Christ as the firstborn

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
You know what Vengle? Not so fast. Since you've made such a claim, then why don't you go ahead and explain how the Greek text supports your anti-trinitarian position. I'm all ears. Then it's my turn.

I said I was fine with it translated as it is. I explained it and you refused it.

I then later told you about what you claim to be able to show in the translation, "You can show me anything you want ..."

I doubt it will be new to me as I have been very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis. But that does not mean I will not take a look at what you have to show me.

So stop trying to turn the picture here. i told you I was fine with the way the KJV translates it. Do you have some different way of translating it? I know you said that Moffat's translation was not it. Or do you have some made up story about the Greek grammar itself? i have heard a few but they are totally without any credible support.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
Nomad,

I perceive your eagerness to impart Trinitarian Christology, as ever increasing. I have just concluded a debate with an extremely well mannered Catholic Minister who sadly stumbled on the nature of Christ.

If you wish to establish a thread by all means begin.

However, please be mindful I have a very young family of four children and with regular speaking appointments my threads may stall from time to time. I am sure Vengle and others may pick up the slack.

Insight
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nomad,

I perceive your eagerness to impart Trinitarian Christology, as ever increasing. I have just concluded a debate with an extremely well mannered Catholic Minister who sadly stumbled on the nature of Christ.

If you wish to establish a thread by all means begin.

However, please be mindful I have a very young family of four children and with regular speaking appointments my threads may stall from time to time. I am sure Vengle and others may pick up the slack.

Insight

No, Insight. I'm talking about a formally structured,moderated debate within a closed thread. It will be visible to all, but only you and I will be able to post. This will facilitate focus. You will actually have to deal with what I present instead of slipping around it.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I doubt it will be new to me as I have been very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis.

Great. Then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to explain how the Greek text supports your anti-trinitarian position. I've never run into an anti-Trinitarian that is fine with the way most English Bibles translate John 1:1. It's counter-intuitive to the core. This should be interesting. I'm expecially interested in your explanation of why "theos" is anarthrous within the predicate nominative at the end of the verse. I'm all ears.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
Yes Nomad, you are right about the general agreement of John 1:1 and also John 20:28. Of course John 1:1 is a theological consideration rather than a grammatical exercise that you are proposing. Jesus’ name appears nowhere in the verse. Further to this one must force the same eisegesis for "God the Son" as "Son of God" to prove otherwise.

I am left thinking why would you be so eager to draw Vengle into a verse of straw?

Would you not take him to John 20:28 which in my view is unquestioningly clear! This reference of Theos made toward Jesus cannot be disputed.

Insight
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Besides, I said that I accept it as it is translated. :lol: I merely see that does not require it to mean what they say. It is not translation that is at issue. It seems clear to me they just can't think of anything else to do so they are trying random approaches. Anything but thinking about what I say it means. :lol:


“eimi” is always emphatic, which merely means it is a way of saying this did occur. It is a word one would have used when they wanted to make the point that what they were saying “was the case” is not open to be challenged. Thus Jesus said, “I am from before Abraham was.” In other words, “It is definitely true when I tell you that I am from before Abraham was."

Therefore the Pharisees used “eimi” at places like John 19: 21 when they said of Jesus, “He said I am king of the Jews.”

That is the effect of “eimi” always being used in the emphatic. The Pharisees were in effect saying that Jesus did not care as to their opinion but had deemed himself their king.

“eimi is also a defective verb. That merely means it has some limitation, and thus it does mean “I am” whether we use the word of the past or the present. Those limitations are only about how it can be stated and used in a sentence. However the idea that this infers eternal existence is ludicrous. It does no such thing. It is no different than me saying, “I am before my child was”, or “Before my child was I am [from]” if we do not care to fully exegesis it then we could state it as I did that last quote..

It is used in that same exact way by Jesus there at John.

We see that in the Pharisees being able to use the word in the present tense and Jesus having used it of something way back in time. Its use was like saying it was true and remains true, that nobody can change it because it is what it is. It definitely does not prove eternal existence, however.

An angel referred to himself using the word “eimi” at Revelation 22:9 and at Revelation 19:10

It was used of the church at Revelation 3:17 that thought it was unquestionably rich.

It was used at 2 peter 1:13 when Peter said, “I am yet in this tabernacle ...”

Paul used of himself at Philippians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 13:2; 9:2; Romans 1:14: Acts 27:23;

And Paul used it twice of himself in each of the following verses: 1 Corinthians 15:10; 12:15, 16

John the Baptist is quoted as using it pertaining to himself at Act 13:25

And there are many other places where it is used of men other than Jesus.
 

Buzzfruit

New Member
Aug 21, 2011
773
6
0
62
Bronx, New York, U.S.A
It says of Christ that he is the firstborn of creation... I have seen this used to say that he is not God, but rather a created being.

But if it were so, how could it say...

[sup]1[/sup] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [sup]2[/sup] He was in the beginning with God. [sup]3[/sup] All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (He also says he was there before Abraham)

AND

Acts 13:33
God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’

Christ was begotten at resurrection? Rather the new creation, of which he is the firstborn. Christ is the firstborn of the new creation, all the while being God.

You are correct.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Acts 13:33 “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

Using Acts 13:33 as to say that Jesus is God ignores that it was by that very thing that power was given also to the many that became sealed as brothers with Christ so that they might also be sons of God with him.

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.”

John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”

My conscience would not allow me to continue denying such plain and obvious truth. I would fear to face Christ in the judgment if my love were so shallow that I placed what I might prefer to believe ahead of the real truth.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
“eimi is also a defective verb. That merely means it has some limitation, and thus it does mean “I am” whether we use the word of the past or the present.

I asked you to explain the Greek text behind John 1:1 and you use a scatter gun approach that never mentions it. Your approach there is not exegetical. Once again, your arguments are mostly philosophical presupposition. For that reason most of it will go unanswered. However, the quote above is very strange coming from someone who is very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis, (see post #41). A "defective" verb as you call it, is more accurately labeled "deponent." A deponent verb has nothing to do with a verb's tense or any supposed "limitation" as you mistakenly asserted. A deponent verb is a verb whose "voice" is middle or passive in form, but active in meaning. This doesn't apply to the present tense form of "eimi." Eimi coveys a state of being, not an action, and therefore does not have "voice." I suspect that Google is in some way responsible for your egregious Greek understanding.

Now, as far as your objection to John 8:58 goes, I refer you to a previous post. Read carefully. http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/14836-have-you-made-jesus-a-robber/page__view__findpost__p__130129
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
I asked you to explain the Greek text behind John 1:1 and you use a scatter gun approach that never mentions it. Your approach there is not exegetical. Once again, your arguments are mostly philosophical presupposition. For that reason most of it will go unanswered. However, the quote above is very strange coming from someone who is very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis, (see post #41). A "defective" verb as you call it, is more accurately labeled "deponent." A deponent verb has nothing to do with a verb's tense or any supposed "limitation" as you mistakenly asserted. A deponent verb is a verb whose "voice" is middle or passive in form, but active in meaning. This doesn't apply to the present tense form of "eimi." Eimi coveys a state of being, not an action, and therefore does not have "voice." I suspect that Google is in some way responsible for your egregious Greek understanding.

Now, as far as your objection to John 8:58 goes, I refer you to a previous post. Read carefully. http://www.christian...post__p__130129

That is hogwash. It is a butchery of real grammar rules and exactly what i expected of you. You keep right on dazzling yourself. I indicated that the tense has no effect on it but as normal you ignore what i say and pervert it to please yourself. But you have invented the state of being rule to the extent that you pervert its meaning and usefulness, you and your biased cronies. The word always carries a sense of that definite state, even as the multiple scriptures I provided show. But it is definite within its time and it is a perversion to claim it means an extended or all encompassing time period. It always applies to the time period for which it is used and that is why I said very plainly that it meant the same whether used of a past time as Jesus used it or a present time as the Pharisees when speaking about Jesus used it.

I stated it in layman's terms but even you with you stubbornness should see that this is that definite state when I said, "Its use was like saying it was true and remains true, that nobody can change it because it is what it is." That is a state of being within the time that the context allows for it only.

Here it is allowed by the context to be a state of being during Peter's entire time in the flesh: It was used at 2 Peter 1:13 when Peter said, “I am yet in this tabernacle ...”

you will fool some people but in the end you will answer to God.

Oh, not to mention your cheap shots concerning your telling me over and over that I need to explain John 1:1 to you when you know full well I have said time and again I do not challenge how the KJV translates it. That makes you seem foolish to me as what do you expect me to challenge about it when I do not challenge anything about it. Yet you refuse to tell me what your opinion of it is so that I can have a chance to understand what your stupid insistence is about so I might even know what your asking of me.

You are acting like a deceptive devil in my estimation.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
I asked you to explain the Greek text behind John 1:1 and you use a scatter gun approach that never mentions it. Your approach there is not exegetical. Once again, your arguments are mostly philosophical presupposition. For that reason most of it will go unanswered. However, the quote above is very strange coming from someone who is very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis, (see post #41). A "defective" verb as you call it, is more accurately labeled "deponent." A deponent verb has nothing to do with a verb's tense or any supposed "limitation" as you mistakenly asserted. A deponent verb is a verb whose "voice" is middle or passive in form, but active in meaning. This doesn't apply to the present tense form of "eimi." Eimi coveys a state of being, not an action, and therefore does not have "voice." I suspect that Google is in some way responsible for your egregious Greek understanding.

Now, as far as your objection to John 8:58 goes, I refer you to a previous post. Read carefully. http://www.christian...post__p__130129

eimi

Strive away fellow-labourers.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
But you have invented the state of being rule to the extent that you pervert its meaning and usefulness, you and your biased cronies.

I invented it? Let's examine your current error, shall we?


Voice refers to the relationship between the subject and the verb.

If the subject does the action of the verb, then the verb is in the active voice. "Bill hit the ball." "Hit" is in the active voice because the subject, Bill, did the hitting.

Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, William D. Mounce, p. 124, Section 15.10

Where exactly does the verb "eimi" convey an action committed by the subject. If I say "I am this or I am that" no action is committed. I am communicating a "state of being." When there is no action committed by or to the subject of the verb there is no "voice."

1. Relation to Verb Voice

The relation of the subject to the action or state of the verb is largely determined by the voice of the verb. If the voice is active, the subject does the acting (e.g., ἦλθεν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὴν ᾿Ιουδαίαν γῆν ["Jesus came into the Judean region"] in John 3:22); if passive, the subject is acted upon (e.g., ὁ νόμος ἐδόθη ["the law was given"] in John 1:17); if middle, the subject acts on itself or in its own behalf, or the stress is placed on the subject (e.g., ὁ θεὸς ἐξελέξατο ["God chose (for himself)"] in Eph 1:3-4).

Of course, there are exceptions to this: e.g., the deponent middle and passive have active meanings, and the equative verb does not imply action, but a state.

Daniel B. Wallace—Greek Grammar Beyond The Basics, p. 38

Did you catch that, Vengle? "Eimi" is an "equative" verb. Since you are someone who is very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis, you should already know what this means. Equative verbs convey a state of being, not an action.

So no, I didn't invent any rules of Greek grammar. My advice to you is to stick to English. Don't play with Greek. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
So no, I didn't invent any rules of Greek grammar. My advice to you is to stick to English. Don't play with Greek. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Interesting teaching style Nomad!

Did you learn these "insult" techniques from your Bible studies, or at covenant college? Or, was it the Dr’s of Philosophy you trained under? Did they teach you to put down your potential converts as a means of building creditability and self-empowerment?

Your apparent lack of humility is evident for all to see with the acceptation of yourself.

Pro 12:15 The way of Nomad is right in his own eyes: but he that is wise hearkens unto counsel.

Are you lonely Nomad?
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
I invented it? Let's examine your current error, shall we?




Where exactly does the verb "eimi" convey an action committed by the subject. If I say "I am this or I am that" no action is committed. I am communicating a "state of being." When there is no action committed by or to the subject of the verb there is no "voice."



Did you catch that, Vengle? "Eimi" is an "equative" verb. Since you are someone who is very deep into the language translation, grammar rules and exegesis, you should already know what this means. Equative verbs convey a state of being, not an action.

So no, I didn't invent any rules of Greek grammar. My advice to you is to stick to English. Don't play with Greek. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

What kind of weirdo are you? I said exactly what you are saying for the most part. I never equated action. I clearly said it was a state of being. I also said you are stretching the implications of that to suite what you desire to believe. Thus you are perverting the rule and the scriptures. You and your insistence on sticking to college ease is purely an ego thing. I deliberately speak in the simplest terms for all to understand because I hate showoffs, especially in myself. Be warned, it is the foolish and the ignoble things in this world that are going to win over you and end up exposing you for a fool if you have too much pride in your education. God wants it that way for a reason. (1 Corinthians 1:26-28)

Look how stupid this question is in light of what i have actually already told you in previous posts about it being a state of a definite nature within the time permitted of the text: You asked, "Where exactly does the verb "eimi" convey an action committed by the subject. If I say "I am this or I am that" no action is committed. I am communicating a "state of being." When there is no action committed by or to the subject of the verb there is no "voice."

Why do you seem to want me to be saying it is an action? I think you just want to try to get me angry because you cannot win any other way. It won't work. I just feel sorry for you. Your reasoning capability seems not to match your skill with words. You sure don't comprehend well or you would not keep twisting my words and trying to present me as having said things other than what I said. Either that or you are calculating with evil intentions. Which way do you prefer I see it?

The state of being which you seem to prefer to call it in relation to "eimi" is for 2 Peter 1:13 'the state of being in the flesh'. And there the time element is dictated as limited to the time in the flesh. States of being do not hang undefined as you might desire them to.

Now pay attention. The same reasoning can be used with what Jesus said. The elements are a bit different but the reasoning yet applies. John 8:58b "... Before Abraham was, I am." They merely did not do the exegesis in the usual fashion there to effect the usual word order because it was Trinitarians that doing the exegesis. But nothing at all whatsoever disallows it from being stated, "I am before Abraham was." That is a state of being in the since that even then and there at the moment Jesus said it, it remained true just by virtue of the subject matter. It is like not being able to unring a bell because once you have been from before someone else you can never change that. And that is its state of being. That is why the word "eimi" was the appropriate choice.

But nothing in that text by its grammar even hints at Jesus being without a beginning or being God. If it were Jesus point that he has no beginning or that he is God, he would have made it something more powerful than just existing before Abraham. His point was plainly just that before Abraham lived he exited already. But there is no sense of timing evident in the grammar other than to prove that point. When you try to make it apply as though Jesus there said he had no beginning or indicated that he is God you disrespect God's word by adding your personal belief to it.

You can get mad and weep and gnash your teeth and put or do what ever you want and that will not change. Much better that you humble yourself and accept what is.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
You poor poor child. You really do have a hard time reasoning don't you.

When i of late said this, "But you have invented the state of being rule to the extent that you pervert its meaning and usefulness, you and your biased cronies."

You interpreted that to mean I was saying it is not a state of being at all? :lol: That is funny after all I had said previously and even in that post.

When you take a rule and mis-apply it and use it in a way that perverts its intended use, you are making a new rule. It sure is not the old one when you use it that way.

I reckon i will just start ignoring you for your sake.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When you take a rule and mis-apply it and use it in a way that perverts its intended use, you are making a new rule. It sure is not the old one when you use it that way.

You said:

“eimi is also a defective verb.

I stated that "eimi" is not a defective (deponent) verb because it conveys a state of being and therefore does not have "voice." I said no more than that.

Again, I did not make a new rule. I did not misapply an old rule. My "use" of the information in question was limited to what I said above in pointing out your glaring error. Any other "use" of the information I provided, which you have wrongly assigned to me, is a figment of your own imagination.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
You said:



I stated that "eimi" is not a defective (deponent) verb because it conveys a state of being and therefore does not have "voice." I said no more than that.

Again, I did not make a new rule. I did not misapply an old rule. My "use" of the information in question was limited to what I said above in pointing out your glaring error. Any other "use" of the information I provided, which you have wrongly assigned to me, is a figment of your own imagination.

That is really inconsequential to what we were speaking about.

I did mean to say that it is a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb. I got a bit lazy in typing.

But you are being petty about something that changes nothing I said.

I went and grabbed this from Strong's Greek Dictionary: "the first person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb"

As I said, "That is a state of being in the since that even then and there at the moment Jesus said it, it remained true just by virtue of the subject matter. It is like not being able to unring a bell because once you have been from before someone else you can never change that. And that is its state of being. That is why the word "eimi" was the appropriate choice."

That is the first person singular present indicative.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
You poor poor child. You really do have a hard time reasoning don't you.

When i of late said this, "But you have invented the state of being rule to the extent that you pervert its meaning and usefulness, you and your biased cronies."

You interpreted that to mean I was saying it is not a state of being at all? :lol: That is funny after all I had said previously and even in that post.

When you take a rule and mis-apply it and use it in a way that perverts its intended use, you are making a new rule. It sure is not the old one when you use it that way.

I reckon i will just start ignoring you for your sake.

Vengle,

Clearly Nomads posts convey a disinterest in the pursuit of truth, while his persistent seeking of an intellectual sparing opponent to strengthen his philosophical muscles is apparent for all to see. We find the motivation behind Nomad’s teachings are the product of cultivated philosophy; it’s derived by those who are greatly displeased with the simplicity of an ancient faith, as taught by Christ and his apostles. Unlike Nomad, they feared in the knowledge of divine purity and truth, and suffered immensely for it.

Sadly Nomads teachings are the result of a long well fought contest between the thinking of the serpent (advocating human philosophy) and the mind of the woman (advocating humility and subjugation of will).

The serpent has prevailed in Nomad.

His posts have a distinct smell about them …"For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned that believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness

His unrighteous pleasure is derived from much knowledge – not the type of knowledge which saves!

Have you noticed how distant his theology is from the substance of God’s Word? How he has drawn you away from the Word in his preference to discuss the jot and tittle of Greek language? He desires the breaking of Scripture into small pieces rather than following Paul’s example as laid out in 1 Cor 2:13.

Thus far I perceive human wisdom at work.

Best you fall under the mighty hand of Yahweh and adhere to Pauls instruction in 2 Tim 2:24.

God bless

Insight