The "IT" Logos

Runningman said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
I didn't say that. I said in specific cases it doesn't refer to someone's first child.
Click to expand...
Then use a different word. Firstborn is already taken,
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not the one who choose to use firstborn if a different way. God did.

Runningman said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Nope, looking at how any word is used in context is called reading. Making up silly rules to establish theological arguments is called abusing Scripture. And, that goes for any position, on any topic.

What's problematic is your refusal to interact with how the term firstborn is actually used in Scripture. For example in Jeremiah 31:9, YHWH states "With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." How is Ephraim YHWH's firstborn?
Click to expand...
Ephraim is the firstborn from YHWH's perspective because He said so. It still refers to being a child.
Click to expand...

Yet, in no way shape or form was Ephraim even a living human when God had Jeramiah write this. Clearly, firstborn does not literally mean first child born in Jeremiah 31:9.

Why don't you just admit firstborn doesn't always mean first child born? Oh yeah, your pet argument against the Trinity will be shown to be a paper tiger.
Runningman said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Psalm 89:27 says "And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." How do you make someone "the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."? If he was firstborn, wouldn't he be that from birth? Clearly, firstborn can be used to designate the one with primary rights of rulership, power and inheritance. You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"? Or, are you just pretending otherwise to rhetorically force your point? FYI, it doesn't take much to google how firstborn is used in Scripture to see why people don't agree with your perspective.
Click to expand...
In Psalm 89:27 it's simple. Before he was born, he was appointed to be God's firstborn. After he was born, he became God's firstborn. This is so easy when you finally realize Jesus isn't God and that he didn't pre-exist God's prophecies.
Click to expand...

If one can be "appointed to be God's firstborn", then firstborn clearly doesn't mean first child born. That would mean firstborn is a title that designates something about the person besides his birth order. How about answering my question: You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"?
Runningman said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
One last thing, are you an Arian? Aka, do you think the first being God created was Jesus? Because, if you don't believe that, then Jesus isn't God's firstborn as in the first one born of God; Adam was, or one of the angels. As an Arian, this argument holds some water, but if you're not an Arian, you are just playing rhetorical games.
Click to expand...
No I am not arian. Jesus is the firstborn of the dead. He was dead, then he was alive again. Since Jesus was the first God resurrected, that's like being born. Therefore, in that sense Jesus became the Son of God.
Click to expand...

So, he wasn't literally the God's first child in creation. Thank you for admitting that firstborn is not always used in the Bible to refer to someone's first child.

God Bless
 
Towerwatchman said:
Nothing in the text suggests that.
Click to expand...


However I accept your strict hermeneutic as long as you hold yourself to the same standard.

Of course that means you can never try to prove the Trinity because with that standard you should not believe it yourself. 😂


Towerwatchman said:
When it’s angels the scriptures state so. Nothing here states that it is three angels.
Click to expand...


But Hebrews 13:2 does appear to speak of the events of Genesis 18.

And so we are left with three men in chapter 18 and 2 angels at the beginning of 19.
 
Roger Thornhill said:
However I accept your strict hermeneutic as long as you hold yourself to the same standard.

Of course that means you can never try to prove the Trinity because with that standard you should not believe it yourself. 😂
Click to expand...
I believe the text reads Lord. I have your material in the mail awaiting review.
Roger Thornhill said:
But Hebrews 13:2 does appear to speak of the events of Genesis 18.

And so we are left with three men in chapter 18 and 2 angels at the beginning of 19.
Click to expand...
From the text you can prove that they walked on two legs. Everything else is inferred from the text. What in chapter 18 states it’s three men or three angels?
 
Towerwatchman said:
I believe the text reads Lord. I have your material in the mail awaiting review.
Click to expand...

The material that can provide the answer is in BDB and BHS, but you need to be able to navigate the Hebrew to understand it.

BHS indicates that there are manuscripts and so does Ginzberg. Unfortunately they don't seem to be identified.

The Bible I quoted was merely to answer your objection that no Bible had YHWH at Ge 18:3.



Towerwatchman said:
From the text you can prove that they walked on two legs. Everything else is inferred from the text. What in chapter 18 states it’s three men or three angels?
Click to expand...

Well both the LXX and Hebrew text use the Greek and Hebrew respectively for "men."
 
shroom said:
Yes he is. See Jesus' own statement in John 8:40. Also see Acts 2:22; 17:31; Rom 5:15; 1 Tim 2:5; more.


God was with people through the man Jesus Christ. Jesus declared God, he made God known (John 1:18).
Click to expand...
Mathew 1:23 says God with us, NOT with people through the man Jesus Christ. God is NOT with anyone through a man.
You are charged with adding to Scripture.
All of the verses you adduced demonstrate Jesus is a MAN, NOT that The Son of God is a man.
 
johnny guitar said:
Mathew 1:23 says God with us, NOT with people through the man Jesus Christ. God is NOT with anyone through a man.
You are charged with adding to Scripture.
All of the verses you adduced demonstrate Jesus is a MAN, NOT that The Son of God is a man.
Click to expand...
Us is plural for people in this case.
 
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sorry, I'm not the one who choose to use firstborn if a different way. God did.



Yet, in no way shape or form was Ephraim even a living human when God had Jeramiah write this. Clearly, firstborn does not literally mean first child born in Jeremiah 31:9.

Why don't you just admit firstborn doesn't always mean first child born? Oh yeah, your pet argument against the Trinity will be shown to be a paper tiger.


If one can be "appointed to be God's firstborn", then firstborn clearly doesn't mean first child born. That would mean firstborn is a title that designates something about the person besides his birth order. How about answering my question: You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"?


So, he wasn't literally the God's first child in creation. Thank you for admitting that firstborn is not always used in the Bible to refer to someone's first child.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Firstborn doesn’t always refer to physical live birth. The word first born still refers to being the first child of a parent in some sense of the word. God uses it like this because apparently they are His firstborn. I am not God, that’s what He said. Take it up with Him if you disagree.
 
johnny guitar said:
IOW Jesus Christ is God WITH the people.
Click to expand...
No, of course not. That's the definition of Immanuel and no one really called him that anyway, apparently. Jesus is a human. Got it? It was clear to everyone he isn't God, but God was with him.

John 3
2He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him.”

Acts 10
38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.
 
Runningman said:
DoctrinesofGraceBapt said:
Sorry, I'm not the one who choose to use firstborn if a different way. God did.

Yet, in no way shape or form was Ephraim even a living human when God had Jeramiah write this. Clearly, firstborn does not literally mean first child born in Jeremiah 31:9.

Why don't you just admit firstborn doesn't always mean first child born? Oh yeah, your pet argument against the Trinity will be shown to be a paper tiger.

If one can be "appointed to be God's firstborn", then firstborn clearly doesn't mean first child born. That would mean firstborn is a title that designates something about the person besides his birth order. How about answering my question: You say "That's how it's always used in the bible based on what I have seen." Have you seen these verses, and others, that clearly don't use firstborn to literally "refer to someone's first child"?

So, he wasn't literally the God's first child in creation. Thank you for admitting that firstborn is not always used in the Bible to refer to someone's first child.
Click to expand...
Firstborn doesn’t always refer to physical live birth. The word first born still refers to being the first child of a parent in some sense of the word. God uses it like this because apparently they are His firstborn. I am not God, that’s what He said. Take it up with Him if you disagree.
Click to expand...

So, you agree with my position, firstborn can be used figuratively.

God Bless
 
Runningman said:
No, of course not. That's the definition of Immanuel and no one really called him that anyway, apparently. Jesus is a human. Got it? It was clear to everyone he isn't God, but God was with him.
Click to expand...

It is clear to His own that Jesus is both God and man.
In John 10:30, Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews understood this as a claim to be God, and they tried to stone Him for blasphemy.
In John 8:58, Jesus referred to Himself as “I am,” echoing God’s self-revelation in Exodus 3:14.
His followers also recognized His divinity. John 1:1 states, “The Word [Jesus] was God,” emphasizing His deity.
Thomas, one of His disciples, exclaimed, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), and Jesus did not correct him.
Hebrews 1:8 refers to Jesus as God, and Revelation 19:10 instructs John to worship God, which Jesus also received without rebuke.
Jesus is both fully God and fully human—the eternal Alpha and Omega, our Saviour, and the anointed One who fulfilled God’s promises.
 
cjab said:
No. The correct biblical terminology is "God was in Christ" (2 Cor 5:19), and not "God is Christ" or "God was Christ."
Click to expand...
The passage in question is Matthew 1:23 wherein we learn Christ is GOD WITH US.
BTW God was in Christ reconciling HIMSELF to the world, which means Christ is God AS MAN.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top