Bible Study Jesus is God

[Solo]

52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. John 8:52-59

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Exodus 3:13-15

Why did the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus when Jesus told them that he was the "I Am" before Abraham was?

They understood Jesus to be saying that he was almighty God, the I Am, and this was blasphemy, a stoning offense.

 

[Georges]

No...not in the sense of a co-equal trinity.

Yes, in the sense that he is God's representative on earth, and according to the Jewish Law of Agency, he can be regarded as God without being God.

In regard to the OT Epiphanies, he is the word, or in Judaism the "Memra" the "creative word of God".

 

[Free]

Yes, in the sense that he is God's representative on earth, and according to the Jewish Law of Agency, he can be regarded as God without being God.

Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

It would seem that the Jews of the NT would disagree with you about the "Jewish Law of Agency".

 

[AVBunyan]

Why did the Jews take up stones to cast at Jesus when Jesus told them that he was the "I Am" before Abraham was?

They understood Jesus to be saying that he was almighty God, the I Am, and this was blasphemy, a stoning offense.

Thank you Solo for lifting up our Saviour - who was God manifest in the flesh. You can't get any clearer than John 8:58 unless you are spiritually blind.

This is one of the central doctrines of the scriptures and for folks to have issue with it tells me much.

When John the Baptist prepared the way for Christ he was preparing the way for the capital L O R D of Isa. 40. The L O R D is the God of this universe.

In Isa 9:6 Christ is called the everlasting Father.

The Lord Jesus Christ is God, has all the attributes of God and the scriptures declare he is God. In Acts 20:28 it was God's blood that was shed for us - Praise his holy name.

God bless 8-)

 

[Georges]

Yes, in the sense that he is God's representative on earth, and according to the Jewish Law of Agency, he can be regarded as God without being God.

Joh 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--
Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

It would seem that the Jews of the NT would disagree with you about the "Jewish Law of Agency".

Come on....that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus was/is God's representative on Earth.....whether the Jews believed it or not....That still doesn't change the fact that the Law of Agency is what it is.....Jesus just like the prophets are the Agents of God, and spoke with the authority of God as given to them by God....Jesus happened to be the "Son of God" with even greater authority. Please allow me once again to post the excerpt from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com article on Agency....

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... rch=Agency

The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person. The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluaḥ or sheliaḥ (one that is sent): the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (sheliḥut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man's agent is like himself (Ḳid. 41b).

...An agent may appoint a subagent (Ḳid. 41a); but under the Roman, as well as under the English-American law, he can do so only by special authorization. Probably this would also have been the ruling under the rabbinic law; but both the Talmud and the standard authorities are silent as to the conditions allowing the appointment of a subagent.

...The authority of a subagent is not terminated by the death of the intermediate, but only by the decease of the principal.


If you can't see the Law of Agency as applying to Jesus as the "intermediary" and the Disciples as the "sub Agents" then we probably don't have any more to discuss on this thread.

It can't be made any more simple than I've presented. Whether you choose to accept "Agency" or not.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Jesus is God, I've doubted this for a while but I am now sure that JESUS IS GOD. Praise the name of the Lord. :-D

However, I do believe that Jesus is a created being and is not co-eternal with the Father. For you AV I'll give the King James translation and because it really portrays the verse well.

Revelation 3:14 (King James Version) And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen[Jesus], the faithful and true witness[also Jesus], the beginning of the creation of God;[This is Jesus too]

 

[Georges]

Jesus is God, I've doubted this for a while but I am now sure that JESUS IS GOD. Praise the name of the Lord. :-D

However, I do believe that Jesus is a created being and is not co-eternal with the Father. For you AV I'll give the King James translation and because it really portrays the verse well.

Revelation 3:14 (King James Version) And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen[Jesus], the faithful and true witness[also Jesus], the beginning of the creation of God;[This is Jesus too]

A great reference to have...for those genuinely interested in having a well rounded library is Dr. Raphel Patai's book "The Messiah Texts". A book that contains every scrap of Jewish documentation concerning "The Messiah" from Jewish prespectives. I purchased a copy off of ebay for $10.

also, this article from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... ch=Messiah

 

[BJGrolle]

Thank you Solo for lifting up our Saviour - who was God manifest in the flesh. You can't get any clearer than John 8:58 unless you are spiritually blind.

Amen to that!

To address Revelation 3:14:

Rev 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Here is some commentary from John Gill that provides some possible interpretations of that last phrase:

The beginning of the creation of God; not the first creature that God made, but the first cause of the creation; the first Parent, producer, and efficient cause of every creature; the author of the old creation, who made all things out of nothing in the beginning of time; and of the new creation, the everlasting Father of, everyone that is made a new creature; the Father of the world to come, or of the new age and Gospel dispensation; the Maker of the new heaven and new earth; and so a very fit person to be the Judge of the whole world, to summon all nations before him, and pass the final sentence on them.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.[/quote]

 

[AVBunyan]

The beginning of the creation of God; not the first creature that God made, but the first cause of the creation; the first Parent, producer, and efficient cause of every creature; the author of the old creation, who made all things out of nothing in the beginning of time; and of the new creation, the everlasting Father of, everyone that is made a new creature; the Father of the world to come, or of the new age and Gospel dispensation; the Maker of the new heaven and new earth; and so a very fit person to be the Judge of the whole world, to summon all nations before him, and pass the final sentence on them.

Thank you BJ -

However, I do believe that Jesus is a created being and is not co-eternal with the Father.

A created being cannot be God - If Jesus was not God manifested in the flesh we are all on our way to hell with no hope (Acts. 20:28).

God bless

 

[BJGrolle]

You're welcome.

 

[Georges]

Even in Judaism....Messiah is created by God before Creation...

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Can't get by this verse or the Rev reference....by saying it means something other than first born....of first created....Messiah, the word (or the Memra in Hebrew) was created first and by all things on this earth were created.....

Messiah as the Memra of the OT is God, or God's representative action.
Messiah as the Memra personified in the NT is God's representative action on Earth.....

 

[BJGrolle]

Even in Judaism....Messiah is created by God before Creation...

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Let's take that in context:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 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.

 

[Free]

Come on....that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus was/is God's representative on Earth.....whether the Jews believed it or not....That still doesn't change the fact that the Law of Agency is what it is.....Jesus just like the prophets are the Agents of God, and spoke with the authority of God as given to them by God....Jesus happened to be the "Son of God" with even greater authority.

Yes, Jesus was God's representative on Earth, but that doesn't negate the fact that he also was God in human flesh. And you are still disagreeing with Scripture that clearly shows that Jesus' being the "Son of God" meant that he was literally God, equal to the Father.

Even in Judaism....Messiah is created by God before Creation...

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Can't get by this verse or the Rev reference....by saying it means something other than first born....of first created....Messiah, the word (or the Memra in Hebrew) was created first and by all things on this earth were created.....

Firstly, you are wrong about the Word. Secondly, take Col. 1:15 in context:

Col 1:15-19, "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell"

Firstly, we see that being the "firstborn" is explained as the "firstborn from the dead". Secondly, we see that everyting was created through Christ. Thirdly, we see that the "fullness of God" dwelt in Jesus.

This is all supported by John 1:1-3:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Word both was "with God" and "was God". And again, apart from Christ not a thing was made that has been made. Logic leads us to conclude that Christ could therefore not have been made.

Please tell me how "Messiah, the word (or the Memra in Hebrew) was created first and by all things on this earth were created," when Col. 1:15-19 and John 1:1-3 clearly show differently.

Phil. 2:5-7, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men."

Again, this agrees with John 1 and Col. 1 about the deity of Christ.

 

[D46]

That was a marvelous post, Solo and highly commendable!

Phil. 2:5-7, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men."

Here is where versions cause problems to me. Here it is said that..."...though he was in the FORM of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..."

I don't know which version that came from but it tells me Jesus didn't see himiself as being God. Contrast that to the King James...

Phillipians 2:6-7 (KJV) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

These two verses, though the same, say something different to me.Though he was from eternity in the form of God - possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men; and therefore he was made in the likeness of men, and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant: and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete.

To not count "equality with God as something to be grasped" and "...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" are contradictory statements it seems. It just stuck out to me. But, I won't get on my textual criticism soap box tonight! Rest easy.

In Isa 9:6 Christ is called the everlasting Father.

Amen....and also the Mighty God (same verse)

Isaiah 43:11 (KJV) I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isaiah 45:21-22 (KJV) Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

Hosea 13:4 (KJV) Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Isaiah said it pretty well and leaves no room for doubt. Our saviour said...

Matthew 18:11 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Luke 19:10 (KJV) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

John 14:9 (KJV) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

Mark 2:5-7 (KJV) When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

Without doubt, the Scriptures tell who Jesus is and one would have to be blinded by the arch enemy of our soul to not see this. :D

 

[wavy]

And you are still disagreeing with Scripture that clearly shows that Jesus' being the "Son of God" meant that he was literally God, equal to the Father.

I do believe Yahshua is Elohim-echad/one with the Father. That, at least to me, is undeniable scriptural fact. However, him being the Bar-Elohim/Son of God does not make him equal with the Father.

Being Bar-Elohim makes him Bar-Elohim. Equal in nature? Attributes? Character? Indeed.

Equal in status or "rank", I guess you could call it? No. This would mean the Son's role and the Father's role could be reversed. It is highly unscriptural to assume that the Son can command the Father anything or do anything outside of the Father's will, of his own initiative.

Firstly, we see that being the "firstborn" is explained as the "firstborn from the dead".

I don't see this. I am not saying he was created. But I do not see how this means "firstborn from the dead" in the context.

The Greek word is protokos. This word is used to indicate importance. The nation of Israel is also called Yahweh's son and his firstborn. This does not mean they were created first. This means he held them in higher esteem than other nations.

But you are right. He did indeed create everything and the fullness of deity does dwell in him.

 

[wavy]

That was a marvelous post, Solo and highly commendable!

It's common knowledge and that, to me, is the sad thing. I can see something like the trinity being debatable (as it is not directly taught in scripture by any scroll/letter author or mentioned or required for salvation), but to deny the deity of Christ himself or say he is a created being is beyond me if one looks at the scriptures.

Here is where versions cause problems to me. Here it is said that..."...though he was in the FORM of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped..."

I don't know which version that came from but it tells me Jesus didn't see himiself as being God. Contrast that to the King James...

These two verses, though the same, say something different to me.Though he was from eternity in the form of God - possessed of the same glory, yet he thought it right to veil this glory, and not to appear with it among the children of men; and therefore he was made in the likeness of men, and took upon him the form or appearance of a servant: and, had he retained the appearance of this ineffable glory, it would, in many respects, have prevented him from accomplishing the work which God gave him to do; and his humiliation, as necessary to the salvation of men, could not have been complete.

To not count "equality with God as something to be grasped" and "...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" are contradictory statements it seems. It just stuck out to me. But, I won't get on my textual criticism soap box tonight! Rest easy.

Yes, I see what you are saying. I had this same question. I don't know Greek and I don't know how it plays here, but I do know that the word "it" does not appear in the Greek as it does in the KJV. If we take that out, it would essentially be saying the same thing:

#1. "who being in the form of God, did not think equality with God something to be grasped".

#2. "who being in the form of God, thought not robbery to be equal with God".

He did not think robbery (did not have robbery in his mind) to be equal with the Father or seize his authority.

The Greek word for "but" is alla, and instead of it being an addition to a previous statement, it is usually something contrary to something formerly stated. This is how it is defined in the Strong's:

Neuter plural of G243; properly other things, that is, (adverbially) contrariwise (in many relations): - and, but (even), howbeit, indeed, nay, nevertheless, no, notwithstanding, save, therefore, yea, yet.

So, in essence, as far as I can perceive, it is saying that although he had been Yahweh in the bosom of the Father (in the form of God), he did not claim equality with him "but" (alla) or contrariwise, emptied himself and was made like a man.

This would make more sense. How could it make sense if it was saying,

"Who being in the form of God, thought it was okay to be equal with God, but emptied and humbled himself"???

Doesn't make sense. It would mean he is exalting himself and yet humbling himself. Doesn't fit the flow of the sentence. But I guess it depends on how you look at it. He did say his Father was greater than he was, and since he is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 8:13), this includes before and after his ressurrection and glorification.

Amen....and also the Mighty God (same verse)

Well, being called "father" does not make one the Father. Also, the Hebrew here for "everlasting Father" in the KJV is avai ad, which could also be translated "father of everlasting".

He is a father, but he is not his own Father. It is an attribute, not that he is the Father. I don't think so. Too many scriptures deny this.

Isaiah said it pretty well and leaves no room for doubt. Our saviour said...

Good scriptures, but all you really had to quote was this:

Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

:-D

Anyway, being "Savior" does not make him the Father (if that is what you imply; my fault if this is not the case).

When Yahweh said there was no Savior beside him, he meant no acts of true salvation (of any kind) comes from anyone other than him. As we see from Obadiah 1:21, Yahweh himself designates others as "saviors" (same word as when he said beside him there is no "savior"). Not in terms of saving from sins, no, but then again he wasn't speaking in that context when he said it himself. :-D

Same thing with "Elohim", for example. More than Yahweh is called Elohim. Yahshua being called Elohim or "God", does not necessarily make him the Father.

I don't know if you are making that point or not...

 

[Georges]

Even in Judaism....Messiah is created by God before Creation...

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Let's take that in context:

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Col 1:18 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.

Yes, Let's take it in context.......the context that Paul as a trained Pharisee would have learned it....

Preexistence of the Messiah....Jewishencyclopedia.com

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Heavenly Preexistence.

The conception of the preexistent Messiah is met with in Pesiḳ. R. xxxiii., xxxvi. (pp. 152b, 162, ed. Friedmann; comp. Yalḳ. i. 339). In accordance with the Messiological section of Enoch the former of these two passages says: "At the beginning of the creation of the world was born the King Messiah, who mounted into God's thoughts before the world was made"; and in the latter passage it is related that God contemplated the Messiah and his works before the creation of the world and concealed him under His throne; that Satan, having asked God who the Light was under His throne, was told it was the one who would bring him to shame in the future, and, being then allowed, at his request, to see the Messiah, he trembled and sank to the ground, crying out, "Truly this is the Messiah who will deliver me and all heathen kings over to hell." God calls the Messiah "Ephraim, my righteous Messiah."

and,

The preexistent Messiah is presented also in the Haggadah (Pes. 54a; Ned. 39a; Yalḳ. i. 20; et al.), where the name of the Messiah is included among the seven things created before the world was made, and where he is called "Yinnon," reference being made to Ps. lxxii. 17

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

From the Jewishencyclopedia.com article on the Memra...again another concept that Paul and John as trained pharisee's would know....

..."The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

..."The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God:

...the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'"

..."Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created";

...So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work").

...In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Hello.....Jewish Law of Agency......is this mike on?

Messiah...the firstborn of all creatures....and the firstborn of the resurrected dead never to die again.....


This is how the Apostles including Paul as pharisee's would have understood the topic. Sorry about using Jewish sources to explain Jewish concepts, it's a bad habit..... :wink:

 

[Georges]

Come on....that doesn't negate the fact that Jesus was/is God's representative on Earth.....whether the Jews believed it or not....That still doesn't change the fact that the Law of Agency is what it is.....Jesus just like the prophets are the Agents of God, and spoke with the authority of God as given to them by God....Jesus happened to be the "Son of God" with even greater authority.

Yes, Jesus was God's representative on Earth, but that doesn't negate the fact that he also was God in human flesh. And you are still disagreeing with Scripture that clearly shows that Jesus' being the "Son of God" meant that he was literally God, equal to the Father.

No....I'm not disagreeing with scripture...I'm disagreeing with your interpretation....I'll go with a more Jewish (ie. Jesus, James, John and Paul's) classically trained Pharisee's approach to understanding the "Law of Agency". God gave Jesus the authority to act on his behalf as an Agent....thus making him equal to God (in agency)...Jesus in turn gave his Disciples (as subagents) the authority he wished them to have. Obviously you haven't read the Jewishencyclopedia.com article I presented to explain this concept. This concept is crystal clear...really to easy to misunderstand.

Even in Judaism....Messiah is created by God before Creation...

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Can't get by this verse or the Rev reference....by saying it means something other than first born....of first created....Messiah, the word (or the Memra in Hebrew) was created first and by all things on this earth were created.....

Firstly, you are wrong about the Word. Secondly, take Col. 1:15 in context:

Col 1:15-19, "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell"

I think I rebutted this fairly well in the post above.....using the Jewish concept of the creation of the Messiah, and the Memra as God's agent of Creation....again, a concept that the Disciples would know but not necessarily those who formed Christian Doctrinal Theology 3 centuries later.

Firstly, we see that being the "firstborn" is explained as the "firstborn from the dead". Secondly, we see that everyting was created through Christ. Thirdly, we see that the "fullness of God" dwelt in Jesus.

Again....I presented the rebuttal that conclusively answers the scripture you posted....as seen from Judaism...you know the religion of Jesus and the disciples....trained pharisees.
This is all supported by John 1:1-3:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Word both was "with God" and "was God". And again, apart from Christ not a thing was made that has been made. Logic leads us to conclude that Christ could therefore not have been made.

Again....Agency and Memra (word) show how this is a Jewish concept. The problem arises when it is interpreted through Greek Philosophy concepts....

Please tell me how "Messiah, the word (or the Memra in Hebrew) was created first and by all things on this earth were created," when Col. 1:15-19 and John 1:1-3 clearly show differently.

I can't believe that with the articles presented you can't make the connection.

Phil. 2:5-7, "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant,being born in the likeness of men."

Again...you must have blown over the articles of Agency and Memra as it is most glaringly obvious.....Both articles answer quite adequately the concept problem here....Go back and reread them....better yet go to the website and read the whole articles....If for anything else, to understand you opponents point of view for debate purposes.

Again, this agrees with John 1 and Col. 1 about the deity of Christ.

 

[Free]

To not count "equality with God as something to be grasped" and "...thought it not robbery to be equal with God" are contradictory statements it seems.

I think I see what you are saying, but I think there are difficulties with both translations. The one I gave is found in the NIV, ESV, and NASB. The word harpagmos means, among other things, "the act of seizing, robbery" and "something to be forcibly retained or held fast". The latter idea is what the NIV and such are saying, but the way it is worded in the translations is a bit weak. But, having said that, they do essentially say the same thing as the KJV and all acknowledge that Jesus pre-existed in the form of God, contrasted with the relative nothingness of humanity.

Rest easy.

Okay. :wink:

However, him being the Bar-Elohim/Son of God does not make him equal with the Father.

Being Bar-Elohim makes him Bar-Elohim. Equal in nature? Attributes? Character? Indeed.

Equal in status or "rank", I guess you could call it? No.

I disagree, somewhat. I don't see how on the one hand we can say that Christ is equal in nature to the Father, therefore being God himself, but then on the other hand say that he is not equal with the Father.

I see what you are getting at but we must be careful to not fall into the heresy of subordinationism, which you are leaning to a little bit. We tend to view fathers as being above sons because, well, fathers are above their sons in many ways. However, when we speak of God we must be careful. But I do see where you are going and it is difficult to put into words the relationship, for lack of a better word at the moment.

They do have different economical roles, and the Holy Spirit his, and it certainly is in this role that the Son is "subordinate," humbly submitting to the will of the Father.

I don't see this. I am not saying he was created. But I do not see how this means "firstborn from the dead" in the context.

The Greek word is protokos. This word is used to indicate importance. The nation of Israel is also called Yahweh's son and his firstborn. This does not mean they were created first. This means he held them in higher esteem than other nations.

Perhaps yours is a better way of looking at it...perhaps. Let's flesh this out a little. Your understanding could lead to saying that Christ was created while mine is somewhat disjointed from the verse.

Could it be that 15b - "the firstborn of all creation" - is expounded upon starting with 16 - "For by him all things were created" - and is finished with 18, " the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent"?

The point being that he is "higher in esteem and importance" than all creation (not that he is created since vss 16-17 make that clear) since he created everyting; that he is the "highest" of those raised from the dead (since others before him were raised) but he is the first to conquer death and obtain the glorified body. All this is stated so that the reader can see why he is preeminent over all creation.

Hmm...that just may be what you were saying. ;) I thought I was going somewhere slightly different but I lost it. Are there any other possibilities at all for possible interpretations of "firstborn" in this passage"? Just for the sake of coming to a good understanding of the passage.

I'm going to sleep on it.

 

[wavy]

I disagree, somewhat. I don't see how on the one hand we can say that Christ is equal in nature to the Father, therefore being God himself, but then on the other hand say that he is not equal with the Father.

Well, he is not less any loving, kind, merciful, or wrathful, or a righteous judge any less than the Father is.

However, as far as in terms of who is above who? The Father is indeed above him. The Son is submissive to him because that is his character because of the love and honor deserved to the Father.

I see what you are getting at but we must be careful to not fall into the heresy of subordinationism, which you are leaning to a little bit.

With things like this, a heresy is only a heresy when it disagrees with the mainstream of beliefs.

But I do see where you are going and it is difficult to put into words the relationship, for lack of a better word at the moment.

Yeah, I guess it kinda is, lol.

Could it be that 15b - "the firstborn of all creation" - is expounded upon starting with 16 - "For by him all things were created" - and is finished with 18, " the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent"?

Perhaps. Looking at it this way it does make sense. But critically, it says he is the firstborn of every creature because/for he created all things etc...

The point being that he is "higher in esteem and importance" than all creation (not that he is created since vss 16-17 make that clear) since he created everyting; that he is the "highest" of those raised from the dead (since others before him were raised) but he is the first to conquer death and obtain the glorified body. All this is stated so that the reader can see why he is preeminent over all creation.

Hmm...that just may be what you were saying. ;) I thought I was going somewhere slightly different but I lost it. Are there any other possibilities at all for possible interpretations of "firstborn" in this passage"? Just for the sake of coming to a good understanding of the passage.

I'm going to sleep on it.

It could go either ways, I would guess. It's not like on or the other would be strict blasphemy. Both are true. He is the firstborn of Yahweh and he is the firstborn from the dead.

As long as we don't submit to the view that he was actually created.