Who Is The Holy Spirit?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Assuming that I correctly presented your view, the problem would be God being the firstborn of every creature.

Ok isee where you are coming from i think.

Let me ask you a question. Do you understand how i find fault with your perspective as i laid it out in the previous post? Do you consider it to be a logical arguement to your perspective? not saying you agree with it but do you consider the arguement logical?

As to the question of His being the first born this is obviously not speaking of His birth here on earth otherwise how could He have been before all things or how could He have created all things? It also is obviously not speaking of a literal birth in the distant past sometime otherwise He again is not before all things also this view would mean that there is of necessity a female goddess running around somewhere which would be to espouce a doctrine of polytheism. So if it is not speaking of a literal birth it stands to reason that the term firstborn is to be taken as a postion rather than a cronological order. In other words this is being used to signify that Jesus is above all others He is to have the preimer spot the highest and loftiest place. Just as with the old testament laws of inheiritance the firstborn got the best and most of all things. So with Jesus He there is none higher than He.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

Ok isee where you are coming from i think.

Let me ask you a question. Do you understand how i find fault with your perspective as i laid it out in the previous post? Do you consider it to be a logical arguement to your perspective? not saying you agree with it but do you consider the arguement logical?

Sure. As I've said, I've asked the same questions myself.

As to the question of His being the first born this is obviously not speaking of His birth here on earth otherwise how could He have been before all things or how could He have created all things? It also is obviously not speaking of a literal birth in the distant past sometime otherwise He again is not before all things also this view would mean that there is of necessity a female goddess running around somewhere which would be to espouce a doctrine of polytheism. So if it is not speaking of a literal birth it stands to reason that the term firstborn is to be taken as a postion rather than a cronological order. In other words this is being used to signify that Jesus is above all others He is to have the preimer spot the highest and loftiest place. Just as with the old testament laws of inheiritance the firstborn got the best and most of all things. So with Jesus He there is none higher than He.

The image, whoever He is, is identified as the firstborn of God, not God Himself who is firstborn. In your view, is the term firstborn a reference to God the Father or to the image of God the Father? It's my position that this image, who was the firstborn of God, was a likeness, resemblance to God the Father, not God the Father Himself.

In fairness, do you see a problem with the view that God is the firstborn of all creation?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Sure. As I've said, I've asked the same questions myself.



The image, whoever He is, is identified as the firstborn of God, not God Himself who is firstborn. In your view, is the term firstborn a reference to God the Father or to the image of God the Father? It's my position that this image, who was the firstborn of God, was a likeness, resemblance to God the Father, not God the Father Himself.

In fairness, do you see a problem with the view that God is the firstborn of all creation?

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

Gee...As a Oneness I'd say that too...

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Gee...As a Oneness I'd say that too...

Glad we agree.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

Glad we agree.

Yes...I'm glad you agree with us

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes...I'm glad you agree with us

Lol . I didn't know you were a closet trin.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

All this time I thought you were oneness. Not that it matters.

I agree that this image of God, this firstborn, was Jesus and not God the Father. If Jesus is God though, then God (the Son?) would still be identified as the firstborn of all creation. I don't see scripture supporting the idea that God the Son is the firstborn of all creation. Of God's many attributes and descriptions in scripture, firstborn of all creation isn't one of them, IMO. It is a description of this image of God (the Father) though.

Whether 'firstborn' means the first born, or is a positional reference, makes no difference in recognizing the problem with God being identified with either of those definitions.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

All this time I thought you were oneness. Not that it matters.

I agree that this image of God, this firstborn, was Jesus and not God the Father. If Jesus is God though, then God (the Son?) would still be identified as the firstborn of all creation. I don't see scripture supporting the idea that God the Son is the firstborn of all creation. Of God's many attributes and descriptions in scripture, firstborn of all creation isn't one of them, IMO. It is a description of this image of God (the Father) though.

Whether 'firstborn' means the first born, or is a positional reference, makes no difference in recognizing the problem with God being identified with either of those definitions.

If you take the term FIRSTBORN to mean the preeminent one or as the one above all others and before all others in rank then yes it does for the attributes of God because He is the first, and He is above all others. As I stated earlier there is no other way to interpret the term firstborn (in my opinion) without ending up in pagan ideas.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

If you take the term FIRSTBORN to mean the preeminent one or as the one above all others and before all others in rank then yes it does for the attributes of God because He is the first, and He is above all others. As I stated earlier there is no other way to interpret the term firstborn (in my opinion) without ending up in pagan ideas.

If preeminent one or one above all others and before all others in rank is used for the definition of firstborn, that results in this image is being spoken of in terms which presents a comparison to others who exist like Him. If He is first in rank, then there are others who follow Him in rank in other words. This would result in the image having rank over God the Father, for the firstborn (first in rank) is the image of God, not the God (the Father) which produced the image. If the image is Jesus, and I think we both agree that it is, then Jesus, the Son of God, has preeminence, is first in rank above His God and Father, God the Father.

This would present an insurmountable problem, IMO.