Go back
trinity revisited (for my own sake)

trinity revisited (for my own sake)

Spirituality

menace71
Can't win a game of

38N Lat X 121W Lon

Joined
03 Apr 03
Moves
155701
Clock
26 Aug 09
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by galveston75
Jesus himself says he was the firstborn of all creation. Who created him if it wasn't God?
But again I ask if any of you have done any research on the Baylonian and Egytian trinites?
Ok explain the Jews response to what Christ said.

57So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."


59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.



I am ? Jesus says I am ? God says this in Exodus to Moses.


Manny

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
26 Aug 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by menace71
Ok explain the Jews response to what Christ said.

57So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"

58Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."


59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.



I am ? Jesus says I am ? God says this in Exodus to Moses.


Manny
so every one in the bible who states that i am, is God, man you people want to get a grip!

what is it about the first-born of creation that you do not want to see?

what is it about that, is it so hard to understand? perhaps the words are difficult and ambiguous? perhaps the meaning is cloaked, man you really are inexcusable.

w

Joined
02 Jan 06
Moves
12857
Clock
26 Aug 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so every one in the bible who states that i am, is God, man you people want to get a grip!

what is it about the first-born of creation that you do not want to see?

what is it about that, is it so hard to understand? perhaps the words are difficult and ambiguous? perhaps the meaning is cloaked, man you really are inexcusable.
So wher else is it used? I can think of one place which was when God was talking to Moses from the burning bush. In fact, he was the "I am that I am".

One more question if I may, do you think Jesus was literally birthed if he is referred to as the first born? I thought the only way to be birthed was from a woman, which he was by Mary.

duecer
anybody seen my

underpants??

Joined
01 Sep 06
Moves
56453
Clock
26 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so every one in the bible who states that i am, is God, man you people want to get a grip!

what is it about the first-born of creation that you do not want to see?

what is it about that, is it so hard to understand? perhaps the words are difficult and ambiguous? perhaps the meaning is cloaked, man you really are inexcusable.
so every one in the bible who states that i am, is God, man you people want to get a grip!
-----
The reference was obviously to the encounter Moses had with God, the people understood that, hence they wanted to stone him for blasphemy

------

what is it about the first-born of creation that you do not want to see?
------

The term first born is a transferable title, and has less to do with order and more to do with pre-eminance, especially in the usage applied here. In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born"
The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
The passage as cited does not support your claim under the light of proper exegetical examination.

-----

what is it about that, is it so hard to understand? perhaps the words are difficult and ambiguous? perhaps the meaning is cloaked, man you really are inexcusable
----

What is it about us? time and again your sources have been proven to be cherry picked and out of context, or worse...mistranslated, yet you fail to see the truth of Christ's divinty

duecer
anybody seen my

underpants??

Joined
01 Sep 06
Moves
56453
Clock
26 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

At Robbie (and Galveston):

I want to thank you for your dogged persual of your belief system. By debating here I have gained a clearer and deeper belief of my own. As it says in proverbs "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another"

I'm wondering what to debate next....hmmmmm.....I will have to ponder that.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
26 Aug 09
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by duecer
At Robbie (and Galveston):

I want to thank you for your dogged persual of your belief system. By debating here I have gained a clearer and deeper belief of my own. As it says in proverbs "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another"

I'm wondering what to debate next....hmmmmm.....I will have to ponder that.
well i am glad cause it has certainly strengthened my own resolve of what an absolute piece of nonsense it is.

Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son.

According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

i think we know the answer to that.

duecer
anybody seen my

underpants??

Joined
01 Sep 06
Moves
56453
Clock
26 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well i am glad cause it has certainly strengthened my own resolve of what an absolute piece of nonsense it is.
unitarianinsm?

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
26 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by duecer
unitarianinsm?
see the above edited text.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
26 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
26 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
26 Aug 09
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

and just for the record

Jesus—In Existence Before Abraham

Joh 8:58—“before Abraham came into existence, I have been”
Gr., (prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi)



Fourth/Fifth Century “before Abraham was I have been,

Syriac—Edition:A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.

Fifth Century “before ever Abrahamb came to be, I was"

Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

Fifth Century “before Abraham existed, I was”

Syriac—Edition:The Syriac New Testament Translated into English, by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London 1896.

Fifth Century “before Abraham came to be, I was

Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis,
Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.

Sixth Century “before Abraham was born, I was

Ethiopic—Edition:Novum Testamentum . . .Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation (eimi), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative.

Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.

Concerning this construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration;

Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the New Testament:

Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that (ego eimi) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ani hu, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17

Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: (Ego eimi ho on), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn.) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3

menace71
Can't win a game of

38N Lat X 121W Lon

Joined
03 Apr 03
Moves
155701
Clock
27 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so every one in the bible who states that i am, is God, man you people want to get a grip!

what is it about the first-born of creation that you do not want to see?

what is it about that, is it so hard to understand? perhaps the words are difficult and ambiguous? perhaps the meaning is cloaked, man you really are inexcusable.
Not so much that Jesus said I am. It is the reaction of the Jews that I'm curious about. If Jesus said I existed before Abraham but I'm not God they might have said ok explain yourself. He however did not do any such thing. They accused Jesus of blasphemy.






Manny

jb

Joined
29 Mar 09
Moves
816
Clock
27 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as usual this is absolute nonsense, the Hebrew word is el shaddai, applied to no one but God himself, never to Christ ,why you persist on wasting peoples time with this teaching i do not know?
If they believe that Noah loaded an ark with two of all animals, the trinity isn't that far out of the realm of religious belief.

rc

Joined
26 Aug 07
Moves
38239
Clock
27 Aug 09
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by joe beyser
If they believe that Noah loaded an ark with two of all animals, the trinity isn't that far out of the realm of religious belief.
ahh, my friend, had you continued your study, you would have realised that in some instances he took many from the one species , not just two ! there was a poster here who loved to discuss the flood, Zahlanzi, but he has not posted for ages!

jb

Joined
29 Mar 09
Moves
816
Clock
27 Aug 09
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ahh, my friend, had you continued your study, you would have realised that in some instances he took many from the one species , not just two ! there was a poster here who loved to discuss the flood, Zahlanzi, but he has not posted for ages!
Did that include insects and salt water fishes?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.