Search results

I've heard what you said about Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 before, but I fail to understand how those two passages are linked with Rev 3:14? You can't link a passage (beginning in Rev 3:14 with John 1:1 and Gen 1:1) simply because it uses a single word, namely "beginning", you link verses by phrases...

Proverbs 8:22 speaks about Jesus as Gods wisdom in a personified manner, that isn't to say Gods literal attribute of wisdom was created upon the belief of some that Jehovah created/produced Wisdom(Jesus) according to Prov 8:22. God was without his wisdom in a sense that he had not demonstrated...

As I've said and as scripture shows Jesus is a copy of the Father, I too believe Jesus was created outside outside time but he was still copied/created non the less. As I've mentioned already on this thread, Jesus being 'in the beginning with God' (John 1:1) is not in reference to existing...

Please, for the sake of argument expand on your meaning. Also for a few post now you've been citing Col 2:15, our discussion is about Col 1:15 not 2:15. You defined firstborn as something/someone that is "born as the first in a line", in a line of what? Can you expand and give me an example...

So please note, you are the one pushing the argument of "over" vs "of" here. Both contextually and grammatically "firstborn" cannot properly and is never in its 160 usages referred to as "over" something, expect in the case of Col 1:15 in some bible translations which we have both agreed are...

trofimus the last time I was arguing over Col 1:15 and the wording "of all" over the word "over" was 8 posts ago (post 550). Hence why all my quotations of the v15 after was "firstborn all creation" leaving out our debated of vs over. If we can both agree that Jesus is called firstborn...

And what does that argument have anything to do with my one? Remember my question is for you to "show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it." The only thing that needs to be agreed on from both sides in relation to my...

You searched wrong, there were 42 occurances of πάσης (pases) the same as the one found in Col 1:15, this is some how the NIV chooses to translate some uses of the word. Moreover one of your examples was the verse in question itself which is hardly evidence, how you only found two I don't know...

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...

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...

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?

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? Since I can agree...

Are you even reading what I'm writing??? At times translators add in words to convey what THEY believe the meaning of the text is over what the original text actually says. The NIV is not an accurate translation and is dogma biased. The translators even admitted to them perverting of Gods word...

Really? It takes a measly minute to read my friend. Firstly you coincidentally keep quoting Col 1:15 as Jesus being "over" creation. As I have mentioned previously the word you've used in col 1:15 there for "over" is pasēs. "pasēs " does not mean over but is rather defined as "all, the whole...

Yes, that Jesus is distinct from the Father and created by the Father. Good. As I mentioned previously people claim the Greek word for firstborn, prōtotokos, can mean firstborn in the sense of being preeminent, which it certainly can. For example in Psalm 89:20, 27 King David is talked about...

You fail to realise one thing, a copy of anything implies the very thing that is copied is excatly the same expect the age of that copy. If the Father was in existence alone, and then created a copy of himself (Hebrews 1:3), namely Jesus, then how does it make sense that Gods age also copies...

Sorry for the slow reply, I've been busy over the last few days. Please do what I ask below and I will then reply to your last response. You didn't answer my question, please answer it. If Jesus didn't die, could he be called firstborn from the dead? It's technically a yes or no answer but...

Wrong again, show me a teaching or JW doctrine where haven't used the bible but instead relied on JW theology? A poor example, the trinity is that one being, namely God is three separate persons. We have a body yes, but are your soul and spirit two different persons? When was the last time...

So your basing your belief from a creed 300 years after the fact... Smart. Again, the bible trumps a man established creed anyday. Where in the bible does it states Jesus is "of one substance with the Father", moreover, shouldn't the statement be "of one substance with the Father AND the HS"...

One in what manner? The reality of the Trinity is above any human comprehension yes, but the God of the bible isn't. The same fact remains, the doctrine of the trinity is nowhere found or taught in the bible, however, God and is personage clearly is. No one can completely come to know God...