Statement of Faith Based on the Truth of Scripture - Please Read

[Marilyn C]

On ‎28‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:07 AM, akueg said:

 

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15 [NIV])

He was born first before anyone else came into being. You do not understand how a son relates to a father. A father comes first, then a son, in relation to time, and since the Father never began, then the next order of existence for the firstborn of all creation would be in the beginning. As such, Jesus Christ came into existence in day one of creation. This is the original teaching of scriptures, believe it, or do not. I've argued this enough and shown you ample times that you are wrong.

 

Hi akneg,

This special title is used in four dignified relationships to our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. In His originating energy He if the Firstborn of creation. (Col. 1 : 15)

2. In His earthly manifestation, He is the Firstborn of the virgin. (Luke 2: 7)

3. In His outstanding victory He is the Firstborn from the dead. (Col. 1: 18)

4. In His outstanding precedence He is Firstborn among many brethren. (Rom. 8: 29)

In no single instance does birth refer to a beginning but always a manifestation; therefore our Lord`s fourfold manifestation in this world is profoundly significant. The unparalleled dignity of His sublime person is unveiled as the -

Creator of the universe, the Crown of humanity, the Conqueror of death and the Chiefest in spiritual society.

BTW The terms Father, son was not borrowed from their present sphere of usage among mankind, but existed in celestial relationships before the world was. The terms such as junior, major etc do not exist in the divine realm.

Father and Son in Godhead connote the express image of personality (Heb. 1: 3) the exact substance of entity in mind, will and heart, (John 10: 30) and entire oneness of Being in regard to wisdom, work and whereabouts, which are expressed in the use of omniscience, omnipotent and omnipresence. (John 17: 21) 

Marilyn. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:52 AM, shiloh357 said:

Yes, but that was Jesus the man speaking.   In His humanity, Jesus had limitations.  Those limitations were voluntary and temporary.   None of that applies to Jesus, now.   Jesus is now super-exalted to the highest place in the universe.   He is no longer under the temporary limitations that He had during His earthly  ministry.

1 Corinthians 15:24  Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. (NRS)

It appears that even AFTER His exaltation to the Father's throne and right hand, the Son will ultimately be in subjection to His Father.  If one is in subjection to the other, does that not suggest a hierarchy.  

I am just joining this  discussion.  It appears from my reading that two main doctrinal issues are being discussed.  1.  The nature of God (as One divine being, or Two beings, or Three).  2.  Our relationship to "the Law" (to keep it or not) in the new age of "grace". 

From my search of the Scriptures, I have concluded that God the Father acts THROUGH His Son.  He created through His Son.  He speaks through His Son (the Word).  He reconciles us to Himself, through His Son.  He blesses, and protects, and heals, and restores through His Son.  He judges through His Son.  He will execute judgment through His Son.  He will rule through His Son. 

Just one example:  John 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son."

Matthew 28:18  And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (NKJ)

I definitely believe in TWO divine beings  - The Father and His Son.   I do not believe that the Son was "created".  I believe that He was "begotten" from out of the Father, therefore the Son has the same divine nature as His Father.   The Father has commanded that all created beings worship His Son, and this is shown in the vision of John.  

John 5:13  "every creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, I heard saying: "Blessing and honor and glory and power Be to Him who sits on the throne, And to the Lamb, forever and ever!" 

You could say that the Son has existed forever, in the same sense that Levi was in the bosom of Abraham and "paid tithes" long before He was actually born, but that does not eliminate Levi as a separate person.  Neither does the Son's existence within the bosom of His Father, deny His existence as a separate divine being - with a "will" of His own.

Psalm 110:1  "The LORD (ADONAI) said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.'" (Matt 22:44, Mk 12:36, Lk 20:42, Acts 2:34)

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 6:33 AM, akueg said:

Currently, Jesus Christ sits AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, but one day he will no longer sit at the right hand of God, because this relates to having LIMITATION AS A REPRESENTATION OF GOD,

Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." (Psalm 110:1 [NIV])

 

Hmmm. 
Revelation 21:22 "But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." 

Looks - to me - like BOTH Father and Son will occupy the place of worship for all eternity. 

No mention of a third divine being called "the Holy Spirit".  But that's another topic.

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 5:46 AM, shiloh357 said:

  On 9/27/2017 at 5:45 AM, akueg said:

A VISUAL representation is FINITE.

The words "express image" mean an exact copy.   They are from the Greek practice of using a seal.  The seal was pressed into hot wax  to seal a document.  The wax seal was an "express image" of the metal ring or other instrument used to press the image.  Strong's uses the words "an exact reproduction". 

BEFORE His incarnation into human form and nature, the Son of God existed as "the express image" of God His Father.  Begotten from His Father, (no mother figure is mentioned) would not the Son be an exact copy of His Father?  [Think cell division.]

Hebrews 1:3 "who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person,"  (NKJ)

Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." 

We still use the expression today, referring to a son as "the image of his father". 

 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 10:43 AM, shiloh357 said:

The term "firstborn of creation"  doesn't refer to being born or coming into existence. It is a old terms that simply means, "chief."   Jesus is the chief, in that he holds the highest place in creation.  

I didnt call you a heretic.  I called your teachings heresy.   You don't understand the Scriptures at all. 

I don't care if you speak to me at all.    But I will be here to counter what you teach so that no one is led astray by you and that no one agrees with or believes anything you say.  Whether you address me again or not, is irrelevant to my participation on this thread.

If God's Son was not "begotten" then He was not a "son" at all.  He was eternally co-God.  That would mean that God the Father did not "give His only begotten son". 

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 10:07 AM, akueg said:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 [ESV])

Doesn't say that God created man in His EXPRESS image.  That allows for a likeness, without an exact reproduction.

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 11:12 AM, Sojourner414 said:

We understand it just fine,  but it's not our problem if folks keep explaining to you that Scripture means what it clearly says, and you cannot accept that. Jesus is God, and no amount of hermeneutical gymnastics is going to work in order to "knock Him down" to the role you wish to relegate Him to. So, with that being the case, I would recommend you find somewhere then that caters to your particular "theology".

In other words: don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hmmmm.    Will I be told the same?

Though I would never tell anyone that he/she is a heretic, or does not understand the Scriptures.   I just share what I believe.  Others can disagree - hopefully without becoming antagonistic, or getting personal.

[8thdaypriest]

On 9/27/2017 at 11:50 AM, shiloh357 said:

Yes, but "firstborn" simply refers to status,as it is used in Colossians 1: 15.   In 1:18, it is used to refer to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead, which defies the notion that Jesus was created or "born."    It simply refers to a status of preeminence.    In ancient times, you could be the "firstborn"  of anything.  It had nothing to do with being born, or coming into existence. 

 

The priesthood - originally - was inherited by the firstborn son.  Before the CALF idol incident, the LORD commanded that the "firstborn" would belong to Him.  The LORD changed this at Mt Sinai, after the golden calf incident. 

I believe the LORD has "changed" the priesthood BACK to the original order - the firstborn of Israel, which is why Christ can be high priest.

[Guest shiloh357]

13 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

If God's Son was not "begotten" then He was not a "son" at all.  He was eternally co-God.  That would mean that God the Father did not "give His only begotten son". 

Jesus as God was never born.   He was always in a conscious pre-existence with the Father.    Jesus' relationship as the Son, is not paternal.  There is no paternal relationship between Jesus and the Father.   "Firstborn" is simply a rank.  It doesn't refer to Jesus coming into existence.   The word for "begotten" used in John 3:16 (which is what I assume you are drawing from), refers to Jesus as uniquely God's Son in that they share the same divine nature as opposed to us who are spiritually born into the Kingdom of God.    Jesus is the "firstborn," the "chief"  and that is all the title "firstborn" means.   The way the term firstborn is used, to put it in a modern context...  If I open up a business and I own it and I run it/manage it, I am the "firstborn"  in that business.  I am the chief of that business.

53 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

1 Corinthians 15:24  Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all. (NRS)

It appears that even AFTER His exaltation to the Father's throne and right hand, the Son will ultimately be in subjection to His Father.  If one is in subjection to the other, does that not suggest a hierarchy. 

I am not saying there is not still a hierarchy.   What I said  is that the kind of submission that Jesus operated under God the Father, during His earthly ministry is no longer the case.   That ended when Jesus ascended into Heaven and was super exalted to the highest place and given the Name above all names and declared Lord.

Quote

You could say that the Son has existed forever, in the same sense that Levi was in the bosom of Abraham and "paid tithes" long before He was actually born, but that does not eliminate Levi as a separate person. 

No, you couldn't say that.   Jesus lived in a conscious preexistence with the Father and John 1:1-3 tells us that it was a face to face relationship they shared.    Jesus did not come out of the Father.   You have a very wrong headed idea about these matters.

[Guest shiloh357]

30 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The priesthood - originally - was inherited by the firstborn son.  Before the CALF idol incident, the LORD commanded that the "firstborn" would belong to Him.  The LORD changed this at Mt Sinai, after the golden calf incident. 

I believe the LORD has "changed" the priesthood BACK to the original order - the firstborn of Israel, which is why Christ can be high priest.

Jesus is the firstborn of creation and the firstborn from the dead.    He is the High Priest under the order of Melchi-Tzedek.   He is never called the firstborn of Israel in Scripture.   You are making up something that does not exist in the Word of God.