking gun, just ambiguity that you need. this is your life line. (Plus it's irrelevant, it's widely disputed, your version comes from a bias source, the WT not scripture alone, and we can't use it because it is ambiguous at best. Plus solving this puzzle logically will tell us if Jesus was created or not.) Like I said before you hide behind ambiguity, you desperately need things to be ambiguous. You hesitate to even clearly define what FROM and THROUGH mean because you need the ambiguity. This complete exercise will prove your desperation for ambiguity.

first let's take the time to define exact terms, definitions.

Without using, by means of, master worker, agent, etc...just spell out in the simplest crystal clear of terms... so an 8th grader can understand it.

Define FROM the father<===My version it simply mean's that's who it is from, no more no less, self explanatory, he's the starting point

Define THROUGH the son <===My version it simply means the stuff GTF wants it is physically done by Jesus actions (not the father's) so whatever GTF wants he doesn't actually create it, he let's Jesus do it.




Do the same so there is no ambiguity whatsoever for an 8 year old.

1 Cor. 8:6;

All things came FROM the Father and the THROUGH the Son before they were complete. When the Son was done with them, they were complete. They were NOT complete when they came FROM the Father TO the Son. They were in need of completion. Therefore, in MY VIEW, the RAW MATERIALS were supplied by the Father for the Son to complete their existence.


I think the reader and I can both agree that we are not interested in your view but what does the text actually say.

Can you show me any scriptures that beyond a shadow of a doubt where at least an 8th grader can read and get this logic by reading them for himself. I have access to six 8th graders that I would like to show your reasoning to.

Please spell out the scriptures and the logical deduction in the clearest of terms like I did, 1,2,3,4 for the outlined above. On why what you presented is so crystal clear for an 8th grader.


Then I want to ask you some questions one by one.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:08 pm

Hello TS,

I will be preparing my response. Are you done or do I have to wait for more? I don't want to have to prepare two responses, just one. So let me know.

Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:21 pm

Actually, include in your logic by spelling out the order of events, and yes do put in exactly when Jesus was created and the raw materials with no ambiguity.

Start...
1. in the beginning God was alone
2....What he did next
3. What happened next
4...etc.

Until we get to Jesus completing all the finished product.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:43 pm

Hello TS,

John 1:1-3 is simple because if you follow it through logically.

Let me explain in an alternative way to see if I can get you to see how this could take place without Jesus being the CREATOR.

First, we are firmly convinced, and rightfully so, that the Son is the first creation of the Father. We firmly believe that Col. 1:15 and rev. 3:14 establish that beyond any reasonable doubt. You have complained about it but you have done nothing to overturn that fact.

As I have said from the start, THIS is where the conversation should have begun because it will continue to come up as a point of departure.

Therefore, 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 that the Son was created then verse 1:3 must harmonize. So, EVERYTHING AFTER he CAME TO BE during this beginning time, 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. WE 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. Nothing. This harmonizes perfectly with 1 Cor. 8:6.

Regards
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 07, 2016 3:57 pm

One other point, according to the Greek, the verse could actually read "all were finished through him". Finished is one of the meanings of the verb rendered "came into existence". It could just as easily be rendered "finished".
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:21 pm

This is hopeless. I must reduce this to baby steps. It will take longer but at least it will be thorough that this "we believe" self indoctrination.

Going forward, let me ask the questions. The only answer you are allowed to say is "you speak the truth" or "this is not the truth."

C
Last edited by truthseeker on Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 4:26 pm

Rephrase to be completely accurate: It doesn't say firstborn son. Or first created son.

Start over
Colossians 1:15 says "the firstborn over all creation."
Not "first created" over all creation..

Do I speak the truth?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:34 pm

Paul refers to Jesus as the firstborn OVER all creation, not the firstborn IN or OUT OF creation.

Do I speak the truth?

An atom is not a molecule.
An atom is an element, a raw material.
A molecule is made up of at least two atoms bound together.
A molecule is a finished product.
A molecule never is or can be referred to as an atom. (Otherwise it's an atom, not a molecule.)
http://pslc.ws/macrog/kidsmac/atoms.htm

Do I speak the truth?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:11 pm

I've done some more research on the Jehovah Witness organization. I now realize why other debaters have given up debating on this forum and why RM's logic is so bad. I'm going to bow out as well, because I can see what a waste of time this is going to be as I need to isolate my questions like a lawyer in a court of law.

(of course RM probably thinks this is victory, but again BAD LOGIC)

Like I said before it is like playing chess with someone that doesn't obey nor understand the rules.

In summary, RM could not find holes in the simple logic I presented for John 1:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6, instead he uses circular reasoning and erroneous assumptions and inserts his own interpretations into the text. Why, because he can't find flaws in the logic that there are no raw materials in the text nor can one deduce such, he just self indoctrinates by repeating to himself things he was told to be true, and then assumes a universal consensus on his views when no scholar on the planet recognizes the Jehovah Witnesss translations as unbias or even ethical. All one has to do is see Colossians 1:15-17 and see the reader is tricked into thinking the word "other" is in the original greek interlinear but it is not. Without this word, these verses themselves prove Jesus is uncreated so the word OTHER was erroneously inserted into the text. See about 100 other bibles no such dishonest translation is found.

Back on topic, even if I restrict my questions to simple yes or no answers we will be here for 2 years and most likely still not get anywhere. This will just go on and on and on because RM has the unique ability to believe in two contradicting views at the same time and read into the biblical text something that is not there. He has made claim in a private e-mail that he is a Jehovah Witness. The WATCHTOWER is his final authority over Christ and the bible itself as unity is more important that truth. For example, if the Watchtower says there are raw materials in 1 Corin 8:6 and John 1:3 and the scriptures don't, then Watchtower is right and the bible is wrong.

If you would like to learn more about the truth of the Jehovah Witness theology and where it comes from and why members can't seem to understand simple bible passages here is a good place to start.

A history study on the Jehovah Witness religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE3zp9FiyiQ

Worlds Leading Expert Steven Hassan on compliance groups
https://vimeo.com/67885559

Facts from JW literature
http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/misqu ... n-lies.php

Note for future debaters: Save your time. Read this thread and you will see what I'm talking about.


Take care RM....

By the way, your RAW MATERIALS from GTF and Finished Product through Jesus conflicts with Isaiah 44:24

24 This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser,+ <==Jesus is the purchaser REV 5:9,Acts 20:28,1 corinth 6:20 GTF doesn't buy stuff from himself.
Who formed you since you were in the womb: <==This is a finished product as you said, so its made by Jesus
“I am Jehovah, who made everything. <==Jesus is the maker not creator you said. John 1:3
I stretched out the heavens by myself,+ <===John 1:3 Jesus made ALL things alone

Parody of Rotherham's logically absurd response: Jesus made a finished product that wasn't completely finished only finished enough, it was 2/3 finished, or possible it was 3/4 finished...but it is still considered finished per say. Jehovah really didn't mean he made everything "by himself" like the text leads on, he meant with Jesus but that He himself made the materials then gave them to Jesus and then Jesus turned over about 1/4 finished product then God was the one who stretched it out. Even though this is no where in the text it is common knowledge. And where it says Jehovah made everything that counts as raw materialism. It was unfinished product that he made all by himself without Jesus but then turned by means of him alone as the master worker then came the finished product. So even though God made the raw materials and Jesus made everything else as finished product, he still then turns it over to Jehovah so Jehovah can finish the work on the finished product that is unfinished. He then stretches it out because it wasn't finished, therefore Jehovah then gets credit for making everything including forming in the womb because forming in the womb is a part of finished product that is unfinished and tied in with raw materials that are needed per say so Jesus then doesn't really make people in the womb cause this is also an exception, and even though none of this is consistent with john 1:3 or the creation account of Genesis we firmly believe this is true. So it is.

There everything is in harmony. Phew...that was a close one.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 07, 2016 11:36 pm

Besides the links above here are a few more sources to learn from and form your own opinions.

You can go to the JW.org main website to learn more about the Jehovah witnesses and their works today.
http://www.jw.org

Also you can watch this video here and compare it to what is available on jw.org and the other links in the post above.
link removed via board policy

Plus you can get personal experience testimony from a 50 year Jehovah Witness that was in good standing up until his death as he tell about his experience answering inquiries from members as an overseer over basic doctrines to critical life and death questions.
link removed via board policy

Take care everyone. I hope there was some valuable information on this debate so the time invested was not in vain.

Very truly yours,

Truthseeker
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:14 am

Hello TS,

Sorry to see you're bowing out. I know you say it's because the bias and the logic is just too bad but personally I think there are other reasons.

I think it is because you see the writing on the wall when it comes to the fact that the Bible teaches Jesus unmistakably to be the first creation of God, which will change your scenario drastically. This is something you never directly addressed. The problem is that once that is understood, the rest of what we teach about the Son's involvement in creation falls properly into place.

I told you at the start that is what we should have addressed first off. You didn't want to and I think I know why. Now, you're leaving without ever doing it. And of course you never have been able to handle a discussion about the original language terminology. The closer it gets to that the more desire there is by you to get away from it.

All in all, I have to say I think it's pretty bad form on your part.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:20 am

Also, I will likely be posting an article dealing with your belief that there are two separate and distinct YHWH's and that monotheism is a sham. I think this is a topic everyone would be interested in. You are welcome to challenge it when it's done.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:30 am

Of course there are other topics we can talk about. You also said you wanted to prove that God was responsible for all the wickedness and not the Devil. Still want to do that?

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:46 am

RM how many manuscripts are there in existance that make up the new testament? Take a guess. Alot? Quite a few? A couple?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 11:48 am

Including both extant manuscripts and fragments? A lot.

truthseeker wrote:RM how many manuscripts are there in existance that make up the new testament? Take a guess. Alot? Quite a few? A couple?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:09 pm

How many of them have the word "other" inserted into Colossians 1:15-7 four times?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:11 pm

None of them, but you clearly miss how the word "pas" can be used, and that sometimes "other" can be a semantical part of "pas". It happens numerous times.

truthseeker wrote:How many of them have the word "other" inserted into Colossians 1:15-7 four times?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:33 pm

Does inserting the word other four times change the meaning of the text than if it was read without the word other?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:56 pm

No, and this is what you keep missing. The phrase "firstborn of XXXXXXXX" always makes the firstborn a part of that group. Therefore, the Son is the firstborn of creation, making him a part of the group of creation.

Naturally then, "other" simply clarifies the meaning in English. Many SCHOLARS RECOGNIZE THAT "OTHER" IS SOMETIMES A SEMANTIC PART OF THE WORD FOR "ALL" (PANTAS).


truthseeker wrote:Does inserting the word other four times change the meaning of the text than if it was read without the word other?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:36 pm

Does firstborn (The Greek word prototokos) have more than one legitimate meaning?

Example:
It could refer either to something or someone that is first in order of time, such as a firstborn child, or it could refer to someone who is preeminent in rank. Or it could refer to someone who was both firstborn and preeminent in rank.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 3:45 pm

Once again, any time the phrase "FIRSTBORN of XXXXXXXXX(something) occurs, the firstborn is ALWAYS the first one born of the group mentioned. ALWAYS. No exceptions.

Plus, even in cases where the firstborn may be highlighting "pre-eminence" it is STILL a part of the group, no exceptions.

So yes, firstborn can have more than one connotation, but it is always a part of the group that it is paired with. Always.

Therefore, according to Biblical precedent, the Son is PART of creation, in this case both pre-eminent and the first one.

Regards


truthseeker wrote:Does firstborn (The Greek word prototokos) have more than one legitimate meaning?

Example:
It could refer either to something or someone that is first in order of time, such as a firstborn child, or it could refer to someone who is preeminent in rank. Or it could refer to someone who was both firstborn and preeminent in rank.
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:17 pm

What does firstborn in Colossians 1:18 mean?

18 And he is the head of the body, the church:

who is the beginning,

the firstborn from the dead;

that in all things he might have the preeminence.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:24 pm

Think about these occurrences. In each and every case, the Son is a PART of the mentioned group, and the first one and pre-eminent one in that group. This just adds to the proof of the statement I have often made about this.

truthseeker wrote:What does firstborn in Colossians 1:18 mean?

18 And he is the head of the body, the church:

who is the beginning,


Christ is the FIRST one OF and the PRE-EMINENT one in the congregation.

the firstborn from the dead;


Christ is the first one to be truly born from the dead never to die again, and the most pre-eminent one.

that in all things he might have the preeminence.
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 08, 2016 4:55 pm

Did the congregation exist or did Jesus have to start the congregation?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:03 am

As the beginning he would have been the first member of the Christian ecclesia, therefore a member. Words like "first", "firstborn" and "beginning" are partitive in nature.

Regards

truthseeker wrote:Did the congregation exist or did Jesus have to start the congregation?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:27 pm

So just like firstborn of many brethren he is definitely the firstborn of the congregation? Yes or No Please confirm
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:34 pm

Stick to what the scriptures say. They do not call him the firstborn of the congregation, they call him the "head", the "beginning" of the congregation, which naturally means he is one of that group, the first one of the congregation, just as he is the firstborn among his brothers. Both showing him to be a part of the group.

truthseeker wrote:So just like firstborn of many brethren he is definitely the firstborn of the congregation? Yes or No Please confirm
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:44 pm

No, sir...we are talking about the meaning and allowable usage of the word firstborn. Can one be a firstborn of a congregation? Yes or No
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:58 pm

Although the Bible does not use that phrase, I don't know why it couldn't, and I don't know why you would even ask about something that doesn't occur. If it did, it would mean that the one mentioned would be the first one born of the congregation, and therefore a part of the group of that congregation.

Once again, the firstborn always being a PART of the group that it is associated with. The phrase "firstborn of XXXXXXXX" always refers to the first one born in that GROUP or CLASS. Therefore, the Son is the first one born in the class of creation.


truthseeker wrote:No, sir...we are talking about the meaning and allowable usage of the word firstborn. Can one be a firstborn of a congregation? Yes or No
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:20 pm

Simple Logic:
Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren. The congregation is made up of the body of brethren. If one is not a brethren they are not in the congregation. One cannot be part of the congregation unless one meets the qualifications of what it takes to be a brethren. Jesus is the head of these brethren as he is the head of the congregation. Therefore Jesus is in fact the firstborn of the congregation. The word congregation isn't a thing. It's a label. A mere word, or placeholder in the mind representing the brethren.

Therefore firstborn of all the congregation and firstborn of many brethren is synonymous is it not?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:29 pm

IF the Bible used that phrase, it would not necessarily include headship but it could. It would by necessity however mean that Jesus was the first one born of that congregation, not just the head. If you follow Biblical precedent and the use of the phrase "firstborn of XXXXX" that is what that phrase would tell us. So I don't see how any of this exercise helps you escape from the fact that Jesus is part of the creation, the first one born of that creation, just like he would be the first one born of that congregation.

truthseeker wrote:Simple Logic:
Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren. The congregation is made up of the body of brethren. If one is not a brethren they are not in the congregation. One cannot be part of the congregation unless one meets the qualifications of what it takes to be a brethren. Jesus is the head of these brethren as he is the head of the congregation. Therefore Jesus is in fact the firstborn of the congregation. The word congregation isn't a thing. It's a label. A mere word, or placeholder in the mind representing the brethren.

Therefore firstborn of all the congregation and firstborn of many brethren is synonymous is it not?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:37 pm

So in the simplest of terms. The use of the word is correct. One can be the firstborn of the congregation just like firstborn of many brethren. I'm just establishing usage of the word firstborn. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Bill Gates or Jesus. Bill Gates, whether he likes it or not is in fact the firstborn of Microsoft. Correct?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:40 pm

If Bill Gates was the first member of Microsoft than he could be referred to as the firstborn of Microsoft, being part of that class or group.

truthseeker wrote:So in the simplest of terms. The use of the word is correct. One can be the firstborn of the congregation just like firstborn of many brethren. I'm just establishing usage of the word firstborn. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Bill Gates or Jesus. Bill Gates, whether he likes it or not is in fact the firstborn of Microsoft. Correct?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:31 pm

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. Was Jesus the first person to be resurrected? Why is he firstborn from the dead?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:07 am

Because he is the first one to be considered truly resurrected from the dead, obviously to never have to die again. All others that were resurrected prior to him died again. The Bible confirms:


Acts 26:23

23 that the Christ was to suffer and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.”

Regards
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Thu Mar 10, 2016 1:46 pm

Jesus was not the “firstborn from the dead” as a consequence of being the first one ever to be raised from the dead. There were resurrections from death both in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:8-24), and during the personal ministry of the Lord (cf. Jn. 11:17ff).

John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

Did Jesus mislead the people or forget to fulfill this prophecy? Or does this have something to do with why he is officially the firstborn from the dead?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Mar 10, 2016 3:47 pm

I answered this once. Did you not see it? What about the following does not answer the question?

Because he is the first one to be considered truly resurrected from the dead, obviously to never have to die again. All others that were resurrected prior to him died again. The Bible confirms:

Acts 26:23
23 that the Christ was to suffer and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.”


He is also the first to be resurrected to everlasting and immortal life
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Thu Mar 10, 2016 10:09 pm

Read the question again. Jesus claims he himself will raise his own body from the dead. Did he himself raise his own fleshly body on the third day. Not the second or first but the third.

Did Jesus himself fullfill this prophecy of he raising himself?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:25 am

Hello TS,

I've read the question again. Nothing changed. Jesus was dead for parts of three days and during the third day he raised his body via manifestations in the flesh. He appears in the flesh after his resurrection. I feel like this is a diversion from the point I'm making about the firstborn OF (something). What's the angle?

Regards


truthseeker wrote:Read the question again. Jesus claims he himself will raise his own body from the dead. Did he himself raise his own fleshly body on the third day. Not the second or first but the third.

Did Jesus himself fullfill this prophecy of he raising himself?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:50 pm

All Resurrections Take Place in the Flesh (That is the biblical precedent.) A secondary process takes place, separating the previously resurrected - from Jesus ressurection. Jesus is not the first to be resurrected. However Jesus is the first mortal to enter heaven and then beggoten.

Follow Carefully:

1 Corinth 15:51-54
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery:

We will not all sleep,

but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

For the trumpet will sound,

the dead will be raised imperishable,
<=="WILL BE RAISED"...NOT "ARE RAISED"

AND

we will be changed.

53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable,
AND the mortal with immortality.

54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable,
AND the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Reconcile with:

Isaiah 26:17-19 NWT
17 Just as a pregnant woman about to give birth Has labor pains and cries out in pain, So we have been because of you, O Jehovah. 18 We became pregnant, we had labor pains, But it is as if we have given birth to wind. We have not brought salvation to the land, And no one is born to inhabit the land. 19 “Your dead will live. My corpses* will rise up.+ Awake and shout joyfully, You residents in the dust!+ For your dew is as the dew of the morning,* And the earth will let those powerless in death come to life.*


All in Christ, their corpse WILL BE raised to an ADAMLIKE mortal body first and come to life, changed to spirit, and given immortality.

Jesus' corpse was brought back to life again. His body (the corpse) was the temple he was speaking of. He fulfilled the prophecy by simply standing back his mortal body up on his own accord. If he was a spirit this prophecy would not have been fulfilled. He was not yet a spirit or a unique Resurrection. His corpse rose like all the prior resurrections did before him.

If Jesus was resurrected a spirit, how could he have received judgement? It's only after clearing judgement are you awarded a spirit body.

Hebrews 9:27

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Jesus told Mary...
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

The sins had not yet been washed away yet. He has no cup of his own blood in his hands. That's absurd. ALL of his blood spilled to the ground during Crucifixion. he must yet pour out his blood on the alter in heaven. The women also recognize his mortal body as their once dead teacher. Raised in the same precedent as all those before him.

He is not yet, a firstborn from the dead at this moment. The second process that others before him did not do was ascend. He first has to ascend this mortal body into heaven with his clean, blood-filled body and pass judgement.

hebrews 9:12,22,24,25
. 12 He entered into the holy place, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood,+ once for all time, and obtained an everlasting deliverance* for us.+

22 Yes, according to the Law nearly all things are cleansed with blood,+ and
unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place.+

24 For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands,+ which is a copy of the reality,+ but into heaven itself,+ so that he now appears before* God on our behalf.+

25 This was not done to offer himself often, as when the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year+ with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, he would have to suffer often from the founding of the world. But now he has manifested himself once for all time at the conclusion of the systems of things* to do away with sin through the sacrifice of himself.+ 27 And just as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this to receive a judgment, 28 so also the Christ was offered once for all time to bear the sins of many;


Christ's new spirit embodiment was a secondary factor in the resurrection process. That is a fact. As far as all other people mentioned in the Holy Scriptures (who were resurrected from the dead), none of them was given that secondary experience that would have given them life for the rest of eternity with the Father. But Christ was given it. Christ became the firstfruit of those that died after draining his blood and sprinkling it in the Holy of Holy's cleansing the heavens he was clothed or in other words became spirit and still kept his human body alive and in tact to go see the apostles. He, however is now part of the new creation, 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15 becoming a life-giving spirit. Giving life to his mortal body this is how he had a body still made of flesh and bone with his spirit life coursing through the veins instead of blood keeping it alive. (a spirit not have flesh and bone and life is in the blood) Remember Jesus has power to hold everything together meaning he can hold his old body together and dissipate things at anytime.

Long story short, after this clothing, is this when he became the firstfruit or firstborn from the dead?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:00 am

Hello TS,

I doesn't matter how or in what manner he is the actual firstborn from the dead, the word is still partitive and that's the point. He would have been among the dead, part of the group of those who have been dead. Just like he is part of creation via Col. 1:15

Would you please explain though the following verse:

Acts 26:23
23 that the Christ was to suffer and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.”

Regards
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:02 pm

I will answer your question with a question cause i know the answer but I want to make sure you know.

What is the difference between being firstborn (lit) "OUT FROM" the dead (col 1:18) and firstborn "OF" the dead (Rev 1:5)?

We see two separate and distinct uses.

Example:
The Firstborn King FROM (or from within) Scotland. (Came out From within the Group)
The Firstborn King Of (or over) Scotland. (Is ranked highest of the group, but did not necessarily come from out of the group.)

Isn't it true (col 1:18) that Jesus is both firstborn from (within) the group called the dead? (meaning literal order the actual 1st one before any other to overcome death permanently [url]FROM[/url] in the group.)

Isn't it also true (Rev 1:5) that he also has the firstborn position or rank of (or over) the group? (meaning he has preeminence and superiority over those who died over the group) (He was not first dead nor first to be Resurrected but he is ranked as first)
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:20 am

Hello TS,

Look between the ###########################s for my comments

You said:
I will answer your question with a question cause i know the answer but I want to make sure you know.

What is the difference between being firstborn (lit) "OUT FROM" the dead (col 1:18) and firstborn "OF" the dead (Rev 1:5)?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Grammatically speaking there is a difference as "firstborn OF something" is known as a partitive genitive and there are NO exceptions to "firstborn OF something" making the firstborn a PART of the group. I have repeated this many times and there is still no acknowledgement of this from you.

Firstborn FROM something is not a partitive genitive, but it STILL makes firstborn PARTITIVE by the very nature of the word. Words like FIRST, FIRSTBORN, ONE OF, etc are ALL partitive in nature, they signify that the one spoken of is part of the group that follows.

All of this seeming dancing around this is not addressing the real issue.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

We see two separate and distinct uses.

Example:
The Firstborn King FROM (or from within) Scotland. (Came out From within the Group)
The Firstborn King Of (or over) Scotland. (Is ranked highest of the group, but did not necessarily come from out of the group.)

###############################
This would be irrelevant because Col. 1:15 calls the Son the Firstborn OF creation, which is without exception in the Bible, a partitive genitive. We should deal with Biblical categories, not invented ones. Even at that the FIRSTBORN king of Scotland would have to be a Scot because FIRSTBORN is partitive by nature. You seem to forget that.

So with the use of the word firstborn, being either FROM the dead or OF the dead changes nothing. They are a PART of the named group that they are the FIRSTBORN of or from.
###############################

Isn't it true (col 1:18) that Jesus is both firstborn from (within) the group called the dead? (meaning literal order the actual 1st one before any other to overcome death permanently [url]FROM[/url] in the group.)

###############################
Is this your answer to Acts 26:23. If so, you are correct. If not, I still don't see an answer.
#############################

Isn't it also true (Rev 1:5) that he also has the firstborn position or rank of (or over) the group? (meaning he has preeminence and superiority over those who died over the group) (He was not first dead nor first to be Resurrected but he is ranked as first)

##############################
You just adsmitted that in a particular sense he was the first one resurrected, so this is why I ask, Did you actually answer Acts 26:13? Why do you then turn around an say he was not the first to be resurrected?

This is what you keep trying to do. You want to make FIRSTBORN mean JUST preeminent and it never happens that way. The preeminence gets included with the primary meaning SOMETIMES, such as in the case of Jewish FIRSTBORN sons, but the word is never divorced from the idea of the FIRST one BORN. You can INCLUDE pre-eminence, but it never means JUST pre-eminence and it never REPLACES the meaning of FIRST one born.

But here is the rub, even IF firstborn meant ONLY pore-eminent, it STILL is part of the GROUP or CLASS that it is attached to. No exceptions.

So the problem here remains. The Son is clearly and unmistakably the FIRST one born of creation as well as the pre-eminent one, NOT one or the other.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:50 pm

We will come back to this. Just a few more important points.

So at the time Jesus was raised...God was fulfilling these prophecies and declared the following:

Acts 13:34
33 God hath fulfilled ...,

...in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And...

... no more to return to corruption,

he said...

...I will give you the sure mercies (blessings) of David.
<======Did he Give?


So after the resurrection it appears God fulfilled these prophecies and Jesus got all the blessings promised to David, is that correct?

2 Samuel 7:12-16

12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’”
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:45 pm

Without a lot of detail, I would yes. Now please get to the point. This is becoming obvious to anyone reading that you are fishing for something and avoiding the actual point.
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:17 pm

I assure you I'm not stalling. It will all make sense shortly.

When exactly did Jesus become the son of God?

Is there any OT verses that conclusively proves Jesus was a "son" of God prior to the NT (That are not prophecies.) Or are there any NT verses that speak of Jesus as a son in the OT?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:06 am

As the firstborn of all creation and the beginning of the creation by God, the Son became the Son at his creation, naturally.

Although I know of no verses that call him the Son (except prophecy) in the Hebrew, what is stated in the Greek is inclusive of times past even before the earth's creation. Since the scriptures strictly conclude that he is God's first creation, (THE ACTUAL POINT OF THIS) he was naturally a Son at that time. He also became a human son of God (Son of man) at his human conception.






truthseeker wrote:I assure you I'm not stalling. It will all make sense shortly.

When exactly did Jesus become the son of God?

Is there any OT verses that conclusively proves Jesus was a "son" of God prior to the NT (That are not prophecies.) Or are there any NT verses that speak of Jesus as a son in the OT?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:00 pm

So in other words it's an assumption Jesus was called the son or was the son of God based on your assumption that firstborn is the same as first created. You can argue firstborn is not an assumption but being a son is an assumption none the less.

The text does not say firstborn of Jehovah. It says firstborn of all creation. This is not the same. To be firstborn of Jehovah means first offspring of Jehovah.


When does the scripture actually for the first time say Jesus became a son?

When was the first time Jesus got Gods actual dna? And was he literal offspring of God at this time?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:32 pm

Hello TS,

As I suspected you're loosing the focus. It's either that or you haven't understood the point from the beginning. Let me state it again.

EVERY TIME the phrase "firstborn of XXXXXXXX(something) occurs in the Bible, the firstborn is always a part of the following group. It's that simple.

It doesn't do much good to talk about what the Bible does NOT say. What we should busy ourselves with is what it DOES say and what it DOES say is that Jesus is the firstborn of ALL creation and that makes him a CREATION. Plain and simple.

I realize that you are trying desperately to find an escape hatch from this but there simply is none.

The "firstborn of Egypt" was an Egyptian, the firstborn of Israel was an Israelite, the firstborn of cattle was a cow, and on and on it goes. Therefore, in keeping with the Divine pattern that is revealed, the firstborn of creation is a creation.

I can post the Biblical examples if you want to see them.

As far as when the Son is being referred to as the Son, Heb 1:1-2 is valuable for us to consider. Notice what it says:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


Notice that it says THROUGH the SON, God made the worlds. That means the SON had to exist before the worlds were made.

But again, this is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. BASED on BIBLICAL precedent, the very fact that Jesus is called the FIRSTBORN OF CREATION, that makes him a creation. The only way out of that is to find exceptions to that PHRASE in the BIBLE, which you wont find.
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 22, 2016 10:52 pm

Sorry I was out of town. I'm back. Nope I'm not losing focus at all. It will all make sense shortly.

As far as when the Son is being referred to as the Son, Heb 1:1-2 is valuable for us to consider. Notice what it says:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


There are no biblical texts that point to Jesus being the son in old testament. There are also no biblical texts in the New testament indicating Jesus was a "son" in the OT either.

The verse you present is contrasting the present day son with the prophets of the past. We know Jesus becomes the son in the present day. We are not dealing with a new consciousness or new being. It is a false cause to use this as a proof he was the son in the OT. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

A 8 year old boy and his adult neighbor could have been arrested. And then the neighbor could adopt the kid at 12 years of age making him a son. Previously he was not a son. Yet, he can tell people this is my son. We both got arrested four years ago. All that changed was the relationship not the person.

If he wasn't a son in the OT, then how could he be a firstborn of Jehovah?

So when did he become the son exactly? We are told when, how and why Jesus becomes a literal son. You can't become a son if you were already a son.

Matthew 1:16 Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Matthew 1:18 the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows…
Matthew 1:18 she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:20 the child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew 1:21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus.
Matthew 1:23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son
Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son
Luke 1:31 you {Mary} will conceive in your womb, and bear a son,

Luke 1:32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;
Luke 1:35 and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.

Now I can already see your objection, so I will state it for you to save time.

It is important to note: absent in the texts listed above is any reference to Jesus as the, “only begotten” Son of God. This word vacancy is very intentional because even though God created (conceived, procreated) the sperm (aka ‘seed’) in Mary’s ovum, this miraculous act is not considered the same as God giving birth to Jesus

Yes...Matthew 1:16 plainly states that it was MARY of whom was BORN Jesus. Mary gave BIRTH to Jesus as an infant. God was involved in CONCEIVING the child within Mary, but He was NOT the one that gave BIRTH to the baby (an important distinction).


And we will deal with this later after you answer my questions below.

Regardless of your objection, one could argue Mary is of Creation, and she is the first that God fathered a child with. Making Jesus a firstborn coming out of creation.

Luke 2:7 and she (Mary) gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

It does not say firstborn of Jehovah does it? It says firstborn of creation.

However, we do see something interesting in the verse.

Col 1:15
15 He is the image (eikón) of the invisible God



Is it accurate to say Jesus at the time of Paul's letter is written in the present, Paul's present day, it uses the phrase "He IS" not He was...

Is that true?

also...

The Greek word eikón means a exact copy of the original. Supporting at the time of Paul's writing Jesus is not the original, but an exact replica/copy of whatever God himself is? - Jesus is the mirror image of God at the time of Paul's writing.

Is that true?

John 14:9
Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

But the rabbit hole goes deeper...FYI this is not my final answer. I'm simply putting this version of firstborn to the test. Let's try to eliminate this from being the correct explanation of firstborn in col 1:15. I will wait for your reply.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 23, 2016 7:03 am

Hello TS,

I have a couple of other lengthy replies to make to some others I am discussing things with. After that, I will present a response to this.

Glad you're OK. I was wondering.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 23, 2016 8:26 am

Here are the reasons why none of your thinking in regard to the firstborn of creation is going to work. It has to do with the what is called the "hoti" clause in verse 16 of Colossians. Let me explain:

The Greek word "hoti", which occurs in verse 16 is a word that basically means BECAUSE. So the REASON why Jesus is called the Firstborn of creation is BECAUSE of what follows, which is BECAUSE all other creation has come THROUGH him, whether visible or invisible. Naturally and logically it works perfectly.

Naturally, if all other creation came THROUGH you, and you were a creation yourself, than you would have to be the FIRSTBORN. That's just simple logic at work. So, Col. 1:15,16 has nothing to do with Jesus birth by Mary because there is no feasible way to connect to the "hoti" clause.

Regards
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:01 pm

Very good. So we can safely eliminate that Jesus is not the firstborn because he was born to Mary.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. <===Present Tense this is what Jesus is at the moment of Paul's writing. Yes or No
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Thu Mar 24, 2016 7:06 am

Not only can we eliminate that Jesus was not the firstborn because he was born to Mary, we are told exactly WHY he is called the firstborn. As the "hoti" clause concludes that he is the firstborn because ALL other creation came THROUGH him. By necessity of logic then, he is the FIRSTBORN because he TOO is a creation as the phrase firstborn OF creation phrase also clearly reveals. There is no reason to look for another meaning as to why he is called the firstborn when it is clearly explained by the scripture itself and Biblical precedent.

And yes, he is the image of God and was that at the time of Paul's writings. I would say He was also that before he came to earth according to Phillipians:

2:5 Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus,+ 6 who, although he was existing in God’s form,+ gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God..


and Hebrews 1:3

3 He is the reflection of God’s glory+ and the exact representation of his very being,+ and he sustains all things by the word of his power. And after he had made a purification for our sins,+ he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.


Regards
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:50 pm

Now the fun part. RM's position is completely illogical. Notice how my opponent contradicts himself.

Here he says:

As the "hoti" clause concludes that he is the firstborn because ALL other creation came THROUGH him. By necessity of logic then, he is the FIRSTBORN because he TOO is a creation as the phrase firstborn OF creation phrase also clearly reveals. There is no reason to look for another meaning as to why he is called the firstborn when it is clearly explained by the scripture itself and Biblical precedent.


but when i asked him specifically about Bill Gates being the firstborn of Microsoft he says:

If Bill Gates was the first member of Microsoft than he could be referred to as the firstborn of Microsoft, being part of that class or group.


Notice Bill Gates wasn't created by Microsoft. it was Bill Gates that created Microsoft.

And so as the creator HE is the firstborn of Microsoft. (No where does this mean that Bill Gates was born out of Microsoft.)

My opponent has made a completely erroneous and desperate assumption trying to link "firstborn" to "first created". If Paul wanted to say Jesus is the first creation of ALL creation he could have. Creation doesn't give birth. Someone has to give birth to creation. just like Bill gates gave birth to Microsoft.

For Jesus to be a first created the text would have to say firstborn of Jehovah...no exceptions.

His mistake is linking creation as if it was Jehovah himself. Creation is something that was created. Therefore if one is a firstborn over a concept (not a firstborn of a person), anytime you are a firstborn of a concept like a congregation, a microsoft it is a pre-eminence. Anytime you are a firstborn from a person, you are a born of that person.

I'll prove it.

Bill gates is Firstborn of his origin, his mother gave birth to him, But Bill gave birth to Microsoft. So he is the firstborn of his mother (born of) but he is first born of or over Microsoft.(pre-eminent.)

The same logic applies, even if Jesus was a creation (which he's not). The true meaning of Col 1:15 wouldn't change.

God gave birth to Jesus, then Jesus gave birth to creation. Therefore the natural order is Jesus is the firstborn of Jehovah (literal born of), but then Jesus is the firstborn of or over Microsoft/Creation. (pre-eminent).



If we took Col 1:15 and replaced "ALL Creation" and "all things" with Microsoft it would read...

[15] He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of MICROSOFT. WHY?

16 For in him MICROSOFT were created: MICROSOFT have been created by means of him and for him. 17 He is before Microsoft, and in him Microsoft hold together.

My opponent confirms this very same logic
we are told exactly WHY he is called the firstborn. As the "hoti" clause concludes that he is the firstborn because ALL other creation came THROUGH him.


He also admitted Jesus is the firstborn of the congregation. yet the congregation was created by Jesus. He was not created by the congregation.

Think about these occurrences. In each and every case, the Son is a PART of the mentioned group, and the first one and pre-eminent one in that group. This just adds to the proof of the statement I have often made about this.

Christ is the FIRST one OF and the PRE-EMINENT one in the congregation.


Then he contradicts his own logic with the very next statement based on a negligent assumption that doesn't even fit into his own description as shown with Bill gates or being the firstborn of the congregation or of many bretheren.

By necessity of logic then, he is the FIRSTBORN because he TOO is a creation as the phrase firstborn OF creation phrase also clearly reveals.


Jesus is firstborn OF...or OVER...all creation because he created it, and he is part of it by holding it all together. Without him there is not creation just atoms.

Paul even tells us in verse Col1:18 ... that in all things he might have the preeminence.

The whole IDEA of Col 1:15-19 is that Jesus has pre-eminance in everything or first to start everything. Not that he was created first.






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.

Here is the confusion my opponent has. He misses the FACT that without Jesus creation is just a bunch of Atoms. So truly Jesus is as much part of Creation because he keeps it together. He is the power keeping it in tact at this very moment. Verse 17 CLEARLY points out that Jesus is part of creation because he is the glue that holds it together. "and in him all things hold together.


Take him away and the creation crumbles. Which is why he is firstborn OF creation.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

This cannot be overlooked.




Observe the terrible terrible logic of Watchtower:

----------

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 and how you contradict yourself with Bill Gates example.

Please show me why Paul is not speaking nonsense.

This again is not my final answer as the rabbit hole goes deeper. This in itself smashes the Wt interpretation. So just put this to the test. But it is not the whole story, The whole truth will be revealed shortly.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 29, 2016 9:04 am

Sorry, wont be around much until Friday. Sit tight.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:50 pm

I found just a little bit of time today and see that there has been a confusion that needs cleared up.

Well, let’s see. Where to begin.

It appears when you asked the question about Bill Gates and Microsoft we were on two different wavelengths of thought. Since you didn’t specify, I was trying to think if there was any way possible that Bill Gates could be considered the firstborn of Microsoft, and there is if you think of Microsoft as an entity giving birth to members, and that’s how I was thinking that someone COULD, not that they always would, but they COULD think of Bill Gates as the firstborn of Microsoft.

I have to admit, I wasn’t even connecting the fact that he was the Creator, so naturally, I would have to change my answer which I realize that will mean you will have to change your approach to what I said.

There is no way that the word “firstborn” would apply to the actual Creator, Biblically or otherwise it has never happened, so sorry for the confusion. You’ll have to take another run at this with my corrected answer.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Mar 29, 2016 5:12 pm

That's a nice OPINION. Care to back it up please...

By your answer, it means you are arguing that you are an authority on the word firstborn, but yet when trapped by your own words you now have to back track.

This means:

1. You either have no idea what the allowable usages of firstborn really are
2. Or you are just prejudice and bias and blindly dismiss real evidence (especially when it conflicts with your view)
3. Or you are in denial and are resorting to rationalizing a form of lying to yourself.

Because if what you said about Bill gates is in fact acceptable usage of firstborn, then you are in checkmate. It doesn't matter what you were thinking after the fact in order to split hairs.

There are no two different wavelengths of thought. What you are using is a deception technique called MOVING THE GOALPOST or SPECIAL PLEADING. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

Quoting from the link...

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
"Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us."



Bill gates is either firstborn of Microsoft or he is not.
Jesus is firstborn of many brethren or he is not.
Jesus is firstborn of the congregation or he is not.

These are all pre-eminent status that comes from being the creator or founder or heir. They all point to being pre-eminent. Just as PAUL said. To be Pre-Eminent in all things.

Second...

You also completely ignored the STRONGEST EVIDENCE, the fact that by your version of firstborn, PAUL is SPEAKING complete and udder NONSENSE. You still have to contend with this.


NOW EVEN MORE CONTRADICTION.
(Your theology doesn't stand a chance using one by one questioning like in a court of law. As you thought I was stalling or avoiding the point. I was breaking down my questions so you couldn't later use circular reasoning or more fallacies to protect your self interest. Your theology depends on constantly rationalizing and moving the goal post.)

For example: I asked in accordance to Acts 13:34:

So after the resurrection it appears God fulfilled these prophecies and Jesus got all the blessings promised to David, is that correct?


You answered:
Without a lot of detail, I would yes. Now please get to the point. This is becoming obvious to anyone reading that you are fishing for something and avoiding the actual point.


What were those blessings?
Acts 13:33-34

33 God hath fulfilled ...,

...in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And...

... no more to return to corruption,

he said...

...I will give you the sure mercies (blessings) of David. <======Did he Give?


2 Samuel 7:12-16

12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’”


We can clearly see the very same blessings promised to David are to be given to Jesus. Including BEING MADE FIRSTBORN.

PSALMS 89:27-29
27 And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. 28 I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. 29 I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure.


WHEN exactly was Jesus MADE to BE FIRSTBORN? We know exactly when...

Acts 13:33 Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee..

It's common sense to see that all of Col 1 takes place AFTER Jesus is resurrected. Paul is not speaking about Christ before the Resurrection. This is the very reason why He is a COPY of God. Not an original. He was dead. Everything ended. The LAW ends at death. He is a NEW CREATION. So He is the FIRSTBORN of this NEW CREATION.

Anything Jesus was, according to the LAW died at his death. So God resurrects him and makes him his firstborn after the ressurection fulfilling the prophecy.

In fact, there is absolutely no other place in the entire scripture that says GOD caused Jesus to be, “begotten,” at any time other than the resurrection.

Hebrews 1:5-6
5For to which of the angels did He ever say,

"YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?

And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him."



I told you in my post, that the REAL TRUTH will come out. My last post was not my final answer.



This is when Jesus is Begotten making him the FIRSTBORN of Creation, he is brought into the world. The first of his kind.


The firstborn of many brethren. He will be the first of everything.

Jesus was called, “the son of God,” at his birth, but he BECAME God’s, “only begotten,” son at the resurrection from the dead. The Greek word translated, “only begotten,” in John 1:18, and John 3:16, 18 is monogenoús and monogenoús (NT: 3439) means literally, “only-born, i.e. sole,or single of its kind.” Acts 13:33 specifies the resurrection as when Jesus was, “begotten,” by his Father God (see below):

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that he raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'You are My son; TODAY I have begotten you.' NASU

Acts 13:33 denotes the exact point in time, (i.e. “today”), designated for Jesus to be “begotten,” by God the Father. It happened when God raised him up and out from among the dead, saying, “Today, I have begotten you.” This is a fulfillment of what was prophetically spoken thru the prophet David in Psalms 2:7.

Psalms 2:7 "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten you.’ NASU


Because there was a spiritual birth occurring at the resurrection of Jesus the event qualified him the firstborn son (meaning the first “begotten” son) of God from the dead.

Colossians 1:18 He (Jesus) also is the Head of his body, the church; seeing he is the beginning, the firstborn from (from = ek, ‘out of’) among the dead, so that he alone in everything and in every respect might occupy the chief place stand first and be preeminent. AMP

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood, NAS

In Colossians 1:18 Jesus is the firstborn from (from = ek, ‘out of’) among the dead because he was the first man to permanently come out of death’s hold. In Revelation 1:5 Jesus is the firstborn OF the dead, which portrays him in a position of preeminence over others raised from the dead.

Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son according to the flesh, but he is GOD’S firstborn son according to the spirit.

In Colossians 1:15 It's indisputable this is after the ressurection, (at the time of PAUL writing this verse), he is speaking in the present tense that as of right NOW Jesus is a mirror like copy of God, a new creation, that is a FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION. BOTH FIRST AND PRE-Eminient...PERIOD



Using scripture to interpret scripture, is there a single use of the word the word firstborn in reference to Jesus where it is talking about him being first created?


Is there a single use of the word firstborn according to Jesus where it is not after the resurrection? (besides of Mary)

How are you going to deal with the FACT that Jesus died to the LAW, and WAS a NEWBORN to the father as a SON on that DAY, a mirror image of GOD, HIS ONLY BORN (monoganese) Begotten son, in other word's his FIRSTBORN brought into the world the FIRSTBORN OF CREATION?

CHECKMATE :)
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am

I have answers to all of your questions, but, are you saying that rather than me making a mistake in judgment and answer incorrectly, I'm now just lying about it? Is that what I am gathering?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 30, 2016 8:33 am

No. Not at all.
The only part I mention about lying is when we all tell lies to ourselves. It's called rationalization. I've yet to meet a human being that doesn't rationalize. We tell ourselves stories or even excuses to help ourselves feel better. It's as simple as bring 10 pounds overweight and promising we shouldn't eat greasy cheeseburgers but telling ourselves" oh just one, is fine." Or I only took two bites.


Matter of fact, just about the most honorable things but yet most difficult things a person can do besides give his life fot a friend is admit a mistake in judgement. It was proven in a study. That once a person holds to a deep belief, even if it's wrong, many will foolishly fight to the death rather than admit it was false. I because I was wrong so many times that I just stopped being embarrassed because the more wrong I was the more real truth I learned. Than an amazing thing happened. You stop being wrong because all you have left is solid immovable rock.

What I'm saying is that the evidence is so inescapable that telling yourself anything else at this point would be lying to yourself.

But if you admit mistake in judgement then that my dear RM makes you a humble God fearing man.

Also I do believe you are a victim. Its not your fault. You have in fact been lied to. The WT knows what firstborn really means here. They even altered the text in Col 1:16-17 to fit their theology. Hence the reason that no translation in history ever inserted the word "other" into the text. Just like they also knew that Jesus doesn't appoint the slave until after the tribulation, this was discovered in the late 70s by members at bethel and they were all disfellowshipped. It was only after they were hemorridging members because of the internet did they come half clean in 2013. Karl Oloff Johnson in the seventies went to the British Museum and did a 3 year study on 607 bc and found out it was all a hoax. He turned in his findings to help WT correct their view thinking he did a good thing. But he was threatened, not to share his findings and later they disfellowshipped him even though he kept quiet along with Raymond Franz, Ed Dunlap, and a host of others who all had exemplary records. Why? Because unity is more important than truth.

In other words the ends justifies the means.

So I do believe you have the most honorable intentions but I believe you are defending erroneous beliefs taught to you for sake of unity and not real truth.

And as long as I keep isolating my questions to yes or no. WT doctrines will cause you to keep contradicting yourself.

There truly are no raw materials my dear friend. Jesus created ALL things. All meaning all but himself and God.so look at revelations your search on proof text. He is the beginning of the creation of God. Thus is simply saying the same thing. Notice this is also after the ressurection. Jesus is the very first thing God creates as a new creation. God did not create anything by himself. It wall done by Jesus directed by God. The first time God PHYSICALLY creates is when he raises Jesus and transforms Jesus human body into his twin after Jesus drais his blook and clenses the heavenly alter.

I invite you to discovering the truth with me. That's why I am TRUTHSEEKER. Because had the evidence been reversed I assure you I would rejoice and switch in a heartbeat because next time I know It can't be knocked down. I enjoy seeking and finding.

And yes you gave me a good run. I now know more about this subject than ever before. Going back I can defend it in 1/4 of the time next time. I was learning as I was goung. If you recall I almost walked away out of frustration.

So let us know. If you concede to the evidence than you are now much stronger in knowledge as all who choose truth over all are and all viewers can now see you are not interested on winning debates but in getting to the facs and a humble investigator of truth no matter what.

And my apologies for any sarcasm. I feel foolish saying checkmate. I shouldn't gloat either. We all are learning. All fall short of the glory of God.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 30, 2016 10:54 am

Hello TS,

I will answer your post about the FIRSTBORN as soon as I can. We have already covered the idea of "all things". We can always return to it if you want but there is no call to bring it up here again at this point. That's kind of a hit and run maneuver.

Rest assured I do not in any way think that I have been deceived or am deceiving myself and the evidence you speak of no where near establishes what you think it does as my future posts will reveal. On the other hand I believe you are likely deceiving yourself because of an overactive desire to win an argument, but, time will tell I suppose.

Your claims to victory are extremely premature as I will reveal.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:42 am

RM...this is all you can do at this point. It's split hairs. If I show you it's green. You will say no but if we take a magnifying glass and we break it into tiny pieces we can see its made up of little bits and pieces of blue and yellow. Therefore it's not green.

This is how your theology works. It doesn't take the pure, simple and obvious make it more clear. It takes the clear simple and obvious and creates technicalities that all need some sort of explain away as to why it's loophole.

Please overturn what I've presented without contradicting yourself again then. Go ahead give us the story of why plain scripture is wrong and WT erroneous technicaties are what Paul really meant.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:47 am

Sit tight. Patience.

truthseeker wrote:RM...this is all you can do at this point. It's split hairs. If I show you it's green. You will say no but if we take a magnifying glass and we break it into tiny pieces we can see its made up of little bits and pieces of blue and yellow. Therefore it's not green.

This is how your theology works. It doesn't take the pure, simple and obvious make it more clear. It takes the clear simple and obvious and creates technicalities that all need some sort of explain away as to why it's loophole.

Please overturn what I've presented without contradicting yourself again then. Go ahead give us the story of why plain scripture is wrong and WT erroneous technicaties are what Paul really meant.
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:58 am

Hello TS,


By your answer, it means you are arguing that you are an authority on the word firstborn, but yet when trapped by your own words you now have to back track.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I am not the authority on the word "firstborn", but I would hope you would believe that the Bible IS the authority on the meaning of the word firstborn and also of the phrase "firstborn OF XXXXXX(something). And as I have repeatedly shown and demonstrated, the firstborn is always a part of the group that it is associated with. Always, never an exception.

And that is true whether they are also the pre-eminent or not. Do you not know that the PRE-EMINENT member is STILL a MEMBER?! This is what you keep running right past. Never once is the firstborn NOT a part of the group that it is associated with regardless of how it is used. It makes no difference whether he is the pre-eminent one or not, it is ALWAYS STILL a part of the associated GROUP or CLASS. You still have found no exception to this problem for you.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

This means:

1. You either have no idea what the allowable usages of firstborn really are
2. Or you are just prejudice and bias and blindly dismiss real evidence (especially when it conflicts with your view)
3. Or you are in denial and are resorting to rationalizing a form of lying to yourself.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Or, I made a mistake in my answer. Is that not allowable for you?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Because if what you said about Bill gates is in fact acceptable usage of firstborn, then you are in checkmate. It doesn't matter what you were thinking after the fact in order to split hairs.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I have already explained I was not thinking about the fact that Bill Gates was the Creator of Microsoft, so there is no checkmate and no splitting of hairs. I was an error. Have you ever made one of those? Do you ot remember some of our earlier discussions when you had to change your answer a couple of times? I can dig them up and post them here if you like.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

There are no two different wavelengths of thought. What you are using is a deception technique called MOVING THE GOALPOST or SPECIAL PLEADING. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

Quoting from the link...

You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
"Humans are funny creatures and have a foolish aversion to being wrong. Rather than appreciate the benefits of being able to change one's mind through better understanding, many will invent ways to cling to old beliefs. One of the most common ways that people do this is to post-rationalize a reason why what they thought to be true must remain to be true. It's usually very easy to find a reason to believe something that suits us, and it requires integrity and genuine honesty with oneself to examine one's own beliefs and motivations without falling into the trap of justifying our existing ways of seeing ourselves and the world around us."



Bill gates is either firstborn of Microsoft or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is not. He is the Creator. I made a mistake. It happens.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus is firstborn of many brethren or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is, but guess what that makes him? It makes him ONE OF THE BROTHERS, a PART of the CLASS that he is associated with. This is what you keep missing.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus is firstborn of the congregation or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is, but guess what that makes him? It makes him ONE OF THE CONGREGATION MEMBERS, a PART of the CLASS that he is associated with. This is what you keep missing.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

These are all pre-eminent status that comes from being the creator or founder or heir. They all point to being pre-eminent. Just as PAUL said. To be Pre-Eminent in all things.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And he is ALSO the FIRST of the BROTHERS, and the FIRST MEMBER of the CONGREGATION. And even if he wasn't, the part you keep forgetting is that he is STILL a MEMBER of the ASSOCIATED CLASS. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Second...

You also completely ignored the STRONGEST EVIDENCE, the fact that by your version of firstborn, PAUL is SPEAKING complete and udder NONSENSE. You still have to contend with this.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The word FIRSTBORN when associated with a group is NEVER used to denote the FATHER of someone, merely the class that they belong to. So for good reason, it never says he is the firstborn of Jehovah. And notice it says ALL creation, not just the NEW creation. Applying it to only the NEW creation completely ignores the HOTI clause that I mentioned before. The HOTI clause applies it to ALL creation, to the things visible and invisible.

As far as the "first-created" point, that word was unheard of in the Greek until many decades after Christ, and guess who it was applied to when it was first coined? Jesus Christ as the Son of God.

The rest of your response goes into great detail how Jesus did not become the firstborn until he was resurrected. The problem is this is not only a mistaken idea, it also has no bearing on the main point.

Yes, he did indeed become the firstborn from the DEAD when he was resurrected and in that sense could be viewed as begotten, but you are somehow thinking that one act of being begotten has to somehow cancel the other and there is simply no rhyme or reason to think so. As I have mentioned, the HOTI clause at Col. 1:16 disproves the idea that he ONLY became the firstborn of the NEW creation. The sentences would make no sense if it was just talking about the NEW creation. Remember, it says ALL creation.

The HOTI clause says that the REASON he is called the FIRSTBORN OF CREATION is BECAUSE (HOTI) all other creation CAME THROUGH HIM, and it goes on to iterate what is meant by all other creation.

It says:
"the things visible and the things invisible,+ whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him+ and for him."

This is surely not just a description of the NEW creation, but ALL creation, so your answer is not a checkmate or conclusive by any means, it is in fact incorrect, and Paul's words prove it.

So, once again, the ONLY way all creation can come through someone who is the FIRSTBORN creation, is if that ONE were CREATED first and then everything else came THROUGH that one. This is exactly what Col. 1:15,16 teaches.

Don't you see that just because he is the firstborn in ONE way, does not mean he can't be the FIRSTBORN in another WAY as well. So again, and you have not successfully done so, you must find an exception to the Biblical precedent that allows the FIRSTBORN to NOT be a PART of its ASSOCIATED Group. Just find one example and then you might be getting somewhere. The NEW creation argument does not work as I have shown. Paul shows conclusively that he is talking about ALL creation.

Stick with Biblical precedent and you can't go wrong. So far, you are denying Biblical precedent because Biblical precedent demands that the FIRSTBORN is part of the associated GROUP, and that associated group is ALL CREATION.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:30 pm

I'm at airport traveling again. I'm back Sunday. I do have my laptop but for now I can only comment using my mobile so It's too cumbersome to quote scripture. So forgive the paraphrasing.

Phillipines 2. What was Paul's point?

Was it not to point out how humble christ was?

What did Christ give up?

Does a slave have any rights or property on his own? Or does it all belong to his master?

Does he belong to himself?

Did he give up everything to become human or did he not?

How is Christ humble if he holds on to his royal status as a firstborn? An heir?

Did he not have to put all his faith and trust in God and learn obedience....

How can one learn obedience if you have been obedient your whole life. One must be sovereign a d have rights and have to give up that power in order to have learn obedience does he not?
Last edited by truthseeker on Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:39 pm

I will wait for an answer to what I just posted before we embark on another context unless you can first tell me how it relates.

Regards,
Rotherham

truthseeker wrote:I'm at airport traveling again. I'm back Sunday. I do have my laptop but for now I can only comment using my mobile so It's too cumbersome to quote scripture. So forgive the paraphrasing.

Phillipines 2. What was Paul's point?

Was it not to point out how humble christ was?

What did Christ give up?

Does a slave have any rights or property on his own? Or does it all belong to his master?

Does he belong to himself?

Did he give up everything to become human or did he not?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:53 pm

Bill gates is either firstborn of Microsoft or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is not. He is the Creator. I made a mistake. It happens.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus is firstborn of many brethren or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is, but guess what that makes him? It makes him ONE OF THE BROTHERS, a PART of the CLASS that he is associated with. This is what you keep missing.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus is firstborn of the congregation or he is not. 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is, but guess what that makes him? It makes him ONE OF THE CONGREGATION MEMBERS, a PART of the CLASS that he is associated with. This is what you keep missing.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

These are all pre-eminent status that comes from being the creator or founder or heir. They all point to being pre-eminent. Just as PAUL said. To be Pre-Eminent in all things.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And he is ALSO the FIRST of the BROTHERS, and the FIRST MEMBER of the CONGREGATION. And even if he wasn't, the part you keep forgetting is that he is STILL a MEMBER of the ASSOCIATED CLASS. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


In each case Jesus is also the creator and the FIRST as you say. How is Bill Gates not a firstborn of Microsoft? Is he not the First and the creator? Isn't he as you say STILL A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATED CLASS?
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Mar 30, 2016 2:43 pm

Bill Gates is not God who is in a class by himself. That's the difference. God could never be considered the firstborn of creation because the phrase always requires membership to the associated class. God can not be both a creation and the ultimate creator.



truthseeker wrote:
Bill gates is either firstborn of Microsoft or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is not. He is the Creator. I made a mistake. It happens.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus is firstborn of many brethren or he is not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is, but guess what that makes him? It makes him ONE OF THE BROTHERS, a PART of the CLASS that he is associated with. This is what you keep missing.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Jesus is firstborn of the congregation or he is not. 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
He is, but guess what that makes him? It makes him ONE OF THE CONGREGATION MEMBERS, a PART of the CLASS that he is associated with. This is what you keep missing.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

These are all pre-eminent status that comes from being the creator or founder or heir. They all point to being pre-eminent. Just as PAUL said. To be Pre-Eminent in all things.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And he is ALSO the FIRST of the BROTHERS, and the FIRST MEMBER of the CONGREGATION. And even if he wasn't, the part you keep forgetting is that he is STILL a MEMBER of the ASSOCIATED CLASS. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


In each case Jesus is also the creator and the FIRST as you say. How is Bill Gates not a firstborn of Microsoft? Is he not the First and the creator? Isn't he as you say STILL A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATED CLASS?
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:03 pm

I'm back in town. Sorry for the delay.

Jesus was a man.

Bill gates is a man.

Therefore, Jesus as human is no different than Bill Gates.

Jesus created the congregation and therefore the first of the associated class.

He is the head and he holds it all together. By your own definition he is the First and a member of the group or associated class.

The same logic applies for Bill Gates...period.

Your own definition now changes again and is prejudicial. Now you clutch at straws to get around your own definition and reasoning? Why?

You purposely distract and throw in a red herring fallacy, by bringing up God in a class of his own when we are strictly talking about Jesus. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ed_Herring

God would in fact be the firstborn of all creation if he actually created it! But that's not what the text says here.

Because... by your own definition... only the one who actually is FIRST and a member of the associated class could be the firstborn.

That is why the second child that comes out of the womb is not a firstborn. Only the First child can be a firstborn. This same logic holds when a group is formed or created. The creator is the FIRST member of the group or associated class, therefore the firstborn.

Colossians 1:15 is not talking about creation happening at that moment is it?

If we were talking about Jehovah and said "by means of him all things were created". You would not argue that this means Jehovah is the one who actually created all things. But if the same language is used of Jesus somehow this same understanding no longer applies. If a surgeon cuts someone open, then the means is the scalpel. That means the surgeon did not actually cut, but the scalpel did the cutting. The surgeon by means of the scalpel did the cutting.

So Jesus is the means, so he is the ACTUAL creator. Jehovah only gets credit like the surgeon for guiding the scalpul. The same with Jehovah, Jesus is the scalpul, the instrument. The MEANS is ALWAYS the ACTUAL DOER. Can you find any circumstance where the MEANS is not the actual doer? Impossible, because that is what it means to be the instrument. We drive by means of a car. The car is what actually drives us. The means is the ACTUAL in all cases.

Back on point...

It is impossible for Bill Gates NOT to be the firstborn of Microsoft. He is the creator therefore automatically the FIRST. He is the first of and member in the associated class. So therefore Jesus is firstborn of All HIS creation and also a member because regardless if there are two SUBCLASSES of creation (old and new) he is firstborn over ALL CREATION....ALL....ALL...

Both old and new.

YOU ARE STILL IN CHECKMATE

Show exactly how ...spell it out why Billy Boy can't be the firstborn of Microsoft but human Jesus who you claim is not in his own right God, can form a congregation and be the firstborn of it and a member in the class....but Bill Gates now can't be.

Jesus had to become the firstborn...and the firstfruits of all the dead. So he is FIRST OF the ASSOCIATED CLASS.

Romans 8:29-30 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he (Jesus) MIGHT BE (not is or was) the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV)

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 20-24 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…20 But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead, and he BECAME the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.

Notice Jesus is only considered the FIRSTBORN after the Resurrection, never, ever, ever before. You can't find a single scripture to corroborate your version of firstborn meaning first created at the very beginning. It is only NOW as a resurrected Jesus has he become the firstborn.


1. You failed to address that your version of Firstborn is logically impossible and makes Paul's statement nonsense by definition of your own "The HOTI clause".
2. You failed to address that you agreed Jesus receives the blessing of David, which part of that is to be MADE Firstborn. You can't be made Firstborn if you already are FIRSTBORN.
3. You failed to address that God on the day of Jesus Resurrection birthed Jesus as his Firstborn on that very day as his only begotten son.
4. You failed to address that your own FIRSTBORN definition is acceptable with Bill gates and have failed to exclude Bill Gates instead you dropped a RED HERRING diverting attention to God.
5. You failed to address that Jesus in Col 1:15 is referred to as an exact copy, a mirror image of God, NOT THE ORIGINAL, meaning this is what he was as of the PRESENT giving a slam dunk that FIRSTBORN here refers to Col 1:18 FIRSTBORN of the DEAD First of all creation as Jesus was resurrected into a copy of God and made Firstborn and all angels are told to worship him.

6. You failed to address that even if Jesus was by some stretch FIRSTBORN and created in the very beginning of time (which he was not), Col 1:15 would still not apply to your definition of firstborn, because Philippians 2 shows how Jesus gave up EVERYTHING to become a slave. He had nothing, not even name. He was given a commoner’s name. He became a slave. There is no way he would have kept any favor as to being a firstborn. He would have to have given that title and privilege up until he was born again. Which he was. Because he himself said...NO MAN MAY ENTER THE KINGDOM UNLESS HE IS BORN AGAIN. So the OBVIOUS meaning here in the PRESENT tense is when Jesus is BORN AGAIN, and MADE the Firstborn fulfilling the prophecy of David's blessings.

I owe you nothing more until you overturn all the six major points. But you can’t so …Checkmate.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:46 am

Probably this weekend before I respond unless I find more time between now and then.

Regards
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:07 am

Phillipines 2. What was Paul's point?

Was it not to point out how humble christ was?

What did Christ give up?

Does a slave have any rights or property on his own? Or does it all belong to his master?

Does he belong to himself?

Did he give up everything to become human or did he not?

How is Christ humble if he holds on to his royal status as a firstborn? An heir?

Did he not have to put all his faith and trust in God and learn obedience....

How can one learn obedience if you have been obedient your whole life. One must be sovereign a d have rights and have to give up that power in order to have learn obedience does he not?
Last edited by truthseeker on Wed Mar 30, 2016 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
truthseeker

Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:43 am


Don't forget to answer this cause now you are conflicting with this too. Jesus had zero titles or priveledges. He gave them all up. He could not be a firstborn unless he completed his mission. He had a chance to fail. How humble could he be if kept title and priveledge? He had none when he became human. He had to be MADE firstborn.
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Apr 06, 2016 1:12 pm

Hello TS,

You said:

I'm back in town. Sorry for the delay.

Jesus was a man.

Bill gates is a man.

Therefore, Jesus as human is no different than Bill Gates.

Jesus created the congregation and therefore the first of the associated class.

He is the head and he holds it all together. By your own definition he is the First and a member of the group or associated class.

The same logic applies for Bill Gates...period.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I don't know what's wrong with you. You are arguing something I am not in disagreement with. But this has no bearing on whether GOD can be a MEMBER of CREATION. Microsoft, by necessity, must have members and the Creator in that case is also a member, BECAUSE MICROSOFT IS A CORPORATION, which MUST have members as a matter of existence, but PLEASE tell me you're not trying to apply this to God and his creation. If so, you have lost all sense of what this is about.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Your own definition now changes again and is prejudicial. Now you clutch at straws to get around your own definition and reasoning? Why?

You purposely distract and throw in a red herring fallacy, by bringing up God in a class of his own when we are strictly talking about Jesus. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ed_Herring

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Have you forgotten that YOU believe Jesus is God the CREATOR? God can NOT be a member of creation, because CREATION means THINGS CREATED. Surely you do not believe that God is also a creation. It is completely illogical to think that the Creator of ALL things is also a CREATION. I will repeat, God can not be a member of creation and therefore can not be the FIRSTBORN of CREATION because that title would make him PART of creation. Is this really that hard to grasp?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


God would in fact be the firstborn of all creation if he actually created it! But that's not what the text says here.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This is insane! God can not be the firstborn of all creation because that PHRASE makes him PART of creation. It's fairly cut and dry and I have no idea why you can't seem to get it. Statements like the above make me worry for you.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Because... by your own definition... only the one who actually is FIRST and a member of the associated class could be the firstborn.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Do you not see what you are saying here? Your own words prove my point. God can NOT be the FIRSTBORN of CREATION, so since Jesus IS the FIRSTBORN of creation, he CAN'T be God!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


That is why the second child that comes out of the womb is not a firstborn. Only the First child can be a firstborn. This same logic holds when a group is formed or created. The creator is the FIRST member of the group or associated class, therefore the firstborn.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That might work with a corporation like Microsoft but not LIVING beings! Surely you see that.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Colossians 1:15 is not talking about creation happening at that moment is it?

If we were talking about Jehovah and said "by means of him all things were created". You would not argue that this means Jehovah is the one who actually created all things. But if the same language is used of Jesus somehow this same understanding no longer applies. If a surgeon cuts someone open, then the means is the scalpel. That means the surgeon did not actually cut, but the scalpel did the cutting. The surgeon by means of the scalpel did the cutting.

So Jesus is the means, so he is the ACTUAL creator. Jehovah only gets credit like the surgeon for guiding the scalpul. The same with Jehovah, Jesus is the scalpul, the instrument. The MEANS is ALWAYS the ACTUAL DOER. Can you find any circumstance where the MEANS is not the actual doer? Impossible, because that is what it means to be the instrument. We drive by means of a car. The car is what actually drives us. The means is the ACTUAL in all cases.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Your confused, There is the active cause and then there is the instrument. The instrument is not the cause. God is the cause, the Son is the instrument. Jesus, as the instrument, puts to gether what God, as the cause, supplies.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Back on point...


It is impossible for Bill Gates NOT to be the firstborn of Microsoft. He is the creator therefore automatically the FIRST. He is the first of and member in the associated class. So therefore Jesus is firstborn of All HIS creation and also a member because regardless if there are two SUBCLASSES of creation (old and new) he is firstborn over ALL CREATION....ALL....ALL...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Again, you're really confusing yourself here. The HOTI clause as I have shown you more than once PROVES that the Son is FIRSTBORN of ALL creation, which talks specifically about ALL things that have been created from the beginning. Simply because Jesus had something to do with the creation of a specialized group does not in any way mean that he therefore created everything. Surely you know better than that.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Both old and new.

YOU ARE STILL IN CHECKMATE

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I think you need to study chess further. You clearly have no idea what checkmate is.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Show exactly how ...spell it out why Billy Boy can't be the firstborn of Microsoft but human Jesus who you claim is not in his own right God, can form a congregation and be the firstborn of it and a member in the class....but Bill Gates now can't be.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
CREATION is not a COMPANY that gets produced like Microsoft. Please explain to me thoroughly how God could be the FIRSTBORN of ALL THINGS CREATED?! Surely you have to see the logical contradiction of that statement.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



Jesus had to become the firstborn...and the firstfruits of all the dead. So he is FIRST OF the ASSOCIATED CLASS.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Correct. But that in no way would make the CREATOR part of all things CREATED. That's impossible by the very nature of the words.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Romans 8:29-30 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he (Jesus) MIGHT BE (not is or was) the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (NIV)

Hebrews 12:22-24 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 20-24 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…20 But the fact is that Christ has been raised from the dead, and he BECAME the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.

Notice Jesus is only considered the FIRSTBORN after the Resurrection, never, ever, ever before. You can't find a single scripture to corroborate your version of firstborn meaning first created at the very beginning. It is only NOW as a resurrected Jesus has he become the firstborn.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
False, the HOTI clause of Col. 1:16 proves that Jesus is the firstborn of ALL CREATION, which would mean CLEAR BACK to the BEGINNING. Read it again.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



1. You failed to address that your version of Firstborn is logically impossible and makes Paul's statement nonsense by definition of your own "The HOTI clause".

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You are going to have to be more specific as to what it is you are seeing in Paul's words.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


2. You failed to address that you agreed Jesus receives the blessing of David, which part of that is to be MADE Firstborn. You can't be made Firstborn if you already are FIRSTBORN.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Please note that David is here a prophetic representation of Christ. Christ is made the FIRSTBORN king by appointment. There were other kings besides Jesus but he when he is made king he will be made the FIRSTBORN king because of TWO reasons, by the fact that he will be not only the most pre-eminent king ever but also the actual FIRSTBORN Son.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


3. You failed to address that God on the day of Jesus Resurrection birthed Jesus as his Firstborn on that very day as his only begotten son.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I said that it is entirely posssible but has no bearing on Col. 1:15 and 16 and the relevant HOTI clause. Regardless of how you slice that passage, Jesus is PART of CREATION and can therefore NOT be God.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


4. You failed to address that your own FIRSTBORN definition is acceptable with Bill gates and have failed to exclude Bill Gates instead you dropped a RED HERRING diverting attention to God.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you can't see the inherent flaw in this objection I worry for you. We are talking about God and his LIVING creation, not a company that must have memebrs by the very fact that it is a company, and whose creator is naturally also a member. Your logic here is greatly flawed
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


5. You failed to address that Jesus in Col 1:15 is referred to as an exact copy, a mirror image of God, NOT THE ORIGINAL, meaning this is what he was as of the PRESENT giving a slam dunk that FIRSTBORN here refers to Col 1:18 FIRSTBORN of the DEAD First of all creation as Jesus was resurrected into a copy of God and made Firstborn and all angels are told to worship him.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nothing there changes the fact that the FIRSTBORN of CREATION can NOT be God. It is a logical impossibility. Therefore, Jesus can NOT be God.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


6. You failed to address that even if Jesus was by some stretch FIRSTBORN and created in the very beginning of time (which he was not), Col 1:15 would still not apply to your definition of firstborn, because Philippians 2 shows how Jesus gave up EVERYTHING to become a slave. He had nothing, not even name. He was given a commoner’s name. He became a slave. There is no way he would have kept any favor as to being a firstborn. He would have to have given that title and privilege up until he was born again. Which he was. Because he himself said...NO MAN MAY ENTER THE KINGDOM UNLESS HE IS BORN AGAIN. So the OBVIOUS meaning here in the PRESENT tense is when Jesus is BORN AGAIN, and MADE the Firstborn fulfilling the prophecy of David's blessings.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Phillipians tells us that what he emptied himself of was being in the FORM of God. He didn't lose everything nor was he required to. He simply had to become man and die as a ransom for our sins.

Regards,
Rotherham
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Wed Apr 06, 2016 9:18 pm

Sorry you are still in checkmate...you just don't see it. I will go back to simple questions so it makes it easier for you to see how you are speaking nonsense.

Is the actual word "things" in the Greek interlinear? Wherever ALL THINGS appears in Col 1:16-18

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

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/col1.pdf
truthseeker
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby Rotherham » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:09 am

No, "things" is not in the original Greek. It is added to complete the meaning in English. Therefore, it can be semantically included with the word "pas" or "pantas", just like the word "other" can be in a given context. There are many examples.

Sorry for the delay.

Regards,
Rotherham

truthseeker wrote:Sorry you are still in checkmate...you just don't see it. I will go back to simple questions so it makes it easier for you to see how you are speaking nonsense.

Is the actual word "things" in the Greek interlinear? Wherever ALL THINGS appears in Col 1:16-18

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

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... f/col1.pdf
In the end of the matter, knowledge is based upon acknowledgement.
User avatar
Rotherham
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Re: DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TES

Postby truthseeker » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:28 pm

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
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:43 am

Next

Return to 6. DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron