DOES CREATION REVEAL THAT JESUS IS YAHWEH OF THE OLD TESTAME

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

Sorry for the delay. I should respond sometime today.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

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]

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.

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

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".

[truthseeker]

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

[truthseeker]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

RM how many manuscripts are there in existance that make up the new testament? Take a guess. Alot? Quite a few? A couple?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

How many of them have the word "other" inserted into Colossians 1:15-7 four times?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

Does inserting the word other four times change the meaning of the text than if it was read without the word other?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

Did the congregation exist or did Jesus have to start the congregation?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

So just like firstborn of many brethren he is definitely the firstborn of the congregation? Yes or No Please confirm

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. Was Jesus the first person to be resurrected? Why is he firstborn from the dead?

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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)

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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.’”

[Rotherham]

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.

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

Sorry, wont be around much until Friday. Sit tight.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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?

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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?

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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.

[Rotherham]

Probably this weekend before I respond unless I find more time between now and then.

Regards
Rotherham

[truthseeker]

[Rotherham]

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

[truthseeker]

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

[Rotherham]

[truthseeker]

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?