---FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION---

[trofimus]

Think about the sequence of events! Was Jesus in His HUMAN body when He was slain? Was He crucified in Israel around 2,000 years ago, or was He crucified BEFORE the earth existed? If the latter, WHO was around to crucify Him?

English has sometimes problem with Greek syntax. In some other languages, the position of words and sentence parts is free and can be put literally anywhere in the whole. I think that NIV and KJV got it wrong, while ESV, NASB, BLB and others got it right:

"and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." ESV

The "before the foundation of the world" belongs to the book, not to being slain. Yes, its literally after the "being slain" part, but it does not matter in Greek. It does matter in English.

 

[maxwel]

I was asking about self-existence of Son. Every ancient christian creed confesses that Son is of Father. Fully God, eternally co-existent, but of Him.

General Thoughts - Christ's Self Existence:


To be co-existent with the eternal would make you, by definition, self existent.


To be eternal and co-existent is the very definition of uncreated.
If you are uncreated, then your existence did not come from something outside of you, therefore you are self existent.

The trinity is one God, one nature, existing, eternally, in 3 persons.
God is eternal and self existent.
Christ is God, he is part of this self existent and eternal trinity.

When the bible says he is "of" the father, it does not mean he was ever created by the father.
It means something more like he is "of the same essence."

If all persons of the trinity are eternal, then none of the persons was ever created.
There was no moment where the father created the son.
God has simply always existed as 3 persons.

* GOD, ALL OF GOD, is eternal and self existent... so none of the persons have ever existed alone without the other persons.
* Therefore, it is impossible for the son to be any LESS self existent than any other person of the trinity... they have always existed together as one God.




Right to the facts of the argument:

There are different ways to examine this idea of Christ's self existence, but however we look at it, we're going to keep coming up with his self existence.

Eternal = logically contains the condition of self existence
Coexistent with the eternal = logically contains the condition of self existence
uncreated = logically contains the condition of self existence

* All of these terms, from pure deductive logic alone, lead you to a necessary condition of self existence.
* There is no way around this... the conclusion is contained right in the definition of the premise.

There is just nothing here to argue about.

 

[maxwel]

Final Thoughts on Above Discussion:


1. We cannot logically argue against Christ's self existence: the terms "eternal", "uncreated", and "coexistent with the eternal" all contain the necessary condition of self existence right in their definitions.

There is just no rational argument to be made if we take a moment to examine those terms.

The conclusion of self existence is contained right in the definitions of the terms.


2. However, we certainly CAN look at a less clear issues, like the statements "of the father" or "from the father", and have some real discussion about what those might have meant.

But if we discuss this, we would have to remove the possibility of it meaning Christ was not self existent... as this is already proven.

We must, by necessity, discuss what ELSE it might mean.


3. A principle of scripture study, and of logical reasoning, is to FIRST establish the principles which are CLEAR, and only THEN do we move on to solve for the problems that are less clear.

That's what we have to do here.
We can establish, clearly and logically from scripture, that Christ was eternal, coexistent with the father, and uncreated... and that each of these terms must contain the condition of self existence.

So if we know the matter of self existence is settled, we can then use that information to help understand the passages that are less clear.

But we first start by establishing what is clear, and then we move on to solve for the problems that are less clear.

 

[trofimus]

General Thoughts - Christ's Self Existence:


To be co-existent with the eternal would make you, by definition, self existent.

If a light bulb produces light and if this light bulb is eternally "on" (and therefore has always been producing light), it does not make the light self-existent. Its existence is rooted in the bulb.

Also, "father and son" relationship are quite clear terms regarding who is of who.

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
J 1:18

 

[maxwel]

If a light bulb produces light and if this light bulb is eternally "on" (and therefore has always been producing light), it does not make the light self-existent. Its existence is rooted in the bulb.

Also, "father and son" relationship are quite clear terms regarding who is of who.

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
J 1:18

Trofimus,

We may just be misunderstanding each other, or using wrong terms at this point.

When I say Christ is "self existent", I am NOT claiming he is "independently existent".


I am simply making the distinction he is not "contingently existent"... meaning that something prior to him created him... which would mean he is not eternal.

For Christ to be eternal, he cannot be contingent... there cannot be something prior to hm which created him.


It seems the trinity is both eternal and coexistent.
This is something we don't really have analogies for, so it's natural to debate the finer points of this as we parse through it.
Coexistent neither means "independently existent" nor "contingently existent"... its something for which we don't really have adequate analogies.

Regarding your analogy of the lightbulb being the father, and the light from it being Christ, I think it's better if we put this analogy back into it's original form, which was using the analogy of the sun.
In that analogy, the sun is the father and the rays of light are the son.
But here we have an interesting dilemma... the rays cannot exist without the sun, but the sun cannot even BE the sun without the property of emitting rays of light.
So the SUN and the RAYS OF LIGHT seem to be "coexistent" in some way... and neither can actually exist without the necessity of the other coexisting.

In reality, neither is really contingent, but they coexist.

I don't think this analogy is perfect,
but it was originally developed in order to show "eternal coexistence"... and for this purpose I guess it's fine.

 

[trofimus]

Trofimus,

We may just be misunderstanding each other, or using wrong terms at this point.

When I say Christ is "self existent", I am NOT claiming he is "independently existent".


I am simply making the distinction he is not "contingently existent"... meaning that something prior to him created him... which would mean he is not eternal.

For Christ to be eternal, he cannot be contingent... there cannot be something prior to hm which created him.


It seems the trinity is both eternal and coexistent.
This is something we don't really have analogies for, so it's natural to debate the finer points of this as we parse through it.
Coexistent neither means "independently existent" nor "contingently existent"... its something for which we don't really have adequate analogies.

Regarding your analogy of the lightbulb being the father, and the light from it being Christ, I think it's better if we put this analogy back into it's original form, which was using the analogy of the sun.
In that analogy, the sun is the father and the rays of light are the son.
But here we have an interesting dilemma... the rays cannot exist without the sun, but the sun cannot even BE the sun without the property of emitting rays of light.
So the SUN and the RAYS OF LIGHT seem to be "coexistent" in some way... and neither can actually exist without the necessity of the other coexisting.

In reality, neither is really contingent, but they coexist.

I don't think this analogy is perfect,
but it was originally developed in order to show "eternal coexistence"... and for this purpose I guess it's fine.

OK, I can agree with everything you wrote, I just do not think that "self-existent" is the right term.

For me, it means that something exists only by itself and has no origin or no cause. Which is not the situation of the Son...

I agree that there was actually no "time" when He did not exist. I agree He is not created, He is begotten. But I just cannot grasp the word "self-existent", when He is begotten of Father.

I am not sure about contingently existent... Is eternal Son eternally being from eternal Father contingently existent? I would say yes:

Contingent:
"Dependent on other conditions or circumstances; conditional"

 

[maxwel]

OK, I can agree with everything you wrote, I just do not think that "self-existent" is the right term.

For me, it means that something exists only by itself and has no origin or no cause. Which is not the situation of the Son...

I agree that there was actually no "time" when He did not exist. I agree He is not created, He is begotten. But I just cannot grasp the word "self-existent", when He is begotten of Father...

A. In the sense Christ IS GOD... he is SELF EXISTENT.

B. In the sense he is a person of the trinity... he is COEXISTENT

C. But there is no point at which he was contingent on anything prior for his existence.


If you feel I was unclear during this discussion, then you are probably right.
I seldom discuss this with anyone, so I'm sure i did a poor job.

: )

 

[trofimus]

A. In the sense Christ IS GOD... he is SELF EXISTENT.

B. In the sense he is a person of the trinity... he is COEXISTENT

C. But there is no point at which he was contingent on anything prior for his existence.


If you feel I was unclear during this discussion, then you are probably right.
I seldom discuss this with anyone, so I'm sure i did a poor job.

: )

So, what about this:

God is self-existent and not contingently existing. But two persons in God are contingently existing, Father being the eternal source of other two.

Would you agree?

 

[maxwel]

So, what about this:

God is self-existent and not contingently existing. But two persons in God are contingently existing, Father being the eternal source of other two.

Would you agree?

I would shy away from using the word contingent, because it has very specific meanings in philosophy.

And logically, if the persons of the trinity are coexistent, which they are, I don't really know that we can show any kind of contingency ontologically... that would seem to be logically voided by the use of the term "coexistent".

I kind of think the relationships described between the persons of the trinity are more a matter of "office" than ontology.


Personally, I think I'm about ready to go do some more reading... see if I can't defer to some people a lot smarter than me, lol.

 

[trofimus]

I would shy away from using the word contingent, because it has very specific meanings in philosophy.

And logically, if the persons of the trinity are coexistent, which they are, I don't really know that we can show any kind of contingency ontologically... that would seem to be logically voided by the use of the term "coexistent".

I kind of think the relationships described between the persons of the trinity are more a matter of "office" than ontology.


Personally, I think I'm about ready to go do some more reading... see if I can't defer to some people a lot smarter than me, lol.

"Coexistent" probably implies that both sides of the coexistence are equal in their existence.

So, is the word "coexistent" even the right one to use? They are coexistent regarding time, because as long as Father is eternal, He "produces" also eternal Son.

But they are not coexistent in the meaning that the Father is from the Son in the same way as the Son is from the Father.

---

tl;dr: In which creed is the word "coexistent" used? Or from which verse can it be postulated?

 

[maxwel]

"Coexistent" probably implies that both sides of the coexistence are equal in their existence.

So, is the word "coexistent" even the right one to use? They are coexistent regarding time, because as long as Father is eternal, He "produces" also eternal Son.

But they are not coexistent in the meaning that Fathers is from the Son in the same way as the Son is from the Father.

---

tl;dr: In which creed is the word "coexistent" used? Or from which verse can it be postulated?

Could EVER ask easier questions?

: )

Think I'm out the rest of the day.
I'll try to catch up later.

 

[OneFaith]

That’s what ‘son’ means- offspring of the father. First there’s a father, then a son. “For God was pleased (implies decision) to have ALL His fullness dwell in Him.” (because there’s no mother). “The firstborn over all creation.” (This is not speaking of His human form through Mary- this is first born before all creation. (First created).

Jesus is the light God spoke into existence on Day one- not the sun, moon, or stars- that was Day four. God spoke Jesus into experience, then Jesus created everything else. “Without Jesus nothing was made that had been made.” God the Father had no beginning, but He put His likeness into a Son Who did have a beginning.

 

[pottersclay]

Colossians 1:15
HE IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OVER ALL CREATION.

Many have gone back and forth with the position of Messiah's existence.

Some believe eve that He and the Father are one in singular form.

Some believe eve they are 2 complete separate deities.

Some believe they are one as a unit

i believe the creation of Eve gives us a beautiful picture of how Messiah came about.

Eve had had no earthly mother or father, she literally came from Adam.

I believe this picture shows us how Messiah came about. Not literally from the Father's ribs but that the Father took a piece of Himself and made His only begotten Son.

Eve is a picture of the church.....not Christ....

 

[jb]

That’s what ‘son’ means- offspring of the father. First there’s a father, then a son. “For God was pleased (implies decision) to have ALL His fullness dwell in Him.” (because there’s no mother). “The firstborn over all creation.” (This is not speaking of His human form through Mary- this is first born before all creation. (First created).

Jesus is the light God spoke into existence on Day one- not the sun, moon, or stars- that was Day four. God spoke Jesus into experience, then Jesus created everything else. “Without Jesus nothing was made that had been made.” God the Father had no beginning, but He put His likeness into a Son Who did have a beginning.

Christ has no beginning (He was not created) He has eternal existence along with God The Father and God The Holy Spirit, so you are in the area of “destructive heresy” there!

 

[Johnny_B]

Colossians 1:15
HE IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OVER ALL CREATION.

Many have gone back and forth with the position of Messiah's existence.

Some believe eve that He and the Father are one in singular form.

Some believe eve they are 2 complete separate deities.

Some believe they are one as a unit

i believe the creation of Eve gives us a beautiful picture of how Messiah came about.

Eve had had no earthly mother or father, she literally came from Adam.

I believe this picture shows us how Messiah came about. Not literally from the Father's ribs but that the Father took a piece of Himself and made His only begotten Son.

That is heresy my friend, the Son is God not a part of God that the Father had to donate to. This is why cultural idioms need to be known. The idiom or phrase, "son of" and the "Father of" do not mena what western culture defines them as. The phrase "son of" simply means of the same nature, having the same attributes or proceeding from. The phrase "Father of" from which preceeds or origin of, look at Isaiah 9:6 it calls Jesus the Everlasting Father, why because creation preceeds from Him, not because He is the Father in the Godhead. If you read II King 2 you will see that there are men that are called the "sons of the prophets" does that mean that they are Elijiah's or Elisha's sons? No, it mean that they are prophets like them.

Jesus is not born from God the Father in His nature as God, now in His nature as man His body was created by the Father, other then that the Father has nothing to do with the bringing froth of Jesus, Jesus always was just like the Father. If you get a Bible dictionary, it will help to understand these things, also a near eastern culture idiom book will help as well. Thrying to understand the Bible by using western ideology is not a good idea. It bring all types of cult translations and ideas.

If you look up the word "firstborn" in a Bible dictionary it means "original One who brought forth" If this suggestion is not acceptable, then "firstborn" here designates the One who has the rights of primogeniture, who has authority over all creation. Certainly it does not indicate that He ever brgan to exist. From Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia

If you go back to the Jewish custom or cultural meaning of Firstborn, it was of preeminnence given to the firstborn son in the Old Testament, Genesis 49:3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power.”

We see that in the Hebrew culture firstborn means, preeminent, making him preeminent over the fathers estate. Which the Lord established in the Law, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 “If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn,17 but he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the firstfruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his.”

We always need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible, not our western ideas, which again leads to cult interpretaions of God Word. Firstborn by the the culture of the Jewish nation of the Bible simply means preeminent, espesially when it comes to Jesus, since He was never born or needed the Father to be who He is. Jesus is God if there is a Father or not, I know that sounds like heresy to some, but it is a simple statement of how the Lord Jesus is God if there is a Father or Ho;y Spirit or not, He is still God, in the same way that they are as well. If I am wrong please show me, because I never want to promote heresy when it comes to the Godhead or the Trinity and I know that there are Sisters and Brothers here that know way more then meand I by no means know everthing, but I love to learn .

 

[OneFaith]

Christ has no beginning (He was not created) He has eternal existence along with God The Father and God The Holy Spirit, so you are in the area of “destructive heresy” there!

You are welcome to your opinion. I’m going to go with what the Bible says.

 

[Ezekiel8]

Colossians 1:15
HE IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, THE FIRSTBORN OVER ALL CREATION.

Many have gone back and forth with the position of Messiah's existence.

Some believe eve that He and the Father are one in singular form.

Some believe eve they are 2 complete separate deities.

Some believe they are one as a unit

i believe the creation of Eve gives us a beautiful picture of how Messiah came about.

Eve had had no earthly mother or father, she literally came from Adam.

I believe this picture shows us how Messiah came about. Not literally from the Father's ribs but that the Father took a piece of Himself and made His only begotten Son.

That is kind of an interesting point of view to think about.

I believe Jesus and God are one, Jesus is indeed the first-begotten of creation because Jesus is the Word of God. In the very first book of Genesis in the very first chapter we read that God speaks creation into existence, so I think that right there proves that as Jesus is God's Word, and the Word came first, and through the Word and the Spirit of God everything that was made was made, then it is a pretty good example not only that Jesus is the first begotten of the creation but also proves many other things such as the nature of the trinity, another old testament confirmation of Jesus as Messiah, a show of the might and majesty of God, etc.

 

[heartofdavid]

That’s what ‘son’ means- offspring of the father. First there’s a father, then a son. “For God was pleased (implies decision) to have ALL His fullness dwell in Him.” (because there’s no mother). “The firstborn over all creation.” (This is not speaking of His human form through Mary- this is first born before all creation. (First created).

Jesus is the light God spoke into existence on Day one- not the sun, moon, or stars- that was Day four. God spoke Jesus into experience, then Jesus created everything else. “Without Jesus nothing was made that had been made.” God the Father had no beginning, but He put His likeness into a Son Who did have a beginning.

This is a variation of watchtower doctrine.
The goal of which is to disenfranchise the person and testimony of Jesus.

You are one dimensional and omit verses.
Jesus was with the Father for eternity past.

If you deny that,you have to say he was created at a point in time.
That removes him from diety.

You through "Superior" intellect,deny the Son,and "prove" his unworthyness to recieve worship and for the Father in hebrews to call the Son GOD.
YOU SIR,ARE A HERETIC BIG TIME

 

[preacher4truth]

This is a variation of watchtower doctrine.
The goal of which is to disenfranchise the person and testimony of Jesus.

You are one dimensional and omit verses.
Jesus was with the Father for eternity past.

If you deny that,you have to say he was created at a point in time.
That removes him from diety.

You through "Superior" intellect,deny the Son,and "prove" his unworthyness to recieve worship and for the Father in hebrews to call the Son GOD.
YOU SIR,ARE A HERETIC BIG TIME

Well, it is a she according to the profile, but you are correct, it is heretical.

There are several on this Christian site who deny the deity of Christ. They have been reported, but remain. Perhaps CC has changed its official position?

 

[heartofdavid]

Your doctrine is unbelievably easy to debunk.

But it is YOU that needs to do your own homework.

The entire sonship dimension revolves around the " kinsman redeemer" dynamic in Ruth.
Only a kinsman can legally redeem, ....

Only a GOD CAN RESURRECT.

THUS THE GOD-MAN.
THAT ALONE DESTROYS YOUR ARGUMENT.

"Created" destroys his God head.
Once you do that,the entire redemption is a farce