Religions > Bible > Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2007 06:59:31 AM |
| Object: |
Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
[randy]
Christians view this "Word" as preceeding creation and as
becoming Christ...
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of all creation;
16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or authorities-all things were created
through him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold
together.
Notice the passage says "He is before all things." This
means that he was God prior to his incarnation as the Son of
God. I really don't care how Jews today view it, if they see
the Word as concurrent with creation itself. The biblical
thought is that the Word was God prior to the act of
creation so that through the Word creation took place.
The idea is that Christ previously existed as God prior to
the creation of the universe. Obviously, Jews today don't
want to see it that way. But Paul was a good Jew who
obviously did see it that way!
[Shmuel] Paul is saying here that "the *image* of the invisible
God" who is the firstborn *of* creation (and who is distinct
from the invisible God) is "before all things". He is *not*
saying that this firstborn or first created "image" was
the invisible Creator. And he does *not* mean that this
created image who was *of* creation was God (the Creator)
"prior to his incarnation...". Paul's understanding here grows
out of the poetic imagination of the Jewish wisdom thinking
of his time. According to one Jewish author, "Wisdom was
created before all things". [Sir. 1.4] And, in this same book
we read that "by His Word all things hold together". [43.26]
So also, the second-century BCE Jewish thinker, Aristobulus,
notes Solomon's point of view in Proverbs 8.22-31 that
personified "Wisdom existed before heaven and earth".
[Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 13.12.11] Similar thoughts
regarding this first created "Word" were expressed by Philo
and the book of "Wisdom" long before Paul echoed
their thoughts.
[randy]
The term "firstborn of creation" refers to the fact that
when Jesus was born into this world he became the preeminent
son among God's many sons. He became the "king of kings"
over all men, and thus over "all creation."
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature (son) rules over all
the rest of sons (creatures). But there is no reason
to suppose that this firstborn brother was the invisible
"God prior to his incarnation as the Son of God".
Rather, he was one of the brothers.
_____________
[randy]
But Jesus' preexistence before creation does mean that He
had to be God. Anything else would've been "created." Jesus
had been not just the "first" among the things God created
(when Jesus was born), but he actually "preceeded all
things."
The Word of God is only something created in the sense that
an idea of formed in the mind of God. That does not mean
that it is part of "creation." It only means that God
creates a word, or an idea. Then that idea can be translated
into the production of a physical universe or in the
production of a man representing His own divine person
(Jesus).
[Shmuel] The firstborn Word or Wisdom was the first part
*of* God's creation. This personified Word / Wisdom
"was *created* before all things". This first created Word
was *not* the invisible God Who created him.
.
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
24 Dec 2007 01:27:58 AM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[Shmuel] Paul is saying here that "the *image* of the
invisible God" who is the firstborn *of* creation (and who
is distinct from the invisible God) is "before all
things". He is *not* saying that this firstborn or first
created "image" was the invisible Creator....
That is precisely what Paul was saying...
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of all creation;16 for in him all things were
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
That is explicitly identifying Christ as the preincarnate
divine creator of the universe! God's "first-born Son" was
the human Jesus born into history. And he represented the
very God who created the universe! You cannot be any more
explicit about it.
...And he does *not* mean that this created image who was
*of* creation was God (the Creator)
"prior to his incarnation..."....
That is precisely what it means! This person who was created
as a man was prior to birth the preexistent God who created
the universe. Again...
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of all creation;16 for in him all things were
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
.....Paul's understanding here grows out of the poetic
imagination of the Jewish wisdom thinking of his time.
According to one Jewish author, "Wisdom was created before
all things"....
I fully understand that the Word and Wisdom are viewed as in
the beginning of creation, having the form of God's design
for the universe. It was the intellectual conception that
God had for the universe prior to His actual creation of
that universe. And so God created the universe by His word.
As the Scriptures say, "And God said, Let there be...and it
was."
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature (son) rules over all the
rest of sons (creatures). But there is no reason
to suppose that this firstborn brother was the invisible
"God prior to his incarnation as the Son of God". Rather,
he was one of the brothers.
Colossians 1 says that Jesus was the Creator of the
universe, that "in him all things were created." That is,
with Jesus' incarnation in mind all things were created.
That means the universe was basically created for him as the
one "through whom" it was created.
[Shmuel] The firstborn Word or Wisdom was the first part
*of* God's creation. This personified Word / Wisdom "was
*created* before all things". This first created Word was
*not* the invisible God Who created him.
When God conceives of a plan, or word, it is not the
creation of things outside of the mind of God. It is part of
God Himself--His intellectual activity. So to refer to God's
Word as if it is the first thing God created is improperly
assigning it to physical creation. Obviously, the first
thing God did was conceive of the idea of creating the
universe. Then after "creating" this idea, He actually made
it come into existence by that same verbalized idea.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
24 Dec 2007 02:33:25 AM |
|
|
[Shmuel] Paul is saying here that "the *image* of the
invisible God" who is the firstborn *of* creation (and who
is distinct from the invisible God) is "before all
things". He is *not* saying that this firstborn or first
created "image" was the invisible Creator....
[randy]
That is precisely what Paul was saying...
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of all creation;16 for in him all things were
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
That is explicitly identifying Christ as the preincarnate
divine creator of the universe! God's "first-born Son" was
the human Jesus born into history. And he represented the
very God who created the universe! You cannot be any more
explicit about it.
[Shmuel] Paul differentiates this beloved son (a creature), who
was created in the image of God, from his Father (the Creator),
the invisible God Who created him. While this firstborn son
represents his Father, he is not his own Father.
____________
...And he does *not* mean that this created image who was
*of* creation was God (the Creator)
"prior to his incarnation..."....
[randy]
That is precisely what it means! This person who was created
as a man was prior to birth the preexistent God who created
the universe. Again...
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the
first-born of all creation;16 for in him all things were
created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities-all things were created through him and for him.
[Shmuel] Paul identifies this firstborn *of* creation as the agent
of the Creator. This "son" is the by, the through, or the in whom
all things were made or created, rather than the Creator (Father)
Himself. As Paul writes elsewhere, "Yet for us there is one God,
the Father (the Creator), *from* Whom are all things...and
one [human] lord, Yeshua the Messiah, *through* whom are
all things....". [1 Cor. 8.6]
___________
.....Paul's understanding here grows out of the poetic
imagination of the Jewish wisdom thinking of his time.
According to one Jewish author, "Wisdom was created before
all things"....
[randy]
I fully understand that the Word and Wisdom are viewed as in
the beginning of creation, having the form of God's design
for the universe. It was the intellectual conception that
God had for the universe prior to His actual creation of
that universe. And so God created the universe by His word.
As the Scriptures say, "And God said, Let there be...and it
was."
[Shmuel] Jews differentiate the beginning of creation, the first-
born creature (created in the image of God), from the Creator
Himself.
____________
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature (son) rules over all the
rest of sons (creatures). But there is no reason
to suppose that this firstborn brother was the invisible
"God prior to his incarnation as the Son of God". Rather,
he was one of the brothers.
[randy]
Colossians 1 says that Jesus was the Creator of the
universe, that "in him all things were created." That is,
with Jesus' incarnation in mind all things were created.
That means the universe was basically created for him as the
one "through whom" it was created.
[Shmuel] No, Colossians 1 says that this firstborn creature
was the *agent* of the Creator rather than the Creator (Father)
of the universe Himself.
____________
[Shmuel] The firstborn Word or Wisdom was the first part
*of* God's creation. This personified Word / Wisdom "was
*created* before all things". This first created Word was
*not* the invisible God Who created him.
[randy]
When God conceives of a plan, or word, it is not the
creation of things outside of the mind of God. It is part of
God Himself--His intellectual activity. So to refer to God's
Word as if it is the first thing God created is improperly
assigning it to physical creation. Obviously, the first
thing God did was conceive of the idea of creating the
universe. Then after "creating" this idea, He actually made
it come into existence by that same verbalized idea.
[Shmuel] Paul (along with other Jews) considers the firstborn
Word or Wisdom to be *of* the created order no matter
how others might try to deny it or rationalize it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
24 Dec 2007 12:56:13 PM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[randy]
...God's "first-born Son" was the human Jesus born into
history. And he represented the very God who created the
universe!...
[Shmuel] Paul differentiates this beloved son (a
creature), who was created in the image of God, from his
Father (the Creator), the invisible God Who created him.
While this firstborn son represents his Father, he is not
his own Father.
The Father and the Son are both finite representations of an
infinite God. Both are God. God has a number of finite forms
that express Him as God. They are *all* God!
[randy]
...This person who was created as a man was prior to
birth the preexistent God who created the universe.
Again...
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God,
the first-born of all creation;16 for in him all things
were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and
invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities
or authorities-all things were created through him and
for him.
[Shmuel] Paul identifies this firstborn *of* creation as
the agent of the Creator. This "son" is the by, the
through, or the in whom all things were made or created,
rather than the Creator (Father) Himself....
The passage in Colossians indicates that all things were
created "for him" and that all things were created "through
him." This means that Jesus is not only the agent through
whom God created the world, but that Jesus was himself the
Creator who made the world.
[randy]
I fully understand that the Word and Wisdom are viewed as
in the beginning of creation, having the form of God's
design for the universe. It was the intellectual
conception that God had for the universe prior to His
actual creation of that universe. And so God created the
universe by His word. As the Scriptures say, "And God
said, Let there be...and it was."
[Shmuel] Jews differentiate the beginning of creation,
the first-
born creature (created in the image of God), from the
Creator Himself.
I also distinguish between God and His Word. But God's Word
is God's self-revelation as well as His creative agency. As
such, the Word can be identified with God when it creates a
body in which God's own personality is revealed.
[Shmuel] No, Colossians 1 says that this firstborn
creature was the *agent* of the Creator rather than the
Creator (Father) of the universe Himself.
I have trouble conceiving of Jesus as an "agent" rather than
as "creator!" Rather, I see Jesus as a human being, who also
in his divinity preexisted the world and actually created
it.
[Shmuel] Paul (along with other Jews) considers the
firstborn Word or Wisdom to be *of* the created order no
matter how others might try to deny it or rationalize it.
The only way the Word of God belongs to the created order is
if God Himself becomes personally identified with it as a
person, eg in the incarnation of Jesus.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
24 Dec 2007 03:00:21 PM |
|
|
[Shmuel] Paul differentiates this beloved son (a
creature), who was created in the image of God, from his
Father (the Creator), the invisible God Who created him.
While this firstborn son represents his Father, he is not
his own Father.
[randy]
The Father and the Son are both finite representations of an
infinite God. Both are God. God has a number of finite forms
that express Him as God. They are *all* God!
[Shmuel] While you believe "both are God" and "a number of
finite forms...are *all* God", we believe that there is only one
single Almighty Creator Who is immortal and invisible.
___________
[Shmuel] Paul identifies this firstborn *of* creation as
the agent of the Creator. This "son" is the by, the
through, or the in whom all things were made or created,
rather than the Creator (Father) Himself....
[randy]
The passage in Colossians indicates that all things were
created "for him" and that all things were created "through
him." This means that Jesus is not only the agent through
whom God created the world, but that Jesus was himself the
Creator who made the world.
[Shmuel] For us there is one single Creator (the immortal
and invisible Father) "from Whom are all things..." including
the firstborn Word. Paul doesn't claim there is a second
person to be identified as being the creator. Later idolaters
(falsely) identified this visible and mortal human creature as
another creator rather than as an agent of the single Creator.
_____________
[Shmuel] Jews differentiate the beginning of creation,
the firstborn creature (created in the image of God),
from the Creator Himself.
[randy]
I also distinguish between God and His Word. But God's Word
is God's self-revelation as well as His creative agency. As
such, the Word can be identified with God when it creates a
body in which God's own personality is revealed.
[Shmuel] Jews (who wrote the Renewed Covenant scriptures)
identified the firstborn personified Word as the agent of the Creator,
but never as being the Creator Himself. They knew better than
the idolatrous Gentiles who came later and misinterpreted these
Jewish writings.
___________
[Shmuel] No, Colossians 1 says that this firstborn
creature was the *agent* of the Creator rather than the
Creator (Father) of the universe Himself.
[randy]
I have trouble conceiving of Jesus as an "agent" rather than
as "creator!" Rather, I see Jesus as a human being, who also
in his divinity preexisted the world and actually created it.
[Shmuel] Since you begin with the assumption that this mortal
creature is the immortal Creator, of course, you "have trouble
conceiving of (the first created Word) as an 'agent' rather than
as 'creator'.
__________
[Shmuel] Paul (along with other Jews) considers the
firstborn Word or Wisdom to be *of* the created order
no matter how others might try to deny it or rationalize it.
[randy]
The only way the Word of God belongs to the created order is
if God Himself becomes personally identified with it as a
person, eg in the incarnation of Jesus.
[Shmuel] No, this firstborn creature was considered to be
*of* creation in the beginning long before the personified
Word became flesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
27 Dec 2007 10:04:31 PM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[randy]
The Father and the Son are both finite representations of
an infinite God. Both are God. God has a number of finite
forms that express Him as God. They are *all* God!
[Shmuel] While you believe "both are God" and "a number
of
finite forms...are *all* God", we believe that there is
only one
single Almighty Creator Who is immortal and invisible.
If you don't have a finite conception of the infinite God
you don't worship anybody!
[randy]
The passage in Colossians indicates that all things were
created "for him" and that all things were created
"through him." This means that Jesus is not only the
agent through whom God created the world, but that Jesus
was himself the Creator who made the world.
[Shmuel] For us there is one single Creator (the immortal
and invisible Father) "from Whom are all things..."
including the firstborn Word. Paul doesn't claim there is
a second
person to be identified as being the creator...
That is precisely what the passage in Colossians indicates,
the "image" of the invisible God.
[randy]
I also distinguish between God and His Word. But God's
Word is God's self-revelation as well as His creative
agency. As such, the Word can be identified with God when
it creates a body in which God's own personality is
revealed.
[Shmuel] Jews (who wrote the Renewed Covenant scriptures)
identified the firstborn personified Word as the agent of
the Creator, but never as being the Creator Himself. They
knew better than the idolatrous Gentiles who came later
and misinterpreted these
Jewish writings.
Paul was a Jew. He was the one who wrote in Colossians that
this "image of the invisible God" created all things.
[randy]
I have trouble conceiving of Jesus as an "agent" rather
than as "creator!" Rather, I see Jesus as a human being,
who also in his divinity preexisted the world and
actually created it.
[Shmuel] Since you begin with the assumption that this
mortal creature is the immortal Creator, of course, you
"have trouble conceiving of (the first created Word) as an
'agent' rather than as 'creator'.
The concept of God's "word" creating the world is pretty
simple. When you identify this "word" with Jesus, it's
pretty easy to see Jesus as Creator, prior to his
incarnation.
[randy]
The only way the Word of God belongs to the created order
is if God Himself becomes personally identified with it
as a person, eg in the incarnation of Jesus.
[Shmuel] No, this firstborn creature was considered to be
*of* creation in the beginning long before the personified
Word became flesh.
On the contrary, the only thing "created" about God's word
is that it was a thought that God "created" in His mind.
Then, God's word decided to stop creating the universe and
decided to inhabit a human person, representing God Himself.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
29 Dec 2007 08:08:47 PM |
|
|
[Shmuel] While you believe "both are God" and "a number of
finite forms...are *all* God", we believe that there is only one
single Almighty Creator Who is immortal and invisible.
[randy]
If you don't have a finite conception of the infinite God you don't
worship anybody!
[Shmuel] "Infinite", "immortal", "almighty", "invisible", etc. do *not*
apply to any mortal or visible human creature. We use these adjectives
to point beyond our "finite conceptions" of God.
____________
[randy]
The passage in Colossians indicates that all things were created "for
him" and that all things were created "through him." This means that
Jesus is not only the agent through whom God created the world, but that
Jesus was himself the Creator who made the world.
[Shmuel] For us there is one single Creator (the immortal and invisible
Father) "from Whom are all things..." including the firstborn Word. Paul
doesn't claim there is a second person to be identified as being the
creator...
[randy]
That is precisely what the passage in Colossians indicates, the "image" of
the invisible God.
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature who was created in the "image" of God
was the *agent* of his Creator; he was not the Creator (Father) Himself.
_____________
[Shmuel] Jews (who wrote the Renewed Covenant scriptures)
identified the firstborn personified Word as the agent of the Creator,
but never as being the Creator Himself. They knew better than the
idolatrous Gentiles who came later and misinterpreted these
Jewish writings.
[randy]
Paul was a Jew. He was the one who wrote in Colossians that this "image of
the invisible God" created all things.
[Shmuel] No, Paul was a Jew who differentiated between the Creator,
the *from* Whom are all things, and the "firstborn *of* creation",
the agent *through* whom are all things. He wrote that "all things
were created *in* and *through* him". He did not claim that there
were two different creators (fathers) nor that the son was the father.
____________
[randy]
I have trouble conceiving of Jesus as an "agent" rather than as
"creator!" Rather, I see Jesus as a human being, who also in his
divinity preexisted the world and actually created it.
[Shmuel] Since you begin with the assumption that this mortal creature
is the immortal Creator, of course, you "have trouble conceiving of (the
first created Word) as an 'agent' rather than as 'creator'.
[randy]
The concept of God's "word" creating the world is pretty simple. When you
identify this "word" with Jesus, it's pretty easy to see Jesus as Creator,
prior to his incarnation.
[Shmuel] The personified Word was the agent of the Creator (Father)
and not the Father (Creator) Himself.
____________
[randy]
The only way the Word of God belongs to the created order is if God
Himself becomes personally identified with it as a person, eg in the
incarnation of Jesus.
[Shmuel] No, this firstborn creature was considered to be *of* creation
in the beginning long before the personified Word became flesh.
[randy]
On the contrary, the only thing "created" about God's word is that it was
a thought that God "created" in His mind. Then, God's word decided to stop
creating the universe and decided to inhabit a human person, representing
God Himself.
[Shmuel] No, a word is not just a thought "created" in someone's mind.
A word is a spoken (created) sound which comes out of someone's mouth.
The personified Word is pictured as the firstborn of the created order.
While this firstborn Word *represents* the Creator, this first created
Word is distinct from *being* the Creator.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
30 Dec 2007 01:11:51 AM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[randy]
If you don't have a finite conception of the infinite God
you don't
worship anybody!
[Shmuel] "Infinite", "immortal", "almighty", "invisible",
etc. do *not*
apply to any mortal or visible human creature. We use
these adjectives
to point beyond our "finite conceptions" of God.
They are still *finite* concepts! And if God reduces Himself
to finite concepts so you can understand them, then God can
become a finite human being as well, so you can understand
what He is like as a man.
[randy]
The passage in Colossians indicates that all things
were created "for
him" and that all things were created "through him."
This means that
Jesus is not only the agent through whom God created
the world, but that
Jesus was himself the Creator who made the world.
[Shmuel] For us there is one single Creator (the
immortal and invisible
Father) "from Whom are all things..." including the
firstborn Word. Paul
doesn't claim there is a second person to be identified
as being the
creator...
That's precisely what he indicates in Colossians, that not
only did God create the universe, but that Jesus was also
that same Creator, the preexistent God.
[randy]
That is precisely what the passage in Colossians
indicates, the "image" of
the invisible God.
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature who was created in the
"image" of God
was the *agent* of his Creator; he was not the Creator
(Father) Himself.
Paul said he was.
[randy]
Paul was a Jew. He was the one who wrote in Colossians
that this "image of
the invisible God" created all things.
[Shmuel] No, Paul was a Jew who differentiated between
the Creator,
the *from* Whom are all things, and the "firstborn *of*
creation",
the agent *through* whom are all things. He wrote that
"all things
were created *in* and *through* him". He did not claim
that there
were two different creators (fathers) nor that the son was
the father.
I didn't say there were two creators. I said that Jesus was
the preexistent God who created the universe. Jesus is the
"firstborn of creation" by virtue of his being made a man,
the Son of God. He was the heir of God, heir to the universe
itself.
[randy]
The concept of God's "word" creating the world is pretty
simple. When you
identify this "word" with Jesus, it's pretty easy to see
Jesus as Creator,
prior to his incarnation.
[Shmuel] The personified Word was the agent of the
Creator (Father)
and not the Father (Creator) Himself.
The word of God is God's agent of creation. It is His spoken
word! There is no separation between God and His Word. You
can distinguish them, but this is a vehicle of expression.
God is lowering Himself to speak in a finite context, so as
to create finite things.
[Shmuel] ....this firstborn creature was considered to
be *of* creation
in the beginning long before the personified Word became
flesh.
There is no such thing as a "firstborn creature" (as you
describe it). Jesus is the "firstborn of God," heir to the
creation that he had created as the preexistent God.
[randy]
On the contrary, the only thing "created" about God's
word is that it was
a thought that God "created" in His mind. Then, God's
word decided to stop
creating the universe and decided to inhabit a human
person, representing
God Himself.
[Shmuel] No, a word is not just a thought "created" in
someone's mind.
A word is a spoken (created) sound which comes out of
someone's mouth.
The personified Word is pictured as the firstborn of the
created order.
While this firstborn Word *represents* the Creator, this
first created
Word is distinct from *being* the Creator.
As I said, you can distinguish between God and His Word, but
they represent the same infinite deity. The Word is thought
to be God's creative agency, an idea spawned or created in
the mind of God. This does not mean that the Word of God is
part of the material creation, part of the universe. God's
Word is part of God Himself. As John wrote, the Word was
God.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
30 Dec 2007 09:11:19 AM |
|
|
[Shmuel] "Infinite", "immortal", "almighty", "invisible",
etc. do *not* apply to any mortal or visible human creature.
We use these adjectives to point beyond our "finite
conceptions" of God.
[randy]
They are still *finite* concepts! And if God reduces Himself
to finite concepts so you can understand them, then God can
become a finite human being as well, so you can understand
what He is like as a man.
[Shmuel] It's nonsensical to claim that "infinite" and "almighty"
indicate "finite" ideas or "concepts".
____________
[Shmuel] For us there is one single Creator (the
immortal and invisible
Father) "from Whom are all things..." including the
firstborn Word. Paul
doesn't claim there is a second person to be identified
as being the creator...
[randy]
That's precisely what he indicates in Colossians, that not
only did God create the universe, but that Jesus was also
that same Creator, the preexistent God.
[Shmuel] Paul says that he was the Creator's "firstborn *of*
creation" (not the Creator Himself) and that he was the created
in the image of the invisible God (not that he was "the preexistent
God").
_____________
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature who was created in the
"image" of God
was the *agent* of his Creator; he was not the Creator
(Father) Himself.
[randy]
Paul said he was.
[Shmuel] Paul did *not* say that this firstborn *of* creation
was "the invisible God" or "the Creator (Father) Himself".
[Since you will probably just repeat these lies, I may not
respond to these falsehoods any further. The difference
between us is clear enough for anyone to see.]
_____________
[Shmuel] No, Paul was a Jew who differentiated between
the Creator,
the *from* Whom are all things, and the "firstborn *of*
creation",
the agent *through* whom are all things. He wrote that
"all things
were created *in* and *through* him". He did not claim
that there
were two different creators (fathers) nor that the son was
the father.
[randy]
I didn't say there were two creators. I said that Jesus was
the preexistent God who created the universe. Jesus is the
"firstborn of creation" by virtue of his being made a man,
the Son of God. He was the heir of God, heir to the universe
itself.
[Shmuel] *You* said that "Jesus was the preexistent God
who created the universe". Paul said he was "the firstborn
*of* creation by or through whom all things were created".
The difference between these two claims is obvious.
The "firstborn of creation" characterizes the personified
Word in the beginning of creation long before "the Word
became flesh".
It makes no intelligible sense to claim that "the preexistent
God" is "the heir of God".
______________
[randy]
The concept of God's "word" creating the world is pretty
simple. When you
identify this "word" with Jesus, it's pretty easy to see
Jesus as Creator,
prior to his incarnation.
[Shmuel] The personified Word was the agent of the
Creator (Father) and not the Father (Creator) Himself.
[randy]
The word of God is God's agent of creation. It is His spoken
word! There is no separation between God and His Word. You
can distinguish them, but this is a vehicle of expression.
God is lowering Himself to speak in a finite context, so as
to create finite things.
[Shmuel] The difference or "separation" between the Creator
and His personified Word, the firstborn *of* creation, is clear.
____________
[Shmuel] ....this firstborn creature was considered to
be *of* creation in the beginning long before the personified
Word became flesh.
[randy]
There is no such thing as a "firstborn creature" (as you
describe it). Jesus is the "firstborn of God," heir to the
creation that he had created as the preexistent God.
[Shmuel] God's firstborn "son" is *of* the created order.
______________
[Shmuel] No, a word is not just a thought "created" in
someone's mind.
A word is a spoken (created) sound which comes out of
someone's mouth.
The personified Word is pictured as the firstborn of the
created order.
While this firstborn Word *represents* the Creator, this
first created Word is distinct from *being* the Creator.
[randy]
As I said, you can distinguish between God and His Word, but
they represent the same infinite deity. The Word is thought
to be God's creative agency, an idea spawned or created in
the mind of God. This does not mean that the Word of God is
part of the material creation, part of the universe. God's
Word is part of God Himself. As John wrote, the Word was
God.
[Shmuel] God, the Creator, does not "represent.....infinite
deity"; rather, He is the infinite Deity Whom the personified
Word represents.
The personified Word is not just "an idea spawned or
created in the mind of God", this sound word coming out
of God's mouth is characterized as being the firstborn *of*
God's creation rather than "part of God Himself". This Word
was called "God" and distinguished from *the* (Most High)
*God* Whom this one called "God" was next to in the beginning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
09 Jan 2008 02:16:49 AM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[Shmuel] "Infinite", "immortal", "almighty",
"invisible...
[randy]
They are still *finite* concepts! And if God reduces
Himself to finite concepts so you can understand them,
then God can become a finite human being as well, so you
can understand what He is like as a man.
[Shmuel] It's nonsensical to claim that "infinite" and
"almighty" indicate "finite" ideas or "concepts".
You obviously understood what I meant!
[Shmuel] Paul says that he was the Creator's "firstborn
*of* creation" (not the Creator Himself) and that he was
the created in the image of the invisible God (not that he
was "the preexistent
God").
I believe his having been made into the image of God he
actually became a form for God. And as the "firstborn of all
creation" I think he represented the first human being born
to actually represent God's own being. This does indeed mean
that Jesus was God in the flesh, the very word of God active
in the agency of Jesus in complete conjuncitivity, in
complete conformity. That is, after all, how you would
expect a finite agent to act on behalf of an infinite Being
when they represent the same infinite Person.
[Shmuel] Paul did *not* say that this firstborn *of*
creation
was "the invisible God" or "the Creator (Father) Himself".
God created a body for Himself, an agency for Himself. The
agency that became Jesus is also the same agency that
created the universe. It was clearly God Himself who appears
in the form of this agency, since He is the one who created
the world. The word He uses is His own--not a separate
agency to be distinguished from His own Being.
[Shmuel] God, the Creator, does not
"represent.....infinite deity"; rather, He is the infinite
Deity Whom the personified Word represents.
The idea of a "personified Word" is completely confusing. It
makes about as much sense as to say my words are little
dancing fairies. Or, to say your words are little plastic
men at war with other little plastic men. God's word is just
that--God's word! Yes, it is God's agent of change, His
agent of productivity. God simply speaks, and the deed is
done. But this does not thereby mean that His word is
something outside of Himself!
How can you possibly say that God's word is not God Himself,
when that is just what John said it was? How can you say
that "God does not represent infinite deity?" You really
lose me there!
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
13 Jan 2008 05:53:33 AM |
|
|
[Shmuel] "Infinite", "immortal", "almighty", "invisible...
[Shmuel] It's nonsensical to claim that "infinite" and "almighty"
indicate "finite" ideas or "concepts".
[randy]
You obviously understood what I meant!
[Shmuel] And, I responded to what you claimed.
____________
[Shmuel] Paul says that he was the Creator's "firstborn *of* creation"
(not the Creator Himself) and that he was the created in the image of the
invisible God (not that he was "the preexistent God").
[randy]
I believe his having been made into the image of God he actually became
a form for God. And as the "firstborn of all creation" I think he
represented the first human being born to actually represent God's own
being. This does indeed mean that Jesus was God in the flesh, the very
word of God active in the agency of Jesus in complete conjuncitivity, in
complete conformity. That is, after all, how you would expect a finite
agent to act on behalf of an infinite Being when they represent the same
infinite Person.
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature *represents* his Creator without
*being* the Creator. To many it is obviously that *no* creature
is able to create himself; for *no* son is his own Father.
____________
[Shmuel] Paul did *not* say that this firstborn *of* creation
was "the invisible God" or "the Creator (Father) Himself".
[randy]
God created a body for Himself, an agency for Himself. The agency that
became Jesus is also the same agency that created the universe. It was
clearly God Himself who appears in the form of this agency, since He is
the one who created the world. The word He uses is His own--not a separate
agency to be distinguished from His own Being.
[Shmuel] The uncreated, invisible Creator formed another distinct
person to act as His representative or agent. This later visible and
mortal agent was always distinguished from the Immortal, Invisible
One Who created him.
__________
[Shmuel] God, the Creator, does not "represent.....infinite deity";
rather, He is the infinite Deity Whom the personified Word represents.
[randy]
The idea of a "personified Word" is completely confusing. It makes about
as much sense as to say my words are little dancing fairies. Or, to say
your words are little plastic men at war with other little plastic men.
God's word is just that--God's word! Yes, it is God's agent of change, His
agent of productivity. God simply speaks, and the deed is done. But this
does not thereby mean that His word is something outside of Himself!
[Shmuel] God's "Word" was pictured as being "formed before the hills"
and as "being born when there were no depths". He was the one
who was "next to" his Creator in the beginning. He was "His nursling"
and "His delight", "playing before Him at all times". IOW, he was
pictured as being the Creator's "bosom" child. So, we read, "No
one has ever seen God; the specially loved son, the one being in
the bosom of (God) the Father, that one has made Him known.
[John 1.18]
____________
[randy continued]
How can you possibly say that God's word is not God Himself, when that is
just what John said it was?
[Shmuel] John (like others before him) distinguished the Word who was
called "God" (in a secondary sense) from *the* Most High *God* Whom
this secondary, subsistent "God" was next to in the beginning.
___________
[randy continued]
How can you say that "God does not represent infinite deity?"
You really lose me there!
[Shmuel] The single God, the Creator, does not "represent infinite deity",
because he *is* "the infinite Deity". This God does not represent
someone else. Rather, this Person *is* Himself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
20 Jan 2008 12:42:20 AM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[Shmuel] It's nonsensical to claim that "infinite" and
"almighty"
indicate "finite" ideas or "concepts".
The *only* way you can understand the sense of what
"infinite" or "almighty" is would be through reference to
the finite use of the words "infinite" and "almighty."
[randy]
...as the "firstborn of all creation" I think he
represented the first human being born to actually
represent God's own being. This does indeed mean that
Jesus was God in the flesh, the very
word of God active in the agency of Jesus in complete
conjuncitivity, in
complete conformity. That is, after all, how you would
expect a finite
agent to act on behalf of an infinite Being when they
represent the same
infinite Person.
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature *represents* his Creator
without
*being* the Creator. To many it is obviously that *no*
creature
is able to create himself; for *no* son is his own Father.
Jesus did not as a strictly human creature "create himself."
Before his revelation in human flesh Jesus was the eternal
God, the Creator of the very body in which He chose to
reveal Himself. Of course the Son is not his own Father. The
"Son" denotes God in the form of flesh alone, and not his
preexistence as the eternal God.
[Shmuel] The uncreated, invisible Creator formed another
distinct
person to act as His representative or agent. This later
visible and
mortal agent was always distinguished from the Immortal,
Invisible
One Who created him.
Only when the Son was incarnated as human flesh did a
distinction begin to form that postulated a "Father and Son"
relationship.
[Shmuel] God's "Word" was pictured as being "formed
before the hills"
and as "being born when there were no depths". He was the
one
who was "next to" his Creator in the beginning. He was
"His nursling"
and "His delight", "playing before Him at all times".
IOW, he was
pictured as being the Creator's "bosom" child. So, we
read, "No
one has ever seen God; the specially loved son, the one
being in
the bosom of (God) the Father, that one has made Him
known.
[John 1.18]
That verse refers to "the Son." Before God revealed Himself
in the form of "the Son," it was His Word that produced the
universe simply by God *speaking* the universe into
existence. This word was God's word--not some kind of
independent being. The "Word" is distinguished from God only
in the sense that God uses a vehicle by which to express how
He created the universe--His own spoken word. Only when the
Word formed into a man did there come to exist a "Father and
Son" relationship.
[randy continued]
How can you say that "God does not represent infinite
deity?"
You really lose me there!
[Shmuel] The single God, the Creator, does not "represent
infinite deity",
because he *is* "the infinite Deity". This God does not
represent
someone else. Rather, this Person *is* Himself.
When I say that God represents "infinite deity," I am saying
that He *is* infinite deity!
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
21 Jan 2008 05:45:49 PM |
|
|
[Shmuel] It's nonsensical to claim that "infinite" and
"almighty" indicate "finite" ideas or "concepts".
[randy]
The *only* way you can understand the sense of what
"infinite" or "almighty" is would be through reference to
the finite use of the words "infinite" and "almighty."
[Shmuel] No, "infinite" and "almighty" are words that point
to a greater reality far *beyond* any finite use of these words.
_____________
[Shmuel] This firstborn creature *represents* his Creator
without
*being* the Creator. To many it is obviously that *no*
creature
is able to create himself; for *no* son is his own Father.
[randy]
Jesus did not as a strictly human creature "create himself."
Before his revelation in human flesh Jesus was the eternal
God, the Creator of the very body in which He chose to
reveal Himself. Of course the Son is not his own Father. The
"Son" denotes God in the form of flesh alone, and not his
preexistence as the eternal God.
[Shmuel] No writer of the Renewed Covenant scriptures
ever makes the idolatrous claim that "....Jesus was the eternal
God, the Creator...". "Creator" and "Father" are synonyms.
So when you falsely claim that "Jesus was...the Creator", you
are making the absurd claim that this son was his own Father.
___________
[Shmuel] The uncreated, invisible Creator formed another
distinct
person to act as His representative or agent. This later
visible and
mortal agent was always distinguished from the Immortal,
Invisible One Who created him.
[randy]
Only when the Son was incarnated as human flesh did a
distinction begin to form that postulated a "Father and Son"
relationship.
[Shmuel] No, the distinction between the Creator and
His firstborn "son" was made in the beginning with
the firstborn of all creation.
____________
[Shmuel] God's "Word" was pictured as being "formed
before the hills"
and as "being born when there were no depths". He was the
one
who was "next to" his Creator in the beginning. He was
"His nursling"
and "His delight", "playing before Him at all times".
IOW, he was
pictured as being the Creator's "bosom" child. So, we
read, "No
one has ever seen God; the specially loved son, the one
being in
the bosom of (God) the Father, that one has made Him
known. [John 1.18]
[randy]
That verse refers to "the Son." Before God revealed Himself
in the form of "the Son," it was His Word that produced the
universe simply by God *speaking* the universe into
existence. This word was God's word--not some kind of
independent being. The "Word" is distinguished from God only
in the sense that God uses a vehicle by which to express how
He created the universe--His own spoken word. Only when the
Word formed into a man did there come to exist a "Father and
Son" relationship.
[Shmuel] God's Wisdom / Word is portrayed as the Creator's
"nursling", His firstborn of creation, in the beginning long before
this personified Word became flesh.
____________
[randy continued]
How can you say that "God does not represent infinite
deity?" You really lose me there!
[Shmuel] The single God, the Creator, does not "represent
infinite deity",
because he *is* "the infinite Deity". This God does not
represent someone else. Rather, this Person *is* Himself.
[randy]
When I say that God represents "infinite deity," I am saying
that He *is* infinite deity!
[Shmuel] How come you don't understand the difference
between the words "represents" and "is"? The vast majority of
those that speak English understand that "represents" and "is"
mean two quite *different* things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
29 Jan 2008 07:29:27 PM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[randy]
The *only* way you can understand the sense of what
"infinite" or "almighty" is would be through reference to
the finite use of the words "infinite" and "almighty."
[Shmuel] No, "infinite" and "almighty" are words that
point to a greater reality far *beyond* any finite use of
these words.
Yes, they *point* to it, but they are "finite" revelation
that human beings can understand. Human beings *cannot*
understand infinite reality. They would have to be God!
We have to understand the concept of "infinity" by analogy.
For example, we can in mathematics write the symbol for a
line segment that has arrows pointing in two directions.
This is an "infinite" line. We can comprehend this, but
cannot actually see the whole line.
We cannot actually see God as an infinite Being. We can see
a portion of Him if He so wills it. At the very least we can
understand the concept that He is an infinite Being. This is
far different from understanding what being infinite is from
God's pov.
[Shmuel] No writer of the Renewed Covenant scriptures
ever makes the idolatrous claim that "....Jesus was the
eternal God, the Creator..."...
Not true. There are a number of examples where Jesus is
referred to as deity. At the very least you recognize that
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. This is the clearest
proof of Jesus' deity you will find!
..."Creator" and "Father" are synonyms....
They are not. Obviously they are different terms that mean
different things. They both have this in common that they
both refer to deity. The word "Creator" can apply equally to
Father or Son. But the word "Father" can only apply to God
following the incarnation in terms of the relationship of
infinite deity to finite human deity.
Let me add here that the terms "Father" and "Son" are
time-limited. That is, they can only be properly applied in
a certain time frame. The divine Being they represent,
however, is *not* time-limited. So God can be referred to by
designations that are not time-limited, or infinite. Or God
can be referred to by designations that are time-limited or
of temporal application. The terms "Father" and "Son" may be
finite designations, and may have only temporal application,
but they are still continuous and eternal from henceforth.
That is, they did not always apply, but they always will
from now on.
[randy]
Only when the Son was incarnated as human flesh did a
distinction begin to form that postulated a "Father and
Son" relationship.
[Shmuel] No, the distinction between the Creator and
His firstborn "son" was made in the beginning with
the firstborn of all creation.
The word God used to create the world *was* in fact God! And
this "word" was not God's "Son." Rather, it was God's
"word." Only when this word of God assumed the form and
shape of a human being can it be said that this "word"
became "God's Son."
So there was no Father and Son that applies prior to the
incarnation. God was certainly "father" of mankind. But He
wasn't "father" in the sense of "Father and Son." That
fatherhood was absolutely unique in the creation of God in
human form.
[Shmuel] God's Wisdom / Word is portrayed as the
Creator's
"nursling", His firstborn of creation, in the beginning
long before this personified Word became flesh.
Any poetry representing God's word prior to the creation is
simply poetry, and has nothing whatsoever to do with God's
Son, Jesus. The "Son" we understand in Scriptures has only
to do with the incarnation--not to the preexistent word of
God.
[randy]
When I say that God represents "infinite deity," I am
saying that He *is* infinite deity!
[Shmuel] How come you don't understand the difference
between the words "represents" and "is"? The vast
majority of those that speak English understand that
"represents" and "is" mean two quite *different* things.
That's not true, and I think you should understand that! If
I own a business, I can say that I represent a business and
that the business is mine as well! The idea of
"representation" has to do with the symbolism that points to
something greater. In the case of Jesus, he was deity and
yet represented a greater form of deity, in infinity. There
is nothing hard to understand about this.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
29 Jan 2008 08:01:42 PM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:KOqdnUzNtrRnTwLanZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@wavecable.com...
[snip]
Let me add here that the terms "Father" and "Son" are time-limited.
Well, you were doing good until you got here.
First, the terms "Father" and "Son" are NOT "time-limited," but they ARE
relational--i.e. I am both a father and a son.
In Jesus' case, Isaiah wrote that He is both Father AND Son, pointing to
simultaneously existing dual relationships, in which Jesus is the "Father"
in one instance and the "Son" in another.
That is, they can only be properly applied in a certain time frame. The
divine Being they represent, however, is *not* time-limited. So God can be
referred to by designations that are not time-limited, or infinite. Or God
can be referred to by designations that are time-limited or of temporal
application. The terms "Father" and "Son" may be finite designations, and
may have only temporal application, but they are still continuous and
eternal from henceforth. That is, they did not always apply, but they
always will from now on.
They are NOT finite and the are NOT temporal-only applications. I am now
forever a Father and Son. That relationship is now part of the fact of
eternity.
So, too, was Jesus both Father and Son, only perpetually.
And, contrary to your perceptions, Jesus was NOT "finite."
In fact, here's a story that will blow you away.
When Jesus starting doodling in the dirt after the Jews brought the woman
taken in adultery to Him, what did He write?
He reached across time and space and wrote the Ten Commandments on a wall in
Sinai with His finger, as the Ten Commandments were written with the "finger
of God."
Why did Jesus stand up and then start again?
Moses broke the first set so He had to write another one.
The irony is the Jews were trying to trick Jesus with the very law HE wrote.
[snip]
The word God used to create the world *was* in fact God! And this "word"
was not God's "Son." Rather, it was God's "word." Only when this word of
God assumed the form and shape of a human being can it be said that this
"word" became "God's Son."
WRONG!
The "Word" was related to God, AND with God in the beginning.
How?
He WENT there.
How is that possible?
Because Jesus was NOT "finite."
He may have started in the middle of history, but He has already been to
both ends and back again.
So there was no Father and Son that applies prior to the incarnation.
WRONG!
In the beginning the Word was, and was with God, and was God.
Jesus came into existence in the middle of history, but He has always been,
is now, and forever shall be the Word.
God was certainly "father" of mankind.
Yes, He was--Jesus' Spirit moved on the waters, and Jesus formed Adam of the
dust of the ground.
But He wasn't "father" in the sense of "Father and Son."
Yes, He was--Jesus is "Father" of brother Israel and sister Christianity,
but He is also Son of father Israel and mother Christianity--they're
perpetual ever-existing inverse relationships.
That's why Isaiah calls Messiah both Father AND Son: "Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace."
That fatherhood was absolutely unique in the creation of God in human
form.
Not as unique as you think.
[snip]-
Any poetry representing God's word prior to the creation is simply poetry,
and has nothing whatsoever to do with God's Son, Jesus.
WRONG!
It was JESUS who formed Adam. It was JESUS who walked in the cool of the
garden. It was JESUS who closed the door on the ark. It was JESUS who dined
with Abraham. It was JESUS who prophesied to David of Jesus, saying "My Lord
said unto my lord." It was JESUS who wrestled with Abraham. And so on, and
so forth.
YOU seem to think that Jesus just lived and dropped dead.
NO. Jesus was raised in eternal, incorruptible flesh, and then He was all
over the creation taking care of business.
Like I said, He many have come in the middle of History, but He has been all
over it ever since. He was even born in a creation He Himself created.
The references to Him are NOT "poetry." They're factual and physical. You
just don't know the nature of three-dimensional time.
The "Son" we understand in Scriptures has only to do with the
incarnation--not to the preexistent word of God.
WRONG!
That's not true, and I think you should understand that! If I own a
business, I can say that I represent a business and that the business is
mine as well! The idea of "representation" has to do with the symbolism
that points to something greater. In the case of Jesus, he was deity and
yet represented a greater form of deity, in infinity. There is nothing
hard to understand about this.
NO!
He did NOT "represent" Deity in infinity. He ROSE INTO IT!
Ike
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
04 Feb 2008 12:20:13 PM |
|
|
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
"randy"
Let me add here that the terms "Father" and "Son" are
time-limited.
...the terms "Father" and "Son" are NOT "time-limited,"
but they ARE relational--i.e. I am both a father and a
son.
They are relational and also "revelational." That is, they
reveal God in separate personages, who actually engage in
real relationship.
In Jesus' case, Isaiah wrote that He is both Father AND
Son, pointing to simultaneously existing dual
relationships, in which Jesus is the "Father" in one
instance and the "Son" in another.
I used to think this, but after learning about the problems
with modalism I understood that Isaiah was speaking not of
the Father and the Son, but rather, of the coming of a
Messiah who would be "father of eternity," ie the Creator.
...The terms "Father" and "Son" may be finite
designations, and may have only temporal application, but
they are still continuous and eternal from henceforth.
That is, they did not always apply, but they always will
from now on.
They are NOT finite and the are NOT temporal-only
applications. I am now forever a Father and Son. That
relationship is now part of the fact of eternity.
Are you saying that *you* are a Father and a Son? How can
you justify a statement like that?
And, contrary to your perceptions, Jesus was NOT "finite."
Jesus is a finite representation of an infinite Being.
Therefore, he had both finite and infinite natures, both a
human and a divine nature.
The word God used to create the world *was* in fact God!
And this "word" was not God's "Son." Rather, it was God's
"word." Only when this word of God assumed the form and
shape of a human being can it be said that this "word"
became "God's Son."
WRONG! The "Word" was related to God, AND with God in the
beginning.
John said "the word was God." It is only when the word
became flesh and dwelt among us that he made himself known
as the "Son of God."
So there was no Father and Son that applies prior to the
incarnation.
WRONG! In the beginning the Word was, and was with God,
and was God.
It is only after the revelation of God's word in the form of
Jesus that we hear of the relationship between Father and
Son.
But He wasn't "father" in the sense of "Father and Son."
Yes, He was--Jesus is "Father" of brother Israel and
sister Christianity, but He is also Son of father Israel
and mother Christianity--they're perpetual ever-existing
inverse relationships.
We don't hear of Jesus, the Son, or the Father prior to the
revelation of the word in the form of the man Jesus.
It was JESUS who formed Adam. It was JESUS who walked in
the cool of the garden. It was JESUS who closed the door
on the ark. It was JESUS who dined with Abraham. It was
JESUS who prophesied to David of Jesus, saying "My Lord
said unto my lord." It was JESUS who wrestled with
Abraham. And so on, and so forth.
You don't, however, hear the designation "Jesus" on any of
those occasions. The revelation of Jesus himself had not yet
taken place. It was a mystery that had yet to be revealed.
YOU seem to think that Jesus just lived and dropped dead.
NO. Jesus was raised in eternal, incorruptible flesh, and
then He was all over the creation taking care of business.
Jesus the man is not "over all the creation taking care of
business." I personally believe that God's revelation in
Jesus remains in human form for all eternity. There is
another part of God that is "taking care of creation." But
the human form of God, or Jesus, cannot do anything beyond
what God can do in human form.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
04 Feb 2008 12:24:12 PM |
|
|
On Feb 4, 10:20=A0am, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote:
Jesus the man is not "over all the creation taking care of
business." I personally believe that God's revelation in
Jesus remains in human form for all eternity. There is
another part of God that is "taking care of creation." But
the human form of God, or Jesus, cannot do anything beyond
what God can do in human form.
randy
This is what they call making G-D in man's image. You have made Jesus
in your image, rather than allowing Him to make you in His image.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mikal119" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
29 Jan 2008 08:09:50 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 8:01 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
"randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> wrote in message
news:KOqdnUzNtrRnTwLanZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@wavecable.com...
[snip]
Let me add here that the terms "Father" and "Son" are time-limited.
Well, you were doing good until you got here.
First, the terms "Father" and "Son" are NOT "time-limited," but they ARE
relational--i.e. I am both a father and a son.
In Jesus' case, Isaiah wrote that He is both Father AND Son, pointing to
simultaneously existing dual relationships, in which Jesus is the "Father"
in one instance and the "Son" in another.
That is, they can only be properly applied in a certain time frame. The
divine Being they represent, however, is *not* time-limited. So God can be
referred to by designations that are not time-limited, or infinite. Or God
can be referred to by designations that are time-limited or of temporal
application. The terms "Father" and "Son" may be finite designations, and
may have only temporal application, but they are still continuous and
eternal from henceforth. That is, they did not always apply, but they
always will from now on.
They are NOT finite and the are NOT temporal-only applications. I am now
forever a Father and Son. That relationship is now part of the fact of
eternity.
So, too, was Jesus both Father and Son, only perpetually.
And, contrary to your perceptions, Jesus was NOT "finite."
In fact, here's a story that will blow you away.
When Jesus starting doodling in the dirt after the Jews brought the woman
taken in adultery to Him, what did He write?
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN
<VBG>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
03 Feb 2008 10:18:20 AM |
|
|
[randy]
The *only* way you can understand the sense of what
"infinite" or "almighty" is would be through reference to
the finite use of the words "infinite" and "almighty."
[Shmuel] No, "infinite" and "almighty" are words that
point to a greater reality far *beyond* any finite use of
these words.
[randy]
Yes, they *point* to it, but they are "finite" revelation
that human beings can understand. Human beings *cannot*
understand infinite reality. They would have to be God!
We have to understand the concept of "infinity" by analogy.
For example, we can in mathematics write the symbol for a
line segment that has arrows pointing in two directions.
This is an "infinite" line. We can comprehend this, but
cannot actually see the whole line.
We cannot actually see God as an infinite Being. We can see
a portion of Him if He so wills it. At the very least we can
understand the concept that He is an infinite Being. This is
far different from understanding what being infinite is from
God's pov.
[Shmuel] From my point of view, "infinite" and "almighty"
are "infinite" and beyond our comprehension, but God's
word to us is "finite" and within our comprehension. From
your point of view the "infinite" and "almighty" are " 'finite'
revelation that human beings can understand".
__________
[Shmuel] No writer of the Renewed Covenant scriptures
ever makes the idolatrous claim that "....Jesus was the
eternal God, the Creator..."...
[randy]
Not true. There are a number of examples where Jesus is
referred to as deity. At the very least you recognize that
Jesus is the Word of God made flesh. This is the clearest
proof of Jesus' deity you will find!
[Shmuel] The personified Word is not THE God,
the Creator, Who brought him forth in the beginning.
This Word is always distinguished from his Creator
before and after this Word metaphorically became flesh.
_________
..."Creator" and "Father" are synonyms....
[randy]
They are not. Obviously they are different terms that mean
different things. They both have this in common that they
both refer to deity. The word "Creator" can apply equally to
Father or Son. But the word "Father" can only apply to God
following the incarnation in terms of the relationship of
infinite deity to finite human deity.
Let me add here that the terms "Father" and "Son" are
time-limited. That is, they can only be properly applied in
a certain time frame. The divine Being they represent,
however, is *not* time-limited. So God can be referred to by
designations that are not time-limited, or infinite. Or God
can be referred to by designations that are time-limited or
of temporal application. The terms "Father" and "Son" may be
finite designations, and may have only temporal application,
but they are still continuous and eternal from henceforth.
That is, they did not always apply, but they always will
from now on.
[Shmuel] Contrary to your foolish claim that "Creator"
and "Father" are not synonyms, Roget's New Millennium
Thesaurus lists "creator" as a synonym for "father" and
vice versa.
___________
[Shmuel] No, the distinction between the Creator and
His firstborn "son" was made in the beginning with
the firstborn of all creation.
[randy]
The word God used to create the world *was* in fact God!
And this "word" was not God's "Son." Rather, it was God's
"word." Only when this word of God assumed the form and
shape of a human being can it be said that this "word"
became "God's Son."
So there was no Father and Son that applies prior to the
incarnation. God was certainly "father" of mankind. But He
wasn't "father" in the sense of "Father and Son." That
fatherhood was absolutely unique in the creation of God in
human form.
[Shmuel] What does "father" of mankind mean that wasn't
"father" in the sense of "Father and Son"? Your contradictory
statements make you sound unintelligible if not mentally ill.
___________
[Shmuel] God's Wisdom / Word is portrayed as the
Creator's
"nursling", His firstborn of creation, in the beginning
long before this personified Word became flesh.
[randy]
Any poetry representing God's word prior to the creation is
simply poetry, and has nothing whatsoever to do with God's
Son, Jesus. The "Son" we understand in Scriptures has only
to do with the incarnation--not to the preexistent word of
God.
[Shmuel] If "God's word prior to the creation....has nothing
whatsoever to do with God's Son, Jesus", then "God's Son,
Jesus, has nothing whatsoever to do with God's word
prior to the creation".
__________
[Shmuel] How come you don't understand the difference
between the words "represents" and "is"? The vast
majority of those that speak English understand that
"represents" and "is" mean two quite *different* things.
[randy]
That's not true, and I think you should understand that! If
I own a business, I can say that I represent a business and
that the business is mine as well! The idea of
"representation" has to do with the symbolism that points to
something greater. In the case of Jesus, he was deity and
yet represented a greater form of deity, in infinity. There
is nothing hard to understand about this.
[Shmuel] You may represent a business and you may
own it as well. But then you yourself are not the business
which you represent. The business as a whole is greater
than you.
The prophets (including Yeshua) represent the Creator
(Father) who inspired and sent them to us, but none of
them was the One Who sent them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
04 Feb 2008 12:39:54 PM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[Shmuel] From my point of view, "infinite" and "almighty"
are "infinite" and beyond our comprehension, but God's
word to us is "finite" and within our comprehension. From
your point of view the "infinite" and "almighty" are "
'finite' revelation that human beings can understand".
I'm not saying the words "infinite" and "finite" are
necessarily compatible, since they can indeed suggest
opposites. But in the case of God we have an infinite Being
who can reveal Himself in finite form. And my argument is
that unless He does so, through the use of His word, we
cannot understand anything at all about the infinite God.
As I've been arguing, when God reveals Himself in finite
form He does not stop being the infinite God. He is capable,
however, of revealing Himself in a lesser form that He is
able to identify with.
[randy]
...There are a number of examples where Jesus is referred
to as deity. At the very least you recognize that Jesus
is the Word of God made flesh. This is the clearest proof
of Jesus' deity you will find!
[Shmuel] The personified Word is not THE God,
the Creator, Who brought him forth in the beginning. This
Word is always distinguished from his Creator
before and after this Word metaphorically became flesh.
Your argument is that the distinction Scriptures make
between God and His word imply a necessary separation
between God and His word. But that is false inasmuch as the
Scriptures themselves state that the "word was God."
..."Creator" and "Father" are synonyms....
[randy]
They are not. Obviously they are different terms that
mean different things. They both have this in common that
they both refer to deity. The word "Creator" can apply
equally to Father or Son. But the word "Father" can only
apply to God following the incarnation in terms of the
relationship of infinite deity to finite human deity.
[Shmuel] Contrary to your foolish claim that "Creator"
and "Father" are not synonyms, Roget's New Millennium
Thesaurus lists "creator" as a synonym for "father" and
vice versa.
As I said, the word "Creator" can apply equally to Father or
Son. So it is not an exact synonym exclusive to the
designation "Father." The term "Creator" can just as easily
be applied to the designation "Son."
[randy]
The word God used to create the world *was* in fact God!
And this "word" was not God's "Son." Rather, it was God's
"word." Only when this word of God assumed the form and
shape of a human being can it be said that this "word"
became "God's Son."
So there was no Father and Son that applies prior to the
incarnation. God was certainly "father" of mankind. But
He wasn't "father" in the sense of "Father and Son." That
fatherhood was absolutely unique in the creation of God
in human form.
[Shmuel] What does "father" of mankind mean that wasn't
"father" in the sense of "Father and Son"?...
Father and Son has to do with a metaphorical procreation of
deity in human form by a God who preexisted any such
procreation. This is not the same kind of "fatherhood" that
existed prior to the incarnation in terms of God's
relationship as Creator to mankind. God is in a sense
"father" to mankind as our Creator. But He "fathered" Jesus
in the sense of actually reproducing His own deity in human
form, a very different concept indeed!
[randy]
Any poetry representing God's word prior to the creation
is simply poetry, and has nothing whatsoever to do with
God's Son, Jesus. The "Son" we understand in Scriptures
has only to do with the incarnation--not to the
preexistent word of God.
[Shmuel] If "God's word prior to the creation....has
nothing whatsoever to do with God's Son, Jesus", then
"God's Son,
Jesus, has nothing whatsoever to do with God's word prior
to the creation".
I'm speaking in terms of how we *designate* the word of God
and the Son of God. The designation "Son of God" only
follows the incarnation. Prior to the incarnation the word
of God could not have been designated "Son," or "personified
Word" (in the sense of God's Son).
[randy]
...The idea of "representation" has to do with the
symbolism that points to something greater. In the case
of Jesus, he was deity and yet represented a greater form
of deity, in infinity....
[Shmuel] You may represent a business and you may
own it as well. But then you yourself are not the
business
which you represent. The business as a whole is greater
than you.
The prophets (including Yeshua) represent the Creator
(Father) who inspired and sent them to us, but none of
them was the One Who sent them.
Jesus is unique. He represented God as a greater Being and
yet was God (in the form of human flesh).
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shmuel Playfair SPlayfair" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
04 Feb 2008 08:24:33 PM |
|
|
[Shmuel] From my point of view, "infinite" and "almighty"
are "infinite" and beyond our comprehension, but God's
word to us is "finite" and within our comprehension. From
your point of view the "infinite" and "almighty" are "
'finite' revelation that human beings can understand".
[randy]
I'm not saying the words "infinite" and "finite" are
necessarily compatible, since they can indeed suggest
opposites. But in the case of God we have an infinite Being
who can reveal Himself in finite form. And my argument is
that unless He does so, through the use of His word, we
cannot understand anything at all about the infinite God.
As I've been arguing, when God reveals Himself in finite
form He does not stop being the infinite God. He is capable,
however, of revealing Himself in a lesser form that He is
able to identify with.
[Shmuel] The Creator reveals His word or wisdom
(not Himself) to us in finite form.
____________
[Shmuel] The personified Word is not THE God,
the Creator, Who brought him forth in the beginning. This
Word is always distinguished from his Creator
before and after this Word metaphorically became flesh.
[randy]
Your argument is that the distinction Scriptures make
between God and His word imply a necessary separation
between God and His word. But that is false inasmuch as the
Scriptures themselves state that the "word was God."
[Shmuel] John says this subsistent, firstborn "Power" was
next to THE POWER, his Creator, in the beginning.
____________
[Shmuel] Contrary to your foolish claim that "Creator"
and "Father" are not synonyms, Roget's New Millennium
Thesaurus lists "creator" as a synonym for "father" and
vice versa.
[randy]
As I said, the word "Creator" can apply equally to Father or
Son. So it is not an exact synonym exclusive to the
designation "Father." The term "Creator" can just as easily
be applied to the designation "Son."
[Shmuel] "Creator" does *not* apply to any creature or
son of the Father (Creator). That false perception is a lie
which idolaters tell themselves and attempt to get others
to accept.
____________
[Shmuel] What does "father" of mankind mean that wasn't
"father" in the sense of "Father and Son"?...
[randy]
Father and Son has to do with a metaphorical procreation of
deity in human form by a God who preexisted any such
procreation. This is not the same kind of "fatherhood" that
existed prior to the incarnation in terms of God's
relationship as Creator to mankind. God is in a sense
"father" to mankind as our Creator. But He "fathered" Jesus
in the sense of actually reproducing His own deity in human
form, a very different concept indeed!
[Shmuel] No where in the Jewish scriptures are we told
that the Creator " 'fathered' Jesus...actually reproducing
His own deity in human form...". But this is the sort of lie
which idolaters will tell us. And they claim that their pagan
god took a betrothed virgin without her husband's knowing
and physically impregnated her with his divine seed
"actually reproducing His own deity in human form".
____________
[Shmuel] If "God's word prior to the creation....has
nothing whatsoever to do with God's Son, Jesus", then
"God's Son,
Jesus, has nothing whatsoever to do with God's word prior
to the creation".
[randy]
I'm speaking in terms of how we *designate* the word of God
and the Son of God. The designation "Son of God" only
follows the incarnation. Prior to the incarnation the word
of God could not have been designated "Son," or "personified
Word" (in the sense of God's Son).
[Shmuel] While you falsely claim that there was no
"personified Word" or "designated 'Son' prior to
the incarnation", John along with Jewish wisdom literature
refers to the Word as being a person in the beginning with
his Creator. Also, John goes on to portray Yeshua as
being this Word before Abraham was born.
___________
[Shmuel] You may represent a business and you may
own it as well. But then you yourself are not the
business which you represent. The business as a whole
is greater than you.
The prophets (including Yeshua) represent the Creator
(Father) who inspired and sent them to us, but none of
them was the One Who sent them.
[randy]
Jesus is unique. He represented God as a greater Being and
yet was God (in the form of human flesh).
[Shmuel] Nothing we read in the Jewish scriptures indicates
that this prophet was "[the Creator] in the form of human flesh".
Rather, everything we read indicates that he is the subsistent
Word, the firstborn agent of the Creator, "in the form of
human flesh" or a human creature (son) of the Creator Who
sent him to us. IOW, he is portrayed as the man of God
rather than as the God become man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Paul's Firstborn *of* Creation Was Created Before All Things |
05 Feb 2008 12:56:42 PM |
|
|
"Shmuel Playfair"
[randy]
I'm not saying the words "infinite" and "finite" are
necessarily compatible, since they can indeed suggest
opposites. But in the case of God we have an infinite
Being who can reveal Himself in finite form. And my
argument is that unless He does so, through the use of
His word, we cannot understand anything at all about the
infinite God.
As I've been arguing, when God reveals Himself in finite
form He does not stop being the infinite God. He is | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
