Question...

[CharliRenee]

If Yeshua was created He is not G-d.... He is a simple creation like you and I... So what makes Him different, Messiah?

All I know is yes is 100% diety. He possesses the fullness of God. The scripture is clear about that.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If Yeshua was created He is not G-d.... He is a simple creation like you and I... So what makes Him different, Messiah?

If He was alive before abraham was born, if he created the heavens and the earth, If the universe is held together by his power. He is God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

God the son...

Creator - Col 1: For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. Allthings were created through Him and for Him.

Lamb Of God who saves the world - Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word

Judge

High priest.

There are many titles he holds. I have to run for a bit but how many can we find?

 

[dcontroversal]

God the son...

Creator - Col 1: For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. Allthings were created through Him and for Him.

Lamb Of God who saves the world - Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the word

Judge

High priest.

There are many titles he holds. I have to run for a bit but how many can we find?

Emmanuel <--GOD with US

I AM <--Eternal self existent one

The Everlasting God

The Lion of Judah

The Good Shepherd

The Branch

The Root and Offspring of David

Alpha and Omega

The First and LAST

The King of kings

The LORD of lords

The Bread of Life

etc..........just off the top of my head and without a full cup of coffee in me yet HAHAHA

 

[garee]

I posted earlier with a ? but it said no such page could be found, so I thought I'd try again...


He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Colossians 1:15‭-‬16‭, ‬18‭-‬19 NASB
https://bible.com/bible/100/col.1.15-19.NASB


Ok here is my question. No wait, let me preface it by making it clear what I am not addressing. I know this scripture makes it perfectly clear…


for it was for the Father's good pleasure that the fullness of Himself to dwell within His son.


I get that Yeshua is a deity. I get that He is of His Father, in a way, that separates Himself from all other, that He was there from the beginning, also that He is the firstborn from the dead, He is a part of the Godhead. As best as I am able to understand it is... the Three are separate but also One.


I have looked at so many translations, and the verse Col 1:15 has me wanting to pick your brains a bit. I hope the question I am about to ask is not offensive but if so, deal with it. Hahaha...jk. Just trying to keep the tone of this thread respectful, lol. I know that I'm talking to a group of far more seasoned than myself (spiritually that is, lol) bible scholars, theologians and apologists, so once again enlighten me with your thoughts on this matter, please.


He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation,
Colossians (Col) 1:15 CJB
https://bible.com/bible/1275/col.1.15.CJB


He is the exact living image [the essential manifestation] of the unseen God [the visible representation of the invisible], the firstborn [the preeminent one, the sovereign, and the originator] of all creation.
COLOSSIANS 1:15 AMP
https://bible.com/bible/1588/col.1.15.AMP



Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/col.1.15.KJV


I must admit that I'm stumbling a bit with asking this correctly. Is this scripture that seems to suggest that Yeshua was a creation of the Father, the firstborn of every creation, merely addressing the Flesh manifestation of Yeshua?

But both Israel as a nation and King David were called the firstborn because of their position and rank in God. God is not a man as us and neither is there what scripture calls a daysman as a fleshly mediator between God and man. (a tittle that the Son of man Jesus refused) David and Israel were exalted and given the rights and privileges before God that the ‘first-born’ had. In the same way the verse tells us that Jesus as the Son of God Not in respect to the Son of man is the chief, the master, the spiritual head over all creation. Good reason for that position... He and the father working together in perfect harmony and submissiveness to one another to give us the peace of God that surpasses all understanding together created it all!

God is one Spirit one source of faith as a work or labor of His love as one perfect work in respect to two.

 

[Dino246]

God is one Spirit one source of faith as a work or labor of His love as one perfect work in respect to two.

Garee, respectfully, I encourage you to take a writing class. This sentence of yours is meaningless, and it is but one example among many of your convoluted collections of words separated by periods. At the very least, please spend some time on one of the writing lab sites such as the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/purdue_owl.html) learning how to structure sentences and paragraphs properly. Your contributions will be much more valuable if they are coherent.

 

[Absolutely]

Part of the church fathers starting doctrines was framed in what could and could not be said.

Jesus is God's only begotten.
He is begotten of the father.

Ok,but also he is alpha and omega.

He ISN'T. firstborn OF. the dead.
Firstborn OF THE FATHER.
HE has no beginnig and no ending.

There never was a time when he was not firstborn. He wasn't "not firstborn" waiting to become firstborn.

He just is.
He just is.
You can't understand those components.

It is by faith we simply believe.
( what can,and cannot, be said)

 

[Absolutely]

When it says "first born from the dead" and the firstborn of the church he is the resurrection.
He is the only man,the God man,that could resurrect. He was Mary's firstborn.

 

[Absolutely]

Watchtower uses "firstborn" as a proof of their worthless doctrine.
They say if he is the FIRST ANYTHING he cannot be God.

He is both.
He is firstborn and he is God

 

[Absolutely]

There is another interesing component in the God man found in rev 5.

It had to be a man to open the seals in heaven

 

[rlm68]

But both Israel as a nation and King David were called the firstborn because of their position and rank in God. God is not a man as us and neither is there what scripture calls a daysman as a fleshly mediator between God and man. (a tittle that the Son of man Jesus refused) David and Israel were exalted and given the rights and privileges before God that the ‘first-born’ had. In the same way the verse tells us that Jesus as the Son of God Not in respect to the Son of man is the chief, the master, the spiritual head over all creation. Good reason for that position... He and the father working together in perfect harmony and submissiveness to one another to give us the peace of God that surpasses all understanding together created it all!

God is one Spirit one source of faith as a work or labor of His love as one perfect work in respect to two.

Something else people don't get, when the Bible was translated into the KJV English, it was common then to speak in the 3rd person view. So, many times when we think a scripture means more than ONE person, if you look at it from a 3rd person view, you can obviously see it only means ONE person!!

Just like describing Christ is now sitting on the RIGHT HAND of God, that literally does not mean TWO PEOPLE, it means that Christ has FULL POWER of God (the RIGHT HAND in the OLD ENGLISH means and affirms HIGHEST ABSOLUTE POWER).

But since the Catholics bastardized scripture with their own views (not the view of God), we have people clearly missing out from the TRUTH!!

 

[Locutus]

^^^^ That's totally off the wall.

 

[trofimus]

But since the Catholics bastardized scripture with their own views (not the view of God), we have people clearly missing out from the TRUTH!!

Those evil catholics... having nothing else to do than to try to corrupt their own Bible they believe is sacred.

 

[rlm68]

Those evil catholics... having nothing else to do than to try to corrupt their own Bible they believe is sacred.

Yeah...just like we read the entire Old Testament and not one mention from God that a literal hell exists. Then in the Gospel of Luke, we supposedly have Jesus (WHO is GOD) talking about a literal hell with Lazarus and the rich man.

So yeah, them 2nd century Catholics have done literal damage to how we should both interpret God and understand scripture.

I have no respect for the Catholic garbage and completely understand how many believe the Catholic leaders will be a part of the antichrist and false prophet!!

 

[trofimus]

Yeah...just like we read the entire Old Testament and not one mention from God that a literal hell exists. Then in the Gospel of Luke, we supposedly have Jesus (WHO is GOD) talking about a literal hell with Lazarus and the rich man.

So yeah, them 2nd century Catholics have done literal damage to how we should both interpret God and understand scripture.

I have no respect for the Catholic garbage and completely understand how many believe the Catholic leaders will be a part of the antichrist and false prophet!!

Yeah, those catholics.... and not just story about Lazarus, but also Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 18:9-12, Matthew 13:38-42, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 12:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Jude 7, Revelation 14:11, Revelation 20:13-15, and Revelation 21:8

Really terrible. I would complain to pope or something.

 

[rlm68]

Like I mentioned in my post to the thread OP...

We have Matthew 28:19 talking to PETER and the other disciples about baptizing in the trinity.

But, when Peter and Paul are in the Book of Acts (the actual FIRST CHURCH EXAMPLE we have), they are baptizing in the NAME of JESUS, not in the trinity.

So, why would Peter not obey Jesus? Why would Paul not obey Jesus?

Because we have information that proves in the second century the CATHOLICS changed Matthew 28:19 from Jesus commanding to baptize in HIS NAME to the bastardized trinity.

The Bible is flawed by Catholic dogma. No doubt those who've done such a thing as changed scripture will NEVER SEE heaven but will be in the Lake of Fire!!

 

[rlm68]

Yeah, those catholics.... and not just story about Lazarus, but also Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 5:29-30, Matthew 18:9-12, Matthew 13:38-42, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:43-47, Luke 12:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:9, Jude 7, Revelation 14:11, Revelation 20:13-15, and Revelation 21:8

Really terrible. I would complain to pope or something.

Lake of Fire and hell (as where the devil and sinners go) are 2 different things. You cannot throw hell and death into the Lake of Fire if they are the same hahahahaha
hell in the Bible literally means the grave we are buried in!!

 

[trofimus]

Like I mentioned in my post to the thread OP...

We have Matthew 28:19 talking to PETER and the other disciples about baptizing in the trinity.

But, when Peter and Paul are in the Book of Acts, they are baptizing in the NAME of JESUS, not in the trinity.

So, why would Peter not obey Jesus? Why would Paul not obey Jesus?

Because we have information that proves in the second century the CATHOLICS changed Matthew 28:19 from Jesus commanding to baptize in HIS NAME to the bastardized trinity.

The Bible is flawed by Catholic dogma. No doubt those who've done such a thing as changed scripture will NEVER SEE heaven but will be in the Lake of Fire!!

To speak logically and properly, when we have Mt 28:19 and Acts, we have so called contradiction.

From a contradiction to "a proof that the second century catholics changed Mt 28:19" is a long way, very looong way.

This contradiction is not logical, but only in practice.

Maybe, the more simple explanation is that Peter said it differently than Jesus said. Or maybe it does not matter because its not the formula said during baptism, that makes baptism to be a true baptism... or....some other possibility. Or there is an evil conspiration of the catholics, corrupting the Bible.

 

[trofimus]

Lake of Fire and hell (as where the devil and sinners go) are 2 different things. You cannot throw hell and death into the Lake of Fire if they are the same hahahahaha

The term used in the verse in revelation talking about hell being thrown into the lake of fire, is hádés, i.e. the underworld. Not some kind of a punishment hell like gehenna. I would guess the lake of fire is the gehenna.

 

[rlm68]

To speak logically and properly, when we have Mt 28:19 and Acts, we have so called contradiction.

From a contradiction to "a proof that the second century catholics changed Mt 28:19" is a long way, very looong way.

This contradiction is not logical, but only in practice.

Maybe, the more simple explanation is that Peter said it differently than Jesus said. Or maybe it does not matter because its not the formula said during baptism, that makes baptism to be a true baptism... or....some other possibility. Or there is an evil conspiration of the catholics, corrupting the Bible.

It means the world of difference. The trinity formula implies there are 3 separate people acting as God. To baptize as Jesus factually ordered in His NAME, which Peter and Paul followed, indicates ONE GOD as ONE PERSON only!!