Christian Beliefs

[Free]

My first instinct is based on logic alone that goes with believing Jesus can’t actually be God. One cannot create Himself??

How is that logical? Jesus wasn't created, that's the main point. In not being created, he is therefore God. No one is saying God created himself.

Now logically speaking, I understand firstborn to be more along the lines of rank, privilege, and importance.

Yes, that is one of the meanings. Context is everything when determining the meaning of a word.

John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV
...
So if all things were made through the Logos, doesn’t that mean that they were not made by the Logos but by someone stronger and greater than he, being the Father?

No. You have just ignored one of the verses you used to come to that conclusion. John 1:3 explicitly states, as does Col 1:15-16 which I have pointed out previously, that "without him was not anything made that hath been made." The only logical conclusion is that Jesus was not made.

 

[seekandlisten]

My first instinct is based on logic alone that goes with believing Jesus can’t actually be God. One cannot create Himself??

How is that logical? Jesus wasn't created, that's the main point. In not being created, he is therefore God. No one is saying God created himself. Someone told me that. Maybe it wasn't in this thread I'd have to go back and look. That was just a comment for anyone who believes Jesus was created.

Now logically speaking, I understand firstborn to be more along the lines of rank, privilege, and importance.

Yes, that is one of the meanings. Context is everything when determining the meaning of a word.

John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV
...
So if all things were made through the Logos, doesn’t that mean that they were not made by the Logos but by someone stronger and greater than he, being the Father?

No. You have just ignored one of the verses you used to come to that conclusion. John 1:3 explicitly states, as does Col 1:15-16 which I have pointed out previously, that "without him was not anything made that hath been made." The only logical conclusion is that Jesus was not made.

That verse only means to me God's original intent of creation. Without Jesus all is dead.

 

[Free]

That verse only means to me God's original intent of creation. Without Jesus all is dead.

What do you mean by "God's original intent of creation"? The verse states something quite plainly and clearly.

 

[seekandlisten]

That verse only means to me God's original intent of creation. Without Jesus all is dead.

What do you mean by "God's original intent of creation"? The verse states something quite plainly and clearly.

God didn't create the world we live in today. God's creation was good. Therefore the only way to God's Creation is through Jesus. I'm sorry if I can't explain this any better. I can only explain it to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Free]

That verse only means to me God's original intent of creation. Without Jesus all is dead.

What do you mean by "God's original intent of creation"? The verse states something quite plainly and clearly.

God didn't create the world we live in today. God's creation was good. Therefore the only way to God's Creation is through Jesus. I'm sorry if I can't explain this any better. I can only explain it to the best of my knowledge.

But how does that deal with the statements that "everything that has been created was created through Jesus"? If everything that has been created was created through Jesus then it logically follows that he himself could not have been created, otherwise those statements are false.

 

[seekandlisten]

But how does that deal with the statements that "everything that has been created was created through Jesus"? If everything that has been created was created through Jesus then it logically follows that he himself could not have been created, otherwise those statements are false.

Sorry free, I don't follow?? I don't think Jesus was created so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Free]

But how does that deal with the statements that "everything that has been created was created through Jesus"? If everything that has been created was created through Jesus then it logically follows that he himself could not have been created, otherwise those statements are false.

Sorry free, I don't follow?? I don't think Jesus was created so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Then who is Jesus since you don't think he is God? If Jesus wasn't created, then he is God. If Jesus was created then he is not God.

 

[toddm]

Jesus Himself claimed to be God in John 8 and other passages where He said "before Abraham was, I am" - this is a specific reference to Ex. 3:14. John 1, Colossians 1:15-23, & Hebrews 1:3 also ALL refute the idea that Jesus was any less than God.

 

[(THE)]

But how does that deal with the statements that "everything that has been created was created through Jesus"? If everything that has been created was created through Jesus then it logically follows that he himself could not have been created, otherwise those statements are false.

Sorry free, I don't follow?? I don't think Jesus was created so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

I disagree seekandlisten

Rev.1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

SO im thinking whenever you believe Christ was created,,,,He was there before that......

 

[seekandlisten]

But how does that deal with the statements that "everything that has been created was created through Jesus"? If everything that has been created was created through Jesus then it logically follows that he himself could not have been created, otherwise those statements are false.

Sorry free, I don't follow?? I don't think Jesus was created so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Then who is Jesus since you don't think he is God? If Jesus wasn't created, then he is God. If Jesus was created then he is not God.

I don't think, I know who Jesus is. Jesus is the Saviour of the world, the firstborn of the sons of God.

What kind of logic is it to assume that if Jesus wasn't created then he is God?? Are you God?? You weren't created you were born.

 

[seekandlisten]

I’m just going to insert this here to hopefully curb the going in circles effect. First, the statement Jesus is God seems to be the point of interest in this thread so my position is these two things, nothing more, nothing less, just plainly what is stated.
1. Jesus is not equal to God the Father, Creator of the world. Jesus was a man, born on earth to Mary and Joseph.
2. The trinity doctrine is no more than a stumbling block as it does nothing to clarify yet it blinds many.

If your argument that Jesus is God is simply based on the bible says so, please provide logic to get to the belief of how the son is equal to the Father. I will point out that nowhere in the canonized bible does it say that Jesus is equal to God the Father. We are left with however that some places say ‘Jesus is God’, ‘Lord’, ‘through him’ etc. that cause us to come to the question, ‘Is Jesus in fact God Himself, the Father and Creator of all?’

Now comes the trinity doctrine. Without going into great detail, as I’ve heard this explained many times, the trinity merely states that God the Father and God the Son are separate yet are one. Did this answer the question or merely rephrase it? The trinity does not state that Jesus is equal to God the Father. This doctrine yet blinds people to thinking that Jesus is in fact God the Father. So I reject this doctrine.

I will leave one more point to my beliefs here. Keep in mind I only believe this as a word of caution not to set a doctrine upon.

(15) Jesus said, "When you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your faces and worship him. That one is your father."
(30) Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods. Where there are two or one, I am with him."
The Gospel of Thomas

 

[Free]

1. Jesus is not equal to God the Father, Creator of the world. Jesus was a man, born on earth to Mary and Joseph.

Sorry free, I don't follow?? I don't think Jesus was created so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Based on what you have just stated, there was a time when Jesus was not; therefore, he is a created being, a creature. That is what I have been arguing against all along.

2. The trinity doctrine is no more than a stumbling block as it does nothing to clarify yet it blinds many.

It is difficult but it does clarify since, as I have stated, you must necessarily ignore many passages or change what they mean. See below.

If your argument that Jesus is God is simply based on the bible says so, please provide logic to get to the belief of how the son is equal to the Father.

I have done so, several times. The passages in John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 (I had previously said verses 15-16 but I meant 16-17) are the only two I am dealing with to try and keep it simple. My previous point was that you used John 1:3 to try and prove your point but ignored what it said. But if Jesus is a mere creature, as you claim, then John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 cannot be true.

Eternality is an attribute of God alone which is one reason why Jesus is equal to the Father.

The trinity does not state that Jesus is equal to God the Father.

Yes, it does. That is one of the foundations of the Trinity.

This doctrine yet blinds people to thinking that Jesus is in fact God the Father. So I reject this doctrine.

No. Correctly stated and understood the doctrine of the Trinity clearly states that Jesus is not the Father. That is one of the other foundations.

 

[toddm]

Has anyone studied about Gnostic Christians and what they believe?

What kind of christian you are is not relevant to why one must believe in the trinity to be saved. I don't believe Jesus was God here on earth, why must I believe that Jesus was God to be saved? the trinity is not in the bible.

I already quoted John 8:24 and you gave no response. Jesus was quite clear that one must believe that Jesus is who he said he is (God) or you will die in your sins.

 

[seekandlisten]

1. Jesus is not equal to God the Father, Creator of the world. Jesus was a man, born on earth to Mary and Joseph.

Sorry free, I don't follow?? I don't think Jesus was created so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Based on what you have just stated, there was a time when Jesus was not; therefore, he is a created being, a creature. That is what I have been arguing against all along. Yes there was a time when Jesus was not. No he was not created. He was born a man. Mary was his mother and Joseph was his father.

2. The trinity doctrine is no more than a stumbling block as it does nothing to clarify yet it blinds many.

It is difficult but it does clarify since, as I have stated, you must necessarily ignore many passages or change what they mean. See below. One doesn't need to ignore the passages, one just has to figure out what they mean. The trinity does not do this. The trinity is someone's interpretation just like your interpretation or my interpretation so not God's Word. The fact that you say it is difficult seems illogical if it is supposed to be the solution.

If your argument that Jesus is God is simply based on the bible says so, please provide logic to get to the belief of how the son is equal to the Father.

I have done so, several times. The passages in John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 (I had previously said verses 15-16 but I meant 16-17) are the only two I am dealing with to try and keep it simple. My previous point was that you used John 1:3 to try and prove your point but ignored what it said. But if Jesus is a mere creature, as you claim, then John 1:1-3 and Col 1:16-17 cannot be true. Yes but like I have tried to put forward I read the same bible and I don't get this interpretation as coming anywhere other than the man who first proposed it. My understanding comes from above. I'm not about to look to man for the answers.

Eternality is an attribute of God alone which is one reason why Jesus is equal to the Father. Are we not to be given eternal life one day?

The trinity does not state that Jesus is equal to God the Father.

Yes, it does. That is one of the foundations of the Trinity. Show me in the doctrine where it says the Son is equal to the Father. Show me in the bible. It can't be done other then by grabbing random verses from different sections using them out of context and trying to solve why they say different things. This is where the trinity is suppose to solve the issue?? Man's issue of rather than looking to God for understanding, try to explain it themself and if you don't believe their interpretation you can't be a christian????

This doctrine yet blinds people to thinking that Jesus is in fact God the Father. So I reject this doctrine.

No. Correctly stated and understood the doctrine of the Trinity clearly states that Jesus is not the Father. That is one of the other foundations.

So now you are saying it states the completely opposite and Jesus is not the Father???

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here free. For me to believe like you do I would have to make christianity simply a religion. This is based on what I have come to understand in the bible. It is much more to me than that it's personal and if you don't like it, that is fine, I'm not here to tell you what to believe. I have merely provided my point of view. I ask if you can move past this point to contribute to the earlier post about what it means for Jesus to be the firstborn of the sons of God.

 

[seekandlisten]

Has anyone studied about Gnostic Christians and what they believe?

What kind of christian you are is not relevant to why one must believe in the trinity to be saved. I don't believe Jesus was God here on earth, why must I believe that Jesus was God to be saved? the trinity is not in the bible.

I already quoted John 8:24 and you gave no response. Jesus was quite clear that one must believe that Jesus is who he said he is (God) or you will die in your sins.

Response to what?? If we believe Jesus is the Saviour of the world we won't die of our sins??

John 8:24 (King James Version)

24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

In the same passage Jesus said that 'you do not know me or my Father.'

 

[Free]

Yes there was a time when Jesus was not.

Okay. Now we're clear on your position.

You don't need to ignore the passages, you have to figure out what they mean.

I was saying that you must ignore passages, not I. You must, for the reasons I gave.

The fact that you say it is difficult seems illogical if it is supposed to be the solution.

Not at all. Calculus is difficult for many people but that does not mean it is illogical.

Yes but like I have tried to put forward I read the same bible and I don't get this interpretation as coming anywhere other than the man who first proposed it. My understanding comes from above. I'm not about to look to man for the answers.

That is not an answer to the passages I gave you. You are ignoring my main argument from these passages and ignoring what they are saying. And in ignoring what Scripture is clearly saying, your understanding does not come from above, it comes from you, at best.

Are we not to be given eternal life one day?

Do not confuse eternity past with our eternal future. Eternality, the fact that God has always been, is an attribute of God alone. But the two passages I gave show that Jesus also existed for past eternity; therefore, he is also God.

Show me in the doctrine where it says the Son is equal to the Father.

You start a thread on the doctrine of the Trinity and why you reject it but yet you do not even know what it says?

So now you are saying it states the completely opposite and Jesus is not the Father???

I have never once said otherwise. No trinitarian would claim that Jesus is the Father because that is not trinitarianism, that is modalism, a heresy.

For me to believe like you do I would have to make christianity simply a religion.

Christianity is a religion.

This is based on what I have come to understand in the bible. It is much more to me than that it's personal and if you don't like it fine, I'm not here to tell you what to believe. I have merely provided my point of view.

I understand that but I have shown why your understanding of the Bible is wrong and you have failed to address my arguments from Scripture.

 

[seekandlisten]

Yes there was a time when Jesus was not.

Okay. Now we're clear on your position.

You don't need to ignore the passages, you have to figure out what they mean.

I was saying that you must ignore passages, not I. You must, for the reasons I gave. Sorry, I wasn't insinuating you in particular, I'll edit that.

The fact that you say it is difficult seems illogical if it is supposed to be the solution.

Not at all. Calculus is difficult for many people but that does not mean it is illogical.

Yes but like I have tried to put forward I read the same bible and I don't get this interpretation as coming anywhere other than the man who first proposed it. My understanding comes from above. I'm not about to look to man for the answers.

That is not an answer to the passages I gave you. You are ignoring my main argument from these passages and ignoring what they are saying. And in ignoring what Scripture is clearly saying, your understanding does not come from above, it comes from you, at best. I'm ok with where my beliefs come from.

Are we not to be given eternal life one day?

Do not confuse eternity past with our eternal future. Eternality, the fact that God has always been, is an attribute of God alone. But the two passages I gave show that Jesus also existed for past eternity; therefore, he is also God. I'm not confused.

Show me in the doctrine where it says the Son is equal to the Father.

You start a thread on the doctrine of the Trinity and why you reject it but yet you do not even know what it says? Why would I need to know the exact wording of a doctrine I don't believe in??

So now you are saying it states the completely opposite and Jesus is not the Father???

I have never once said otherwise. No trinitarian would claim that Jesus is the Father because that is not trinitarianism, that is modalism, a heresy. So you say Jesus is not equal to the Father, the same statement I made so we get their by different understanding. Can we move on?

For me to believe like you do I would have to make christianity simply a religion.

Christianity is a religion.Not to me.

This is based on what I have come to understand in the bible. It is much more to me than that it's personal and if you don't like it fine, I'm not here to tell you what to believe. I have merely provided my point of view.

I understand that but I have shown why your understanding of the Bible is wrong and you have failed to address my arguments from Scripture.

I don't disagree with the scripture you use, I disagree with what you say it means. I'm ok with that. Are you ok with that?

I would like to hear opinions on what Jesus as the 'firstborn of the sons of God" means to people. Are you interested in presenting your opinion?

 

[Free]

That is not an answer to the passages I gave you. You are ignoring my main argument from these passages and ignoring what they are saying. And in ignoring what Scripture is clearly saying, your understanding does not come from above, it comes from you, at best.

I'm ok with where my beliefs come from.

You're okay with a belief that contradicts the Bible? Why?

Do not confuse eternity past with our eternal future. Eternality, the fact that God has always been, is an attribute of God alone. But the two passages I gave show that Jesus also existed for past eternity; therefore, he is also God.

I'm not confused.

Then why did you say: "Are we not to be given eternal life one day?"

You start a thread on the doctrine of the Trinity and why you reject it but yet you do not even know what it says?

Why would I need to know the exact wording of a doctrine I don't believe in??

Are you serious? You are debating a topic you know very little about. You don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity but you don't even understand it. That is very unreasonable.

So you say Jesus is not equal to the Father, the same statement I made so we get their by different understanding. Can we move on?

No, we cannot. You really are confused.

I did not say that Jesus was not equal to the Father. I clearly said that Jesus is not the Father. You asked: "So now you are saying it states the completely opposite and Jesus is not the Father???" That is a vastly different question than asking if I think Jesus is equal to the Father.

Jesus is not the Father but he is equal to him.

I don't disagree with the scripture you use, I disagree with what you say it means. I'm ok with that. Are you ok with that?

I would like to hear opinions on what Jesus as the 'firstborn of the sons of God" means to people. Are you interested in presenting your opinion?

No, I am not okay with that because you have completely failed to address and rebut my points. You say that you believe the doctrine of the Trinity is false but you don't understand it and you don't address the verses in the Bible which clearly show that Jesus has always existed in eternity past with the Father. You appeal to reason yet yours is the most unreasonable position.

Why would I want to move on to discuss the meaning of another phrase when you haven't even addressed these ones?

 

[seekandlisten]

Free

Colossians 1:15-23 NIV

He(Jesus) is the image of the invisible God(image of the invisible God = us, Gen. 1:27)(simply put here Jesus is a man), the firstborn over all creation(this is what I would like to continue on to). For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;(reference to of how through Jesus we are brought back to creation, before the fall) all things were created by him(mankind being brought back to God through Jesus) and for him.(Creation was for mankind)(I believe it is said that 'through' is said to be a better word to use here instead of 'by' but I don't have the time to reference it right now though, so take this as you will) He(Jesus) is before all things(us), and in him all things hold together(referring to the Body of Christ). And he is the head of the body, the church(this is the Body of Christ not something physical of this world); he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead(Jesus is the only way as he is the firstborn from among us), so that in everything he might have the supremacy(birthright). For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him(God dwelled in Jesus), and through him(Jesus) to reconcile to himself(God the Father) all things(creation), whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross(paying the debt for sin). Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior(us separated from God by 'sin'). But now he has reconciled you by Christ's(Christ is the English term for the Greek ??????? (Khristós) meaning "the anointed".[1] It is a translation of the Hebrew ???????? (M?šîa?).) The term "Christ" was a title rather than a proper name.In the four gospels in the New Testament, the word "Christ" is nearly always preceded by the definite article ("the Christ").[2] For centuries the Jews had referred to their expected Deliverer as "the Anointed."[3] The term "Christ" carries much of its original Jewish meaning of "Messiah"—"one [who is] anointed" or appointed by God with a unique and special purpose (mission) on Earth.[4] It was later in the first century that the title gradually became a proper name, and the expression "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" became only one designation.)(so here Christ simply means the anointed, the firstborn of creation)physical body(Jesus) through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.


Remember this is just my understanding of what this passage of scripture is referring to. I am not trying to make anyone believe what I say, it is merely my opinion. I will admit to not nearly being scholarly enough to break down every little part of the bible, or do I think its all that important. The bible is more than words. This is, to me anyways, what the beginnings of a logical post would be rather than just this verse says this or that. I would take from this passage that Jesus was a man, firstborn of creation, the first one born to be resurrected into God's Kindom as the Christ. How does this passage say in any way that Jesus is equal to God the Father, the Creator? I think it in fact states the opposite. By giving me a different passage that says Jesus is God does not constitute as a counter-argument.

 

[seekandlisten]

In regards to the term, firstborn of the sons of God, would mean one must be born rather than created. It also goes along with what ‘firstborn’ itself actually means. We see in the bible that firstborn is one’s birthright, I’m not going to get into a big definition here. I also think one could say that ‘firstborn’ would be more along the lines of the position of pre-eminence rather than time of birth. We see in the bible the rights and privileges, blessing, not always going to the one who was born first. Manassah was the first one born, but Jacob’s (Israel’s) blessing went to Ephraim instead giving him the position of firstborn. (Gen. 48:13-22) God even references Ephraim as the first-born in Jeremiah 31:9. You see the actual first one born being passed over with Jacob and Esau as well. The nation of Israel was named after Jacob. In Exodus 4:22 God calls Israel His first-born.

Now logically speaking, I understand firstborn to be more along the lines of rank, privilege, and importance. We can clearly see that the nation of Israel was not the first-born of a woman and is not the first nation to exist. However, God refers to Israel as the first-born among all nations. Logically this would make Jesus first-born of all creation.

For further reference, Isaiah 14:30, “first-born of the poor†means “the poorest of the poor.†Job 18:13, “first-born of death†means Job’s disease was the worst of all diseases. Psalms 89:27, David was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn, the highest of the kings. The “first-born of the dead†in Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5 to me means Jesus is basically pre-eminent over death, the first-born of creation, us.

"John 1:3 All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made
that hath been made. {1:10} He was in the world, and the world was made
through him, and the world knew him not." ASV

Origen even says, “And the apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews: ‘At the end of the days He spoke to us in his Son, whom He made heir of all things, ‘through whom’ also He made the ages.â€

So if all things were made through the Logos, doesn’t that mean that they were not made by the Logos but by someone stronger and greater than he, being the Father?


"For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, [himself] man, Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5 ASV
Can one be the mediator between themselvef and someone else? Galatians 3:19-20, I think this might also make reference to Moses and we know that Jesus was superior to Moses. John 3:14-15, Hebrews 3:1-2, Hebrews 3:3

Comments?

Does anyone else want to move back to the discussion of the meaning firstborn of the sons of God