DH would it not more fully explain why Jesus is the firstborn
He was the 1st born from the dead not the first to open the womb!
THE CONTEXT of Col 1:15 is easily found in Col1:18 it refers to PREMINANCE!
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Here it is used in the context of preeminance again:
David was God's FIRSTBORN (HEAD) as far as the Kings of the earth
Ps 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him
PS 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
Just in case you did not know David was not the First Physically Born son
The word prototokos means "first in rank, preeminent one, heir."
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
DAVEH:
> ... why do you feel compelled to cling to the T-Doctrine
> to explain it? If you were to accept a pre-mortal existence
> for all who come to earth, would it not more fully explain
> why Jesus is the firstborn, and why we are literally the offspring
> of our Heavenly Father?
I personally do not feel any compulsion to cling to the Trinity doctrine.
However, I do feel compelled to stick with Scripture and its testimony
concerning Jesus Christ and the Godhead. In science I was taught that nice
explanations don't mean anything if they do not reflect reality. When I
study the Scriptures concerning the term "firstborn," I see it as being
spoken about as "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18). I also read in psalm
89:27 the phrase, "I will make him my firstborn." Other passages speak
about how Jesus was God (John 1:1, Phil. 2:6, Col. 1:16, etc.). I also
understand the sense of "firstborn" also as being one that give preference
and glory to him, rather than indicating chronological sequence, although in
many cases of culture, these go hand in hand. The bottom line is that I
have a perception of Jesus Christ as being the everlasting Father, the Logos
which has always existed, the one through whom everything that has ever been
created was created by him and through him and for him. To say that he
himself was created does not fit into this framework in any way. There are
a lot of passages that would need to be explained or ignored for me to
accept such a premise, and, of course, you would have to deal with my own
inner conscience and revelation of who Jesus is (in other words, I am
talking about my own subjective sense that my current perception is actually
true because there is a witness that goes beyond study on this issue).
DaveH wrote:
> So as I understand this, you do not believe in the
> literal brotherhood of Jesus,
I believe in the literal brotherhood in the sense that he literally became
flesh. That act made God no longer just my father, but my brother too
(literally!).
DaveH wrote:
> nor do you believe we are the literal offspring
> of our Heavenly Father.
I'm not sure what you might mean here. Do I believe that the Heavenly
Father had sexual relations with someone and begat us? Do I believe that
the Heavenly Father produced us through some unisexual means? No.
However, I do believe that he created Adam from the dust of the ground and
then breathed into him the breath of life. In this sense, we are the
literal offspring of our Heavenly Father. However, in this actual act, I
believe that it was Jesus who actually did the work, who was at this time
not our brother, but God our Creator. It was later, at the incarnation,
that he became flesh and thereby became our brother.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - No fees. Bid on great items.
