Christ is God

[trofimus]

Ok so you're admitting that "over" is a complete insertion in Col 1:15, then please tell me why you kept trying to use the translation "over all creation" specifically highlighting the word "over" and its usage as reasons why Jesus can't be the literal firstborn of creation?

Now I have a feeling you are not reading what I write. And I do try to make it short. So, again:

"Over is an additional word to expres the meaning of the Greek grammar."

Thats why. The Greek grammar used here allows this reading and is frequently translated this way.

Since I can agree with you that the verse literally translated is "firstborn all creation", can you show me a single example in the bible where someone labelled as firstborn regarding a particular group where themselves are NOT in that group?

Why such limited use case? You can just search for the same grammar form (pasés something) to decide if it can be translated "over all" or not.

 

[NWL]

Now I have a feeling you are not reading what I write. And I do try to make it short. So, again:

"Over is an additional word to expres the meaning of the Greek grammar."
Thats why.



Why such limited use case? You can just search for the same grammar form to decide if it can be translated "over all" or not.

Now you're plain avoiding the question, again, show me a single example in the bible (Hebrew, LXX&NT)where someone labelled as firstborn regarding a particular group where themselves are NOT in that group?

 

[Noose]

God IS God, God IS Jesus Christ, God IS the Holy Spirit. Together they make up the Trinity. We don't get to understand HOW He is all 3 entities at the same time... but suffice it to say, HE IS.

It mustn't be 3 entities at the same time, we do have evidence that these are authorities of God at different times. The best demonstration of this fact is when Jesus was about to ascend:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.
18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


John 16: 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send him to you.

1. The comforter was already there with the disciples
2. The comforter would not come in them not unless Jesus goes
2. Jesus promised not to leave them comfortless but He will come to them

Conclusion
Jesus is the comforter who was there with them but had to go and come in another form, into them. Jesus claimed to be the Holy spirit.
Distinct persons can not behave in this manner, that the comforter won't come unless Jesus goes- how distinct are they?

 

[blue_ladybug]

trofimus,

you will believe any lie if it is about the number THREE [3]!!

I have never interacted with someone as lost as you in my entire life.

you think a SPIRIT with no form is a PERSON hahahaha

just WOW!!

Remove your human form, and take out your soul. What do you have left over? YOUR SPIRIT. A walking, talking spirit..

 

[trofimus]

Now you're plain avoiding the question, again, show me a single example in the bible (LXX&NT)where someone labelled as firstborn regarding a particular group where themselves are NOT in that group?

Why such limited usecase? Its like "show me another verse in the Bible saying that God loved the world so much that he sent his only son". Verses are specific.

But you can search for the same grammar use.

 

[blue_ladybug]

It mustn't be 3 entities at the same time, we do have evidence that these are authorities of God at different times. The best demonstration of this fact is when Jesus was about to ascend:

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.
18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


John 16: 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send him to you.

1. The comforter was already there with the disciples
2. The comforter would not come in them not unless Jesus goes
2. Jesus promised not to leave them comfortless but He will come to them

Conclusion
Jesus is the comforter who was there with them but had to go and come into them. Jesus claimed to be the Holy spirit.
Distinct persons can not behave in this manner, that the comforter won't come unless Jesus goes- how distinct are they?

Yes, I meant to say He is all 3 in one, not "at the same time".

 

[NWL]

Why such limited usecase? Its like "show me another verse in the Bible saying that God loved the world so much that he sent his only son". Verses are specific.

But you can search for the same grammar use.

I'm not asking for you to show me anything in verbatim here! I'm simply asking you to show me the idea of what you claim.

Remember, my claim is that every single time firstborn is used, whoever or whatever is called firstborn is always part of the group that they're labelled as firstborn of, you can take literally any biblical verse with the use of firstborn and I can demonstrate this to you. In fact I can take the use of firstborn in any literature outside the bible and show it to you, since to be firstborn of a group you have to be part of the group by the very definition of the word.

Your argument, by default since you reject what I say, is that despite Jesus being called firstborn he's not part of the group he's labelled firstborn in. This contradicts every other usage of firstborn and the very meaning of the word.

Therefore what I'm asking you to do is very basic, show us a single example (Bible, LXX or any litreature outside the bible EVER) which conveys the idea as someone being firstborn of something where they themselves arent part of the group they're firstborn of.

Are you admitting that this cannot be done, you can't show me a single counterclaim to the claim that you reject and yet you're correct in all this? If you preach it you should be able to prove it.

 

[GodisONE]

Read the gospel of John. Its full of Trinity.

you mean, it proves the Father and Holy Spirit live inside Yeshua.

that is not the trinity.

that is the fullness of God!!

 

[trofimus]

I'm not asking for you to show me anything in verbatim here! I'm simply asking you to show me the idea of what you claim.

Remember, my claim is that every single time firstborn is used, whoever or whatever is called firstborn is always part of the group that they're labelled as firstborn of, you can take literally any biblical verse with the use of firstborn and I can demonstrate this to you. In fact I can take the use of firstborn in any literature outside the bible and show it to you, since to be firstborn of a group you have to be part of the group by the very definition of the word.

Your argument, by default since you reject what I say, is that despite Jesus being called firstborn he's not part of the group he's labelled firstborn in. This contradicts every other usage of firstborn and the very meaning of the word.

Therefore what I'm asking you to do is very basic, show us a single example (Bible, LXX or any litreature outside the bible EVER) which conveys the idea as someone being firstborn of something where they themselves arent part of the group they're firstborn of.

You need to find a use with "...prototokos pasés..." inside it to be the same case as Col 1:15

I do not have any Greek phrases search engine for Septuagint, if you do, find it.

If this is the only use in the Bible, we will move nowhere, if you do not want to accept that we can find just the use of "...pasés..." to see if it was tranlated with "over", too, somewhere else.

 

[Noose]

Read the gospel of John. Its full of Trinity.

Gospel of John?!
like this?
John 10: 30 I and the Father are one.” 31At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him.

This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say "the Father and I are two distinct persons in one being, the Father is not me, and i'm not the Father"

 

[trofimus]

Gospel of John?!
like this?
John 10: 30 I and the Father are one.” 31At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him.

This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say "the Father and I are two distinct persons in one being, the Father is not me, and i'm not the Father"

The context is "one God", not "one person". Jews wanted to stone him because he was making himself God.

 

[Noose]

The context is "one God", not "one person". Jews wanted to stone him because he was making himself God.

And was He lying when He claimed to be that one God?

I wasn't even in the context, when Jesus said "..the Father and i are one..", did He mean Father is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Father and that these are two distinct persons in one being?

 

[NWL]

You need to find a use with "...prototokos pasés..." inside it to be the same case as Col 1:15

I do not have any Greek phrases search engine for Septuagint, if you do, find it.

If this is the only use in the Bible, we will move nowhere.

No, now your demanding rules be applied where they need not, why do we need to find a use with "...prototokos pasés..." in it to continue, we have the usage of the word "firstborn" and the group its applied to, namely "creation". This argument is very basic and there is no need to complicate things as you are blatantly trying to do to run from the matter.

Whenever firstborn is used in scripture context always expresses what the group the firstborn is referring to as the next verse show:

Exo 11:5

"Every firstborn son in Egypt will die". The group = Egypt

"from the firstborn son of Pharaoh" . The group =Pharaoh

"the firstborn son of the female slave". The group = Female slaves

"all the firstborn of the cattle" . The group = Cattle

Col 1:18

"Firstborn of the dead". The group = Dead people

Luke 2:7

"[Mary] gave birth to her firstborn". The group = Mary’s offspring

I could do this with every usage of firstborn. Now we have Col 1:15, "the firstborn all creation", we obviously have the usage of firstborn and the context of what the group is that firstborn relates to, namely "creation".

So again I ask you, show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it.

 

[trofimus]

And was He lying when He claimed to be that one God?

I wasn't even in the context, when Jesus said "..the Father and i are one..", did He mean Father is not Jesus and Jesus is not the Father and that these are two distinct persons in one being?

No, he was not lying, because the Son is God as Father is God. They are one God.

 

[Noose]

No, he was not lying, because the Son is God as Father is God. They are one God.

How is God the son and God the Father one God if they are distinct? aren't these two Gods, God the son AND God the Father?

 

[trofimus]

No, now your demanding rules be applied where they need not, why do we need to find a use with "...prototokos pasés..." in it to continue, we have the usage of the word "firstborn" and the group its applied to, namely "creation". This argument is very basic and there is no need to complicate things as you are blatantly trying to do to run from the matter.

Whenever firstborn is used in scripture context always expresses what the group the firstborn is referring to as the next verse show:

Exo 11:5

"Every firstborn son in Egypt will die". The group = Egypt

"from the firstborn son of Pharaoh" . The group =Pharaoh

"the firstborn son of the female slave". The group = Female slaves

"all the firstborn of the cattle" . The group = Cattle

Col 1:18

"Firstborn of the dead". The group = Dead people

Luke 2:7

"[Mary] gave birth to her firstborn". The group = Mary’s offspring

I could do this with every usage of firstborn. Now we have Col 1:15, "the firstborn all creation", we obviously have the usage of firstborn and the context of what the group is that firstborn relates to, namely "creation".

So again I ask you, show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it.

When you want to talk about how to translate Col 1:15, you must find the same grammar used somewhere else, logically.

I have found only this three similar uses in the whole Bible:

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως Col 2.15
firstborn over all creation

πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν Job 41:26
over all who are in the waters.

ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός J 17:2
authority over all people

For me, this is fully satisfactory. Q.E.D.

 

[trofimus]

How is God the son and God the Father one God if they are distinct? aren't these two Gods, God the son AND God the Father?

Look at that picture with triangles.

 

[Noose]

Look at that picture with triangles.

A triangle can also mean one person attending at each side of the triangle one at a time. That can perfectly fit the saying 'one side of triangle can not be the other side' and that the three sides are distinct from each other.

 

[GodisONE]

it really amazes me that knowing when the Old Testament was written and collected and when the New Testament was written how people wrote in those days.

we can even see that in the KJV of old English.

but knowing this, and knowing that people wrote from THIRD PERSON PERSPECTIVE, how people of today's age get so confused thinking they mean more than what they are actually stating.

no wonder trinitarians are confused, they don't even stop to think how these letters were written [the format and from what perspective], and they don't clearly understand how it was translated and rewritten by the RCC.

you just cannot help someone who has no concept of understanding the logistics behind the writings.

it's just best to let them believe a lie.

even when Yeshua's OWN DISCIPLES and PAUL are obviously preaching and baptizing in the ONENESS [Acts 2:38, Acts 19:5]!!

it really is sad and makes you wonder how well they did in English literature, mathematics, history, science, etc knowing they cannot even consider the time era when these letters were written and the standards were back then [third person perspective].

I give up because I can see I am communicating to someone who is obviously poorly uneducated and has no ability to learn!!

 

[trofimus]

A triangle can also mean one person attending at each side of the triangle one at a time. That can perfectly fit the saying 'one side of triangle can not be the other side' and that the three sides are distinct from each other.

How do you read this?

"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Simple and short!!! answer without tuns of other verses, please. Just how you read this verse in your mind.