₦airaland Forum

Emusan:
You mean the Bible verse was with quote

Lying liar!

achorladey:
I had to laugh with the defense he gave the writer of that their publication. I was like, what is my business with quotation marks? What is Isaiah's concern with quotation marks when inspired to write that account.

Emusan:
That's to tell you it's a deliberate manipulation by the writer of that publication because the writer(s) aware of the implication but thank God they are not the ones in custodian of the Bible manuscripts only God knows the manipulations that would have been done on the scripture just to support their doctrines.

achorladey:
I had to even use their own NWT to reference that account. Then cite their very own commentary on the book of Isaiah just to ensure I am not missing and mixing anything.

Emusan:
They know they are lying against God and His word, reason you do see them perambulating and confused.

He will never call us brothers if we are his children

achorladey:
You are the one saying......




Now....

.

I forgot it is not through Jesus that those he called brothers were created and you are the one differentiating true offspring from fake offspring.



You started from.....



When Isaiah said he has offspring you entered. Offspring in quote despite your religious publications defending why he is called eternal father using that same scripture and others.



Jesus calling humans brothers will indeed be a problem despite your belief that God used him to create humans.

Jozzy4:
The event of Isaiah 53 applies to Jesus days as Human, he has no literal offspring or children. He died single, The reference was spiritual. That is why the initial commentary was wise enough to use quotes

Romans 8:29 said he is the " Firstborn among many brothers "

The term " Firstborn " and Son of God " were frequently applied to him because he was created just like his brother's, The only person excluded from such terms is the Father , the Uncreated one.

The event of Isaiah 53 applies to Jesus days as Human, he has no literal offspring or children. He died single, The reference was spiritual. That is why the initial commentary was wise enough to use quotes

achorladey:
Now
Spiritual what first?

Jozzy4:
Figurative " offspring" . can you Show me Jesus Kids when he was on Earth?

Can you Show me Jesus Kids when he was on Earth

The term " Firstborn " and Son of God " were frequently applied to him because he was created just like his brother's, The only person excluded from such terms is the Father , the Uncreated one.

achorladey:

From spiritual to figurative offspring.
Isaiah 53:10 his offspring with no quote are his kids.

Those he died for and not ashamed to called brothers are not figurative? Are they?

Those 144,000 in the book of revelation your religious organization called Jesus' brothers are they figurative or literal?
He was created just like his brothers yet all other things were created through him or all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Who brought to existence the brothers?

Jozzy4:
When you produce the child Jesus has on earth as a Messiah, we will discuss.

That aside , while God used Jesus to accomplish some things. The Fact remain

Angels = Sons of God [the Father]

Adam = Son of God [the Father ]

Jesus = Son of God [ the Father ]

All of them are brothers because they have the same Father. But what united them all is that they proceed as a Creation from the Father. Hence " Sons " , with Jesus reference to as the " Firstborn among many brothers "

Such a description like firstborn or son was never applied to the Father for one reason. He doesn't have a Father , neither proceeding from anyone

When you produce the child Jesus has on earth as a Messiah, we will discuss.

All of them are brothers because they have the same Father. But what united them all is that they proceed as a Creation from the Father. Hence " Sons " , with Jesus reference to as the " Firstborn among many brothers "

achorladey:
Discussion coming to a halt.....

You have the answer already. Isaiah 53:10 states his offspring. Call it literal or figurative or spiritual.

Who brought to existence the brothers?

Those 144,000 in the book of revelation your religious organization called Jesus' brothers are they figurative or literal? Who didn't bring them into existence figuratively. Who died figuratively for them. Who didn't empty himself figuratively to live as humans and not ashamed to call them brothers.

He was created just like his brothers yet all other things were created through him or all things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

Who brought to existence the brothers? The one that apart from him not even one thing came to existence is not ashamed to call them brothers.

Jozzy4:
Not one single child was attributed to Jesus while on earth. Neither was he even married.



This is like trying to say your Dad is your creator because you were made through him.

Instrument is not creator!

Creator is the source ( 1Cor 8:6 The Father, from whom all things came )

Many can act as instrument to bring further life, but none is the Creator

If Jesus wasn't created like the Father, he won't have such description as " firstborn " and " Son " .

Not one single child was attributed to Jesus while on earth. Neither was he even married.

All of them are brothers because they have the same Father. But what united them all is that they proceed as a Creation from the Father. Hence " Sons " , with Jesus reference to as the " Firstborn among many brothers "

Instrument is not creator

Who brought to existence the brothers? The instrument that apart from it not even one thing came to existence is not ashamed to call them brothers.

The brothers are used in creating the instrument since they are all brothers and sons of God

achorladey:
Here you are......
Jehovah is our father because Jehovah married the heavenly Jerusalem to give birth to Adam.

See it again.....
Who brought to existence the brothers?

Those 144,000 in the book of revelation your religious organization called Jesus' brothers are they figurative or literal? Who didn't bring them into existence figuratively. Who died figuratively for them. Who didn't empty himself figuratively to live as humans and not ashamed to call them brothers.
He was created just like his brothers yet all other things were created through the instruments or all things came into existence through the instrument, and apart from the instrument not even one thing came into existence(brothers)

This.....

VS......

Jozzy4:
Provide Jesus offspring while he was on Earth?



Do you read ?
John 1:3 says " Apart from him" . Exception, because he was created directly by the Father.


He is a " Firstborn among many brothers "

First born means First to be Born .

In that succession. Others follow till today until whoever will be the last born of creation in heaven and earth.

Generically all are " Sons of God "

A united description of all living creatures born by creation.

Provide Jesus offspring while he was on Earth?

Do you read ?
John 1:3 says " Apart from him" . Exception, because he was created directly by the Father.

achorladey:
His offspring in Isaiah 53:10 that he is not ashamed to call brothers is about 144,000 that are figurative. Do you agree?

I have shown you his offspring



The same Bible verse that I had referenced with your instrument repeatedly. Now.....

That Apart from him, exception was not ashamed to call them brothers.

You see it.

Emusan:
Imagine what he was spewing out

If they started talking about FIGURATIVE, SYMBOLISM, PERSONIFICATION, FIGURE OF SPEECH just know they want to start their usual twisting and manipulation of the scripture.

Who decides what is PERSONIFICATION, FIGURE OF SPEECH, SYMBOLISM, OR FIGURATIVE in the Bible?

Sand2022:
Last time I posted about the meaning of Trinity which many obviously don't know. Today, I will be writing about Jesus origin.

My previous belief was that Jesus was a creature. This is because of what I was taught as a JW. The view is that Col 1:15 says that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation. The organization understand that to mean that Jesus was the first person created by God. They also understand the same about Only Begotten. They understand that begotten mean created. That Jesus is the only person directly created by Jehovah. And that after Jesus creation, God used Jesus to create all other things. That is why if you notice in their translation they added "other" in Col 1:16. Their view made them to use "a god" in their translation of John 1:1.

However, as I further went through the scriotures, I realized that the view is lacking. Why?

Why Jesus is not a Creature:

See John 1:1-3 once more.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence."

The bold face phrase shows clearly that Jesus cannot be a creature. Since this verse says that apart from Jesus, NOT even ONE thing came into existence, we only have two option, 1. If Jesus was created, Jesus must be the one who created himself. Why? Because apart from him, nothing was made. 2. He was not created.

The latter conclusion seems plausible.

Secondly, the word "all" that appeared in verse 3 is "panta" which the New World Translation added "other" at Col 1:16. "Other" was not added at John 1:3. Obviously, because it can't fit the rest of the sentence. You cannot add "other" when the verse clearly said that apart from him not even one thing came into existence. It is also noteworthy that if you read col 1:16 in their interlinear, you will notice that "other" is not there showing that "other" was added.

Thirdly, The book of John was written after the book of Colossians. So John must have known what Paul wrote at col 1:15,16 before he wrote that apart from Jesus "not even one thing came into existence". This shows that neither John nor Paul thought that Jesus was part of creation. That phrase at John 1:3 also shows that John didn't mean that Rev 3:14 be understood to mean that Jesus was a creature. John 1:3 was written after the book of Revelation. This means that Col 1:15 doesn't fit the rest of the scriptures if we understand "firstborn" to mean first created. Firstborn can also mean preeminence as in Exod 4:22.

But let's see Col 1:15, 16 ones more.

Let us analyse Colosians chapter 1:15-16 first, then we shall see what this firstborn means.

See col 1:16-17

"because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all (other) things, and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist."

Why can we say that Jesus is not part of the creation?

The bible clearly says that all things created included both things visible and things invisible. This statement includes all created things in heaven. If Jesus was an invisible creature, then he created himself. If that is not plausible, then Jesus was not created. This scripture thus agrees with John 1:3, that not even one thing existed apart from Jesus.

Then why is he called the FIRSTBORN?

We read:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him."

This verse is clearly self explanatory. Notice that verse 16 explains the reason he is the firstborn. It says "BECAUSE by means of him all things were created..." This is self explanatory, he is the firstborn because all things were made by him. Firstborn in this sense means preeminence or Lord of creation. In him were all things created and for him. The same preeminence is pointed out in verse 18.

What about Prov 8:22?

I don't see this verse as a strong evidence of Jesus creation. Wisdom was used here and was seen to be possessed by kings and many others. Now in verse 22, it was said that Jehovah possessed the wisdom. The Hebrew word can be translated possess, purchase or beget. The latter can be found at Gen 4:1 beget a child. The same Hebrew word occured there. Certainly, Jesus is begotten by the Father. Begetal is not the same as created. You create from other materials while you beget your kind, your nature. Man begets a human. It should also be borne in mind that Apostle John knew about Prov 8:22 before he wrote at John 1:3 that"not even one thing came into existence" apart from Jesus. So we cannot take everything in Prov 8:22 as literal.

For example this Proverb appear to say that Jesus came sometime within the creative activity of Jehovah. But John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-17 says Jesus did ALL the creating, while God the Father must have featured in some way, Jesus is said to be the main creator. Not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus. Of course, what Jesus does is often said to be done by God and vice versa because they dwell within themselves. John 14:10. But since God the Father occupy the Headship role, he is often credited with ownership of the work most of the times.

In all this, John 1:3 is both more clear and rules out any supposition that Jesus is a creature. Heb 1:3 even stated that the universe, all creation is sustained by the word of his power. Can a creature sustain creatures? This shows that all things issued from him and he is their sustainer.

But what about Begotten?

Trinitarians agree that Jesus is begotten. Like I said above, He is begotten, not made. What is the subject of discussion is what begotten mean. Some are of the opinion that Jesus was generated by the Father from all eternity. Meaning that there was no time that the Son was not in existence. I personally think that God split Himself in two such that the other half didn't have beginning of experience at life, but have the same nature and experience as the Father. And for the purposes of having other conscious creatures like humans, they took roles, one Father, and the other Son. Then from Father and Son issue the Holy Spirit. The Father playing role of Headship, the Son acting a subordinate role. There are many reasons to reason this way, as I write more on the lofty position of Jesus, this will naturally start to make sense. But for now let's see why we cannot fix a beginning of experience for Jesus.

Let's start with Prov 8:22. When was the Son installed or brought up or begotten?

Prov 8:22-24, identifies it as "the beginning of his ways", earliest of his achievement of long ago", then verse 23 use the word " from". It says " from ancient times.

This might appear to suggest a beginning in time, but not until we understand the meaning of Ancient times. The same Hebrew word is used at at Psalm 93:2. We also see the same word used for Jesus at Micah 5:2. But notice what Psalm 93:2 says.

"Your throne was firmly established long ago; From eternity you have existed."

Notice that the word " from eternity" is used of the Father as well. This cannot make us to think that God the Father started from somewhere in eternity. See again at Hab 1:12

12 Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment.

This is just few of where the same word is used of God. So the word ancient time or when "from" is used, we should not be tempted to think of beginning of existence. At worse beginning of experience.

Some have thought of the word "Son" attached to "begotten", as in, "only begotten Son" to say that for he to be a son, of necessity demands that he have a beginning. We can understand why one will say that, at least that is our own experience as humans, but the nature of God is not flesh. All the analogy we use for God must be borne in mind that it is not all encompassing, there are limitations to our analogies. For example while he is called only begotten Son, he is also called only begotten God at John 1:18. This made many scholars to see the begotten as a way of differentiating the function of the Father from that of the Son. Jesus is also called Everlasting Father at Isaiah 9:6. It is becoming clear that this might be because of roles they undertook from everlasting.

Let us move to other things said about Jesus that shows that he MUST be of the same essence or nature as his Father.

We ll consider that next week Thursday.

Sand2022:
There is of course another option that can be explored even if we exclude the issue of creation about Jesus. As to the fact that he is not created, that is not negotiable. The scripture can't be understood underwise.

The Son is not said to be created, but Begotten. Man begets man. So God beget Jesus, who is of His nature. Now God doesn't give birth nor get pregnant. And the Sons begetal is from eternity. Prov 8.

Many have got different theories about this.

However, some early church fathers have theorized that Jesus was generated from the father through an eternal generation. You will have to notice that they will always add the word "eternal" to the generation. Why? Because there is no other way to say it without seeing some aspect of scriptures fight against you.

Some say the Father divided himself through His Word (Logos). I don't even understand that concept.

My own assumption is that the Father divided himself and called the other Facsimile Son. Perhaps since He initiated the splitting, it explains why He often receives praise most of the times for something done, while the Son shares in it. It may also explain why He took the function of Father and gave the Son to His facsimile. (I will explain the scriptural proof of this Facsimile word choice in my next article)

Perhaps that is why He occupies the role of Head and His Son that of submission.

Others like Prof Wayne Grudem, and Wares have stated that God has always existed that way with these functions in place from eternity.

All these are suppositions, the bible didn't go into such details. What we can be sure is that the Son has been there from eternity past. He was not created.

MaxInDHouse:
Firstborn of humans or of God?

22. (a) How did the “calm, low voice” reassure Elijah that he was far from worthless? (b) Who might have been the source of the “calm, low voice”? (See footnote.)

22 After the fire was gone, a hush fell and Elijah heard “a calm, low voice.” It invited Elijah to express himself again, and he did so, pouring out his concerns a second time*. a Perhaps that brought him further relief. Undoubtedly, though, Elijah found even more comfort in what the “calm, low voice” told him next. Jehovah reassured Elijah that he was far from worthless. How so? God revealed much of his long-range purpose regarding the war against Baal worship in Israel. Clearly, Elijah’s work had not been in vain, for God’s purpose was moving inexorably forward. Furthermore, Elijah still figured in that purpose, for Jehovah sent him back to work with some specific instructions.​—1 Ki. 19:12-17.


*The source of this “calm, low voice” may have been the same spirit who was used to deliver “Jehovah’s word” mentioned at 1 Kings 19:9. In verse 15, this spirit is referred to simply as “Jehovah.” We might be reminded of the spirit emissary whom Jehovah used to guide Israel in the wilderness and of whom God said: “My name is within him.” (Ex. 23:21) We cannot be dogmatic on this point, of course, but it is worth noting that in his prehuman existence, Jesus served as “the Word,” the special Spokesman to Jehovah’s servants.​—John 1:1.

Joshua had good reason to be worried. But he trusted in Jehovah and was quick to follow his instructions. (Joshua 1:9-11) God blessed Joshua for trusting in him and used an angel to guide Joshua and the Israelites. This angel was very likely the Word, God’s firstborn Son.​—Exodus 23:20-23; John 1:1...... Watchtower 2018

10. (a) How does Michael take the lead in fighting in behalf of God’s Kingdom? (b) What role did Michael play in connection with the nation of Israel?

10. The archangel Michael fights in behalf of God’s Kingdom, taking the lead in cleansing the heavens of Satan and his demonic hordes. (Revelation 12:7-10) And the prophet Daniel says that ‘he stands in behalf of God’s people.’ (Daniel 12:1) It appears, therefore, that Michael is “the angel of the true God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel” and that he is the one God used to bring his people into the Promised Land. “Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice,” God commanded. “Do not behave rebelliously against him, . . . because my name is within him.” (Exodus 14:19; 23:20, 21) Without a doubt Jehovah’s archangel must have taken a great interest in God’s typical name people. Most fittingly he came to the aid of another angel that was sent to comfort the prophet Daniel, and who had been waylaid by a powerful demon. (Daniel 10:13) It may therefore be reasonable to conclude that the angel that destroyed Sennacherib’s 185,000 warriors was none other than Michael the archangel.​—Isaiah 37:36....... Watchtower 1991

MightySparrow:


Born of whom?
Why did not other creation explained as being begotten but created?

Who was begotten at Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38 & Hebrew 11:17?

ALL creatures can be begotten.
It is strictly for Father/ parents & son/child relationship.

Oga leave that delusion invented at Nicene.
E get why.

ichuka:
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature a God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature b of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.Phillipians25-11

Verse 6 above proves Jesus equality with God.

ichuka:
Verse 7 says He took the position of a servant, meaning He took the position of a Son and God becomes the Father( they are titles). question is why the title Father and Son?
I believe it has to do with redemption or obedience.
I strongly believe before creation God perceived (or foreknowledge)the disobedience of created beings(angels and man).
And without obedience the universe cannot hold,so God has to find obedience in the universe when He creates it.

Hebrew5:8 says Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.
Meaning in the beginning God don't know how to obey, because there nothing to obey to.
So Jesus learnt obedience in the world.
I perceived that an agreement or arrangements was reach in the Godhead [/b]that Authority by the Father Has to be answered by Obedience in the Son.in so doing obedience was created in the universe.when Jesus said "it's finished" on the cross.meaning redemption has been accomplished by the creation of obedience.
The creation in genesis was completed on the cross of cavalry.

Petalss:
Mr Max, I have been longing to know your interpretation of this verse John 8:58, where Jesus says: "Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'"

achorladey:
@ Sand2022 what is your take on the below as it applies to your topic and the series so far?

Imitate their faith book page 107 paragraph 22........



That spirit called Jehovah is equally.......



That spirit is equally Archangel Michael.





Jehovah >>>>>>>>> Word of God >>>>>>>>>>>>>prehuman Jesus >>>>>>>>>>emissary God used to guide the Israelites in wilderness >>>>>>>>>>Archangel Michael

Comic aspect

Archangel Michael = Pope.

ichuka:
.

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature a God,

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

7rather, he made himself nothing

by taking the very nature b of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

by becoming obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place

and gave him the name that is above every name,

10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,

in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

11and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.Phillipians25-11

Verse 6 above proves Jesus equality with God.
Verse 7 says He took the position of a servant, meaning He took the position of a Son and God becomes the Father( they are titles). question is why the title Father and Son?
I believe it has to do with redemption or obedience.
I strongly believe before creation God perceived (or foreknowledge)the disobedience of created beings(angels and man).
And without obedience the universe cannot hold,so God has to find obedience in the universe when He creates it.

Hebrew5:8 says Even though Jesus was God’s Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.
Meaning in the beginning God don't know how to obey, because there nothing to obey to.
So Jesus learnt obedience in the world.
I perceived that an agreement or arrangements was reach in the Godhead that Authority by the Father Has to be answered by Obedience in the Son.in so doing obedience was created in the universe.when Jesus said "it's finished" on the cross.meaning redemption has been accomplished by the creation of obedience.
The creation in genesis was completed on the cross of cavalry.

Sand2022:
Yes the organization has long suspected that Jesus was that Jehovah that kept coming as the Nagel of Jehovah in the Old Testament.

However I know why I stopped at Josh 5 as evidence. There he appeared as the Commander of Jehovah's Army, and He was worshipped in a way that one cannot deny that this was in fact a worship. The command to remove his sandals changed the setting. This is no longer ordinary bow of respect. Joshua would have known that this is different had his initial bow been that of respect.

Janosky:
The word "Godhead" is a dubious invention of Trinitarians, not found in any Greek manuscripts.

Greek Theiotes meaning "divine nature" is NOT Godhead.

The only God , that is the ONLY True God (John 5:44 & John 17:3) not get 3 heads nor 3 distinct persons,as FALSELY claimed by Trinitarians.

Emusan:
Without wisdom and understanding couple with disjointed and incoherent sentences despite years of schooling him on Nairaland.

Mr continue to deceive yourself, hear again.

The term FIRSTBORN AS USED BY APOSTLE PAUL was explicitly explained by the same Paul in the same Col 1:18.

Jesus was not the FIRST person the scripture will use the term FIRSTBORN for in regard to POSITION/RANK

Not only that, the reason Jesus must be FIRSTBORN (PREEMINENCE - the actual meaning of that word is because Jesus MUST BE FIRST IN ALL THINGS.

If Jesus is the FIRST CREATED (the term scripture never used for Him) then there's no NEED FOR HIM TO BE PREEMINENCE OVER ALL THINGS again

DLNT: "And He Himself is the head of the body, the church. ... Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that He Himself might come-to-be holding-first-place in all things"

GW: "He is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, the first to come back to life so that he would have first place in everything."

MOUNCE: "And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, in order that he might be preeminent in everything."

This verse alone proved that Jesus was never part of Creation but when He became part of Creation, He then MUST TAKE FIRSTBORN (SUPREMACY) in ALL THINGS.

I've rehearsed this several times to you people's dull skull.

Even AI understood it and interpret it that way.

Look at how AI explained the verse below.
See that it gave two meanings to the phrase "FIRSTBORN of every creature" but the part that you people always cling to, it inserted Col 1:16-17 to shows that meaning isn't applicable to the writers mind.

The issue with you people is lack of simple comprehension crowned with polluted doctrine.

Emusan:
But you won't see the word "OTHER" inserted by Watchtower in Col 1:16-18 as dubious as it was never found in ANY GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.

Hypocrite!!!

Emusan your post:
"Jesus is the first born in the sense of being the first to be born or created. He is the beginning of creation"

Is enough evidence that "OTHER " @ Colossians 1:16 is very good and very correct.

Oga,Come & Continue WAILING.

MightySparrow:
Nice one.
I once asked the JWs' what material did God use to create Jesus ' none has been able to answer.

maximumSide
January
other JWs