₦airaland Forum

plesion:
I generally agree with many things of what you say, but I would add the following.

Considering that there is only one God, not three, and that God Himself who came into the world and glorified His Human, then our Lord Jesus Christ is that God in His Divine Human, thus both God and Man, or, in other words, in the Lord - God is Man, and Man is God.

So, in the Lord the Father and the Son are so completely one, that they make a one Divine Person. In that sense, we can speak of knowing how God/the Infinite/Invisible Divine in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Visible Divine, thus showing God Invisible.

So, in that sense, the Lord is Jehovah Himself, who sends the Holy Spirit (consider how he sent the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing upon them).

Here are a few quotations, illustrating those issues:

" 18. CHAPTER V.

THE HUMAN OF THE LORD JEHOVAH IS "THE SON OF GOD SENT INTO THE WORLD."

1. Jehovah God sent Himself into the world whereby He assumed the Human.

2. This Human, conceived from Jehovah God, is called "the Son of God, which was sent into the world."

3. This Human is called "the Son of God," and "the Son of Man"; "the Son of God," from the Divine Truth and the Divine Good in Him, which is the Word; and "the Son of Man," from the Divine Truth and the Divine Good from Him, which is the doctrine of the church from the Word.

4. No other Son of God is meant in the Word, but He who was born in the world.
... (Canons of the New Church)

Another one:

" 149. By "the Son of God" is signified the Divine truth, because by "sons" in the Word are signified truths; "the Son of God" therefore means the Divine truth. Hence by "the Son of God from eternity" is meant the proceeding Divine which is called the Divine truth, and from which is heaven; and hence, likewise, the Lord in the world was the Divine truth, which afterwards proceeded from Him. Thence it is that they are called "sons of God" who are recipients of the Divine truth.
150. The Lord was conceived of the Divine Itself, and was afterwards born of that; for what was born of Mary, this the Lord from His own Divine expelled; thence He assumed a Human corresponding to the Divine; thus He united the Divine, which means that the Divine took to Itself the Human. Hence it is that He was not only conceived but was also born of Jehovah, according to what is written in Psalm 2:1, 2, 6. It is also said:
I will tell the decree; Jehovah hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee (Ps. 2:7);
and hence it is that He is the Son of God." ("On the Athanasian Creed" by Em. Swedenborg)

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
Yes, I will answer directly.

No, Revelation 3:14 does not teach that Jesus is a creature.

And no, Revelation 3:14 by itself is not a standalone statement saying, "Jesus is the Creator" in the sense that the entire doctrine rests on that one verse alone.

What it does teach is that Jesus is "the arche of the creation of God." The dispute is over what "arche" means in that context.

You have assumed that "arche" must mean "the first thing created." But that is the very point that must be proven, not assumed.

If John intended "first creature," there were clearer Greek expressions available to communicate that idea. Instead, he chose "arche," a word that can mean beginning, origin, source, first cause, or ruler depending on context.

Now here is the critical issue:

Whatever meaning you assign to Revelation 3:14 must harmonize with the rest of John's writings.

John 1:3 says:

"All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

That leaves only two possibilities:

Either Christ belongs to the category of things that were made, or He does not.

If He belongs to that category, then John 1:3 creates a contradiction because Christ would have had to make Himself.

If He does not belong to that category, then Revelation 3:14 cannot mean He is the first creature.

Therefore, the interpretation of Revelation 3:14 that best fits John's own theology is that Christ is the origin, source, or sovereign beginning of God's creation, not the first item within creation.

Notice also that Revelation was written by the same apostle who recorded:

"In the beginning was the Word."

Not "came into existence."

Not "was created."

But "was."

John deliberately distinguishes between the eternal existence of the Word and the coming into existence of created things.

So the real question is not whether Revelation 3:14 contains the word "arche." Everyone agrees that it does.

The real question is whether your interpretation of "arche" can coexist with John 1:1, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 to 17, Hebrews 1:2, and the rest of the New Testament witness.

That is where the "first creature" interpretation encounters its greatest difficulty.

A doctrine is not established by isolating one possible meaning of one word. It is established by reading that word in harmony with the entire testimony of Scripture.

Truthseeker10:
Ok....explain colossians 1:15.

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
Gladly.

Colossians 1:15 says:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

The question is: What does "firstborn" mean?

You assume it means "first creature created."

But Paul does not stop at verse 15. He explains his meaning in verses 16 and 17.

"For by Him all things were created... all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Notice Paul's argument:

1. Christ is the firstborn of all creation.
2. Because by Him all things were created.
3. Because all things were created through Him and for Him.
4. Because He is before all things.

The word "for" (because) is important. Verse 16 explains verse 15.

Paul does not say Christ is firstborn because He was the first thing created.

Paul says Christ is firstborn because He is the Creator, Owner, Heir, and Sustainer of creation.

In Scripture, "firstborn" often refers to rank and inheritance, not birth order.

For example, GOD says of David:

"I will make him My firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27)

David was not the first king.

David was not even the first son in his family.

Yet GOD called him "firstborn" because of supremacy and royal status.

Likewise, Israel is called GOD'S "firstborn" nation (Exodus 4:22), even though many nations existed before Israel.

Therefore, "firstborn" can mean preeminent one, heir, supreme one, or one holding the highest rank.

Now consider the alternative interpretation.

If "firstborn of all creation" means Jesus is the first creature, then Paul immediately creates a problem in the next verse:

"For by Him all things were created."

Did Jesus create Himself?

If He is a creature, He belongs to the category of created things.

But Paul says all created things came into existence through Him.

That would mean Christ somehow existed before He existed in order to create Himself.

The logic collapses.

Furthermore, Paul deliberately includes every category:

"Whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers."

He is sweeping the entire created order into one category and placing Christ outside that category as the One through whom it came into existence.

Therefore, Colossians 1:15 does not teach that Jesus is the first creature.

It teaches that Jesus is the supreme heir, Lord, and preeminent One over all creation.

Paul's own explanation in verses 16 and 17 tells us exactly why Christ is called "firstborn": because all things were created through Him, for Him, and are sustained by Him.

That is not the description of a creature.

That is the description of the One who stands above creation as its source, sustainer, and rightful heir.

Truthseeker10:
Below is your logic in bold.

Paul says Christ is firstborn because He is the Creator, Owner, Heir, and Sustainer of creation.


Therefore, "firstborn" can mean preeminent one, heir, supreme one, or one holding the highest rank.



Can the Father be referred to as "Firstborn" using your logic above?

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
No, and that question actually exposes a category error in your argument.

The issue is not whether "firstborn" means supreme, heir, or preeminent. The issue is to whom the title is being applied and why.

The Father is never called "firstborn" because the title itself is relational. A firstborn is firstborn in relation to others. The Father is never presented as the heir of creation, the firstborn among many brothers, or the firstborn from the dead. Those roles belong specifically to the Son.

In Scripture, Christ is called:

"Firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15)

"Firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18)

"Firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29)

Notice the pattern. The title is consistently connected to Christ's position relative to others.

The Father is not "firstborn from the dead" because He did not become incarnate and rise from the dead.

The Father is not "firstborn among many brethren" because believers are never described as the Father's brethren.

The Father is not "firstborn of creation" because creation is not presented as His inheritance in the same covenantal and Messianic sense that it is presented as the Son's inheritance.

Therefore, asking whether the Father can be called "firstborn" misses Paul's point entirely.

More importantly, your question does not advance the claim that Christ is a creature.

Even if I granted for the sake of argument that the Father is never called firstborn, that would not prove that "firstborn" means "first creature."

You still have to explain why Paul immediately follows the title with:

"For by Him all things were created."

You still have to explain why Paul says:

"All things were created through Him and for Him."

You still have to explain why Paul says:

"He is before all things."

And you still have to explain why Paul says:

"In Him all things hold together."

The real problem is that your interpretation focuses on one title while ignoring Paul's explanation of that title.

Paul does not say:

"He is the firstborn of creation because He was the first thing God made."

Paul says:

"He is the firstborn of creation because all things were created through Him, for Him, and are sustained by Him."

That is Paul's argument, not mine.

The burden is therefore not on me to explain why the Father is not called firstborn.

The burden is on you to explain how someone who created all things, existed before all things, and sustains all things can simultaneously be part of the class of created things.

That is the question your position still has not answered.

Truthseeker10:
The bolded below are not my words they are actually your words in your earlier submission so don't push them to me. Your words are the ones in bold below.

Paul says Christ is firstborn because He is the Creator, Owner, Heir, and Sustainer of creation.


Therefore, "firstborn" can mean preeminent one, heir, supreme one, or one holding the highest rank.

In the above words you claim that Paul called Christ "firstborn of creation" because he is the creator. Following your logic, is the father not the creator and why is he not "firstborn"?....answer in simple sentences I'm not a fan of long epistles.

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
Fair point. Let me answer directly and precisely.

No, the Father is not called "firstborn."

Why?

Because "firstborn" is not simply a title for a creator. If it were, the Father would indeed be called firstborn.

Rather, it is a Messianic title given to the Son in His relationship to creation, redemption, and inheritance.

My point was not that "creator" automatically means "firstborn."

My point was that Paul explains Christ's firstborn status by describing His supremacy over creation:

"for by Him all things were created."

In other words, Christ is called firstborn because He stands above creation, not because He is the first creature within it.

Now let me ask a simple question in return:

If "firstborn of creation" means "first creature," why does Paul immediately say:

"for by Him all things were created"?

How can Christ be part of the created class if all created things came into existence through Him?

That is the issue you still need to answer.

The debate is not whether the Father is called firstborn.

The debate is whether Paul intended "firstborn" to mean "first creature."

The next two verses strongly suggest he did not.

plesion:
I[i] generally agree with many things of what you say, but I would add the following.

Considering that there is only one God, not three, and that God Himself who came into the world and glorified His Human, then our Lord Jesus Christ is that God in His Divine Human, thus both God and Man, or, in other words, in the Lord - God is Man, and Man is God.

So, in the Lord the Father and the Son are so completely one, that they make a one Divine Person[/i].
In that sense, we can speak of knowing how God/the Infinite/Invisible Divine in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Visible Divine, thus showing God Invisible.

So, in that sense, the Lord is Jehovah Himself, who sends the Holy Spirit (consider how he sent the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing upon them).

Here are a few quotations, illustrating those issues:

" 18. CHAPTER V.

THE HUMAN OF THE LORD JEHOVAH IS "THE SON OF GOD SENT INTO THE WORLD."

1. Jehovah God sent Himself into the world whereby He assumed the Human.

2. This Human, conceived from Jehovah God, is called "the Son of God, which was sent into the world."

3. This Human is called "the Son of God," and "the Son of Man"; "the Son of God," from the Divine Truth and the Divine Good in Him, which is the Word; and "the Son of Man," from the Divine Truth and the Divine Good from Him, which is the doctrine of the church from the Word.

4. No other Son of God is meant in the Word, but He who was born in the world.
... (Canons of the New Church)

Another one:

" 149. By "the Son of God" is signified the Divine truth, because by "sons" in the Word are signified truths; "the Son of God" therefore means the Divine truth. Hence by "the Son of God from eternity" is meant the proceeding Divine which is called the Divine truth, and from which is heaven; and hence, likewise, the Lord in the world was the Divine truth, which afterwards proceeded from Him. Thence it is that they are called "sons of God" who are recipients of the Divine truth.
150. The Lord was conceived of the Divine Itself, and was afterwards born of that; for what was born of Mary, this the Lord from His own Divine expelled; thence He assumed a Human corresponding to the Divine; thus He united the Divine, which means that the Divine took to Itself the Human. Hence it is that He was not only conceived but was also born of Jehovah, according to what is written in Psalm 2:1, 2, 6. It is also said:
I will tell the decree; Jehovah hath said unto Me, Thou art My Son; this day have I begotten Thee (Ps. 2:7);
and hence it is that He is the Son of God." ("On the Athanasian Creed" by Em. Swedenborg)

Janosky:
Jesus said your claim is not true.
John 5:37, Jesus said God his Father never came to the earth , no one has seen God's form, no one has heard God's voice."

John 5:43 "Jesus came in the name of his Father ,Yahweh.

Father means SENIOR,Elder,Ancestor.
God is the SENIOR of every other being,Ephesians 4:6.
Stop deceiving yourself thinking they are the same person in heaven.
Psalm 110:1-2 is in your Bible.

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
Fair point. Let me answer directly and precisely.

No, the Father is not called "firstborn."

Why?

Because "firstborn" is not simply a title for a creator. If it were, the Father would indeed be called firstborn.

Rather, it is a Messianic title given to the Son in His relationship to creation, redemption, and inheritance.

My point was not that "creator" automatically means "firstborn."

My point was that Paul explains Christ's firstborn status by describing His supremacy over creation:

"for by Him all things were created."

In other words, Christ is called firstborn because He stands above creation, not because He is the first creature within it.

Now let me ask a simple question in return:

If "firstborn of creation" means "first creature," why does Paul immediately say:

"for by Him all things were created"?

How can Christ be part of the created class if all created things came into existence through Him?

That is the issue you still need to answer.

The debate is not whether the Father is called firstborn.

The debate is whether Paul intended "firstborn" to mean "first creature."

The next two verses strongly suggest he did not.

Truthseeker10:
PSTKYLIFELIGHT you avoided my question again. Please answer

Below in your statement in bold, you claimed the following:

"Paul says Christ is firstborn because He is the Creator, Owner, Heir, and Sustainer of creation.
"

Are you now denying what you claimed that Paul said above in colossians 1:15, 16?

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
No, I am not denying it.

My point remains the same: Paul explains Christ's "firstborn" status in verses 16 and 17 by describing His relationship to creation.

I did not say "creator" is the definition of "firstborn."

I said Paul grounds Christ's firstborn status in the fact that all things were created through Him, for Him, and are sustained by Him.

The question you still have not answered is simple:

If "firstborn of creation" means "first creature," how can Paul immediately say that all things were created through Him?

That is the tension your interpretation must resolve.

Truthseeker10:
Are you trying to be cunning? I have the evidence that You claimed that the reason why Paul called Jesus "firstborn" in colossians 1:15 is embedded in the next verse which is verse 16. And you went to say that: "Paul says Christ is firstborn because He is the Creator, Owner, Heir, and Sustainer of creation.".

Now in a short sentence, why can we not say the father is "firstborn" for the same reason that you gave that Paul called the son "firstborn" according to colossians 1:15, 16?

Janosky:
Paul is not diminishing CHRIST. He is describing the relationship between the Father and the Son in the work of creation.

Simply claiming that it cannot is not an argument.

Oga, looking at Romans 11:35-36 & 1 Corinthians 8:6, John 17:7, Father means SENIOR in the bible.
"One God the SENIOR from whom are ALL things."
Other Bible versions reads "One God the Father the Creator of ALL Things."
Did Apostle Paul or John exclude Jesus from All things ?


Another question ;
According to Paul,did Jesus come from the Father or come through the Father?
The truth is there in your Bible.

Janosky:
Jesus said your claim is not true.
John 5:37, Jesus said God his Father never came to the earth , no one has seen God's form, no one has heard God's voice."

John 5:43 "Jesus came in the name of his Father ,Yahweh.

Father means SENIOR,Elder,Ancestor.
God is the SENIOR of every other being,Ephesians 4:6.
Stop deceiving yourself thinking they are the same person in heaven.
Psalm 110:1-2 is in your Bible.

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
I have been the only one answering, it's time you all answer my questions.....

Key Questions to Challenge the Interpretation of Colossians 1:15–17 and Revelation 3:14

1. If Christ is “firstborn of creation” as “first creature,” how can all things be created through Him?

2. Did Christ create Himself, or is He outside the category of created things?

3. If Christ is part of creation, how can He be the agent of creation for all things?

4. Where does Scripture explicitly define “firstborn” as “first created being”?

5. Why is Israel called God’s “firstborn” (Exodus 4:22) without meaning “first created”?

6. Why is Christ called “firstborn from the dead” (Colossians 1:18) if it means biological birth order?

7. How can a created being sustain all things (Colossians 1:17)?

8. Can something created be the source and sustainer of all creation?

9. If Revelation 3:14 means “first created,” how does that fit with John 1:3 stating all things were made through Him?

10. Why does the New Testament never explicitly say “the Son was created”?

11. If the Father is Creator, why is He never called “firstborn of creation”?

12. Does “firstborn” in Scripture function only as birth order, or also as rank and supremacy?

13. Why is Christ worshiped alongside the Father if He is part of creation (Revelation 5:13–14)?

14. How can Christ be both “before all things” and simultaneously part of “all things”?

Janosky:
Jesus said your claim is not true.
John 5:37, Jesus said God his Father never came to the earth , no one has seen God's form, no one has heard God's voice."

John 5:43 "Jesus came in the name of his Father ,Yahweh.

Father means SENIOR,Elder,Ancestor.
God is the SENIOR of every other being,Ephesians 4:6.
Stop deceiving yourself thinking they are the same person in heaven.
Psalm 110:1-2 is in your Bible.

plesion:
There are ways to think of God according to the letter alone, without the spirit, and there is a way to think of it not from the letter alone, but also from the spirit.

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
Thank you for your contribution. I agree that there is only one true God. However, I do not believe the conclusions you have presented accurately reflect the full testimony of Scripture.
....
The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Holy Spirit is God.

Yet there is one God.

That mystery is not a contradiction invented by theologians. It arises from the totality of the biblical witness itself.

plesion:
There are ways to think of God according to the letter alone, without the spirit, and htere is a way to think of it not from the letter alone, but also from the spirit.

If from a letter alone, then there is one God who sends another God, and then two of those send the third One. So, in thinking, though not in the expression, there is then the idea of the three Gods.

Though as we know there is only one God.

So, then we have not only to read the letter, but also attempt to understand it so that our understanding may agree with both the Word and the sound reason.

In that sense, God Himself, as He is in Himself, or the Infinite, technically cannot come on earth, for then He would either destroy it completely, for then there is no accomodation. And yet we are told in the Old Testament constantly that Jehovah would come to deliver his people.

And thus He comes, but comes in the way that allows to carry out his mission. Thus, He assumes the Human, which is concevied and born of Him.

For those who are interested here is a more detailed explanation:

" 84. God could not have redeemed people, that is, rescued them from damnation and hell, without first taking on a human manifestation. There are many reasons for this; they will be disclosed step by step in what follows. Redemption was a matter of gaining control of the hells, restructuring the heavens, and then establishing a church. Despite his omnipotence, God could not accomplish these things except through his human manifestation, as one cannot do work without arms. In fact, in the Word his human manifestation is called the arm of Jehovah (Isaiah 40:10; 53:1). By analogy, one cannot attack a fortified city and destroy the temples of idols there without powerful means.
The Word as well makes it clear that having a human manifestation gave God the omnipotence to do this divine work. God is in the inmost and purest realms. There was no other way he could cross over to the lowest levels where the hells exist and where people were at that time, just as a soul cannot do anything without a body. By analogy, there is no way to overpower enemies who are not in sight and whom we cannot get close to with weapons such as spears, shields, or guns.
To redeem people without a human manifestation would have been as impossible for God as it would be for someone [outside India] to take control of people in India without sending in troops on ships. It would be as impossible as growing trees on heat and light alone if air had not been created as a medium through which they travel and earth had not been created in which the trees could grow. In fact, it would be as impossible as catching fish by throwing a net in the air and not in the water.
Given Jehovah's inherent nature, despite his omnipotence he could not touch any individual devils in hell or any individual devils on earth and control them or their rage or tame their violence unless he could be as present in the farthest realms as he is in those closest to him. In his human manifestation he is in fact present in the farthest realms. This is why the Word refers to him as the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End [Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13]." (True Christian Religion).

" 125. That Jehovah God could have entered upon and have accomplished such a work only by means of His Human may be illustrated by various comparisons; as, that one who is invisible cannot shake hands or converse with another until he becomes visible; thus an angel or spirit could have no interaction with a man, even if standing close to his body and before his face. Neither can anyone's soul converse with another or act with another except by means of his body. The sun with its light and heat can enter into man, beast, or tree only by first entering the air and operating through it; or can enter into a fish only by means of the water, since it must act through that element in which the subject resides. No one can scale a fish without a knife, or pluck a crow without fingers; or descend to the bottom of a lake without a diving-bell; in a word, anyone thing must be adapted to another before it can communicate with it or operate with it or against it."

When that mission was accomplished, and the Human was made Divine, the Lord God Jesus Christ is not a God, which is separate from Jehovah God, and the more so it is not those two separate Gods send the third One.

But as it is said: "I and the Father are One". "The one who sees me sees the Father". So, when the Human became Divine, Jehohav God is then seen in the Glorified Human of His Own, and so when we approach the Lord, we approach at the same time the Jehovah in Him, as the Soul int the Body of its own, with that specification, that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is both Divine and Human, and they make one, the Divine Human.

Emusan:
If Bible has not explicitly put Jesus outside the Creation only God knows how perverted you people would've made His word to be.

The scripture says ALL THINGS ARE FROM THE FATHER and THE SAME ALL THINGS are through Jesus.

But you have to accept the Father own but stylishly put Jesus own aside.

Is it the same ALL THINGS FROM FATHER THAT ARE THROUGH THE SON or the ALL THINGS through the Son is different?

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
The problem with your position is that it explains away distinctions that Scripture consistently preserves.

During the incarnation, the Son prayed to the Father.

After the resurrection, the Son sat at the Father's right hand...

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
You keep asking and asking, yet you deliberately have refused to answer any of my questions......


If "firstborn of creation" means "first creature," how can Paul immediately say that all things were created through Him?

That is the tension your interpretation must resolve.

plesion:
There are ways to think of God according to the letter alone, without the spirit, and htere is a way to think of it not from the letter alone, but also from the spirit.

If from a letter alone, then there is one God who sends another God, and then two of those send the third One. So, in thinking, though not in the expression, there is then the idea of the three Gods.

Though as we know there is only one God.

So, then we have not only to read the letter, but also attempt to understand it so that our understanding may agree with both the Word and the sound reason.

In that sense, God Himself, as He is in Himself, or the Infinite, technically cannot come on earth, for then He would either destroy it completely, for then there is no accomodation. And yet we are told in the Old Testament constantly that Jehovah would come to deliver his people.

And thus He comes, but comes in the way that allows to carry out his mission. Thus, He assumes the Human, which is concevied and born of Him.

For those who are interested here is a more detailed explanation:

" 84. God could not have redeemed people, that is, rescued them from damnation and hell, without first taking on a human manifestation. There are many reasons for this; they will be disclosed step by step in what follows. Redemption was a matter of gaining control of the hells, restructuring the heavens, and then establishing a church. Despite his omnipotence, God could not accomplish these things except through his human manifestation, as one cannot do work without arms. In fact, in the Word his human manifestation is called the arm of Jehovah (Isaiah 40:10; 53:1). By analogy, one cannot attack a fortified city and destroy the temples of idols there without powerful means.
The Word as well makes it clear that having a human manifestation gave God the omnipotence to do this divine work. God is in the inmost and purest realms. There was no other way he could cross over to the lowest levels where the hells exist and where people were at that time, just as a soul cannot do anything without a body. By analogy, there is no way to overpower enemies who are not in sight and whom we cannot get close to with weapons such as spears, shields, or guns.
To redeem people without a human manifestation would have been as impossible for God as it would be for someone [outside India] to take control of people in India without sending in troops on ships. It would be as impossible as growing trees on heat and light alone if air had not been created as a medium through which they travel and earth had not been created in which the trees could grow. In fact, it would be as impossible as catching fish by throwing a net in the air and not in the water.
Given Jehovah's inherent nature, despite his omnipotence he could not touch any individual devils in hell or any individual devils on earth and control them or their rage or tame their violence unless he could be as present in the farthest realms as he is in those closest to him. In his human manifestation he is in fact present in the farthest realms. This is why the Word refers to him as the First and the Last, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End [Revelation 1:8, 11; 21:6; 22:13]." (True Christian Religion).

" 125. That Jehovah God could have entered upon and have accomplished such a work only by means of His Human may be illustrated by various comparisons; as, that one who is invisible cannot shake hands or converse with another until he becomes visible; thus an angel or spirit could have no interaction with a man, even if standing close to his body and before his face. Neither can anyone's soul converse with another or act with another except by means of his body. The sun with its light and heat can enter into man, beast, or tree only by first entering the air and operating through it; or can enter into a fish only by means of the water, since it must act through that element in which the subject resides. No one can scale a fish without a knife, or pluck a crow without fingers; or descend to the bottom of a lake without a diving-bell; in a word, anyone thing must be adapted to another before it can communicate with it or operate with it or against it."

When that mission was accomplished, and the Human was made Divine, the Lord God Jesus Christ is not a God, which is separate from Jehovah God, and the more so it is not those two separate Gods send the third One.

But as it is said: "I and the Father are One". "The one who sees me sees the Father". So, when the Human became Divine, Jehohav God is then seen in the Glorified Human of His Own, and so when we approach the Lord, we approach at the same time the Jehovah in Him, as the Soul int the Body of its own, with that specification, that in the Lord Jesus Christ there is both Divine and Human, and they make one, the Divine Human.

PSTKYLIFELIGHT:
The question is whether Christ belongs to the category called "all things" or whether He is the One through whom "all things" came into existence.

Paul's wording points to the latter, not the former.

Truthseeker10:
So it was Jehovah who is the father that was inside the body of the person that was Jesus on earth?

plesion:
Somewhat more correctly: it was the internal (man) of the Lord, thus it was also within both his body and the exteriors of his mind (at least, how I understand it)

"The Lord was indeed born as are other men, but it is known that he who is born a man derives what is his from both the father and the mother, and that he has his inmost from the father, but his exteriors (that is, the things which clothe this inmost) from the mother. Both that which he derives from the father, and that which he derives from the mother, are defiled with hereditary evil. But it was different with the Lord: that which He derived from the mother in like manner had in it an heredity such as is that of any other man; but that which He derived from the Father, who was Jehovah, was Divine. For this reason the Lord's internal man was not like the internal of another man; for His inmost was Jehovah. This is therefore the intermediate which is called the celestial of the spiritual from the rational. But concerning this, of the Lord's Divine mercy more will be said in the following pages." (from Arcana Coelestia #4963)

Truthseeker10:
If you can show me where I claimed in our discussion that "firstborn of creation" means "first creature", I will answer you.

Now answer me without you trying to be cunning. I have the evidence that You claimed that the reason why Paul called Jesus "firstborn" in colossians 1:15 is embedded in the next verse which is verse 16. And you went to say that: "Paul says Christ is firstborn because He is the Creator, Owner, Heir, and Sustainer of creation.".

Now in a short sentence, why can we not say the father is "firstborn" for the same reason that you gave that Paul called the son "firstborn" according to colossians 1:15, 16?

Emusan:
Sure everything you wrote is what the scripture says.

Scripture says ALL THINGS come through Jesus, definitely Jesus can't be among ALL THINGS. Only a dishonest person will put Jesus among ALL THINGS again.

If fact, scripture explicitly says WITHOUT JESUS NOTHING WAS MADE. John 1:3

Well, let's see if your questions will be aptly answers by them.