Christ is God

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
When you want to talk about how to translate Col 1:15, you must find the same grammar used somewhere else, logically.

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

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως Col 2.15
firstborn over all creation

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

ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός J 17:2
authority over all people

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


Acts 8:27 - ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης

NIV: “in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake”

Luke 5:17 - ἐληλυθότες ἐκ πάσης κώμης τῆς

NAS: had come from every village

NIV: had come from every village

Luke 6:17 - λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας

NAS: of people from all Judea

NIV: from all over Judea


As you can see with your pointless argument even the NIV translates it as "of" and "from" (same as Col 1:18 -from the dead) in some places.

But again this is all irrelevant as my question has nothing to do with this non-issue you raised.

So please, answer the question I posed to you, if you're unable to answer it then please have the christian attribute of humbleness to admit it.

Show me a example, in the bible or outside of the bible where someone is firstborn regarding a group and they themselves are not part of the group.

NOTE, that it does not matter in what respect Jesus was firstborn regarding the group of creation with my question, all that matters is that he is labelled as firstborn regarding the group of creation.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
You searched wrong, there were 42 occurances of πάσης (pases) the same as the one found in Col 1:15, this is some how the NIV chooses to translate some uses of the word. Moreover one of your examples was the verse in question itself which is hardly evidence, how you only found two I don't know.


Acts 8:27 - ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης

NIV: “in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake”

Luke 5:17 - ἐληλυθότες ἐκ πάσης κώμης τῆς

NAS: had come from every village

NIV: had come from every village

Luke 6:17 - λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας

NAS: of people from all Judea

NIV: from all over Judea


As you can see with your pointless argument even the NIV translates it as "of" and "from" (same as Col 1:18 -from the dead) in some places.

But again this is all irrelevant as my question has nothing to do with this non-issue you raised.

So please, answer the question I posed to you, if you're unable to answer it then please have the chrisitian of humblness to admit it.

Show me a example, in the bible or outside of the bible where someone is firstborn regarding a group and they themselves are not part of the group.

NOTE, that it does not matter in what respect Jesus was firstborn regarding the group of creation with my question, all that matters is that he is labelled as firstborn regarding the group of creation.
You are not getting the point. Your examples have "epi, apo, ek" etc. Col 2:15 does not. Therefore you must find the use without it and see if it can be translated as "over all" when there is no such word together with it.

I proved, it can be translated this way. Q.E.D.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
You are not getting the point. Your examples have "epi, apo, ek" etc. Col 2:15 does not. Therefore you must find the use without it and see if it can be translated as "over all" when there is no such word together with it.

I proved, it can be translated this way. Q.E.D.
And what does that argument have anything to do with my one?

Remember my question is for you to "show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it."

The only thing that needs to be agreed on from both sides in relation to my question is that Jesus is called "firstborn" regarding the group of "creation" in Col 1:15. Do you agree Jesus is "firstborn" regarding the group "creation", if you do then you have no reason not to answer the question.

For your ease:
- Do you agree Jesus is "firstborn" regarding the group "creation"
- What does your rambling of other texts have anything to do with my question specifically
- Answer my question, please show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
And what does that argument have anything to do with my one?

Remember my question is for you to "show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it."

The only thing that needs to be agreed on from both sides in relation to my question is that Jesus is called "firstborn" regarding the group of "creation" in Col 1:15. Do you agree Jesus is "firstborn" regarding the group "creation", if you do then you have no reason not to answer the question.

For your ease:
- Do you agree Jesus is "firstborn" regarding the group "creation"
- What does your rambling of other texts have anything to do with my question specifically
- Answer my question, please show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it
For the last time, please read carefully:

You are complaining, that Col 2:15 should not be translated as "over all", but rather "from" or "of".

While both ways are possible, I go with the "over all" translation, because:
a) its how the same use is translated on other places
b) its the orthodox reading as reflected in the creed of Nicea

I proved that the translation "over all" is possible by listing all other examples of the use I have found in the Bible (i.e. without a preposition):

πρωτότοκος [NOTHING HERE] πάσης κτίσεως Col 2.15
firstborn over all creation

[NOTHING HERE] πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν Job 41:26
over all who are in the waters.

ἐξουσίαν [NOTHING HERE] πάσης σαρκός J 17:2
authority over all people

Your examples ARE NOT the same, because they have some preposition in the sentence (en, epi, apo, hyper).

If you are not satisfied, I cannot do anything more. For me, this issue is closed.
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
For the last time, please read carefully:

You are complaining, that Col 2:15 should not be translated as "over all", but rather "from" or "of".

While both ways are possible, I go with the "over all" translation, because:
a) its how the same use is translated on other places
b) its the orthodox reading as reflected in the creed of Nicea

I proved that the translation "over all" is possible by listing other examples of the similar use:

πρωτότοκος [NOTHING HERE] πάσης κτίσεως Col 2.15
firstborn over all creation

[NOTHING HERE] πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν Job 41:26
over all who are in the waters.

ἐξουσίαν [NOTHING HERE] πάσης σαρκός J 17:2
authority over all people

Your examples ARE NOT the same, because they have also preposition in the sentence (en, epi, apo, hyper) etc.

If you are not satisfied, I cannot do anything more.
trofimus the last time I was arguing over Col 1:15 and the wording "of all" over the word "over" was 8 posts ago (post 550). Hence why all my quotations of the v15 after was "firstborn all creation" leaving out our debated of vs over.

If we can both agree that Jesus is called firstborn regarding the group creation then there is not a single reason why you can't answer my question I've been asking the upwards of 8 times now I believe.

AGAIN, my argument and question has nothing to do if Col 1:15 should be translated "over all" rather "of", my argument is simple. When we have someone mentioned as firstborn they are always part of the group they're firstborn in, Jesus is the "firstborn" regarding the group "creation" thus he must be created and in that group.

Something firstborn regarding the group Apes must itself be an ape
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Fish must itself be an fish
Something firstborn regarding the group Cats must itself be an cat
Something firstborn regarding the group the dead must itself be be dead

Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created

Thus Jesus, according to Col 1:15, ("firstborn all creation") demands he be part of the group he's labelled as firstborn. If you deny this then you must answer the question I've posed so many times, show me an example where someone is firstborn regarding a group and not part of it.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
trofimus the last time I was arguing over Col 1:15 and the wording "of all" over the word "over" was 8 posts ago (post 550). Hence why all my quotations of the v15 after was "firstborn all creation" leaving out our debated of vs over.

If we can both agree that Jesus is called firstborn regarding the group creation then there is not a single reason why you can't answer my question I've been asking the upwards of 8 times now I believe.

AGAIN, my argument and question has nothing to do if Col 1:15 should be translated "over all" rather "of", my argument is simple. When we have someone mentioned as firstborn they are always part of the group they're firstborn in, Jesus is the "firstborn" regarding the group "creation" thus he must be created and in that group.

Something firstborn regarding the group Apes must itself be an ape
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Fish must itself be an fish
Something firstborn regarding the group Cats must itself be an cat
Something firstborn regarding the group the dead must itself be be dead

Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created

Thus Jesus, according to Col 1:15, ("firstborn all creation") demands he be part of the group he's labelled as firstborn. If you deny this then you must answer the question I've posed so many times, show me an example where someone is firstborn regarding a group and not part of it.
"Regarding" needs a corresponding preposition (ek, apo...). There is none. Therefore its not "regarding".

I do not know how to be clearer. When you have "pasés something", it does not mean "one of something". At least in cases I listed.
 

GodisONE

Active member
Jul 11, 2018
212
44
28
trofimus the last time I was arguing over Col 1:15 and the wording "of all" over the word "over" was 8 posts ago (post 550). Hence why all my quotations of the v15 after was "firstborn all creation" leaving out our debated of vs over.

If we can both agree that Jesus is called firstborn regarding the group creation then there is not a single reason why you can't answer my question I've been asking the upwards of 8 times now I believe.

AGAIN, my argument and question has nothing to do if Col 1:15 should be translated "over all" rather "of", my argument is simple. When we have someone mentioned as firstborn they are always part of the group they're firstborn in, Jesus is the "firstborn" regarding the group "creation" thus he must be created and in that group.

Something firstborn regarding the group Apes must itself be an ape
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Fish must itself be an fish
Something firstborn regarding the group Cats must itself be an cat
Something firstborn regarding the group the dead must itself be be dead

Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created

Thus Jesus, according to Col 1:15, ("firstborn all creation") demands he be part of the group he's labelled as firstborn. If you deny this then you must answer the question I've posed so many times, show me an example where someone is firstborn regarding a group and not part of it.

Brother in Christ,

[trofimus] has what is known as circular logic. it's what the world has defined logic and reasoning of those like trofimus. sadly, the guy probably believes the earth is flat, Calvinism, and anything with logic should be ignored.

my guess is that science and its many proofs that prove the existence of God via bacteria and DNA are denied and ignored by trofimus!!

circular logic when stopped, results in you running face first into your own behind :(
 

OstrichSmiling

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2018
1,027
415
83
Brother in Christ,

[trofimus] has what is known as circular logic. it's what the world has defined logic and reasoning of those like trofimus. sadly, the guy probably believes the earth is flat, Calvinism, and anything with logic should be ignored.

my guess is that science and its many proofs that prove the existence of God via bacteria and DNA are denied and ignored by trofimus!!

circular logic when stopped, results in you running face first into your own behind :(
 

NWL

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2012
433
9
18
"Regarding" needs a corresponding preposition (ek, apo...). There is none. Therefore its not "regarding".

I do not know how to be clearer. When you have "pasés something", it does not mean "one of something". At least in cases I listed.
So please note, you are the one pushing the argument of "over" vs "of" here.

Both contextually and grammatically "firstborn" cannot properly and is never in its 160 usages referred to as "over" something, expect in the case of Col 1:15 in some bible translations which we have both agreed are insertions of sorts. All other usages of the word the firstborn is always "from", "of" or implied as being part of it.

Again, the fact that Jesus is the firstborn of the group creation mentioned in Col 1:15 demands the translation to be "of all creation" over "over all creation", since grammatically speaking you can't be labelled as firstborn without being in that group, the very definition of the word demands it as I've said over and over.

You argument of grammatical parallels of the surrounding texts grammar cannot get off the ground unless you can first define or express the meaning of firstborn.

Please tell me your definition of what firstborn is so we are on the same level and secondly and more importantly, give me an example of a firstborn in your own words that resemble how Christ is firstborn that is comparable to something.
 

Placid

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2016
316
36
28
Hi,
I feel I must answer this post 585, where NWL wrote:
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created


You are right, the Word was from God, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the 'only begotten of God.' John 1:18 where it says, the Word was 'the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father.'
That means that the only begotten God (Son) was 'the Son of His love,'


Notice these verses from Colossians 1:
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of 'the Son of His love,'
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created

Remember the verse, John 1:3 All things were made through Him (the Word), and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The Scripture is true, it is those who read it wrong that have a problem.
--- And the Scripture said that Jesus was born on earth as the son of Mary, --- after his own kind.
 

GodisONE

Active member
Jul 11, 2018
212
44
28
Hi,
I feel I must answer this post 585, where NWL wrote:
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created


You are right, the Word was from God, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the 'only begotten of God.' John 1:18 where it says, the Word was 'the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father.'
That means that the only begotten God (Son) was 'the Son of His love,'


Notice these verses from Colossians 1:
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of 'the Son of His love,'
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created

Remember the verse, John 1:3 All things were made through Him (the Word), and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The Scripture is true, it is those who read it wrong that have a problem.
--- And the Scripture said that Jesus was born on earth as the son of Mary, --- after his own kind.



so, if we know Yeshua [the WORD] created all things, made appearances throughout Old Testament in His human body, do we actually believe He was literally born from Mary?

He already existed and had an adult human body when He met Abram before sending His angels to Sodom.

so, wouldn't be figuratively that He was born of Mary, because He does not have her DNA...He was a SEED planted by the hand of God into the womb of Mary!!

unless, you are one of those crazy believers that feel the Holy Spirit did the wild thing with Mary...but then, that would make God a hypocrite for punishing angels who were with human women and created Nephilim!!
 

OstrichSmiling

Well-known member
Jun 17, 2018
1,027
415
83
so, if we know Yeshua [the WORD] created all things, made appearances throughout Old Testament in His human body, do we actually believe He was literally born from Mary?

He already existed and had an adult human body when He met Abram before sending His angels to Sodom.

so, wouldn't be figuratively that He was born of Mary, because He does not have her DNA...He was a SEED planted by the hand of God into the womb of Mary!!

unless, you are one of those crazy believers that feel the Holy Spirit did the wild thing with Mary...but then, that would make God a hypocrite for punishing angels who were with human women and created Nephilim!!
Jeshua; Jeshuah


Lexicon


Immanuel/Emmanuel
Immanuel [N] [H]
God with us. In the Old Testament it occurs only in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:8 . Most Christian interpreters have regarded these words as directly and exclusively a prophecy of our Saviour, an interpretation borne out by the words of the evangelist ( Matthew 1:23 ).
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
How do you read this?

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

Simple and short!!! answer without tuns of other verses, please. Just how you read this verse in your mind.
..therefore distinct God, the other distinct God has set you above your companions...

Are you happy now, simple and short just the way you like them.
 

EmilyFoster

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2018
1,340
1,093
113
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
 

jameen

Senior Member
Feb 5, 2018
540
150
43
33
Manila
Jesus is God in his original nature. he became man when he went down on earth.

He is God was manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 )

Jesus the Lamb has seven eyes which are the seven Spirits of God (Revelation 5:6 )

He is monogenes theos or begotten God who came from his Father's bosom (John 1:18 of Greek Bible)

Hebrews 1:3 Good News Translation (GNT)

3 He reflects the brightness of God's glory and is the exact likeness of God's own being, sustaining the universe with his powerful word. After achieving forgiveness for the sins of all human beings, he sat down in heaven at the right side of God, the Supreme Power.

No wonder why he is power and wisdom of God in 1st Corinthians 1:24, mystery of God in Colossians 2:2, and the arm of the Lord in John 12:36-38.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
..therefore distinct God, the other distinct God has set you above your companions...

Are you happy now, simple and short just the way you like them.
So, no "authority your authority", but really God, your God? Good. Oneness destroyed again :)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
790
113
So please note, you are the one pushing the argument of "over" vs "of" here.

Both contextually and grammatically "firstborn" cannot properly and is never in its 160 usages referred to as "over" something, expect in the case of Col 1:15 in some bible translations which we have both agreed are insertions of sorts. All other usages of the word the firstborn is always "from", "of" or implied as being part of it.

Again, the fact that Jesus is the firstborn of the group creation mentioned in Col 1:15 demands the translation to be "of all creation" over "over all creation", since grammatically speaking you can't be labelled as firstborn without being in that group, the very definition of the word demands it as I've said over and over.

You argument of grammatical parallels of the surrounding texts grammar cannot get off the ground unless you can first define or express the meaning of firstborn.

Please tell me your definition of what firstborn is so we are on the same level and secondly and more importantly, give me an example of a firstborn in your own words that resemble how Christ is firstborn that is comparable to something.
Prototokos can mean:
a) born as the first in a line
b) head, somebody who is over something, preeminent

The context of col 2:15 confirms its the b) meaning.

And he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,595
9,498
113
You fail to realise one thing, a copy of anything implies the very thing that is copied is excatly the same expect the age of that copy. If the Father was in existence alone, and then created a copy of himself (Hebrews 1:3), namely Jesus, then how does it make sense that Gods age also copies over to the copy of himself. Again, Jesus being a copy imples he is the same in every respect apart from God eternalness. Moreover, almighty God is NOT a copy of anyone, but Jesus is, therefore Jesus can't be God.

As Jesus himself stated, he lives because of the Father. God almighty lives because of no person or thing. Jesus lacks the main attribute of almighty God, that being having no beginning nor end.

(John 6:57) "..I [Jesus] live because of the Father.."

God is not within time - He is 'ageless' - and Christ is the exact representation.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM
(John 8:58)
In the beginning God
(Genesis 1:1)

God is 'before the beginning' -- in the beginning, He already 'is' -- before time, unfettered by time, without time, eternal, having no beginning.

In the beginning was the Word
(John 1:1)
the Word 'was' in the beginning -- in the beginning, He already 'was' -- existing before the beginning, before time, unbound by time, without time, eternal.


having no beginning:

All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
(John 1:3)
For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through Him and for Him.
(Colossians 1:16)

nothing that was made was made except through Him and with Him and by Him. all things that are made, whether physical or nonphysical, in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible, tangible or intangible, all things are made by Him, through Him and for Him.
if He was made, He was made through Himself and with Himself and for Himself -- and by Himself.
if He was made, He made Himself using Himself for Himself with Himself by Himself.
He was not made:


Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
(Hebrews 13:8)

not changing, not aging, not different before a 'beginning' but self-existing before the beginning, before existence.
the same is said of God and of no other:


O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days,
Your years are throughout all generations.
Of old You founded the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
Even they will perish, but You endure;
And all of them will wear out like a garment;
Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not come to an end.
(Psalm 102:25-27)


I AM THAT I AM

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM
So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
(John 8:58-59)
they immediately understood that He was calling Himself the Almighty, the Eternal Father, and picked up stones to throw at Him, because not believing, they were not at all uncertain that this was blasphemy.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
29,595
9,498
113
..therefore distinct God, the other distinct God has set you above your companions...

Are you happy now, simple and short just the way you like them.
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
(1 Timothy 3:16)
God - the distinct, only God, apart from Whom there is no other - was manifest in the flesh!

without controversy a great mystery indeed!!
 

Noose

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2016
5,096
932
113
So, no "authority your authority", but really God, your God? Good. Oneness destroyed again :)
Nope.

Far from destruction and i'm not one of those 'oneness' people. Every verse that you choose destroys trinity. There's no single verse that insinuate trinity.
You are trying to make the idea of authorities of God sound bad but you fail. God has three authorities and the owner of these authorities is who we call Jesus.