₦airaland Forum

deSika: my friend you are playing the dodge game
Jesus had a physical nature, he also had a spiritual nature
how natures is that.

did you read the part where i said if there is anything like that in the bible. by the way dont let that distract you. i need yu to concur with me that
1. Jesus had 2 natures, a spirit and a man.
2. his spirit nature is similar to God and as such deserves to be called God, inshort he is God

deSika: . The question is did Jesus at any time have a spirit nature. Yes. Did Jesus at anytime have a human nature. YES. How many natures are there. 2

Its sufficient for me that you agree that Jesus is a spirit and that that same Jesus was a man. If Jesus is a spirit and later became a man, how many nature is that. Added to the fact that he did not discard his spirital attributes while being a man but was able to do and say things that are impossible for men. Its too obvious my friend stop denying it.

the bolded part asks why i dont agree with Jesus when he says only his father knows.

Thats dual nature. Dual nature does not mean that he would be invisible while walking as a man. Him becoming a man entails that he would follow the laws governing manhood. Him having dual nature entails that he can do what is impossible for man to do. His not knowing if there is any thing like that in the bible is a part of his human nature.

deSika:
Thats dual nature. Dual nature does not mean that he would be invisible while walking as a man. Him becoming a man entails that he would follow the laws governing manhood. Him having dual nature entails that he can do what is impossible for man to do. His not knowing if there is any thing like that in the bible is a part of his human nature.

deSika: bro for Jesus to have been a spirit and then later become a man. Thats dual nature

for Jesus to have had all the unique abilities he had while been a man. For Jesus to have been able to do somethings that are 'unmanlike' just shows dual nature.

deSika: lol, lady, thats the problem. You are trying to put God in my shoe. I hope you Know that God wont fit into my shoe. Its undersize.

deSika: but you saw the words 'us' and 'our' .

it seems you have a problem with '3'.

But atleast you must agree that there is a 'more than one person' nature about God for him to use the word us. Do you agree

if you agree then we can move forward to identifying the personalities in the us from the bible.

deSika: so can i say that everything that God formed and created is God's son. the earth was also created by God

deSika: ok do you agree then that Jesus has a dual nature. and can be said to be 100% man and 100% spiritual being.
if he is dual natured why then do you argue that Jesus cannot be man and then God at the same time. remember God is a spiritual being. My point is simple. Jesus has the nature of a man and the nature of God. we then have to align scriptures to see that Jesus' spiritual nature is equal to God

Alfa Seltzer: If god is the alpha and the omega. The begining and the end, knows what has passed and what is to come, like it states in the bible, why do people pray and think it will make any difference.

Itsfacts: 1914 cough! cough!! is this the work your governing body ask you to do in nairaland? police man i go pill your skin like xmas chicken i no be benalvino that lets you go with bull sh.it

Itsfacts: Ok you have admitted JW with deceit

Mr anony: Yes it is a person you receive when you receive the Holy Spirit. . . .in the same way you receive a person when you receive Christ.

benalvino: could you kindly stay on topic and no personal attack. you can ignore truthislight he is butt hurt.

Alfa Seltzer: I was indoctrinated into the catholic church, African style. Glory be to Satan for His marvelous deeds in rescuing me.

truthislight: As usual !

Who knows how many more they will turn atheist !

Alfa Seltzer: I became an atheist when I started visiting other churches.

honeychild: You know, one thing I can say with almost 100% confidence - you can never find a former Jehovah's Witness who is now an atheist. I stand to be corrected though.

Alfa Seltzer: Because atheism has a natural barrier.
When you have passed a certain stage in religion, the condition becomes terminal. Not even atheism can cure some religious cancer brain damage.

turnstoner: Those ones are too far gone!

How does one become a JW in the first place

You've got to have ya head .........

honeychild: You know, one thing I can say with almost 100% confidence - you can never find a former Jehovah's Witness who is now an atheist. I stand to be corrected though.

Alfa Seltzer: I became an atheist when I started visiting other churches.

Alfa Seltzer: I was indoctrinated into the catholic church, African style. Glory be to Satan for His marvelous deeds in rescuing me.

benalvino: Jehovah's Witnesses rightly assert that there can only be two types of entities in existence: a Creator and
creatures. Then, following a line of reasoning first made popular in the fourth century A.D. by the heretic Arius, of Alexandria, they presuppose (a priori) that any one being cannot be more than one person, and therefore, that God cannot exist as more than one person. Since Jesus identified God as His Father, another person, Watchtower reasoning declares Jesus Christ cannot be God and must therefore be a creature. To justify their erroneous conclusions the Watchtower resorts to dangerous proof-texting, hoping to win "biblical" support.
One important passage they use is Colossians 1:15; "Who [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" Seen through the Watchtower's presupposition that Christ is a created being, the "firstborn" of this passage means "first created." In other words, Christ was the one first created by Jehovah Nod. It is only after Christ's creation that God made everything else, using Christ as an instrument. This is a very faulty interpretation.
Like me and my friend ijawkid debated on this matter and I think he is not sincere about this topic so I want any one who is reading to give their opinion on what they think and I also urge my friend to rebuttal this if he can.

Understanding the Scripture

Proper understanding of Colossians 1:15 is primarily an issue of context, both literary and historical. One must begin by understanding how words derive and convey meaning. Most words in any language are not isolated, mechanical entities with a singular meaning. They usually have at least two levels of meaning. The first level is the pool of associated meanings that may attach to any given word. For instance, in English the word "love" has a wide variety of meanings that range anywhere from emotional bliss to preference in what one eats. The meaning of, "I love my wife" is quite different from, "I love boile and pounded yam." Consider also such words as "state," "pen," "truth" or "home." Like "love," these words carry multiple nuances of meaning, depending on their usage.

This suggests the second level of the meaning of words, which is the precise meaning determined by context. Many words are somewhat nebulous in meaning until they stand in relationship to other words. When one fills out a job application and comes to the part that asks him what state he lives in, he knows to answer, for example, "Bayelsa," but not "Solid" (a state of matter). or What is your sex, he knows to answer "Male" or "Female," but not if he is gay or if he had sex etc. Words in literary context (i.e. their relationship to words around them) are what deliver meaning.

Naturally, this analysis of word meanings holds true for the scripture as well. Finding truth in God's Word depends on first finding the intention of the inspired author, based upon his word usage and its syntax (relationship to the other words in the context).

The Watchtower(Jehovah witness) neglects this understanding and basis of all language, and opts for what some call an "absurd literalism," which unnecessarily forces literal and singular meanings upon words regardless of context. This drives the meaning of some words to absurdity. Such is the fate of the word "firstborn" in the hands of Watchtower dogma lol he likes calling my doctrine dogma.

Linguistic Context

The argument that "firstborn" means "firstcreated" in Col. 1:15 can seem true when one considers the pool of meaning for the word (although "first offspring" would better reflect the meaning of the Greek word used here: prototokos). "First created" is one of the many, and even more literal meanings of the word. The problem is that the context clearly shows that "first created" was not Paul's intended meaning in Colossians.

Paul uses the same basic word for "all things" in v.16-17 as he used in his expression "every creature" (all creation) in v.15. Syntactically then, Paul says Jesus existed before (v. 17), created (v.16) and sustains (v.17) that set of things of which he is the "first born" (v.15), i.e., the set of "all creation." This agrees with John, who says, "In the beginning was the Word (literal Greek "...was existing the Word." John's use of the imperfect tense shows continuous duration of existence in the past).... All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1,3).

If Paul had meant "first created" when he wrote prototokos, at Col. 1:15, then his following statements make Christ Himself a part of those very things which Paul says Christ created and sustains, and before which He existed. now this is what ijawkid and his entourage wont accept that Jesus created him self and the fact that their bible scholars or the
Watchtower leaders themselves evidently understand this fact and have felt the need to resolve the logical conflict. To justify their position, the Watchtower, in its New World Translation (NWT) of the Scriptures, does violence to the verses that follow. The word "other" is inserted four times, to alter their meaning: "Because by means of him all (other) things were created....he is before all (other) things" etc. (Colossians 1:16, 17, NWT). This is notably different from what the Apostle Paul actually wrote, an "all" inclusive of everything ever created. There is no "other" in v. 16 and 17 in the Greek text, either latent or explicit, and there is no way to justify its insertion. It is scholastic dishonesty.

So then what does prototokos mean if not "first created?" The best way to determine this is to choose from the word's pool of meaning the idea that flows best with what Paul is saying. He uses the word again in v. 18, where he also provides forceful evidence of his intended meaning with the words, "that in all things He might have the preeminence." The literary context shows Paul's usage of prototokos in Colossians 1 refers to Christ's supremacy.

Historical Context

The historical context bears out this conclusion as well. There is a strong association of the firstborn child with preeminence and inheritance in Hebrew culture. The firstborn male inherited a double portion of his father's estate and became the new leader at his father's death (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). His right of primogeniture made him preeminent in his family.

The term gradually came to refer to the one who was the heir and had the right to rule whether or not he was literally the first one born ("first created". The most striking example of this is in the Old Testament from where the idea originally derived. Genesis 41:51-52 says, "And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Mannasseh:...and the name of the second called he Ephraim..." Yet in contrast to this, speaking in Jeremiah God says, "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Evidently, there is more to the term "firstborn" than the first offspring. Israel was also called the firstborn God so as David even though David is not the firstborn or first created.

Additional support is found in the fact that the Greek word prototokos occurs nine times in the New Testament _ ten times if you include the related word for "birthright" (prototokia). Seven of these nine times the word refers to Christ. Out of these seven only two refer to Christ as one who is firstborn in a physically literal sense, and these refer to Him being Mary's firstborn son (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7). Otherwise the use is obviously one of preeminence and cannot refer to some presupposed creation (e.g. Romans 8:29; For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren). The key word to note here is "he might be the firstborn" if he is the firstborn already why is the verse saying he might be the firstborn? can someone explain this to me with JW logic?

(Revelation 1:5). Once this word even refers to believers as belonging to "the church of the firstborn ones" (literal Greek, Hebrews 12:23). Again, the emphasis here is on preeminence and privilege, not order of creation.

The Context for Sharing

how should one respond to Jehovah's Witnesses who attack the deity of Christ? It is most important to keep in mind that sharing the truth with a Jehovah's Witness is not merely proving a case, they have been taught not to think out of the box so it is going to be hard. I have learnt few things from ijawkids doctrine and I always tell him what I learn. but he has never learnt anything from me. so how should one respond to JWs? the only way he can learn about this "Firstborn" wahala is not go the way of grammar and linguistics, but a demonstration of the clear teaching of the scripture, in context. Start with the context of Colossians 1. Show that the word cannot have two different meanings in the same context, and then try to plug in the "first created" meaning into verse eighteen, to read "first created from the dead." This is obviously meaningless, so there must be more to the idea of "firstbornness."

If they still want to defend their ungrounded position, they should read Genesis 41:51-52. then read Jeremiah 31:9. these are the words of God, so am askong, "Did God make a mistake, or is He using 'firstborn' in the sense of 'preeminence'?" Obviously, the latter is true. This coordinates exactly with the context and obviously intended meaning of Paul in Colossians.

Paul spoke in the same manner as God had spoken in the Old Testament, making Christ the Heir of all creation, the One not only by whom, but for whom everything was made (Col. 1:16). He is the head, the ruler, the creator, the preeminent One over all creation. Indeed, the central thrust of Paul's arguement throughout the doctrinal portion of Colossians is the preeminence, superiority and sufficiency of Christ. In no way does he reduce Christ to anything less than Deity. thank you

shdemidemi: You take everything Christ say so literally without thinking deep about the full picture He is painting. He brought the familiarity between himself and God so close that He fulfilled his mission on earth by that. If Christ did not humble himself, you and I would be most miserable today.

shdemidemi: You take everything Christ say so literally without thinking deep about the full picture He is painting.

shdemidemi: You take everything Christ say so literally

DrummaBoy: @truthislight

My brother you are right. I really am new here. That same day I made the comment, Pa Bidam and I were in a debate and he just fall my hand completely. I was like: I just gave this guy the credit. No wonder the modify tab is on each post. I was just dissapointed. We all have our moments...

sureteeboy: God is a Trinity. One can see
PROOF
of the Trinity everywhere in
the universe. The universe
consists of three parts: Time,
Space, and Matter. Time
consists of three parts: Past,
Present, and Future. Space
consists of three parts:
Length, Width, and Height.
Matter consists of three parts:
Energy, Motion, and
Phenomena.There
are three
heavens in 2Cor. 12:2, and
on earth there are three
forms of life: Man,Plant, and
Animal. These forms of life
are found in three places:
Land, Sea, and Air. God is
continually showing us
through His creation that He
is a Trinity.
A perfect example of this is
the sun. The sun has three
kinds of rays: chemical rays,
light rays, and heat rays.
Chemical rays cannot be seen
or felt, but they can be very
powerful.When one receives
a sunburn, it is from the
sun's chemical rays. This is a
type of God the Father. Light
rays are sometimes visible to
the human eye.This is atype
of Jesus Christ, the "light of
the world" (John 8:12) and
the "Sun of
righteousness" (Mal.4:2).Heat
rays are a type of the Holy
Ghost for they bring comfort
to us by warming our bodies,
just as the Holy Ghost, the
Comforter(John1
6:7),brings
comfort to us.
So one can clearly see that
God's word and God's
creation both testify to the
fact that He is a Trinity.

busoye19: "where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever"

I have answered you now. So answer my own Oga Teacher. Is the lake of fire in v10 different from the one in v15

busoye19: You have not answered my question. Is the lake of fire in v10 different from the one in v15

benalvino: you are busy reading magazines instead of bible. if you want to learn read from the start ok... I don't want to explain to you again I have already done that... from the way you understand what I wrote I refuse to continue with you. if you wan to learn about colosians I just posted and article goto https://www.nairaland.com/1318212/firstborn-does-it-mean-first you will learn something.

Logicboy03: He used to greet us before putting forward his respectable comments
Now he is screaming "olodo" and trolling

alexleo: Hell is a pagan word to you even when it is in the bible? Everything you don't like is pagan to you people, why?